Topic: macbook pro 17 inch (Read 16035 times)

woof75 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 17, 2009, 05:16:34 am »

Quote from: jjj

Nonsense - I use both systems and find the Mac staggeringly useless at times compared to the PC. Finder gakkk!! - how retarded and time wasting is that programme? It's 15yrs behind the File Manager I use in Windows. At other times I find the PC really irritating as it's not like OSX. Both are good in places and both are crap in other places and if I was forced to choose just one, it would be the PC as bottom line, I can work faster. Plus I've also reinstalled OSX 10.5, 5-6 times in under a year due to problems, bugs and general issues. It fell over completely tonight and had to be powered off manually - not unusual sadly and less than a week after the latest reinstall. That and the fact that the beachball of doom is constantly spinning, whilst the sluggish machine crawls on. This recent [2008] Mac is the most unreliable and buggy computer I've ever used and am toying with buying a PC laptop when I update my current one, not a Mac laptop. The lack of a Mac laptop with Firewire that is actually a sensible size for travelling is another reason, not to mention the compromised keyboard compared to even a much more compact 13" PC laptop. Yet the Macs have the nicest trackpads, so what ever I get, it's going to be a compromise.

So why is it that your using the mac? Is it just the better trackpad?

woof75 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 17, 2009, 05:21:17 am »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof

hi
For a review on my blog I did a measurement of the screen and let's say I was no dissapointed.
For the review and measurings see www.doorhof.nl/blog

Thanks for the review Frank. Any chance you could give us a quick conclusion of the measurement part of your test for oiks like me who dont understand the graphs?

Frank Doorhof · « **Reply #22 on:** April 17, 2009, 10:58:08 am »

Quote from: woof75

Thanks for the review Frank. Any chance you could give us a quick conclusion of the measurement part of your test for oiks like me who dont understand the graphs?

Simply put.
It has a large colorspace and the grayscale tracking is very good as is gamma tracking.
This means that the colorbalance can be done nicely and correct.
But also that the colors can be judged.
I however don't have the coordinates for argb and prophotoRGB here but as it looks I GUESS the display is very close to argb or larger but that's a guess
sRGB is slightly smaller than the NTSC colortriangle and as you can see the MBP is much larger.

You should of course calibrate your display but after that it looks alot better than most normal priced LCDs you see in the stores in the 250-400 US range.
So yes the display is very good, how good only time will tell of course but I did the first shoot today with the MPB and it works flawless and the colors are very accurate when I compare it to the Lacie 324.

For a notebook the screen is very good in my opinion.

I will measure the lacie soon to see how that one plots in the colorspace.

woof75 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 17, 2009, 11:44:21 am »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof

Simply put.
It has a large colorspace and the grayscale tracking is very good as is gamma tracking.
This means that the colorbalance can be done nicely and correct.
But also that the colors can be judged.
I however don't have the coordinates for argb and prophotoRGB here but as it looks I GUESS the display is very close to argb or larger but that's a guess
sRGB is slightly smaller than the NTSC colortriangle and as you can see the MBP is much larger.

You should of course calibrate your display but after that it looks alot better than most normal priced LCDs you see in the stores in the 250-400 US range.
So yes the display is very good, how good only time will tell of course but I did the first shoot today with the MPB and it works flawless and the colors are very accurate when I compare it to the Lacie 324.

For a notebook the screen is very good in my opinion.

I will measure the lacie soon to see how that one plots in the colorspace.

As good as the Lacie 324?

Frank Doorhof · « **Reply #24 on:** April 17, 2009, 01:10:26 pm »

Don't think so.
But I really should have to measure.
The Lacie has better blackdetail but for the colorspace I must measure both displays.
I will try to do this this weekend and update the review.

woof75 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 17, 2009, 05:01:08 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof

Don't think so.
But I really should have to measure.
The Lacie has better blackdetail but for the colorspace I must measure both displays.
I will try to do this this weekend and update the review.

Thanks, I look forward to hearing your results.

Frank Doorhof · « **Reply #26 on:** April 18, 2009, 02:43:44 pm »

Updated the review with measurements comparing aRGB to the MBP.

woof75 · « **Reply #27 on:** May 04, 2009, 10:02:59 am »

So after comparing a print from my epson 9800 to my calibrated eizo CG19 to my calibrated macbook pro 17 inch screen I'm geting rid of the eizo as the macbook pro is just as accurate, viewing angle is a little critical but basically I see no reason to have an eizo and the macbook pro screen.

jjj · « **Reply #28 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:28:13 pm »

Quote from: woof75

So why is it that your using the mac? Is it just the better trackpad?

The Mac is a desktop machine, so no trackpad.

pixtweak · « **Reply #29 on:** August 19, 2009, 06:42:12 pm »

Since there has been much discussion between the W700 and MBP 17 Matte screen in this thread, here is a review that considers them more or less equal with a slight edge to the MBP. The Matte screen being offered in the MBP 15 now is the same screen as the MBP 17 matte screen. I too like Lenovo Thinkpads, but the W700 is huge, and just too large. It is too bad the built in colorimeter and screen quality are not offered in the W500. So I am looking at the Macbook Pros instead, because of their edge in portability and battery life, as well as offering among the best screens currently available in a notebook.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...d=7-10041-10146

jjlphoto · « **Reply #30 on:** August 19, 2009, 07:46:34 pm »

Since laptop screens are only 6bit, I'd say they are not adequate for critical use.

pixtweak · « **Reply #31 on:** August 19, 2009, 09:22:21 pm »

Quote from: jjlphoto

Since laptop screens are only 6bit, I'd say they are not adequate for critical use.

Not to mention viewing characteristics. When choosing a notebook, assuming everyone understands their quality deficiencies, the choices and decision you are left to make is which notebooks offer the highest screen quality relative to other notebooks. With new revisions right around the corner it is also worth considering what the next generation of notebook screens might offer....

http://www.oled-display.net/lenovos-t500-t...ch-oled-display

http://gizmodo.com/5300913/lenovo-consider...itouch-and-oled

Author Topic: macbook pro 17 inch (Read 16035 times)