New MAc Book Pro's released Core I7's at last

[fredjeang]

...and,

I even take the risk of introducing a funny idea.

Remember the tethered crashes? that has been reported several times in Lu-La.

Well, I don't really know but it would be interesting to check if that is also happening with last pc generations.
Maybe it's not C1, maybe it is not ports, cables etc...

Just in case.

[Snook]

Anybody know if the Apple stores ever have the anti glare computers in stock or is it custom ordering only?
I am going to the US in June and wanted to pick up the new 17 inch pro but want antiglare which they do not sell in my country...
Thanks for any help and the 17 inch are i5 and not i7 core right?
Thank you
Snook

[klane]

Eric, I think you can order them with i7's. Probably 2 or 3 hundred more.

[Snook]

Is it worth the 400.00 to upgrade to 8 gigs of ram vs. The 4 gigs that come standard??
I use mainly C1 and photoshop cs5..
Will I notice a "Big" difference??
Thanks...
Going to order the 17 inch i7 with faster hardrive and anti glare screen...
Thanks!!!

[Dustbak]

Eric, get yourself the OWC SSD drive instead of the Apple one if you mean SSD with fast drive. I have my i7 with antiglare highres screen for a week. I have to get used to the different screen and the different size of everything on it but I really love the machine. Crazy fast with the SSD. I have 4gb, maybe I get it upped to 8 eventually. The faster drive is more important to me.

[bcooter]

Anybody know if the Apple stores ever have the anti glare computers in stock or is it custom ordering only?
I am going to the US in June and wanted to pick up the new 17 inch pro but want antiglare which they do not sell in my country...
Thanks for any help and the 17 inch are i5 and not i7 core right?
Thank you
Snook

I don't like the gloss screens, but you really need to compare them "calibrated".  

The anti glare screen is not a matte screen, it's kind of like somebody took the glass off and put a matte film over the screen.

I don't do a lot of critical work on the powerbook, but even calibrated every which way you can, the anti glare screen is kind of goofy and if you move the screen 4 degrees up or down the image goes from 1 stop under to 1 stop brighter.

I have both a gloss and an anti glare and I find the gloss (though annoying) more reliable.

BC

[gwhitf]

I have both a gloss and an anti glare and I find the gloss (though annoying) more reliable.

I think I would agree with you.

I think the gloss more reliable and consistent, no matter the viewing angle. But I fear I'd have to retouch only at night, in a black room, wearing my black cape and black turtleneck, and my Al Jolsen look, in order to not sit there and see my face in the monitor all night. Not good.

[Gigi]

FWIW, I got a 15", anti-glare, with the SSD drive. Custom assembled in China. Had it a week, goofiness internally with USB port malfunction, and maybe a board issue. Sent it back to Apple - normally very good service. It is now between Service and Engineering, and 2+ weeks later, still not back. Neat machine, plenty fast in C1 with 4 gb ram, but sure would like to have the machine back.

[John.Murray]

Ordered a 13".  Spent the weekend seeing it languishing in Anchorage Alaska;  watched Deadliest Catch episodes, just to feel "closer" to it.

gawd - i need a life......

[bcooter]

I think I would agree with you.

I think the gloss more reliable and consistent, no matter the viewing angle. But I fear I'd have to retouch only at night, in a black room, wearing my black cape and black turtleneck, and my Al Jolsen look, in order to not sit there and see my face in the monitor all night. Not good.

The glossy glare thing can be weird, especially if you've worked on matte screen forever, though we worked on crt's with glass and didn't mind.

I just bought a new 27" I mac and it has a glossy screen.   I thought about adding another desktop but the cost savings is good and it travels a lot easier.

I think the screen is beautiful and much better than my 30" mac screen, which I just sent in and had refurbished.

As far as the powerbooks, I just don't like the anti glare thing. It just seems kind of milky to me, but maybe that's my profile.

I know clients dig the glossy one, though they don't have to stare into it until 3 am.

Edit.

I have two of the 24" white Imacs we use for tethering, (or use to) and they don't go dark to light as you move your head, but compared to the new 27" I mac the screen looks dull and old.  

BC

[rainer_v]

The glossy glare thing can be weird, especially if you've worked on matte screen forever, though we worked on crt's with glass and didn't mind.

I just bought a new 27" I mac and it has a glossy screen.   I thought about adding another desktop but the cost savings is good and it travels a lot easier.

I think the screen is beautiful and much better than my 30" mac screen, which I just sent in and had refurbished.

As far as the powerbooks, I just don't like the anti glare thing. It just seems kind of milky to me, but maybe that's my profile.

I know clients dig the glossy one, though they don't have to stare into it until 3 am.

Edit.

I have two of the 24" white Imacs we use for tethering, (or use to) and they don't go dark to light as you move your head, but compared to the new 27" I mac the screen looks dull and old.  

BC

is the new anti-glare the same quality than the older LED screen on the 15" mbps or is it worse?

[gwhitf]

I know this has been discussed for years, but I still wonder about this whole Monitor Calibration approach, and this $1200 Eye One device sitting here by my desk. I have four or five Macs, and each one of them is officially "calibrated" by EyeOne Match, but they all look a bit different. I have seen those new glossy Imac 27's, and it's beyond colorful and saturated. So much so, they feel like video games or something, they're so bright and snappy.

I just still wonder, after all these years, when I run this EyeOneMatch3 on these Macs, what it's really doing, and if everyone reading this post took their Mac and lined it up along everyone else's Mac, on a really long table, and we all opened the same Photoshop TIFF, would the images all look the same, if they were all calibrated?

I've always wanted the Brightness slider bar to be turned off, so that manually, you can't alter it. I want only the EyeOne Match to determine Brightness, if we truly all are trying to hit a Universal Sweet Spot of monitor conditions. There seem to be so many ways to invalidate a supposed calibrated monitor, you just wonder if the whole thing is Snake Oil.

This new unibody 17 MBP has these weird intense blues. Very pumped up. But it's calibrated, yet the blues don't turn down. How accurate can all this be?

I just printed my portfolios using ICC profiles: Adobe98 going to Epson Exhibition paper. Even then, the prints were darker, and more saturated. I had to do a SaveAs File, for each image, and then sit here and manually tweak each image, using an old timey curve and Saturation, in order to get it to look right. Is this a calibrated workflow? Surely not. Softproofing helps, but even then, I rarely get very close at all, to what the monitor is telling me that I'm going to get.

Sometimes it amazes me that all this stuff works as well as it does, sending files across the country, and around the world, without Kodak Approvals.

[Dustbak]

I know this has been discussed for years, but I still wonder about this whole Monitor Calibration approach, and this $1200 Eye One device sitting here by my desk. I have four or five Macs, and each one of them is officially "calibrated" by EyeOne Match, but they all look a bit different. I have seen those new glossy Imac 27's, and it's beyond colorful and saturated. So much so, they feel like video games or something, they're so bright and snappy.

I just still wonder, after all these years, when I run this EyeOneMatch3 on these Macs, what it's really doing, and if everyone reading this post took their Mac and lined it up along everyone else's Mac, on a really long table, and we all opened the same Photoshop TIFF, would the images all look the same, if they were all calibrated?

I've always wanted the Brightness slider bar to be turned off, so that manually, you can't alter it. I want only the EyeOne Match to determine Brightness, if we truly all are trying to hit a Universal Sweet Spot of monitor conditions. There seem to be so many ways to invalidate a supposed calibrated monitor, you just wonder if the whole thing is Snake Oil.

This new unibody 17 MBP has these weird intense blues. Very pumped up. But it's calibrated, yet the blues don't turn down. How accurate can all this be?

I just printed my portfolios using ICC profiles: Adobe98 going to Epson Exhibition paper. Even then, the prints were darker, and more saturated. I had to do a SaveAs File, for each image, and then sit here and manually tweak each image, using an old timey curve and Saturation, in order to get it to look right. Is this a calibrated workflow? Surely not. Softproofing helps, but even then, I rarely get very close at all, to what the monitor is telling me that I'm going to get.

Sometimes it amazes me that all this stuff works as well as it does, sending files across the country, and around the world, without Kodak Approvals.

Yes, I know what you mean. I have seen the same thing with my various screens. I have also noticed it differs whether you calibrate with an EyeOne or a SpyderPro. On the same screen! WTF! Also after calibrating with the SpyderPro it show a before and after. For some reason it appears to be always the same difference no matter what screen I have calibrated.

I have calibrated all my screens and do so regularly. Fortunately the EyeOne allows you to turn off the brightness slider bar which is indeed a function that I use (I thought that was a function in MacOs?). The primary reason I calibrate my screens are: peace of mind en to cover my ass.

It is amazing and it works out well in most cases especially with print but for web usage all bets are off. How many screens are calibrated? I have noticed most peoples screens are way too blue (makes the white of their office applications seem whiter), I have had clients insisting on delivering files way too yellow solely to compensate for this. So where do you go for in that case? 'Correct colors' or to aim to get it across with the majority of viewers?

Anyway, I think the antigloss screen on the new MBP is pretty good, though I a really need some time to get used to the new size being so used to the previous 15"'s screen.

[Frank Doorhof]

I know this has been discussed for years, but I still wonder about this whole Monitor Calibration approach, and this $1200 Eye One device sitting here by my desk. I have four or five Macs, and each one of them is officially "calibrated" by EyeOne Match, but they all look a bit different. I have seen those new glossy Imac 27's, and it's beyond colorful and saturated. So much so, they feel like video games or something, they're so bright and snappy.

I just still wonder, after all these years, when I run this EyeOneMatch3 on these Macs, what it's really doing, and if everyone reading this post took their Mac and lined it up along everyone else's Mac, on a really long table, and we all opened the same Photoshop TIFF, would the images all look the same, if they were all calibrated?

I've always wanted the Brightness slider bar to be turned off, so that manually, you can't alter it. I want only the EyeOne Match to determine Brightness, if we truly all are trying to hit a Universal Sweet Spot of monitor conditions. There seem to be so many ways to invalidate a supposed calibrated monitor, you just wonder if the whole thing is Snake Oil.

This new unibody 17 MBP has these weird intense blues. Very pumped up. But it's calibrated, yet the blues don't turn down. How accurate can all this be?

I just printed my portfolios using ICC profiles: Adobe98 going to Epson Exhibition paper. Even then, the prints were darker, and more saturated. I had to do a SaveAs File, for each image, and then sit here and manually tweak each image, using an old timey curve and Saturation, in order to get it to look right. Is this a calibrated workflow? Surely not. Softproofing helps, but even then, I rarely get very close at all, to what the monitor is telling me that I'm going to get.

Sometimes it amazes me that all this stuff works as well as it does, sending files across the country, and around the world, without Kodak Approvals.

Actually it's easy to explain.
When you calibrate your monitor the analyzer will make the monitor look as close as possible to the lab table.
However there is no minotor in the world that can display the lab values perfectly so in reality all monitors will look different. Some will have stronger reds, some will have stronger blues.
That's why for critical Photoshop or other color correction work it's important to get a minotor that will display close to a colorspace like the eizo/lacie/nec etc monitors that are for example 100% or 98% argb.

And even than two monitors will give slightly different results.
You could force a meter to calibrate to a colorspace that fits the colorspace of your monitor but I don't think that is possible  with most analyzesprs and also not necessary in reality.

The most important thing about the calibration is that the so called colorspace is in balance to the black body curve and your chosen white point and gamma.
I advise people to calibrate to 130 cdm, gamma 2.2 and d6500 this way the monitor is well suited for both video and photo. For video however I often advise to make the preview monitor a consumer or pro panel with cms where the preview monitor is calibrated to the so called rec709 colorspace.

Colorcalibration in fact is really simple but due to the many different outcomes often gives a lot of confession. However what you should notice is that if a good monitor is used you will have similar shadow/white detail and similar balance on all, however some will show red more saturated some will not. This is not a fault but it's simply put the range of the monitor.

By the way for modern display with led backlights I do advise to pick up the eye1pro from xrite/gretac this is a so called spectrum radiometer, compared to the spyders etc which are tristimulus meter the e1pro often is better with led displays, with normal conventional CRT and led displays the difference is less visible but also there.

Also when your monitor supports hardware calibration with it's own analyzer, like the blue eye for lacie make sure you use that, often it has more bitrange to calibrate but most importantly the analyzer is being profiled to fit that monitors range.

[Frank Doorhof]

@dustbak,
Almost all tvs and monitors are too blue.
This done to make white whiter, adding blue to white will make it more white.
In fact on a correctly calibrated display white is a little reddish, often people think this is wrong and will adjust to make it whiter by adding blue.

I'm also an active ISF calibrator and the average amount of blue on most modern display is between 120-160 percent which in fact is shocking.

People however are used to it so they don't even notice it anymore, until you remove it and calibrate all colors to 100% immediately people will start to see an increase in color realness, depth and the image looks less strained.

The problem however is that most tv stations don't take this into account and broadcast simply put incorrect colors themselves, try to look at the same commercial on different channels, this drives some of my customers insane who are delivering the commercials

[Snook]

Eric, get yourself the OWC SSD drive instead of the Apple one if you mean SSD with fast drive. I have my i7 with antiglare highres screen for a week. I have to get used to the different screen and the different size of everything on it but I really love the machine. Crazy fast with the SSD. I have 4gb, maybe I get it upped to 8 eventually. The faster drive is more important to me.

Thanks guys for the info...
Where I live the Anti glare does not get imported and my laptop is dead. Have the video card problem which I will take to the us and see if they fix it for free out of warranty like soo many others have luckily got done.
Will cross my fingers. meantime I will have to wait 3 weeks until I go to the US.
I kind of like the glossy contrasty screen and have never seen the anti'glare screen. Not sure if it is worth the wait though.
I usually retouch at night or dark room.
Sounds like some people do not think the anti glare is all that..._
In any case If I get desperate with out my laptop for a week I might just buy the local glossy screen which also does not come with i7 chip here.
is there a Big difference between the i5 and i7 chip on the 17 incher...
Thanks for any further suggestions.
Thanks again for all the good info.
Snook

[BJNY]

Tested Hasselblad555ELD/Aptus75s into friend's 100%battery-powered i7MBP17" 8GB/256SSD
via Leaf 10M Firewire 800 cable.

Pleasantly surprised C1 Pro 5.1.1 didn't hang up as did earlier version
when I shot non-stop for one minute.
Captured 41 frames....except last frame streamed in one minute afterwards.

[Jack Flesher]

I don't like the gloss screens, but you really need to compare them "calibrated".  

The anti glare screen is not a matte screen, it's kind of like somebody took the glass off and put a matte film over the screen.

I don't do a lot of critical work on the powerbook, but even calibrated every which way you can, the anti glare screen is kind of goofy and if you move the screen 4 degrees up or down the image goes from 1 stop under to 1 stop brighter.

I have both a gloss and an anti glare and I find the gloss (though annoying) more reliable.

BC

I agree with this.  I just upgraded to the 15" i7 and 8G RAM with 7200 500G spinner.  I removed the optical drive and installed an OWC enterprize SSD which houses my OS and apps, the spinner houses images.  This machine is for editing on the road, so based on everybody's comments about "preferring" the mat display for editing on the road, I chose it on this build.  My last machine was 3 years old, and then when I compared them, I definitely preferred the look of the glossy display and went with that. My editing and CM results were very good for a laptop -- much of the time I didn't require any re-edits on my desktop. This time, the mat display's better handling of reflections and similar relative sharpness, at least as viewed in the store, had me opt for it.

Unfortunately I think it was a mistake, but I've only had it about 3 weeks so maybe I'll get used to it. For sure viewing angle is hyper critical when editing on the mat display --- a few degrees off axis up or down and contrast changes SIGNIFICANTLY.  Seriously, maybe you +/- 5 degrees before things go South.  Side-side is not bad, having a comfortable enough range. So now I edit and bob my head up and down to make sure I'm really seeing what I'm supposed to be seeing.  If I had to do it again, I'd probably choose to deal with the glare as I had with the previous unit.  I have a workshop coming up next week where it will get a good workout, so we'll see...  

PS: The mat screen is a bitch to clean too.


My .02,

[BJNY]

For sure viewing angle is hyper critical when editing on the mat display --- a few degrees off axis up or down and contrast changes SIGNIFICANTLY.  Seriously, maybe you +/- 5 degrees before things go South.  Side-side is not bad, having a comfortable enough range. So now I edit and bob my head up and down to make sure I'm really seeing what I'm supposed to be seeing.

PS: The mat screen is a bitch to clean too.

Would this Viewing Angle Gauge help?

[Jack Flesher]

Would this Viewing Angle Gauge help?

My point was more along the lines of it's absolutely ridiculous somebody even needed to invent that device for use on a high-end laptop...  But yes, it would probably help if one were inclined to mount such a device on their svelt unibody aluminum-cased Macbook Pro.