I have a brand new MacBook Pro with the non-glare screen which are NOT LED, they are LCD.

Does anyone with the high-gloss screen have any input on how easy the high-gloss screens are to view in a well-lit area or say inside a car etc.

I have a few days that I can exchange this laptop for the other. I know the LED versions calibrate better but what good is an accurate calibration when you can't see the screen.

Thanks in advance,
Duncan Staples

I think you are confusing the backlight of the screen, with the screen itself. Both laptops use an LCD (liquid crystal display). One is lit with a traditional CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent light); the other an LED (light emitting diode).

I generally prefer a non-glossy screen for editing. My personal notebook has a glossy screen which makes it hard to view in the sun, in the car, etc. It does however look nice in a dark/dim room.

I personally have not noticed any major difference with the CCFL vs. LED. Given the choice I would first choose the non-glossy, and then the LED if it were an option.

The one issue with CCFL is that it loses its brightness over its lifetime. Indeed, over the course of a year the difference is noticeable. White LED backlighting doesn't fade.

Tom

Thanks Guys. I will keep my existing MacBook Pro then.

Duncan

The LED backlight also consumes a lot less power than the CCFL backlight.

That is what I would think as well but I was very pleasantly surprised when my new MacBook Pro 2.53Ghz 15.3" got 9 hours right out of the box. My old 2.33Ghz version would barely get 2.5 hours.

Duncan

Duncan Staples wrote:
That is what I would think as well but I was very pleasantly surprised when my new MacBook Pro 2.53Ghz 15.3" got 9 hours right out of the box. My old 2.33Ghz version would barely get 2.5 hours.

Duncan

You can't compare two different models because a lot of specs were changed between them. Probably the battery in the new Macbook Pro is better than in the old one even disregarding the LED backlight.

mdude85 wrote:
Duncan Staples wrote:
That is what I would think as well but I was very pleasantly surprised when my new MacBook Pro 2.53Ghz 15.3" got 9 hours right out of the box. My old 2.33Ghz version would barely get 2.5 hours.

Duncan

You can't compare two different models because a lot of specs were changed between them. Probably the battery in the new Macbook Pro is better than in the old one even disregarding the LED backlight.

Correct. The new Macbook Pro's sport a new li-ion polymer battery with higher use time, but isn't user replaceable.

kasakato wrote:
I think you are confusing the backlight of the screen, with the screen itself. Both laptops use an LCD (liquid crystal display). One is lit with a traditional CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent light); the other an LED (light emitting diode).


All Macbook Pro's have LED backlites. They've had them since 2007. In 2009 they offered the option for a Matte Screen instead of the Glossy display, but both screen options still use LED backlighting.

Besides the matte screen, the only difference is the bezel. The gloss option has a black frame, while the matte screen has a silver bezel.

I am a high gloss screen guy. It has a lot more punch than the other screens. The guys that don't like glare will never be convinced, but I like the glossy and if you focus on the screen you will not notice the glare so much.

Mark

I find it tough to see the high-gloss in the car and on location if there are lights going. For editing in a controlled environment or watching movies, yes I would agree with you Mark.

Duncan

I wouldn't have the glossy screen for photography. In addition to the glare issue, I have noticed banding or posterization in blue skies with the glossy screen. Apple has had lots of complaints from photographers about the glossy screen. Apple now offers matte screens (as an option) on its 15" and 17" MacBook Pros and has mentioned that they might offer it on all of their displays.

While I agree that the glossy screen colors are more visually vivid than the matte screens, I am interested in true color to match projector and print output. Have I not read that the glossy screens have given some users fits when trying to use profiling software? MTCW.

Hello all,

I just bought my first MAC Book Pro after a life of PC's.
Many reasons for PC, but now, I shoot outdoors at Native American Powwows. I shoot with a Canon 20D and have had many problems with the Auto Focus not being accurate. Bad enough to have it in Canon service center 13 times!! The still didn't couldn't get it to work right example 6 out of 50 images were ok. It got to the point that the techs & suites were at different opinions if there was a problem. I Finally decided to ask for a loaner while they had it in the engineering dept. The difference was amazing! It showed a problem & they worked on it again & now it's 50/50. So, I thought if I had a computer there with me I could know if they are good before the long trip home. I looked at many PC's from many companies. The price was good, but screens LCD so it would shift with head movement, which made it a problem. I saw the Apple store at a mall & went in to check them out. They were the best I have seen, bright, sharp, clear & good angle of view. The price was the same as a new 7D so I decided I need a better newer computer, so I checked them out. I wanted the smaller 13 inch pro but, the glossy screen was punchier, but when I compared the matt with the glossy, it was a big difference. The mat was kind of dull & flat but the glossy was so too much contrast & blacks blocked up & highlights blew out. So not the dilemma, The matt only came with the 15inch higher speed & Price tag. It was until I spoke to a photographer there and we compared the two for the use of final printing. The matt was more correct than the glossy. Also after many searches on line, when matt was the choice of majority and closely looking and working at the Store, I saw my face very clearly along with the image. It was more difficult to not being distracted by the surrounding lights etc. and could imagine how it would be in the car in an outdoor event. I close the matt and it's fine for me. The only problem was I got one that kept crapping out every time I used it, especially with the iPhoto, and other editing apps. Weird for a PC guy to find a MAC (that everyone I knew with a MAC laughed at me for using a PC) After bringing into the store for an overnight repair, It was worse & they never put it on power, so my battery was drained when I picked it up. I was disappointed when it closed again when I just opened the system preferences.
I called Apple and they offered an exchange it & took off some $$$ with another few months to opt out fully it I wasn't happy. So I guess it was a good experience with that, I just don't understand how an $1800.00 new MAC could be so bad? When everyone I know LOVES their MAC! I am still trying t get used to the different system, but I do like the screen, although I wish it came in the less expensive 13" pro model.

Does anyone else have any advice for an old PC user switching to MAC, & any knowledge of system problems as I had?

Thanks for any anticipated help or comments!!

BR

On the 20D ask them for your money back to purchase a different model. Under the lemon laws they have 3 opportunities to remedy the problem before they owe you a replacement or your money back. I would push them for a 30D or 40D and throw in a few bucks. I would send them a letter putting them on notice regarding the lemon law issue.

I had the same issue and they upgraded me to the new LED model 2.53 Ghz model at no charge. I am much happier with the matte screen LED - profiles great and I get about 8 hours per battery charge.

Snow Leapard is a bit buggy still. You might want to jump back to Tiger for a while until they sort out these SL issues. My CS4 Suite crashes all the time in Snow Leapard but not on my MacPro running Tiger.

I am going back to Tiger on my MBP until the SL issues are resolved.

Duncan

Also - see if Apple will throw in an Apple Care license for your troubles - they did that for me. Ask for the White Glove service.

Duncan Staples wrote:
That is what I would think as well but I was very pleasantly surprised when my new MacBook Pro 2.53Ghz 15.3" got 9 hours right out of the box. My old 2.33Ghz version would barely get 2.5 hours.

Duncan

9h? Wow! Is that the sealed battery? That's astonishing. My MacBook Air will give me 2.5 to 3, though in its prime it never gave me much more than 4. My wife's MacBook Pro is lucky to get more than 2.

Arka C.

Oh, FWIW, I use the MacBook Air as a portable editor on occasion, and have rarely had an issue with the glossy. My wife, on the other hand, can't deal with the glossy. If Apple ever stopped making the matte screens, she would quite happily use the computer she has for the rest of her computing life before surrendering to an upgrade with a glossy screen.

Arka C.

Yes that is with the enclosed battery and the LED screen. Both make a huge difference in energy usage.

Tom Conte wrote:
The one issue with CCFL is that it loses its brightness over its lifetime. Indeed, over the course of a year the difference is noticeable. White LED backlighting doesn't fade.

Tom


Actually, LEDs can and do fade over time, but at rates typically much slower than CCFLs. The main advantage to LED is solid-state construction and therefore high durability. In well-engineered applications, they will outlast CCFLs, provide more uniform and consistent illumination (e.g., no warm-up time, less color shift with age), and are more compact. However, I believe OLED is the (near) future of portable display technology--provided it can be made more stable and at lower cost. It holds great potential.

Actually the screens are just rear-lit via LED so the actual pixels are not LEDs...