New 20" iMac Screens Show 98% Fewer Colors

Trintech points us to an AppleInsider article about another class-action lawsuit directed against Apple Inc. This one claims that the displays on new 20" iMacs are only capable of 6-bit-per-pixel color, 98% fewer colors than Apple advertises. Rather than the 8-bit, in-plane switching (IPS) screens used in 24" iMacs and earlier 20" models, "[t]he new 20-inch iMac features a 6-bit twisted nematic film (TN) LCD screen," according to the article, "which the [law] firm claims is the 'least expensive of its type,' sporting a narrower viewing angle than the display of the 24-inch model, less color depth, less color accuracy, and greater susceptibility to washout." Apple recently settled a very similar class-action suit about the displays on MacBook and MacBook Pro models.

No April Fools articles this year.

[suso (153703)]

Good job slashdot, I think you successfully managed to show that reality is stranger than fiction by holding back on the fake articles this year. And you've thoroughly confused everyone.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[shaitand (626655)]

OMG PONIES!!

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[pwnies (1034518)]

You called?

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[mapsjanhere (1130359)]

It's 6 bit per color in a rgb scheme, making it 18 bit or 262,144 total.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[electrictroy (912290)]

Thanks for the clarification. I was sitting here and thinking to myself, "That can't bee right. 6-bits of color is how much my RGB Amiga 500 used in 1987 (64 colors)."

So it's 6 bits per color (red, green, or blue) to achieve 18 bits total (thousands of colors). Versus a "real" monitor that can do 24 bits total, aka millions of colors.

Yeah. Definitely false advertising.
Lousy Apple.
Starting to act like Microscrew.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[pipatron (966506)]

Technically, you could only define 32 colours of those 64 (from a total palette of 4096!), the other 32 were actually the same colour but at half the brightness, hence the name of the display mode: EHB - Extra Half-Brite. This was very useful since you could use that extra bit-plane as a shadow-plane, and most palettes had dark and bright versions of the colours anyway.

Of course, this doesn't make it any less superior, just saying...

Re: Amiga video modes.

[Thought1 (1132989)]

Actually, there were two 6-bit modes on the Amiga - EHB, as described, and HAM (Hold And Modify), which caused the pixels defined as colors 32-63 to be defined as "the color of the pixel to the left, but with its (R|G|B) value replaced with ...", thus allowing for all 4096 colors on-screen at once, but usually with a slight fudge-factor, depending on your image and how you arranged your 32-color palette. And that's not getting into the later chipsets, which mostly just added bits... (:

Re: Amiga video modes.

[fbjon (692006)]

Ah those were the days. Trying to paint in HAM mode, but changing a pixel changed some number of pixels to the right of it, so you had to start painting from the left.

Also, regarding the article, why the heck is Apple of all manufacturers using TN panels, everyone knows they suck! A supply issue perhaps? I know there was a panel factory that went up in flames a while ago, which caused the Lenovo L220X to be severely short in supply.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[badasscat (563442)]

Thanks for the clarification. I was sitting here and thinking to myself, "That can't bee right. 6-bits of color is how much my RGB Amiga 500 used in 1987 (64 colors)."

No offense intended, but I can't believe in this day and age that people who are otherwise generally well-versed in computers and computer peripherals are still not even aware of this specification for LCD screens - which is probably the most important one.

Everybody gets so fixated on response times and viewing angles, but none of that amounts to a hill of beans without color rendition and accuracy. The most important specs to look at on any LCD screen are bits per pixel and gamut. Contrast is also useful to know if you also know black level threshold. Without that, though, contrast ratio is useless because it's much easier to make an LCD screen brighter than it is to make one darker, and LCD screens these days are by and large capable of much more brightness than would ever be usable. A contrast ratio of 10,000:1 is meaningless without knowing the starting point for that range.

Unfortunately, most manufacturers make the specs that are actually important almost impossible to find. Even a lot of manufacturers who could brag about these things - because their screens do all the right things in color rendition and accuracy - choose not to. Dell, for example, is probably the largest manufacturer of 8bpp Super-IPS screens with wide color gamuts. Their higher-end screens, which are still pretty cheap relative to most screens marketed towards professionals, are among the more capable out there. But I have never seen Dell actually try to make this argument - I have never seen them argue that colors on their monitors are more vibrant and true-to-life (to use the marketing-speak that they'd probably go with), even though they could.

The reason is that people don't seem to know or care. And they should. You're looking at a screen in some cases almost every waking hour you have (if you're like me and work on computers, then go home and switch on your laptop), and many people are using them for things like photo editing or home video production. People should be demanding good color rendition.

It's almost shocking that Apple, of all companies, does not provide 8bpp panels across their entire line. At the very least, given their reputation as a manufacturer of computers for creative professionals, they should be making it clear which screens are 8bpp panels and which ones aren't. And they should be publishing their screens' gamut as well.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[randyest (589159)]

Great post overall, until about here:

Dell, for example, is probably the largest manufacturer of 8bpp Super-IPS screens with wide color gamuts.

Dell doesn't manufacture LCD panels. They're an assembler and OEM. They buy LCD panels from Philips, LG, Samsung, etc but they don't make any of their own.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[by Anonymous Coward]

False advertising? Where exactly does apple say the iMac's display outputs 'millions of colours'?

The 'millions of colours' option means (and has meant ever since the Mac IIfX) that a 24bit pallete is used rather than a 16bit pallete. How many colours the display natively supports is a completely different matter.

The culprit here isn't Apple, it's every consumer that ever bought a cheap display and priced true 24bit displays out of the low and midrange market. On any platform if you use a '32bit' or '24bit' setting, you're more than likely not going to be getting that resolution (or even close to it) on your display, whoever the manufacturer.

Show me any audio interface which claims to be 24bit or 16bit resolution and I'll show you it's actual SNR. 98% is a also misleading, like audio color perception is logarithmic. A 16 bit audio CD has 99.996% less audio thingamyjigs than a 24bit professional audio card, but strangely they sound about the same to the untrained ear. 'Creative' declared and actually measured noise floors have always been miles off (when you look at the number 96dB, it's a misprint, they actually mean 69dB)

Who would have thought that the 'low end' mac would have a 'low end' display in it. Nobody expects any other low and mid-range machine to bundle with a professional display, so why should apple users just because they edit some fotos from time to time.

Apples to apples, not apples to lemur testicles.

Professional graphic artists, photographers, compositors and video editors should rightly demand a full pallete, but then that's what those pricey cinema displays are for.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[Capsaicin (412918)]

The reason why apple got caught with their pants down in their lawsuit is because for decades professional graphic artists and photographers have used and relied on apple.

Despite being marked down as Troll, this is actually quite insightful. It also shows the depth of the mistake Apple has made. The real cost to Apple is not in settling the litigation, but in the trust that will be lost in the professional graphics market. Up till now you could buy a Mac and be confident that you were getting a machine that was suited for graphics work. While most professionals wouldn't settle for the 20", nor an iMac for that matter, this is the most negative publicity, in one of it's core markets, that Apple could have (not) hoped for.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[kextyn (961845)]

I admit I have no idea how to figure out how many colors there are with 6 bits per pixel...but I did find this website which talks about 8bit and 6bit LCDs: http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/LCDColor.htm [about.com]

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[_xeno_ (155264)]

No, the article just wasn't clear. It actually means 6-bits per color channel per pixel. In other words, 18-bits per pixel instead of full 24-bits per pixel. And the reduction from 2^24 to 2^18 does indeed reduce the number of colors from about 16 million to 262,144 - a reduction of about 98% of the entire color space.

And as someone who owns a 18-bits per pixel monitor, trust me, you can tell when working with static imagery. Maybe not when playing games or playing movies, but you can tell. The little gradients on Slashdot look terrible on that monitor. It helps that it doesn't do any form of dithering, but even on my cheap Acer laptop that also only does 18bpp, you can clearly see the dithering.

Since Apples are frequently used for photo work and print work, using only 6 bits per color channel is simply unacceptable. Coders probably won't care, but graphic artists most certainly will.

It's truly April Fool's....

[afxgrin (208686)]

There's no army of Apple fan boys coming to their defense in this particular case. Come on, you can start posting defensive comments now, it's past noon.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[poliopteragriseoapte (973295)]

Yes, this is a disaster for graphic artists. One of the BIG advantages of having an Apple machine has always been that the notion of color profiles are built-in, and uniformly applied; even Safari knows how to interpret them in photos. This is ridiculous. Thank goodness one can still get a Mac Mini plus an external LCD... but if the Mac Mini goes, so does Apple's superiority in graphics, and this is a big deal -- and ought to be a big deal to Apple.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[gnick (1211984)]

(2^18)/(2^24) = 0.016 2%

Umm... No. (2^18)/(2^24) = 1.5625%. You were somehow off by a factor of about 96.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[Firehed (942385)]

It may be weird, but it's also remarkably common. About half the LCDs on Newegg are reported as showing 16m or 16.2m colors, rather than 16.7m (2^24). A far cry from the 280k-odd colors of a 6-bit-per-channel display, but the number they're reporting is based off of the results of a 6-bit panel using dithering. Many cheaper screens from all manufacturers follow this trend, especially those advertised towards gamers. They sacrifice color reproduction in order to get the pixels to twist faster - all of the reported 2ms panels are 6-bit dithered displays, which gives awful color reproduction (not critical for games most of the time, but a big problem for photo/video work). Of course, anything faster than 16ms is absolutely pointless since you're dealing with a 60Hz signal, but that's aside the point. More notably, the 6-bit panels are quite a bit cheaper, as one would expect.

I'm almost positive that my Macbook Pro does this as well; honestly, quite unacceptable for a "pro" machine. It's especially noticeable at the brighter edge of a gradient (ex. the Photoshop color palette).

Most people aren't going to really notice. Dithering is reasonably effective, and it still manages to give the illusion of most of the spectrum (certainly far more than 6-bit/64 levels per channel, rather than 8-bit/256). But at the end of the day it's still an illusion, and the difference IS there.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[tftp (111690)]

Most people aren't going to really notice.

Yes, I am sure that's what they said at Apple. "Those suckers will never figure out what we sold them!" This is just another proof of "corporate honesty" being an oxymoron.

Re:No April Fools articles this year.

[gnasher719 (869701)]

Eh? How does that work? If you lose just one bit of colour information, you go from 16.7 to 8.4 million colours. I think they must just be rounding or writing it down poorly.

I think you were not here last year or so, when exactly the same claim was made against Apple monitors (and again, only against Apple monitors, strangely enough not against any other identical monitors):

Each subpixel can display one of 64 values, lets say from 0 to 63. However, each subpixel also can change its value over time. During four consecutive clocks, the sub pixel can have two different values. For example, to produce the values 31 1/4, 31 1/2 and 31 3/4, change the value in a pattern 32-31-31-31, 32-32-31-31, or 32-32-32-31. That way, you achieve 253 different values from 0 to 63 in quarter steps. 16.2 million = 253 * 253 * 253.

If anything...

[MrNemesis (587188)]

...the new OSX interface has shown us that we don't need so many colours. Colours in a computer eat up the memory bits and distract us from our reverence. Personally, I'm going to take Steve's advice and go get my eyes chromed.

Re:If anything...

[sm62704 (957197)]

You're absolutely right. I hate colours myself. I much prefer the American colors, thay're much brighter and prettier than the British colours. Damn that Jobs and his British colours! And he calls himself an American!

If only...

[v(*_*)vvvv (233078)]

the Windows Guy could retaliate in one of those commercials.

But cutting costs is part of innovation, so Apple is still the best, OBVIOUSLY.

Re:If only...

[Haeleth (414428)]

the Windows Guy could retaliate in one of those commercials.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Windows PCs (including pretty much every laptop ever made) also use these "inferior" screens, and nobody's tried to sue Dell yet.

The fact is that most people can't tell the difference, and aren't interested in paying four times as much to get a product that isn't noticably better unless you make your living working with colour.

This is a storm in a teacup.

Re:If only...

[kesuki (321456)]

Dell lets you pay extra to configure your laptop with a real screen. you pay through the nose, but still they let the person decide at checkout.

Re:If only...

[dal20402 (895630)]

There is no better laptop screen, because no one makes one. You can increase the resolution by paying extra, but you're still getting the same cheap TN crap that everyone uses and that Apple is getting sued for advertising as capable of displaying "millions of colors."

Crap TN panels are slowly but surely taking over the desktop space too. It's hard to find a non-TN panel under 23" these days, and even many 24" and all 27" panels use the sucky technology.

Unfortunately, Americans still largely drive tech trends, and we rarely care about anything but "big and cheap." (We say we do, but then we actually still buy "big and cheap.")

Re:If only...

[tolan-b (230077)]

This isn't about the MacBook suit, this is about 20" iMac desktops.

Incidentally a guy (Mac user) on our forums ran some tests on his Thinkpad and found that it does indeed have an IPS display. So although TN screens may be common on laptops they're not ubiquitous.

Re:If only...

[dal20402 (895630)]

This isn't about the MacBook suit, this is about 20" iMac desktops.

I realize that. I was responding specifically to the inaccuracy in the parent post.

Incidentally a guy (Mac user) on our forums ran some tests on his Thinkpad and found that it does indeed have an IPS display. So although TN screens may be common on laptops they're not ubiquitous.

IBM made several ThinkPads with IPS panels 2-4 years ago, although none were produced in large numbers. The 14" and 15" IPS screens are no longer being made. The only one I know of still being sold is the X-series tablet, which has a 1440x900 12" IPS screen that I believe is also now out of production.

TN was just too big and cheap for IPS to survive. There was no money for the panel makers in producing a tiny quantity of $100 more expensive laptop screens for the few buyers with enough basic perceptivity to tell the difference.

How can you judge colour quality?

[Ed Avis (5917)]

I don't have a Mac, but I do sometimes buy computer monitors. I can understand specifications like the physical size, resolution, viewing angle and (just about) contrast ratio. But do manufacturers publish specs on what colour depth is supported? Is there some quantitative measure of how well a display shows different colours and how wide the gamut is? How can I avoid getting caught out like these hapless iMac buyers?

Re:How can you judge colour quality?

[randyest (589159)]

But do manufacturers publish specs on what colour depth is supported? Is there some quantitative measure of how well a display shows different colours and how wide the gamut is? How can I avoid getting caught out like these hapless iMac buyers?

Yes, of course. The LCD manufacturers will spec 6-, 8-. or 10-bit color for their panels. Then Apple will buy the 6-bit and claim it's an 8-bit. Then you sue Apple and get your money back and lunch with Steve, or something like that.

But seriously, yes, LCD (and any decent LCD mfgr) will spec the color bit depth of a panel. A really good mfgr (NEC, LG, Samsung) will have gamut charts available to OEMs and possibly end users. But if Apple chooses not to share, or worse just lies about it, there's not much you can do other than try to do some independent research to figure out what panels Apple uses, then contact the panel mfgr to (try to) get some specs.

Re:How can you judge colour quality?

[xlsior (524145)]

Pretty much any monitor advertised as 16.2 million colors is using a 6 bit panel with hardware dithering. Those advertised as 16.7 million colors tend to be 8 bit.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[vux984 (928602)]

Mod parent up. This is absolutely true. I'd estimate that the vast majority of LCD panels on the market are 6-bit screens. Whether you are buying Benq, LG, Dell, Viewsonic, it doesn't matter. Most of them are 6 bit.

They are cheaper, and they have faster response times.

8-bit LCD panels are almost a niche specialty 'pro product' in today's market, and unless you went out of your way to buy an 8 bit screen odds are you took home a 6-bit TN panel, advertised as showing "16.2 million colours" without even knowing it.

Its not just Apple. Although they seem to have gone beyond marketing deceptiveness to outright lies and deserve to be taken to task about it.

But don't for a minute think all those free Dell monitors bundled with low end PCs are anything better. Hell, even the ones you can pay to upgrade to aren't often anything better than 6-bit.

Class Action?

[randyest (589159)]

Strange, the first case that was "settled out of court under undisclosed terms" seems to have been just two guys. Surely there are more than two photographers who bought macs thinking they would get 8-bit color and later realized it was only 6-bit. I wonder why no class-action was initiated? Since it wasn't though, it seems like Apple is still open to potentially thousands or more lawsuits for this false advertising.

That's what it is, right? They say "millions of colors" when it's really 262k colors. Or is there some precedent that lets a company claim dithering = unique color?

Re:No, because quality was obvious

[dreamchaser (49529)]

In this instance (not the previous one), the issue is did Apple advertise them as supporting 8 bit per plane or did they not? If they tried selling them as 8 bit and they were really 6, then there is a problem. It's called false advertising.

Re:Class Action?

[ink (4325)]

The CLUT supports 24bpp color, so they advertise millions of colors. If the display dithers down to 262k, it could be argued that the display is still being sent 24bpp info - and thee iMac does have an external video out port, so I think Apple has some wiggle room here...

From this link http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html [apple.com]

Display

* Built-in 20-inch (viewable) or 24-inch (viewable) glossy widescreen TFT active-matrix liquid crystal display
* Resolution
o 20-inch: 1680 by 1050 pixels
o 24-inch: 1920 by 1200 pixels
* Millions of colors at all resolutions
* Typical viewing angle
o 20-inch models
+ 160° horizontal 20- and 24-inch
+ 160° vertical
o 24-inch model
+ 178° horizontal
+ 178° vertical
* Typical brightness: 290 cd/m2 (20-inch models); 385 cd/m2 (24-inch model)
* Typical contrast ratio: 800:1 (20-inch models); 750:1 (24-inch model)

(apologies for slashdot's mangling of the unicode above)

They make the claim that the "display" supports "millions of colors". And by display, they mean something that has 290 cd/m2 brightness and a 160 degree viewing angle -- which could hardly be referring to the GPU/video card.

Can't say I'm surprised.

[DurendalMac (736637)]

I work at an Apple shop, I love Apple products, but I'd be happy to tell you how shitty the 20" Aluminum iMac screens are. They really, really suck, and here's hoping Apple finally gets their head out of their ass and puts a quality screen on what should be a quality product.

Re:Can't say I'm surprised.

[boristdog (133725)]

I am not a big Apple fan, but in the past I always knew they at least put out a quality product. I never had problems recommending Apple products to my clients if their needs fit the product.

But in the past few years Apple quality has been slipping. They need to nip this in the bud or they'll be known as just an OS company with crappy hardware.

And for a company that pushes such a visual image - DON'T go cheap on the displays!

I know what they're doing

[jollyreaper (513215)]

Apple is just trying to bring back the glory days of black and white screens.

That's OK

[Lxy (80823)]

640 colors ought to be enough for anyone.

6-bit colors make gradients look awful.

[Animats (122034)]

6-bit colors? In 2008? What were they thinking? The trend is towards 10 bits. At 6 bits, gradients look awful; false edges appear. Go into Photoshop, generate a single color gradient, and then "posterize" to 64 colors to see what this looks like. Yuck.

Dithering won't help; it puts noise into a nice, smooth gradient.

Apple monitors give o1000000 colors

[davidwr (791652)]

Apple uses octal.

6 Bit per pixel.

[jellomizer (103300)]

Just a reminder this is 6 Bits per pixel not the Bit depth that you set on your OS. Having 64 Colors per Pixel and combination of hardware dithering makes a decent screen for most people. However for true videophobes that would get in the way 8 bit would be prefered. But for most people they wouldn't know the difference betwen 8 bit and 6 bit displays.

Re:6 Bit per pixel.

[randyest (589159)]

Wouldn't a videophobe prefer to have no display at all?

Great for the environment

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

I'd call this 98% color reduction a healthy, green approach, great for the environment... except that green was one of the colors that was removed...

The same as 90%+ of LCDs sold.

[guidryp (702488)]

90%+ LCD monitors are TN screens like the low end iMacs. They all claim 16+Million colors. The Panel itself is a LG.Philips LM201WE3(teardowns online). The manufacture web says it is 16.7million colors with FRC.

This would only affect the clueless. It was widely complained about that apple switched to TN panel on the 20" as soon as the Aluminum iMacs came out. It is not a hidden fact, you can tell by the viewing angle specs.

Apple will probably fight this one, because there is a chance the laptops did not have FRC dithering (many laptop screens don't) and thus did not have millions of colors, OTOH the FRC dithering panels are classed as having millions of colors industry wide, and the viewing angles were quoted to industry standards in the spec that would make it clear to anyone who knew or cared about display or even asked anyone for advice that these were TN panels.

In fact you would have to be living under a rock to not know, but that won't stop some people for trying for a small cash grab and lawyers from trying for a big one.

This is not as big of a travesty as it seems

[Cowclops (630818)]

I'm the guy that you'd find arguing over how much LCDs suck and how much better CRTs are a couple years ago. But my CRT died last month (Mitsubishi 19" Aperture Grille, it was about the best monitor you could get short of the 22" version of the same), and I picked up a Samsung 226CW. There are only two things it doesn't do as well as the CRT:

Absolute black level.
Off-axis viewing degradation.

The color is actually BETTER, DESPITE the 6 bit panel. The reason why 6 bit is not a big deal is because the panel response is so fast that it can temporally dither two colors into one, and you don't even notice that its doing it. For photography, its actually better color reproduction because its more consistent than CRT. On top of that, the "C" model in particular (as opposed to the 226BW) has a 95 CRI backlight, which means the spectrum the backlight produces is much less peaky and closer to natural sunlight. Altogether, the result is more accurate color than I'd get on a CRT. Plus I get 2ms response time so gaming is fine too.

The 226CW may be TN, but its one of the best panels out there. I thought I was going to be more disappointed than I actually was. In fact, I wasn't disappointed at all because it turned out better in most regards, not just "almost as good." It can produce smooth color because spatial and temporal dithering on fast monitors is surprisingly effective, and its actually more accurate because of the better quality back light.

Not that this was an article about CRT vs LCD, but I'm saying that TN panels have become common not just BECAUSE they're cheap but because the good ones (as cheap as they are) are SURPRISINGLY good. Apple may have used a shitty 6 bit panel instead of, say, Samsung's 6 bit panel, but the number of native colors is surprisingly not that big a deal, even if you're a picture-accuracy freak.

(It doesn't excuse them from not clarifying whether it was TN or IPS though, and in fact it pisses me off that no manufacturers are clear on what overall technology goes into their LCDs)

Yet Steve Jobs does not care about it

[Orion Blastar (457579)]

because he is colorblind. That is why the original Macintosh and Lisa were in black and white with shades of gray. It wasn't that it was cheaper, it was that Steve Jobs is colorblind. 6-bit or 8-bit color, it all looks the same to Steve Jobs.

On the other hand, Windows and PCs are the way they are because Bill Gates has asperger syndrome.

Linux is the way it is because Linus Torvalds worked his way through college as a nude model for art students to paint or draw pictures of the human body. That is why Linux is open, totally naked.

Re:Only 766 colours anyway.

[Actually, I do RTFA (1058596)]

Even a screen with an 8-bit DAC is only capable of displaying 766 colours - each subpixel can show 255 brightnesses of three distinct wavelengths of light (as each subpixel can show the same black this makes 766, not 768)

Let's start with, it's multiplicative, not additive. That's 255^3, not 255*3. This is because, as you mentition later, the eye combines all three subpixels into a new color.

And if you want to get really picky, you can only display three colours

If you interpert color as a wavelenght of light as opposed to relative excitment of the three colored cones in your eye, then yes. But no one thinks of that definition. Instead, the obvious usage is 'colors preceived'. Even when you talk about color of a pure wavelength, you can only interpert it as combinations of your three cones.

Whether an individual subpixel can display 256 levels is quite irrelevant since dithering is capable of producing a higher colour depth at the expense of colour resolution

So, even if one were to concede all your points, these aren't really 1920x1280x24 displays are they then. Because that 1920x1280 resolution has to get shortchanged for the dithering. So you can say that Apple lied about the resolution instead of the color if you like, but it's awful pedantic.

Yes, it is possible to build CCDs where the R, G and B are cosited, nobody actually uses the Foveon sensor because the difference in the capture picture is not discernable.

I know people who paid a lot more to get a camera with a Foveon sensor, actually. While I might be unable to notice the quality, they (and their clients) can. And you better believe they would be pissed if they ended up with a Bayer filter instead.

If you want to say that the difference is small, and unnoticible to most people, so that is the optimal thing to make, fine. I respect that, and agree with you. But this is flagrant false advertising. A 1920x1280x24 screen was advertised and not delivered. Bitch about Apple's behavior just like any other major company's.

Re:Only 766 colours anyway.

[dal20402 (895630)]

Whether an individual subpixel can display 256 levels is quite irrelevant since dithering is capable of producing a higher colour depth at the expense of colour resolution. You still get full brightness resolution. And this is ok, because its not really possible to tell the difference.

Try the following exercise:

1. Find a new 20" iMac (or laptop, or other machine with a crap TN panel). Find a good IPS panel such as the one on a 24" iMac. Put them side by side.
2. Open your favorite image editor.
3. Create a diagonal gradient starting with black and ending with 50% pure blue or green
4. The hard part: tell me with a straight face that you can't see the dithering.

At typical viewing distances, subpixels are small enough to dither with reasonable effectiveness. Full pixels aren't, at least where the color transitions are subtle.

Re:Only 766 colours anyway.

[hankwang (413283)]

2. Open your favorite image editor. 3. Create a diagonal gradient starting with black and ending with 50% pure blue or green

(Shameless plug) Rather than creating the image yourself, you can also try The Lagom LCD test pages [lagom.nl] (and try lots of other monitor tests as well).