Thinkpads Forum

I just finished uploading some pictures of these three notebooks:

15" T60 w/ LG FlexView SXGA+ panel
15.4" T60W w/ LG WSXGA+ panel
15.4" MacBook Pro w/ LED-backlit WXGA+ (1440 x 900) panel

http://picasaweb.google.com/murphyja2/MacBookT60

yikes, that thing is super bright huh... there were times when i was wondering if it's too bright, seems to make the pictures bloom. Then again there were pictures like the one of the tree where it's 500% better on the Mac. You can actually see the details on the tree.

Nice comparison.... makes my LCD look like crap.

Those are some exceptional photos you have done there Thanks!

It's really hard judging from photos at times, especially since it all can be so subjectional,
but would you say that the LG WSXGA+ is rather blue, and the Macbook Pro LCD greenish/yellow in comparison to the LG Flexview (or is the Flexview red'ish) ?
Or what do you think has the most white color?

So, are you one of those who were unlucky and recieved at sparkling MBP LCD, or was it fixed when you bought it?

Interesting basic comparison (and thanks or doing it) but kinda hard to tell anything meaningful IMO.

For a start a camera's white balance will affect how "white" a screen looks (unless the photos were all taken with set white-balance temperature). Secondly, until screens are calibrated, even with something as basic as Adobe Gamma, they'll be out of whack, especially in the case of really bright screens (like the LG) that need brightness to be turned down considerably for best accuracy.

I'd still go with an IPS screen any day. Might not be the brightest out there but will generally have the best color accuracy and purest whites when well-calibrated.

Troels wrote: would you say that the LG WSXGA+ is rather blue, and the Macbook Pro LCD greenish/yellow in comparison to the LG Flexview (or is the Flexview red'ish) ?
Or what do you think has the most white color?

I would definitely say the FlexView seemed the most pink of the bunch, similar to what I've seen on many 14.1" SXGA+ Samsung panels. The purest white seems to be from the MBP (maybe slightly yellow), while the LG WSXGA+ seems slightly gray/blue.

Troels wrote:
So, are you one of those who were unlucky and recieved at sparkling MBP LCD, or was it fixed when you bought it?

All the MBP's I've seen made from 1/2006 to 6/2007 suffered from terrible sparkle. However, the new Santa Rosa-based MacBook Pro's introduced last month use an LED backlight which is far superior to a CCFL backlight in terms of color reproduction, life span, and power consumption. after seeing the quality of this panel it's very hard to use anything else. believe me, it's a mixed blessing!

pipspeak wrote: For a start a camera's white balance will affect how "white" a screen looks (unless the photos were all taken with set white-balance temperature). Secondly, until screens are calibrated, even with something as basic as Adobe Gamma, they'll be out of whack, especially in the case of really bright screens (like the LG) that need brightness to be turned down considerably for best accuracy.

I just bought this camera (Canon A710IS) so I'll have to figure out how to use the manual mode to keep the white balance consistent. would I have to buy CS3 in order to get Adobe Gamma? or should I buy a Spyder?

as you said, it's all very subjective and difficult to tell from pictures, though from my perspective the color reproduction / accuracy is very impressive on the MBP, even though I didn't think it would hold a candle to the flexview.

Hehe, i forgot it was the LED backlit MBP - very nice!
It is also the brightest of the lot, isn't it?

I tend to agree about your thoughts on the flexview. Sometimes i'm tricked into beliveing that brigher screens means better, like the reason music is sometimes played equalized and load.

Hmm.. weird, my T60p Flexview has a more whitish-yellowish tint, compared to my T42 with a flexview - which is older, though, and more red-ish.
When using a CRT right after, everything seem biased towards red on it, when i look back on the T60p it's again green..... Argh.
Why can't they just make WHITE as it should be
Last edit:
Here's a pic of my T60p (l) and T42 (r)
http://users.cybercity.dk/~dsl35822/IMG_1938.jpg

I forgot to provide the links to some pictures I took a few years ago - there is an ID Tech FlexView in there as well as some 14.1" SXGA+ panels:

18 pictures here - click on picture for full size
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11221256@N00/?saved=1

13 pictures here - click on picture for full size
http://home.att.net/~murphj/wsb/html/vi ... html-.html

hoya wrote:I just bought this camera (Canon A710IS) so I'll have to figure out how to use the manual mode to keep the white balance consistent. would I have to buy CS3 in order to get Adobe Gamma? or should I buy a Spyder?

regardless of white balance, the same photo will look different on each monitor unless they are properly calibrated.   even the IPS UXGA panel on my T42p was way off in terms of color from the factory.   i'm a graphic designer, product designer, and photographer so color accuracy is crucial for my work.

i'd recommend a gretag-macbeth (now x-rite) eye-one display 2 calibrator.   they're excellent for notebook panels.   i use an eye-one photo to calibrate my thinkpad panels, photo printers, color laser printer, and scanner.

WB is a factor. I would shoot under "sunlight" instead of "auto" - depending on the camera, it will calibrate to a standard ~6000K, rather than take the WB off whatever if metering the brightest at the time of the shot.

Also, the brightness as well as color will be affected by the viewing angle as well - the centered screen will always be at its full brightness and the ones on the sides will be slightly diminished. Ideally, the camera should be on a tripod taking a single picture of a single laptop, completely centered, in full manual mode constant shutter/aperture/WB. Or, rotate which laptop gets placed directly in front of the camera

Finally, it should be noted that Macs and Safari do use different gamma settings and color profiles from PC. I've been told if you load up a site on Safari, and show it next to IE/FF, the color mapping and saturation will be significantly different on the Apple browser.

Nice shots though, I love seeing these comparisons. The MBP has something like a 300nit screen right? There's a big difference compared to the flexview (mine is definitely taking on a bit of a pinkish tinge).

Kenn wrote:WB is a factor. I would shoot under "sunlight" instead of "auto" - depending on the camera, it will calibrate to a standard ~6000K, rather than take the WB off whatever if metering the brightest at the time of the shot.

it's a factor for the photo itself but not for the academic discussion of three different panels.   the colors are different because the panels aren't calibrated.   a photo with blatantly incorrect white balance should look identical on all three panels, even if the color is biased toward blue or yellow.

for this to be a fair comparison, all three panels should be calibrated using the same hardware (ie; eye-one display2) and display a properly WB'd photo and an RGB color chart.   otherwise it's just guesswork.

Kenn wrote:Finally, it should be noted that Macs and Safari do use different gamma settings and color profiles from PC. I've been told if you load up a site on Safari, and show it next to IE/FF, the color mapping and saturation will be significantly different on the Apple browser.

that's not true of every website.   the appearance of saturation is based entirely on the color space of the JPEG (adobeRGB or sRGB) and the browsers' support of color space.   safari can support adobeRGB where IE cannot.   firefox might be able to in version 2.x but i need to double check.   it has everything to do with individual browser support and nothing to do with the platform.

Excellent post, and thank you for taking the time to post the pics. The macbook indeed looks bright, but I actually like the flexview's colors somehow.

Great post! Those pictures show that LCD backlighting seems to hold some promise of improving the quality of TN lcd's

Clearly the WSXGA+ screen is a distant third in terms of its color and clarity. I agree with gator that the colors appear a bit more natural and realistic with the IPS than the MBP, looking for example at the seacoast shot.

erik wrote:

Kenn wrote:WB is a factor. I would shoot under "sunlight" instead of "auto" - depending on the camera, it will calibrate to a standard ~6000K, rather than take the WB off whatever if metering the brightest at the time of the shot.

it's a factor for the photo itself but not for the academic discussion of three different panels. the colors are different because the panels aren't calibrated. a photo with blatantly incorrect white balance should look identical on all three panels, even if the color is biased toward blue or yellow.

for this to be a fair comparison, all three panels should be calibrated using the same hardware (ie; eye-one display2) and display a properly WB'd photo and an RGB color chart. otherwise it's just guesswork.

My point is just that you can't say one "looks yellow" and the other "looks blue" unless you know how the camera determined its WB. The yellow one might actually be the closest to natural white, and the blue one may be even more blue in reality

erik wrote: it's a factor for the photo itself but not for the academic discussion of three different panels. the colors are different because the panels aren't calibrated. a photo with blatantly incorrect white balance should look identical on all three panels, even if the color is biased toward blue or yellow.

for this to be a fair comparison, all three panels should be calibrated using the same hardware (ie; eye-one display2) and display a properly WB'd photo and an RGB color chart. otherwise it's just guesswork.

My point is just that you can't say one "looks yellower" and the other "looks bluer" unless you know how the camera determined its WB. The yellow one might actually be the closest to natural white, and the blue one may be even more blue in reality

Also, don't forget that the bulbs used (probably not so much the LEDs) in the backlights naturally vary in terms of their color temperatures. What's more, they slowly and inevitably drift and dim from their initial settings (as an aside, saltwater aquarium owners have to replace expensive bulbs regularly and frequently because their wavelengths change and fall out of the photosynthetic range needed by the corals). So what looks like color profile differences may actually be backlighting differences (and also color shifting from off-angle camera positioning - on my flexview, the display is slightly bluish from one side, and slightly reddish from the other).

erik wrote: that's not true of every website. the appearance of saturation is based entirely on the color space of the JPEG (adobeRGB or sRGB) and the browsers' support of color space. safari can support adobeRGB where IE cannot. firefox might be able to in version 2.x but i need to double check. it has everything to do with individual browser support and nothing to do with the platform.

Interesting, I've have to check on this. I'm fairly certain that in a way that's independent of image-coded color profiles (not just image files and websites), Macs on the same graphics hardware as PCs definitely render color or gamma differently. This happens with any image in any application, even if you set photoshop to ignore embedded profiles...now, when's the next time I can get my hands on a Mac for a few minutes? Hmm...

Kenn wrote:Also, don't forget that the bulbs used (probably not so much the LEDs) in the backlights naturally vary in terms of their color temperatures. What's more, they slowly and inevitably drift and dim from their initial settings (as an aside, saltwater aquarium owners have to replace expensive bulbs regularly and frequently because their wavelengths change and fall out of the photosynthetic range needed by the corals). So what looks like color profile differences may actually be backlighting differences (and also color shifting from off-angle camera positioning - on my flexview, the display is slightly bluish from one side, and slightly reddish from the other).

that's why i said that everything needs to be calibrated.   a calibrator will compensate for tinted bulbs, too.   this is why some calibrators (like mine) can adjust the profile on the fly.   displays and lighting will change quite a bit throughout the day.

Kenn wrote: Interesting, I've have to check on this. I'm fairly certain that in a way that's independent of image-coded color profiles (not just image files and websites), Macs on the same graphics hardware as PCs definitely render color or gamma differently. This happens with any image in any application, even if you set photoshop to ignore embedded profiles...now, when's the next time I can get my hands on a Mac for a few minutes? Hmm...

i've made this comparison with TIFF files at my local offset printer and don't remember colors being that different.   everyone's display is different so it again comes down to calibration.   if you make a mac/pc display comparison, do a hardware calibration (if you can) to eliminate as many variables as possible.

the problem with the creative industry is that electronics create infinite variables when trying to display or reproduce color.   ink is easy; pixels are difficult.

erik wrote: the problem with the creative industry is that electronics create infinite variables when trying to display or reproduce color. ink is easy; pixels are difficult.

LOL! I can't imagine how many hundreds (if not thousands) of years of work was needed for us to finally be able to say that

I'm just glad we pixel-pushers don't have to worry about pigment separation or metamerism!

haha, no doubt.   in my experience, a formula-mixed spot color printed at two different printers is typically closer in color than the displays used at each site.   i wish computers could be as "simple" as printing.

anyway, i digress.   my only concern right now is that the WUXGA screen on my T61p is acceptably close in color accuracy to the UXGA IPS on my T42p.