The Chromebook Pixel Review
by Jason Inofuentes on May 31, 2013 8:00 AM ESTDisplay
Matching the fit and finish of the body is the Pixel’s display. The popularity of larger “retina” displays has left us with something of a glut of HiDPI content to ogle. It’s something quite odd to sit quite so close to a notebook screen and be entirely unable to discern any individual pixels. Users of the rMBP may be used to this experience, but for me it was a treat to spend so much time with such a nice display after a few years with my 13” MBP. Pixel density isn’t everything, though; what we’re really looking at is an arrangement of colors and so color accuracy is our new obsession. Our displays guru, Chris Heinonen, has updated our workflow for evaluating displays and the results are nothing short of incredible. Here he’ll explain what’s changed and what you’re looking at; let us know what you think and please do click on the images to get a good look at them in full-size.
Starting with this review, we're introducing the Color Comparator tool from CalMAN, which they just introduced into version 5.1 of their software. Most often in reviews you will see the DeltaE value for colors that we are sampling, which provides a numerical idea of how far off from ideal a sample is. Anything below 1 you can't see when they are side-by-side, and anything below 3 you can't see while in motion. While this is a very useful tool to see how accurate a color is, it doesn't provide someone with a visual idea of the error.
The color comparator tool shows the ideal colors right next to the actual colors, so you can see where the errors are. Even with an uncalibrated display you can get a good idea of the amount of error that is present. Of course, the more accurate your display is, the more accurate the differences will appear to be, but it still provides a more real-world example. It also lets you possibly compare two displays where the dE values might be 0.7 and 1.0 and see if you can actually tell a difference, or if you are splitting hairs at that point. More information can be found on this tool here http://store.spectracal.com/colorcomparator but hopefully this proves useful to our readers.
Color gamut
Saturations
GMB
| Chromebook Pixel |
13-inch rMBP (uncalibrated) |
|
| CCT Avg | 6442 | 6632 |
| Grayscale Avg | 7.132 | 1.7825 |
| Gamut Avg | 6.8234 | n/a |
| Saturations Avg | 7.0927 | 2.1663 |
| GMB Avg | 5.7664 | 2.4521 |
There's no denying that the 13-inch rMBP has a great panel and the dE values are in the realm of undetectable in motion, and nearly undetectable in static images. The intention here is to calibrate it for color accuracy, so that image professionals can get to work as soon as they open the box. The Pixel... doesn’t hit quite so solidly. From our chat with Caesar, we know that Google’s target was a warmer display than the rMBP, and so the CCT coming it at just under the ideal at 6500k makes sense. The dE figures, though show that while the average is closer to ideal, the individual colors miss in a more noticeable way. In this case, most of the colors are rather undersaturated, a contrast to Apple’s slight oversaturation. The result isn’t exactly unappealing, it’s just not accurate. In use some vibrant colors appear more vivid against the desaturated representations of other colors. This inaccuracy does cost the Pixel when looked at by the discerning eye of a professional; most users, though, aren't likely to spare a second thought on it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
jeffkibuule - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
There aren't any slower, cheaper ULV chips.Guspaz - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
There are definitely slower ULV chips. Some of the i3 ULV chips are slower, and one is lower power. They're not any cheaper, though; they are all the same price or more than the $225 i5-3337U.Flying Goat - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
I think they should have increased the RAM to 8GB...And increased the price by $25. At its price, $25 isn't going to make a huge difference, but the extra RAM will.robco - Monday, June 3, 2013 - link
I would guess that they chose to keep the RAM low because currently Chrome is 32-bit. It can't make use of more than 2GB of RAM anyway. Chrome is 32-bit because most web plug-ins are 32-bit - like Flash. I would imagine that Google would love to drop Flash support in the near future, but for now, there are plenty of sites that still rely on it.zogus - Wednesday, June 5, 2013 - link
Chrome attaches a separate 32 bit process to each tab, so each tab is limited to 2GB of RAM, but the application as a whole can use a lot more than that.csxcsx - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
what is there to rave about an OS that updates often? linux does this, updates roll around very often, it is free and nobody raves about it. if you need a GUI, just use ubuntu or something. also it can be installed on most machines and can be ran pretty well on older hardwarelmcd - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
This is basically a Linux distro with constant updates but no supported apps except a browser. And, well, there's never dependency conflicts, no malicious app sources (affecting the kernel, anyway), and a lot less bloat.jigglywiggly - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
wonderfulbeautiful laptop ruined by chrome os, low memory, and bad battery life
Calinou__ - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
Low memory isn't a problem, this laptop is mostly intended for web browsing.Chrome OS? Fun fact: you can install Linux.
makerofthegames - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
I was thinking just that - if this were less expensive, it would make a great Linux machine. I'd buy it at maybe $1000 or so, but not at $1500.