What do you think? And why didn't Apple do that?
Not all MBP's have that ugly black bezel. That's the good news. Only Apple in it's compulsive desire to be different, affixed a shiny glass panel on the front of the display.
Feeling quite certain they'd created a display that was superior to everything else, they had a lapse of common sense & decided to discontinue their excellent anti-glare display. The one that was a standard (no extra cost) part of every Apple laptop since the original PowerBook.
So for an unspecified period of time, Apple offered no choices. If you wanted a MBP, you got stuck with this rather bizarre screen. Luckily even many of the Apple faithful just couldn't deal with glare & reflection, so the complaints began. As the push back grew, Apple got the message.
Unable to admit they screwed up by eliminating the anti-glare many of us preferred, they quietly tucked their tail between their legs and put the Anti-Glare back. However, as a "screw-you for not accepting our brilliant idea" message they added it as a pricey option, instead of making it free as before.
What a class act
What do you think? And why didn't Apple do that?
Glossy produces more accurate colors. Antiglare displays have a coating which reduces color accuracy.
I thought it would be nice until I saw a picture of a macbook air with a black bezel skin on it. It looks silly with it once you see it. IMHO
Attachment Macbook air picture from Macrumors user: robjmurphy
We don't use either our MBP's or ThinkPads without calibrating the displays. It's the only way we can assure accurate colors.
Looks good enough for me. I'll take it.
I thought it would be nice until I saw a picture of a macbook air with a black bezel skin on it. It looks silly with it once you see it. IMHO
Attachment Macbook air picture from Macrumors user: robjmurphy
Glossy produces more accurate colors. Antiglare displays have a coating which reduces color accuracy.
That is incorrect. The ordinary MBP has a piece glass in front of it but both the MBA and the MBPr have a glossy coating which is less reflective (and that's exactly how Apple managed to reduce the glare by 75%). Remember, TFT-panels are 2 pieces of glass with crystals sandwiched between them. They need something to protect them like a coating.Calibration doesn't change the fact that Apple's "glossy" displays aren't because of coatings. It's just glass which is naturally "glossy".
Glossy coating and glass do the same thing. It all has to do with the texture of the surface and how it reflects light. Matte reflects it in all directions (diffuse) but glossy surfaces (some coatings, glass) will reflect it in 1 direction. That is why it makes the colours look nicer and why glossy/glass is reflective as hell. It is just simple physics and the reason why we see objects.But antiglare is a coating that affects how the light is reflected and therefore negatively affects color accuracy.
Exactly. Every display is different.Calibration is a good idea regardless because it might help with color accuracy regardless of glossy or antiglare.
I thought it would be nice until I saw a picture of a macbook air with a black bezel skin on it. It looks silly with it once you see it. IMHO
Attachment Macbook air picture from Macrumors user: robjmurphy
Glossy produces more accurate colors. Antiglare displays have a coating which reduces color accuracy.
This is a myth. The matte coating reduces contrast as it diffuses reflections via a bump coating. Glossy ones can reflect independent colors rather than just brightness. You cannot tell me that this is more "accurate" to display a clear reflection of as an overlay. Your brain can't fully separate the two whether you realize it or not. That reflection biases the way you view the image. In a darkened room assuming everything else is equal, the glossy one probably has an edge. Personally I wish we'd see a trend toward something like treated glass or better coatings. If someone was purchasing one for photography, my best suggestion would be to look at it when fully warmed up under controlled lighting after proper colorimeter profiling if they wish to trust the display. Otherwise it's not that great.
That is incorrect. The ordinary MBP has a piece glass in front of it but both the MBA and the MBPr have a glossy coating which is less reflective (and that's exactly how Apple managed to reduce the glare by 75%). Remember, TFT-panels are 2 pieces of glass with crystals sandwiched between them. They need something to protect them like a coating.
Glossy coating and glass do the same thing. It all has to do with the texture of the surface and how it reflects light. Matte reflects it in all directions (diffuse) but glossy surfaces (some coatings, glass) will reflect it in 1 direction. That is why it makes the colours look nicer and why glossy/glass is reflective as hell. It is just simple physics and the reason why we see objects.
Exactly. Every display is different.
Yes, I know that antiglare/matte coatings diffuse light in all directions. For most people, it makes little to no difference. But a matte coating affects how light is emitted from the panel itself. Glass (glossy) does not. That is why matte displays look dull compared to glossy. And I completely agree with the trend toward treated glass or better coatings. I wish we would go in that direction too.
I think I understand you better now. I just wouldn't extrapolate it to Apple's display is more accurate than this other display due to lack of a matte coating when it is only one factor. That's how I took your statement initially, but it's clear that you do understand and i just made a mistake. I've worked with NEC and Hitachi panel based displays. Both used matte coatings, but they were different from the matte coatings used by LG. They weren't quite so strong. My point on treated glass was that you can do quite a lot there if cost isn't a severe issue. It could be feasible for display manufacturers that carry a lot in the $1000+ realm. LG panels took over largely due to price. NEC, Mitsubishi, and Hitachi all basically pulled out of the oem panel market.
Sorry, I reread my post and I realize I wasn't clear. I apologize. Your assessment of the display industry is quite extensive and I have nothing to add since you covered most of the important points.