Matte vs non matte display

[Check 6]

How many use a non matte display such as Imac or LED Apple Cinema Display or Thunderbolt ( I know the Mac Pro has no Thunderbolt card) for Aperture and photoshop instead of a Matte type display similar to the older 30" Apple Cinema display

[Cheese&Apple]

I use a glossy display (27 in. iMac) and love it. For me, the colour and detail seems shaper than a matte display. This was one of the many reasons I switched to Mac in the first place. The iMac display is incredible.

I should mention though...I do have the luxury of a fexible set-up where there is no artificial or natural light shining directly on my screen.

[MCAsan]

matte = fuzzy. If you want to see and edit sharp details....you won't be using a matte monitor.

[Kebabselector]

Glossy = mirror

If you like to have brightness and contrast full to avoid seeing a reflection of yourself or anything else then go glossy.

Apple are starting to understand this hence the less reflective screen on the rMBP and iMac. Still they reflect, but not as bad.

[wolfpuppies3]

This is really a case of individual taste but to my eyes the glossy screen yields a much sharper image. I am a photographer who sometimes prints soft images on matte paper but uses glossy for tack sharp images. I need to see detail.

[Ted Witcher]

Professional monitors from, say, Eizo are not glossy. There's a reason.

[nburwell]

Originally Posted by Kebabselector

Glossy = mirror

If you like to have brightness and contrast full to avoid seeing a reflection of yourself or anything else then go glossy.

Apple are starting to understand this hence the less reflective screen on the rMBP and iMac. Still they reflect, but not as bad.

This. I have a glossy 13" MBP and whenever I'm editing photos in LR and PS, I make sure my screen is out of the glare of the sun. It makes it a little challenging, but since I've had the MBP for over a year, I have grown used to it. I do prefer it over my old MBP matte display.

[drambuie]

Originally Posted by MCAsan

matte = fuzzy. If you want to see and edit sharp details....you won't be using a matte monitor.

Not necessarily. Actually, anti-glare coatings can equal fuzzy text. True matte is not fuzzy. Up to about 2004 - 2005 most LCD panels were matte, as the panel surfaces were a flat plastic. Then HP, Sony, etc., discovered that shiny reflective panel surfaces enhanced contrast and made colors appear brighter, so they put reflective layers on the panels. Panels then started to be made with shiny surfaces by default, so to remove glare, antiglare films were added, which used a microscopically rough surface to reduce reflections by scattering ambient light. As panel resolutions became finer with subpixels getting very tiny, the anti-glare coatings caused diffraction interference which caused color fringing and fuzzy edge effects with fine text.

With the 2012 iMac Apple, is going to use an updated version of the antireflective coating method that has been used on CRTs for years. A very thin metallic layer is applied to the glass using plasma deposition. The thickness of the layer is one quarter wavelength of of the selected light wavelength to be rejected. For a single layer coating it's usually in the yellow-green part of the spectrum. This usually results in about a 25% reduction in reflected light. The coating itself is reflective and transparent so the light reflected from the glass is 180 degrees out of phase with the coating's reflection at the selected wavelength. The two reflections effectively cancel, reducing the glare.

Apple uses two coatings of dissimilar metals, so reflections at three wavelengths can be cancelled, resulting in a 75% reduction of total reflected light. This gives the improved contrast and colors of a glossy screen, but with much reduced glare, and without fuzzy rainbow fringed text.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by drambuie

Not necessarily. Actually, anti-glare coatings can equal fuzzy text. True matte is not fuzzy.

Your post is on-point. However, I don't know what you mean by »true matte«*(vs. »fake matte«?), can you expand on that a little? From my understanding, the difference between glossy and matte panels is that glossy panels are missing compensator foils which scatter incident light. These additional layers absorb light, reducing contrast, gamut and brightness in matte panels. And since people were used to matte displays, they perceive glossy displays to have more »pop« (although my matte Eizo screen has more »pop« than my glassy MacBook Pro screen ).

In any case, it's good that Apple works hard to reduce reflections, they can be very annoying. On the other hand, glassy displays are much, much easier to clean.

[Idefix]

Originally Posted by drambuie

Apple uses two coatings of dissimilar metals, so reflections at three wavelengths can be cancelled, resulting in a 75% reduction of total reflected light. This gives the improved contrast and colors of a glossy screen, but with much reduced glare, and without fuzzy rainbow fringed text.

Quite a few reviews have stated that Apple's vaunted 75% reduction in glare is more like in the 20 to 25% reduction range.

Bottom line is that some people are more susceptible to glare than others--and that they get eye fatigue from the glare. You simply have to know where you fit in the spectrum.

After all, Apple did away with matte in the MBPs but then they brought it back i.e. the hi-res non-glare option in the 15" MBP, which only costs $100