I think the sunlight issue is reversed: a matte screen is very hard to see outdoors, whereas glossy is not.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MBP: Glossy or Matte?
- Thread starter advocation
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would say get the matte screen for sure! The glossy attracts fingerprints really easily and is really bad for outdoors.
The one thing I've noticed about the glossy screens in the store, is how they make the letters look so far away.
If you are doing any type of color manipulation work on photo's or graphics, I'd go matte. Actually, I'd go matte regardless, but that's just me 
MACDRIVE said:
What do you mean? At face value, I have never experienced this. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but my glossy screen looks very good.
Wrong, glossy > matte outdoors. Glossy may be worse with a lot of light sources (office, room full of lamps, etc.), but outside matte gets incredibly washed out. Seriously, I see this claim repeated so much-- it's not true. I've had a MBP with matte and a MB with glossy. MBP at full brightness in daylight was nearly unreadable, MB is not.vanzskater272 said:
I was going to draw an example, but these pictures work:
Matte screen
Glossy screen
Therefore, when outside (i.e. lots of ambient light), a matte screen will be more washed out (more ambient light is reflected to your eye) than glossy. Both suck when the sun is reflecting off them.
Either way, they're both very nice displays.
Nar1117 said:
That's silly reasoning. Other manufacturers charge *extra* for the glossy screen. For example, when I bought an HP laptop I think the glossy was a $20 upgrade. I went for the glossy, by the way, and loved it (can't say the same about the overall machine). Not only that, but my friends who saw the screen were like: "wow, that's an *amazing* screen!" Likewise, my MacBook is glossy and I'm thrilled with it.
Have any of the people with concerns about glossy screens actually *used* them? I'm sorry, but I'm calling all of you out. You have no idea what you're talking about and you probably have no experience with the glossy screens outside of the Apple Store. I'm on my 2nd laptop with glossy screen now, and I think it's a definite improvement.
I think the reason the "Pro" models have a matte screeen is because Apple knows that Pro models are used by graphic and video professionals that are going to prefer a screen that they are used to. If you ask me it's like programmer that still uses vi or emacs as a text editor, or an audiophile who still swears by vinyl records. They are entitled to do whatever they want and Apple will accomodate them, but the "mainstream" user will be happier with the newer technology.
dpaanlka said:
False dilemma since glossy looks better both indoors and outdoors. I've used my laptop outdoors only a handful of times in 6 or 7 years of using laptops, and I think the glossy screens are better for the way I use it (indoors at home).
I had a 12" PB and the matte was fine, but I've since got a McBook with lossy display and tbh I think the glossy is better, although that could be partly down to it being newer and brighter. I use it in a variety of indoor situations (library, lectures, home, work).
Reflection can be an issue at times (just reposition the screen slightly to get round this), but the fact that it is more vivid means I can turn the brightness down to the lowest and still use it on the go, preserving battery life. A matte screen can diffuse the light and make it hard to read, meaning you need a higher brightness setting to use it, and that affects battery life.
Reflection can be an issue at times (just reposition the screen slightly to get round this), but the fact that it is more vivid means I can turn the brightness down to the lowest and still use it on the go, preserving battery life. A matte screen can diffuse the light and make it hard to read, meaning you need a higher brightness setting to use it, and that affects battery life.
lmalave said:
Calling me out? Ive used a macbook several times outside of an apple store in many different enviroments. I hate the glossy screen. Does it show annoying reflections? Yes. Does it appear to have more vivid colors? Somewhat. But not enough to justify the crappy glare. The matte screen is more versatile, in doors and outdoors. This is because your view of the screen is not dependent on the lighting behind you nearly as much as the glossy.
dpaanlka said:
THANK YOU for posting that.
it's just like my old crt I used with my pc. unless every light in my room is behind the display, I see a very distracting reflection of that light. same with light coming in from the window.
glossy screens on a laptop are the same way (yes lmalave, I have used one before
). I'm sick of having every little source of light reflecting off my screen; I just want to look at what I am looking at.there is a reason the pro laptops, and most stand alone displays are matte. pro's aren't the kind of people who look at a screen and are like "omg, look at all the pretty colors" and "oh I think I can just tilt it or move whenever there is a glare". pro's know that the colors on a matte screen are more photo-realistic if less vivid; and more importantly, no distracting glares. neither are particularly great outdoors in sunlight, but a matte screen can deal with many independent light sources better than a glossy screen. i.e: indoors
Thats my opinion. I'm not saying the opposing opinion is invalid; I'm just getting sick of everyone with a MacBook getting so defensive about their glossy screens. "calling me out" and saying I "don't know what I'm talking about" and such.
Does anyone know for sure if there is a difference in the underlying LCD between the glossy and the matte? If not, colors shouldn't be an issue for the designers out there, you will just need to go get a spyder or something similar to do a color balance. Simple enough and you really should be doing that even with a matte screen to optimize your screen.
1920x1200 15.4" glossy here I come! Er.. well hopefully if apple finally releases a mbp with it.
1920x1200 15.4" glossy here I come! Er.. well hopefully if apple finally releases a mbp with it.
tarjan said:
Uhhh the problem is the glossy screens artificially makes all colors deep, rich, and saturated... even if they're not supposed to be, and this sucks since most colors in the world are not dark, saturated, and glossy, and high in contrast. This cannot be corrected with a color calibrator.
Do you even understand how color calibrators work?
Lets give a bit of a lesson on this. "Deep" color is a misnomer and has NOTHING to do with how light is produced but more just how it is interpreted by your eyes. Vibrant, deep, whatever, all the same thing.
In an lcd panel, you can produce one of three colors per pixel. Each of those colors (rgb) can be set to one of 265 settings from 0-255. It gets a bit complex because the three colors are not "precisely" red, green, or blue but an approximation of that said color. 0 is "black" and 255 is "full on". The only thing missing here is that there is also a backlight, which is always on for EVERY spot on the screen, which is the major reason contrast ratios are in the 600:1 range for a calibrated lcd vs 30k:1 for crt and 10k or so :1 in a plasma. SED should be interesting, and oled should also increase the contrast ratio.
The "deep" or "vibrant" part of a glossy display generally comes from how the lcd panel can function at the "0" or black level and has nothing to do with higher color output (even if it appears to be so to our eyes). At 0, the glossy screen generally sends the backlight light "straight" out through the substrate while the lcd tends to block most of the light, the total output from the screen is reduced, giving you darker dark spots. The matte finish actually causes internal glare as the light (internal and external) bounces around in the screen around the pixels, since there is a slight amount of room between them. This makes the screen seem a bit more "cloudy" with a "halo" or giving the screen a grey appearance vs black.
In most cases this means that glossy is better, at least for contrast ratio. Of course glare from external means becomes more of a problem, so depending on where you will be using your lcd, one may be better than another.
For color balance, we are talking about a different issue entirely. At an output level of 0, 120, 255, 136 or any other amount, what does that mean for each color? Well thats the trick, in theory it means the exact same thing, but that isn't always the case.
What color balancing does is to measure the exact amount of light coming through when the screen is being told black, white and different levels (ire) inbetween. So imagine at 0 your display actually produces 10 candles of light in red, but 15 in blue, and 5 in green. If you balance this out, you will set red's minimum to be at 1, not 0 and green might be 2. This would give you 15 candles in each color.
Then you measure the same thing at 100 ire and the major differences start to show up. To most manufacturers, you want the screen to be as bright as possible because that "sells" (due to human nature), but since red green and blue flouresce at different rates, or are part of the backlight in different amounts, you receive vastly different maximum amounts at equal settings. Say 400 candle power for blue, 600 for green and 550 for red. To properly balance this setup you would shoot for 255 for blue to be max, then say 200 max for green and 190 max for red or whatever makes them equal.
The fun doesn't end there, as you still have to be concerned about the middle ground, making sure that at each ire the three colors are matched. This is done by a bit of magic, trial and error, and reasonable trade offs at the extremes. To make matters worse, lights don't ramp evenly between 0-255 so then your gamma curve becomes interesting..
In the end your screen will not be as bright, probably not quite as dim, but it will be accurate. This goes for both the matte and the glossy, but my guess is the matte filters the light a bit dropping whatever color is slightly brighter in the RGB mix at 100 ire, giving you a "slighty" better contrast ratio and allowing for a more defined range as you cant get around only have 0-255 as a color output level choice. Apple also just makes the native color balance to tend towards accuracy in the matte, and bright in the glossy, but you can always get around that with a new profile.
The next generation of lcd panels are switching to 65536 levels of color output per color, which might really help accuracy. Just understand that 65535 would be the same as 255 currently, but the middle ground would have a much much more granular approach, allowing you to have less in the way of tradeoffs at the extremes and a more accurate gama curve. Definitely the best way to go. Maybe this type of display will be in the c2d mbps?
Wow, I guess my espresso was good
BTW: none of the numbers above relate to any specific true levels on your panels. going from 10-11 on the brightness of blue may give you 5 more candlepower, or it may give you 1. I truely dont know, and every set is different. This is why you need an external calibrated system to adjust the colors. The matte screen might be closer, base stock, to proper calibration, but it is not perfect.
Lets give a bit of a lesson on this. "Deep" color is a misnomer and has NOTHING to do with how light is produced but more just how it is interpreted by your eyes. Vibrant, deep, whatever, all the same thing.
In an lcd panel, you can produce one of three colors per pixel. Each of those colors (rgb) can be set to one of 265 settings from 0-255. It gets a bit complex because the three colors are not "precisely" red, green, or blue but an approximation of that said color. 0 is "black" and 255 is "full on". The only thing missing here is that there is also a backlight, which is always on for EVERY spot on the screen, which is the major reason contrast ratios are in the 600:1 range for a calibrated lcd vs 30k:1 for crt and 10k or so :1 in a plasma. SED should be interesting, and oled should also increase the contrast ratio.
The "deep" or "vibrant" part of a glossy display generally comes from how the lcd panel can function at the "0" or black level and has nothing to do with higher color output (even if it appears to be so to our eyes). At 0, the glossy screen generally sends the backlight light "straight" out through the substrate while the lcd tends to block most of the light, the total output from the screen is reduced, giving you darker dark spots. The matte finish actually causes internal glare as the light (internal and external) bounces around in the screen around the pixels, since there is a slight amount of room between them. This makes the screen seem a bit more "cloudy" with a "halo" or giving the screen a grey appearance vs black.
In most cases this means that glossy is better, at least for contrast ratio. Of course glare from external means becomes more of a problem, so depending on where you will be using your lcd, one may be better than another.
For color balance, we are talking about a different issue entirely. At an output level of 0, 120, 255, 136 or any other amount, what does that mean for each color? Well thats the trick, in theory it means the exact same thing, but that isn't always the case.
What color balancing does is to measure the exact amount of light coming through when the screen is being told black, white and different levels (ire) inbetween. So imagine at 0 your display actually produces 10 candles of light in red, but 15 in blue, and 5 in green. If you balance this out, you will set red's minimum to be at 1, not 0 and green might be 2. This would give you 15 candles in each color.
Then you measure the same thing at 100 ire and the major differences start to show up. To most manufacturers, you want the screen to be as bright as possible because that "sells" (due to human nature), but since red green and blue flouresce at different rates, or are part of the backlight in different amounts, you receive vastly different maximum amounts at equal settings. Say 400 candle power for blue, 600 for green and 550 for red. To properly balance this setup you would shoot for 255 for blue to be max, then say 200 max for green and 190 max for red or whatever makes them equal.
The fun doesn't end there, as you still have to be concerned about the middle ground, making sure that at each ire the three colors are matched. This is done by a bit of magic, trial and error, and reasonable trade offs at the extremes. To make matters worse, lights don't ramp evenly between 0-255 so then your gamma curve becomes interesting..
In the end your screen will not be as bright, probably not quite as dim, but it will be accurate. This goes for both the matte and the glossy, but my guess is the matte filters the light a bit dropping whatever color is slightly brighter in the RGB mix at 100 ire, giving you a "slighty" better contrast ratio and allowing for a more defined range as you cant get around only have 0-255 as a color output level choice. Apple also just makes the native color balance to tend towards accuracy in the matte, and bright in the glossy, but you can always get around that with a new profile.
The next generation of lcd panels are switching to 65536 levels of color output per color, which might really help accuracy. Just understand that 65535 would be the same as 255 currently, but the middle ground would have a much much more granular approach, allowing you to have less in the way of tradeoffs at the extremes and a more accurate gama curve. Definitely the best way to go. Maybe this type of display will be in the c2d mbps?
Wow, I guess my espresso was good
BTW: none of the numbers above relate to any specific true levels on your panels. going from 10-11 on the brightness of blue may give you 5 more candlepower, or it may give you 1. I truely dont know, and every set is different. This is why you need an external calibrated system to adjust the colors. The matte screen might be closer, base stock, to proper calibration, but it is not perfect.
Thank you for that long unnecessary refresh of what color calibration is. The point of my brief statement about color calibrators that you have missed is that I said "This cannot be corrected with a color calibrator." - as in, the problem I have with the glossy displays is not related to literal color calibration, but how all colors on a glossy display are perceived as overly *wet* to me and I assume many other people, even when they are "calibrated" by such a device.
Trust me we have played around with new glossy Toshibas at our school's graphics art department, and ever several calibration runs, they still don't look right to us.
Trust me we have played around with new glossy Toshibas at our school's graphics art department, and ever several calibration runs, they still don't look right to us.
We are talking about a physical phenomenon here, nothing where "it seems like something isn't right" could be a possible outcome. Either it works, or you should be able to come up with an accurate description of the issue, not descriptions like "wet". Does it look artifically enhanced or oversharp? Do the levels seem to drop off too quickly at low ire? Are you seeing glare from the screen and that is causing the wet look? How about with the lights off?
I have calibrated sets from plasma screens, lcd panels, lcd projectors, dlp projectors, crt projectors, crt televisions and regular monitors. I use a variety of tools from a spyder pro to a plain light meter with special filters to color correct cards and 6500k lights. A true colorimeter would be best, but thats cash I don't have for a hobby. If the colors are matched properly, then the display should look fairly close to identical (at least in color and saturation). If it isn't, something is probably wrong with the tool or it is being used incorrectly. (BTW, I have found that all light must be completely off when testing. Including lights from the keys, and status lights. Tape over lights on the computer, kill lights in the room, stuff a towel under the door to keep everything out etc. Any light at all will confuse the sensors when running through the test, especially at the bottom end.)
Try checking the displays at various ire between the two computers with grey images. Look to see where they turn different.
I would also do a test and get a picture of the true color points, and map that out onto a color space mapping. Maybe the matte screen is a filter and is killing some of the "wrong" colors from the pixel itself, though I doubt it. The matte screen appears to be fairly grey and even in terms of color filtering. If the lcd panel is different, that could give completely different measurements for each color which would definitely throw off the color balance, same with the backlights.
I have calibrated sets from plasma screens, lcd panels, lcd projectors, dlp projectors, crt projectors, crt televisions and regular monitors. I use a variety of tools from a spyder pro to a plain light meter with special filters to color correct cards and 6500k lights. A true colorimeter would be best, but thats cash I don't have for a hobby. If the colors are matched properly, then the display should look fairly close to identical (at least in color and saturation). If it isn't, something is probably wrong with the tool or it is being used incorrectly. (BTW, I have found that all light must be completely off when testing. Including lights from the keys, and status lights. Tape over lights on the computer, kill lights in the room, stuff a towel under the door to keep everything out etc. Any light at all will confuse the sensors when running through the test, especially at the bottom end.)
Try checking the displays at various ire between the two computers with grey images. Look to see where they turn different.
I would also do a test and get a picture of the true color points, and map that out onto a color space mapping. Maybe the matte screen is a filter and is killing some of the "wrong" colors from the pixel itself, though I doubt it. The matte screen appears to be fairly grey and even in terms of color filtering. If the lcd panel is different, that could give completely different measurements for each color which would definitely throw off the color balance, same with the backlights.
I'm not entirely sure where this is going anymore... I know what I see, I see them every day. Sorry if I don't have the technical prowess with color correctors required to explain exactly why they look different, but they clearly do.
Who uses computers in a completely dark room with every possible light source is turned off or removed? I guess if that's how I used them, they may look the same... but no normal person does that...
Who uses computers in a completely dark room with every possible light source is turned off or removed? I guess if that's how I used them, they may look the same... but no normal person does that...