17" MacBook Pro Anti Glare Thread

DHagan4755 said:

I thought I'd share some more pictures! In the brightest lighting conditions, as you can see, there can be some glare on the anti glare display. It makes me wonder if the anti glare models should come dressed completely in black because the light does reflect off the silver unibody onto the display in certain conditions.

I wonder how much glare there would be in this scene with the glossy glass? Hmmmmm

Click to expand...

Do you have a problem of uneven light bleed?

DHagan4755 said:

Not that I can tell.

And, oh, one other thing, in the photos I took the display's brightness is maxed out. So it should give those of you out there an idea of the brightness of the anti glare screen in brightly lit conditions.

Click to expand...

Wonder you could do a test for me ... XD

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/659041/

This is my own situation

Thx

DHagan4755 said:

I thought I'd post some comparison photos between my 4-year-old+ 17" PowerBook G4 1.5GHz and my new unibody 17" MacBook Pro anti glare.......

Click to expand...

Looks great, thanks for the comparison shots. Would have been better if both pictures on display were the same, as the right image is a brighter image than the one on the left

But we get the general impression, especially from the viewing angles.

The following comments have been deleted several times from Apple forums:

Don't buy the optional Anti-Glare screen!! (Color gamut, contrast, brightnes, etc are the same)

I've got the new MBP 17" and THE COOL GLASS FRAME WAS REMOVED in order to keep the purpose of the anti-glare screen.
Here's an image from http://redefine.dyndns.org/~andyr/blog/archives/2009/01/mwsf-09-macbook-pro-17-inch.html

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3181868204_a5f44bf975.jpg">

If I had been told so, I'd have not paid an extra 50bucks for a bad-looking screen, and added a 25-40 bucks anti-glare film on top. I have one on my iPhone and it looks great.

It's a shame Apple doesn't mention that at all and delivers less-than expected products.

There should be an anti-glare glass to deliver to the disappointed customers like me that paid extra money for a product with one part missing (the glass/frame)

've been working with macs since 1989 and I just got the new MBP 17"
The "screen part" is the same, as the Mac Genius told me when complaining about how ugly is the "screen assembly". The only difference is the anti-glare film, which dissipates the light you commonly see on the glossy one evenly, making blacks lighter. Remember, it's a frosted surface, very thin roughness, but that's all the difference with the glossy "screen part". The "screen assembly" LACKS OF THE PROTECTING GOOD-LOOKING GLASS ON TOP of the "screen part". There's even the whole for it!. I've been told that when requesting the optional anti-glare "screen part" they mean that the "screen assembly" will be replaced.

Keep in mind that. You are paying extra for a not good-looking no glass screen which is the same specs except for the anti-glare layer, when you could fix it with an adhesive anti-glare film on top of the cool glass and you'll get both beauty and functionality.

At Apple forums someone said:
> {quote:title=syrius777 wrote:}{quote}
> Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY9TUDf8osk
>
> ... and really, the only way we could do this was to remove that glass in the front and then build a metal bezel around it to hold the display.
>
> according to what he said inside the video..
>
> greetz

That sounds like a small company excusing their limited resources.
Apple has enough resources to make a anti-glare glass to PROTECT the screen, and keep the good looking of the original MBP was shown to us when we paid for it.

sergiozambrano said:

The following comments have been deleted several times from Apple forums:

Don't buy the optional Anti-Glare screen!! (Color gamut, contrast, brightnes, etc are the same)

I've got the new MBP 17" and THE COOL GLASS FRAME WAS REMOVED in order to keep the purpose of the anti-glare screen.
Here's an image from http://redefine.dyndns.org/~andyr/blog/archives/2009/01/mwsf-09-macbook-pro-17-inch.html

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3181868204_a5f44bf975.jpg">

If I had been told so, I'd have not paid an extra 50bucks for a bad-looking screen, and added a 25-40 bucks anti-glare film on top. I have one on my iPhone and it looks great.

It's a shame Apple doesn't mention that at all and delivers less-than expected products.

There should be an anti-glare glass to deliver to the disappointed customers like me that paid extra money for a product with one part missing (the glass/frame)

've been working with macs since 1989 and I just got the new MBP 17"
The "screen part" is the same, as the Mac Genius told me when complaining about how ugly is the "screen assembly". The only difference is the anti-glare film, which dissipates the light you commonly see on the glossy one evenly, making blacks lighter. Remember, it's a frosted surface, very thin roughness, but that's all the difference with the glossy "screen part". The "screen assembly" LACKS OF THE PROTECTING GOOD-LOOKING GLASS ON TOP of the "screen part". There's even the whole for it!. I've been told that when requesting the optional anti-glare "screen part" they mean that the "screen assembly" will be replaced.

Keep in mind that. You are paying extra for a not good-looking no glass screen which is the same specs except for the anti-glare layer, when you could fix it with an adhesive anti-glare film on top of the cool glass and you'll get both beauty and functionality.

At Apple forums someone said:
> {quote:title=syrius777 wrote:}{quote}
> Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY9TUDf8osk
>
> ... and really, the only way we could do this was to remove that glass in the front and then build a metal bezel around it to hold the display.
>
> according to what he said inside the video..
>
> greetz

That sounds like a small company excusing their limited resources.
Apple has enough resources to make a anti-glare glass to PROTECT the screen, and keep the good looking of the original MBP was shown to us when we paid for it.

Click to expand...

Oh god, you are either a kid and therefore you are excused or you really believe that crap you posted and then I don't know where to put you.

People were craving for matte option and they got it. I was one of those people and I am very happy to pay $50 extra to get exactly what I want. Sure, it would be nice if it was free but these days NOTHING is free so get used to it kiddo.

I hope we will not see another non sense from you. Thank you very much

NEXT

DHagan4755 said:

I don't find the look all that bad. Some days I go back and forth with should I have chosen the glossy instead? But you'd have to be really in the dark not to have realized what the anti glare screen looked like since Apple put a picture of what the anti glare option looks like on their 17" MacBook Pro page...

Click to expand...

Yup, I agree.
It would be nice to also have option for silver keys as that would go great with the antiglare option design.
Well, blacks will do

My MacBook Pro 17" Unibody Antyglare

WATCH OUT



I've just noticed some problems with mine 1 week from NEW MacBook Pro 17-inch Unibody Hi-Resolution Antiglare Widescreen Display (UK specification):

* Full brightness of the display
* completely even 100% black background in Photoshop's full screen mode
* photos taken in full darkness using tripod and CANON EOS 30D camera

Display illumination is UNEVEN and can be seen when working with dark backgrounds (B&W photos etc.).

ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE for such PROfessional laptop as MacBook Pro:

2.3 million pixels of perfection.

With the high-resolution LED-backlit widescreen display on the 17-inch MacBook Pro, you get desktop-quality color in an Apple notebook for the first time. The moment you open your MacBook Pro, you’re greeted instantly by full, corner-to-corner screen brightness. The 1920-by-1200-pixel resolution (133 pixels per inch) means you can view more palettes and windows or watch HD video in its native 1920-by-1080 resolution. Perfect whether you’re working in the studio or out in the field, the display offers a 60 percent greater color gamut than previous generations for richer, more vibrant colors and a 700:1 contrast ratio that makes whites brighter and blacks blacker. In addition, the seamless glass enclosure makes the display stronger and more durable. Because it’s power efficient and the glass is mercury- and arsenic-free, it’s greener than ever. And now you can choose a standard glossy display or an optional antiglare display, depending on your needs.

Click to expand...

http://picasaweb.google.com/freelancer.by/MyUnibodyMacBookPro17Inch?authkey=Gv1sRgCNnWzdax-cGeggE#

freethinker said:

My NEW MacBook Pro 17-inch Unibody Hi-Resolution Antiglare Widescreen Display:

* Full brightness of the display
* completely even 100% black background in Photoshop's full screen mode
* photos taken in full darkness using tripod and CANON EOS 30D camera

http://picasaweb.google.com/freelancer.by/MyMacBookPro17Unibody?authkey=Gv1sRgCJnPjbCPk4TVTg#

Click to expand...

Ouch, that does not look good...

freethinker said:

WATCH OUT



I've just noticed some problems with mine 1 week from NEW MacBook Pro 17-inch Unibody Hi-Resolution Antiglare Widescreen Display:

* Full brightness of the display
* completely even 100% black background in Photoshop's full screen mode
* photos taken in full darkness using tripod and CANON EOS 30D camera

http://picasaweb.google.com/freelancer.by/MyMacBookPro17Unibody?authkey=Gv1sRgCJnPjbCPk4TVTg#

Click to expand...

That looks like a total NIGHTMARE!

My two cents

I just picked up a new 17" UMBP with the anti-glare screen to augment and eventually replace my current MBP 2,1 with a glossy screen. I've calibrated both laptop monitors with an i1 spectrophotometer to approximately 6500K, 2.2 gamma, and about 105 cd/m2. Here are a few of my perceptions (not objectively measured observations):

-- In most lighting conditions, the two calibrated monitors are very, very hard to distinguish unless you're looking for differences.

-- The advantage the anti-glare screen has in most conditions is minimal, and quite frankly, in high-glare situations, neither laptop is going to be a particular joy to use. Sitting outside with the sun behind you with either one isn't going to result in accurate color management, and glare will be a problem with both; only the character of the reflected light will be different.

-- The UMBP anti-glare definitely has a subtle but distinct advantage in gamut. What I initially perceived to be light roll-off in my UMBP (particularly in the image uploaded) is actually greater gamut in blues.

-- I expected the contrast of the glossy MBP 2,1 screen to be higher than the UMBP, but because of the increase gamut (and the increased resolution), in many cases I perceive the contrast of the UMBP to be actually higher than the glossy, even though I'm pretty sure that's not the case objectively.

-- I did the 0,0,0 light bleed test that was described earlier, and for kicks, I ran it on all the other monitors around me. Not a single one could produce a full black image without significant light bleed. That's not entirely surprising, though, as I had to crank the base luminance significantly to get to maximum brightness. I calibrate my monitors to have reasonable luminance (and hopefully black levels), and at their base calibration levels, neither the MBP or UMBP has overly uneven black levels. For B&W work, it's hard enough getting adequate blacks -- cranking brightness to make black levels show up as 20,20,20 and judging the performance of the screen at those levels just isn't relevant for me.

For me, I really like both screens and find the debate somewhat amusing. Both screens are excellent, and properly calibrated, either should be more than adequate to the majority of tasks. No, these aren't Eizo ColorEdge monitors, after all, so they're not up to hard-core tasks, but for situations where one is balancing speed, portability, accuracy, and cost, they're pretty darn good. A lot of people make real money using these things in color-managed processes, though, so they can't be all bad.

Was it worth an extra $50? Who knows, curiosity got me, the grass was greener on the other side, I got bored...honestly, I probably would have been happy and productive with the glossy, too. After all, I didn't spend the last two+ years fretting about my lack of an anti-glare screen. Oh well, that's one less bottle of nice wine for me.

Cheers, and enjoy your new UMBPs.

ilikebeer said:

I just picked up a new 17" UMBP with the anti-glare screen to augment and eventually replace my current MBP 2,1 with a glossy screen. I've calibrated both laptop monitors with an i1 spectrophotometer to approximately 6500K, 2.2 gamma, and about 105 cd/m2. Here are a few of my perceptions (not objectively measured observations):

-- In most lighting conditions, the two calibrated monitors are very, very hard to distinguish unless you're looking for differences.

-- The advantage the anti-glare screen has in most conditions is minimal, and quite frankly, in high-glare situations, neither laptop is going to be a particular joy to use. Sitting outside with the sun behind you with either one isn't going to result in accurate color management, and glare will be a problem with both; only the character of the reflected light will be different.

-- The UMBP anti-glare definitely has a subtle but distinct advantage in gamut. What I initially perceived to be light roll-off in my UMBP (particularly in the image uploaded) is actually greater gamut in blues.

-- I expected the contrast of the glossy MBP 2,1 screen to be higher than the UMBP, but because of the increase gamut (and the increased resolution), in many cases I perceive the contrast of the UMBP to be actually higher than the glossy, even though I'm pretty sure that's not the case objectively.

-- I did the 0,0,0 light bleed test that was described earlier, and for kicks, I ran it on all the other monitors around me. Not a single one could produce a full black image without significant light bleed. That's not entirely surprising, though, as I had to crank the base luminance significantly to get to maximum brightness. I calibrate my monitors to have reasonable luminance (and hopefully black levels), and at their base calibration levels, neither the MBP or UMBP has overly uneven black levels. For B&W work, it's hard enough getting adequate blacks -- cranking brightness to make black levels show up as 20,20,20 and judging the performance of the screen at those levels just isn't relevant for me.

For me, I really like both screens and find the debate somewhat amusing. Both screens are excellent, and properly calibrated, either should be more than adequate to the majority of tasks. No, these aren't Eizo ColorEdge monitors, after all, so they're not up to hard-core tasks, but for situations where one is balancing speed, portability, accuracy, and cost, they're pretty darn good. A lot of people make real money using these things in color-managed processes, though, so they can't be all bad.

Was it worth an extra $50? Who knows, curiosity got me, the grass was greener on the other side, I got bored...honestly, I probably would have been happy and productive with the glossy, too. After all, I didn't spend the last two+ years fretting about my lack of an anti-glare screen. Oh well, that's one less bottle of nice wine for me.

Cheers, and enjoy your new UMBPs.

Click to expand...

Do you know the model # of your screen? That one looks amazing!

That was a really good, interesting post, sir.

Nice work. It was appreciated.


I have a few questions for you:

1. Why did you choose 105 cd/m2 to calibrate to? Why not calibrate to the brighest possible setting on both screens?

2. Does changing the brightness affect the results, or perhaps bring out more visible differences in the gamut between the two screens that wouldn't be detectable at lower brightness settings?

Adokimus said:

Do you know the model # of your screen? That one looks amazing!

Click to expand...

Model 9CAC

Abstract said:

That was a really good, interesting post, sir.

Nice work. It was appreciated.


I have a few questions for you:

1. Why did you choose 105 cd/m2 to calibrate to? Why not calibrate to the brighest possible setting on both screens?

2. Does changing the brightness affect the results, or perhaps bring out more visible differences in the gamut between the two screens that wouldn't be detectable at lower brightness settings?

Click to expand...

I only calibrated it to that level to compare versus the LCDs in back; for normal use, I'd actually have them a few steps lower. There are two main reasons for this: first, I'm trying to match on-screen images to what I print. In my work environment, which has a reasonably controllable amount of light (and light color), I find that a value of 80-90 cd/m2 results in the best print matching. If you crank brightness and print, you'll tend to have prints that are far darker than the on-screen image. Second, I'm trying to preserve as much of the available contrast between the monitors available black/white points. Check out the gray scale here and play with the brightness of your screen:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/monitor_sensitivity.html

Too high, and you'll wash out the gradations in the whiter areas of the image; too dark, and you'll lose the ability to differentiate in the dark areas. Generally speaking, bright monitors might look "nice," but they're not very accurate (well, at least MBPs).

One thing I neglected to mention: the anti-glare has significantly better off-axis performance. Yes, you'll see some color shift as you move your viewing position, but it's nowhere near as bad as the MBP 2,1 glossy screen. With the latter, moving your viewing position a very small amount results in dramatic changes in color. That's not an entirely fair comparison, given the significant technology differences in the panels, but I don't have a glossy LED-backlit screen to calibrate and evaluate at my disposal.

Hope this helps.

Very interesting post...

however, I see that the Mac on left is not using the current glossy screen which is basically, plain, uncoated glass. If only they just put an antirelective coating on the glass, the forums would be much quieter places ;-)
I'm only slighty worried, but at the price of a new MBP, worried all the same that I will probably not get a chance to do a direct comparison, as the anti-glare is not available in-store. I don't normally spend £2K without at least seeing what I'm getting first.

My other concern is what kind of technology the screen are and what bit-depth they use.

Now I've splashed out on a Nikon with 14-bit RAW processing, it would be such a shame to try and judge photos on a 6-bit monitor.
I may wait until more evidence presents itself but thanks for the extra info here, it looks very promising

So are most people happy with the anti glare screens? I've seen 1 or 2 images are quite bad with light bleed, etc, but is that the norm?

Regards,
Simon

I finally saw the anti-glare in person at my local Apple store and I have to say, I liked it better than the glossy. Trust me, I want to like the glossy, and had pretty must set myself up to hate the anti-glare because of the silver bezel.. and thinking it was an afterthought, etc. But after playing with both, I think the look of the silver bezel is great and I think that is the direction I am leaning.

But I am concerned about these lightbleed problems.

JMann2380 said:

I finally saw the anti-glare in person at my local Apple store and I have to say, I liked it better than the glossy. Trust me, I want to like the glossy, and had pretty must set myself up to hate the anti-glare because of the silver bezel.. and thinking it was an afterthought, etc. But after playing with both, I think the look of the silver bezel is great and I think that is the direction I am leaning.

But I am concerned about these lightbleed problems.

Click to expand...

Light bleed is common on a matte screen but you're really only going to notice it when you're looking at a completely black screen. How often is your screen going to be completely black when you're working on it? I saw the glossy screen in the Apple Store. Unless you live in a cave, the glossy can sometimes be like a mirror. I'd rather have some light bleed on a completely black screen than to have to worry about reflections all the time. Everyone has their own opinion on glossy and matte. I think the glossy screen is more of a gimmick. It's whatever fits for you. I have seen both and prefer the matte.

JMann2380 said:

I finally saw the anti-glare in person at my local Apple store and I have to say, I liked it better than the glossy. Trust me, I want to like the glossy, and had pretty must set myself up to hate the anti-glare because of the silver bezel.. and thinking it was an afterthought, etc. But after playing with both, I think the look of the silver bezel is great and I think that is the direction I am leaning.

But I am concerned about these lightbleed problems.

Click to expand...

Just because you get a glossy model, doesn't mean it's magical and will have no backlight bleed problems. It's luck of the draw. My brother has the 24" iMac, which is of course glossy and has a huge area of bleed in the lower right corner. It's to do with the panel, and that layer of glass does nothing to magically make the bleed go away.

I just received my MBP today, and I was worried about it tbh. However, just checked - and I have no bleed at all. It's very uniform across the whole screen - and I have the matte model.

Does the anti-glare 17" weigh less?