Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

17" Antiglare Display

F

fil3333

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 21, 2009
65
0
hi
i would be interested in what apple actually does when they make the screen antiglare? does it mean they just leave out the glass? so does it make the screen more instable and what about the seamless enclosure?
im a bit in a discrepancy, on the one hand i prefer a matte screen because i have to color correct on the road sometimes on the other hand stability is pretty important for me as well.... :eek:
would be thankful for any information :)
thanks a lot
fil
 
If getting accurate colours are important to you then you want the glossy screen, (graphics designers etc) however for convenience and fussyness you can get the matte screen if you want.

To make it matte Apple takes off the super glossy glass coating the screen, and then adds a matte diffusion layer to the screen.
 
It is a matte screen and doesn't have the glass that the glossy version has. What do you mean by stability? The previous 17" screen shut itself when held at a 45' angle if that's what you mean..

kastenbrust said:
To make it matte Apple takes of the super glossy glass coating the screen, and then adds a matte diffusion ayer to the screen.
Click to expand...

In other words, they order matte screens in.
 
Kilamite said:
In other words, they order matte screens in.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, theyre fairly disgusting im not sure why anyone would want one, especially with the loss of real colours and being left with washed out mattyness, however everyone has their personal opinion, i just think its rude Apple charge $50 extra for it.
 
kastenbrust said:
Pretty much, theyre fairly disgusting im not sure why anyone would want one, especially with the loss of real colours and being left with washed out mattyness, however everyone has their personal opinion, i just think its rude Apple charge $50 extra for it.
Click to expand...

I used the matte screen on the 15" MacBook Pro for two years and didn't find it disgusting - but the blacks were pretty poor, and because of that, I've actually come to prefer glossy (considering I hated my glossy screen at the start).

It is $50 extra the majority produced will be glossy. Whenever you want anything rare, gotta pay a few bucks extra.
 
kastenbrust said:
however everyone has their personal opinion, i just think its rude Apple charge $50 extra for it.
Click to expand...

thanks for your replies!
agreed! however a matte screen has not poor blacks, in fact it has more accurate blacks and whites respectively greytones. on the glossy screens blacks and whites get amplified so this nice colors are actually not there. thats the advantage of a matte screen it shows more true colors allthough they dont look so nice you can tell much better how it looks on different screens and medias. allthough i know true color correction is not possible on an notebook screen.....
with stability i meant.... what i heard the glass is making the screen very stable and callous. i often have to work in lets say impractical and harsh enviroments like mountains or beaches or just anywhere on the road....
regards
 
fil3333 said:
however a matte screen has not poor blacks, in fact it has more accurate blacks and whites respectively greytones. on the glossy screens blacks and whites get amplified so this nice colors are actually not there.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, both the matte and glossy can be calibrated to show relatively accurate colors. One isn't necessarily better than the other its just a personal preference.

thats the advantage of a matte screen it shows more true colors allthough they dont look so nice you can tell much better how it looks on different screens and medias.
Click to expand...
Discussing how the colors look on another display has nothing to do with the MBP's screen so it really doesn't answer which displays more accurate colors.

allthough i know true color correction is not possible on an notebook screen.....
Click to expand...
Exactly, so want true colors buy an external display.

The $50 is because its a disruption to their assembly line.
 
The matte display for colour accuracy.

Have you seen any professional grade monitor with a glossy finishes?
Like Eizo, NEC??

I do photography and a bit of graphic design. I have gone for the 17 Matte myself. Matte is what you will go for if you want color accuracy.

Angus
 
lscangus said:
The matte display for colour accuracy.

Have you seen any professional grade monitor with a glossy finishes?
Like Eizo, NEC??

I do photography and a bit of graphic design. I have gone for the 17 Matte myself. Matte is what you will go for if you want color accuracy.

Angus
Click to expand...

LOL I guess you're a kid and unaware that glossy CRTs are better than any LCD display for color accuracy.

PS. An external display is what you will go for if you want color accuracy, not a laptop screen.
 
fil3333 said:
thanks for your replies!
agreed! however a matte screen has not poor blacks, in fact it has more accurate blacks and whites respectively greytones. on the glossy screens blacks and whites get amplified so this nice colors are actually not there. thats the advantage of a matte screen it shows more true colors allthough they dont look so nice you can tell much better how it looks on different screens and medias. allthough i know true color correction is not possible on an notebook screen.....
with stability i meant.... what i heard the glass is making the screen very stable and callous. i often have to work in lets say impractical and harsh enviroments like mountains or beaches or just anywhere on the road....
regards
Click to expand...

It all depends on what you're going to be using the machine, both glossy and matte have their respective advantages. However, if you do print/prepress work - you have to use a matte display to calibrate the colours in accordance with the printers and the profiles that they use as accurately as possible. Glossy displays have over-saturated contrast due to the glossy coating on the displays, which make blacks appear darker. My Kuro display will beat any glossy display with regards to deep blacks/contrast and colour vibrance for instance, and it is a matte display. Same goes for Eizo displays.

If you're working at a desk more often than not, it's better to connect the MBP to an external display meaning you can keep the glossy for watching movies/viewing pictures etc.

Yes - they remove the glass covering and use a panel with anti-glare coatings. And no - it is not fuzzy and washed out - it just needs to be calibrated correctly.

And yes, I believe you will lose the additional strength that the glass provides. If you have time, wait till they appear in store and you can judge for yourself how much 'strength' has been lost.

Hope this helps - good luck with your purchase! :D
 
darngooddesign said:
Incorrect, both the matte and glossy can be calibrated to show relatively accurate colors. One isn't necessarily better than the other its just a personal preference.


Discussing how the colors look on another display has nothing to do with the MBP's screen so it really doesn't answer which displays more accurate colors.


Exactly, so want true colors buy an external display.

The $50 is because its a disruption to their assembly line.
Click to expand...

from my own experience i highly doubt that....

i work on an eizo in my studio so i know what you mean and believe it or not i need to upgrade my mbp because i want to be MOBILE. its pretty hard to carry around an eizo in your backpack :)
 
darngooddesign said:
LOL I guess you're a kid and unaware that glossy CRTs are better than any LCD display for color accuracy.

PS. An external display is what you will go for if you want color accuracy, not a laptop screen.
Click to expand...

Yes, but all but a few agencies have CRT displays anymore :p. I daren't have a 30" CRT display with it being so fat and heavy.

Eizo, and equivalent, are as good as you're going to get - and do rival that of CRT display accuracy now.
http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg301w/index.asp
 
darngooddesign said:
LOL I guess you're a kid and unaware that glossy CRTs are better than any LCD display for color accuracy.

PS. An external display is what you will go for if you want color accuracy, not a laptop screen.
Click to expand...

Not anymore now. With the new RGBLED Sony display.

23 inches 1920X1080 For about 20000USD. Is a matte.

Is easy to know whether you are in that field or not.

Angus
 
BTW has anybody closer information about this '60% greater color gamut'? how do they achieve this?
thanks
 
lscangus said:
From what SONY said, it is better, and has a more accurate reproduction in colour.
Click to expand...

Of course if the manufacture says it's better, it must be better, since after all, they are being honest and not wanting to push sales ;)
 
Anyone have any actual pictures of the 17" unibody with antiglare? I'm really curious to see what that looks like.

Thanks :).
 
kastenbrust said:
If getting accurate colours are important to you then you want the glossy screen, (graphics designers etc) however for convenience and fussyness you can get the matte screen if you want.

To make it matte Apple takes off the super glossy glass coating the screen, and then adds a matte diffusion layer to the screen.
Click to expand...

In terms of colours translating to print, matte screens are more accurate.
 
Kilamite said:
Of course if the manufacture says it's better, it must be better, since after all, they are being honest and not wanting to push sales ;)
Click to expand...

Not exactly true when their target customers are not normal consumers on the market. when you are preparing to spend more than 20000 USD in a 23 inches display, they know what they are talking about.
 
winninganthem said:
Anyone have any actual pictures of the 17" unibody with antiglare? I'm really curious to see what that looks like.

Thanks :).
Click to expand...

here is a picture....
 

Attachments

  • features17-gallery-front2-20090108.jpg
    features17-gallery-front2-20090108.jpg
    61.2 KB · Views: 174
This discussion is about as valuable as eavesdropping on the residents of a home for the aged, arguing about whether their photos of their grandchildren look better in matte or gloss prints.

"Ooh Gertie, what a beautiful picture of little Jimmy. Of course, it would have looked better with a glossy photo. I get all my photos done in glossy. Look at this one of my niece Rosemary."

"She looks beautiful Minnie, but my son Sid tells me the non-glossy photos are more professional and he works for a big advertising agency so he knows best."

"Oh, I didn't know that Gertie. If Sid says that, I'll get non-glossy in future."
 
I do not intend to start a new flame here on matte vs. glassy. But I want to ask you a question: why do you say the black is better on the glossy?

On a glossy/glassy screen the black and the dark colors in general are usable only in low light environments. In all the other cases reflexes on the dark patches are very annoying. On this unibody MBP I had to change the background (I had been using for years) because it made me see only my face.

In fact, it may sound strange, but I prefer matte for the blacks, because I prefer dark desktop images and windows backgrounds.

It is true that the dark colors appear better on glossy. But they influences more the micro-contrast, giving a more satisfying global contrast. They are worse if you consider wide regions.

thistle

PS. CRTs with glass were much less reflective than current glossy notebooks and glassy macbooks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back