Are you suggesting reflections don't occur when the display is at a certain angle..? That is only true if there is one light source. You aren't taking into account multiple light sources.
Not exactly, no, that's not what I'm saying. It doesn't matter whether there is one light source or many. What matters is the angle of the light source and the angle of the viewer. If you adjust the screen to be perfectly square to your line of sight, there is a specific set of locations from which light can be an issue, and adjusting the display is only a matter of getting the light source out of those particular locations relative to the screen.
It truly is a matter of adjusting the angle of the notebook to be exactly plumb with your line of sight, rotating the base, and adjusting the notebook's distance by an inch or two. Once you know what you're doing, it only takes a moment, even in a corner office with two walls of windows.
There are a few environments where it's not possible to do so, just as there are some environments that have too much ambient light for a matte finish display, anti-glare or otherwise, to work. You have to choose which is best for you based on your work environment, as I've been saying all along.
With a wall of bright windows in my office, I personally find it easier to adjust my glossy machine than my matte one--which is simply not bright enough at any angle. Other people may not have to work in such intense ambient light, but might have a line of irregularly-positioned track lights that are hard to avoid. They'd personally be better served by a matte display.
I have and use both, and each has its strengths and weaknesses, and neither is inherently better or worse at anything performance-related solely because of its surface finish.
Working with the screen pointed 30 degrees down isn't a solution..
That would hardly be an ergonomically appropriate position.
You know this how, or is this in your world again. Theres a difference between saying and doing. "Top Notch" review sites dont usually calibrate the screen.
The links, with gamut comparisons to sRGB, are already in this thread. Rob Galbraith is a respected photographer who knows how to calibrate the screen, which is, in fact, the
point of his review.
If you're going to accuse him of not calibrating the screen, have at it, but be prepared to be confronted with your apparent refusal to read the posted reviews. You're arguing without knowledge and without apparent purpose to boot.
In this particular case, the information it contains is correct, and there are two academic papers also linked to confirm it. Or is MIT not good enough for you? Compared to your...nothing, it'll do fine. My general preference to avoid Wikipedia is well-known, but as a primer for novices, it'll do.
Yes I do, infact I was one of the top in my year 12 physics class. Light and waves being my second strongest.
Congratulations. That's not sufficient for this discussion--but it does indeed show that you know the basic formula for combined total reflection. Now if only you'd realize that total reflection requires a few more steps into optics and physics. The Fresnel equations seem to have been lost on you.
You just limit yourself to specular reflection being the only thing present. That and the normal doesnt need to be half way.
The discussion is about mirror-like properties of shiny screens. That is, by definition, specular reflection. Specular reflection, by definition, occurs at the half-angle.
Pros complain about what the properties of glass do to the image and the reflection cause the blacks to be whited out and the highlights over exaggerated.
The whole point of using glass is that it doesn't do
anything to the image, unlike both an anti-glare coating or a hypersaturation coating. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, because you're frankly unfamiliar with the issues, terminology, and technology of this subject.
The reflections don't cause
anything to be over-exaggerated on a glossy surface. You're referring to the effect of a matte display, which redirects some of the reflected light and interferes with transmission from the monitor itself. A glossy display shows surface reflections that
cover the image. Seeing the reflection is an obvious cue to reposition the display. A matte display may not offer any such indication of ambient light washing it out, but it too may need to be repositioned.
I didnt say "Specular Reflection" I said reflection.
And for at least the ninth time in this thread, combined total reflection is not an issue when dealing with mirror-like reflection. Stop trying to make it one.
General reflection theory provides absolutely no insight into the cause or management of specular reflections, i.e. the only ones that are bothersome on glossy displays.
I never did say that it wasnt specular reflection. I said that there is more than one aspect at work. You refuse to accept that.
No, in fact I am the only one who is discussing the entirety of the issues in displays. You're just throwing sand.
I never said Matte didnt interfere with the picture. Youre assuming again.
Allow me to quote you:
"The good thing about Matte is that it doesn't interfere with the picture." That statement is false, but you definitely said it.
It's motulist's post I'm replying to. I'll let it speak for itself.
Further calling of names will be reported to mods.
Further? One would first have to start. Feel free to report to the moderators. There is nothing for them to address in my posts. The same can't be said for a few others.
Notice how you've not actually provided any counterarguments, or even bothered to check on the review. You've not demonstrated any knowledge whatsoever of the optics of media coating, and you've certainly not presented a grasp on the needs or utility of true professionals. Now you're just turning to bogus threats to report me. When you can put together a rational, supported argument, this can continue.
A rational, supported argument does not involve trying to turn the discussion of the mirror-like properties of glossy displays into one of the index of refraction or how much total light is bounced off the surface, which for hopefully the last time, is of no particular use in this discussion.
