Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's amazing that something so common for so long is forgotten so quickly. Many glass CRTs had an anti-glare coating. This really isn't new at all...at least outside of the Mac world.

Find a way? Look at every TV set on Earth none of them have shiny screens. No one would buy one.

Look at quality photographic filters that have been made over the last 40 or so years. These are all glass and the best ones reflect no light. The way to test a filter is to stand with your back to a bright light source like a window in daylight or a lamp. Then use the filter as a mirror and see if you can see the light's reflection in the glass. This would be an easy thing to see using any current glass faced Apple product but not with glass that has a quality anti reflective coating. Some coating are very good and are made with multiple layers but even the cheaper single layer kind is hugely better then plain glass. This is NOT new tech. Anti-reflective coating for glass was invented in the 1930's and today it is used in eyeglasses, camera optics, TV sets and even window glass, but not on Apple iMacs.

This explains it well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating



Yes, and I did have a Dell CRT like that, but honestly it didn't do much to reduce glare. It was nothing like a plastic anti-glare screen you get on typical laptops. Also, the anti-glare coating on my CRT rubbed off because I cleaned it a bit too aggressively with a microfiber cloth, so I never saw that as a good idea…

Good coatings are indeed expensive, and an iMac screen is huge. A good camera lens has far less surface, and the coating still makes up a considerable portion of the price. I don't know too much about this, but I'm guessing we'd see more use of anti-reflective coating on glass screens instead of cheap plastic screens to fight glare if it was cheaper.

This is why I'm curious: why can't they just make the glass surface matte, like the glass trackpads? If you put it close enough to the LCD (maybe even fill the space in between with a substance, like they do with the iPhone), it would not cause blurring/diffusion, but it would still reduce reflections a lot. It would surely be cheaper than a high-quality coating?
 
Last edited:
I've said my opinion. But, hey, you live in Maryland and so do I, so if you are interested in a long-winded detailed response on something so mundane, you're welcome to come over and we can talk about it.

Cool. There's an amazing Peruvian Chicken place right outside Goddard in Greenbelt - want to meet for lunch?

Here's my 1,000 words; So I don't seem like a random person asking random/mundane questions, let me show exactly what I am asking:

oj4h05.jpg

http://tinypic.com/r/oj4h05/5

You were a framer so you recognize this instantly. Two identical prints of the last Space Shuttle launch, one with "regular" glass and one with anti-reflection glass. The one with the astronaut's signatures is the Museum Glass. (Duh.)

Point: I am at a loss to articulate any advantage visually against the anti-reflection material. You seem to know something I don't; Can you not articulate it with brevity? Enquiring minds would like to know.

Ummmmmmm... Peruvian chick-eeeeeen...
 
why do you think a television isnt as large as a computer monitor?

Assuming you are referring to the reflectiveness of large screen televisions...

I have a 51" Samsung 5 series 3D plasma, that is as reflective as my 4 year old iMac. I just keep the room I use it in dark. If there is any anti-glare coating on my TV, I see no evidence of it.
 
Find a way? Look at every TV set on Earth none of them have shiny screens. No one would buy one.

Actually one of the knocks on Plasma screes are their reflective natures compared to LCD/LEDs. Plasmas have better viewing angles, contast ratios and screen refresh rates than LCD/LEDs but at a cost of requiring a relatively dark room to counter the reflectiveness of the screen.
 
Cool. There's an amazing Peruvian Chicken place right outside Goddard in Greenbelt - want to meet for lunch?

Here's my 1,000 words; So I don't seem like a random person asking random/mundane questions, let me show exactly what I am asking:


You were a framer so you recognize this instantly. Two identical prints of the last Space Shuttle launch, one with "regular" glass and one with anti-reflection glass. The one with the astronaut's signatures is the Museum Glass. (Duh.)

Point: I am at a loss to articulate any advantage visually against the anti-reflection material. You seem to know something I don't; Can you not articulate it with brevity? Enquiring minds would like to know.

Ummmmmmm... Peruvian chick-eeeeeen...

I already gave you my answer. It was about personal preference, no real "advantage" to prove to you. (BTW- the preservation glass, which is often branded Masterpiece glass in the framing industry, still gets some reflections. The only glass that does not is the anti-glare glass which gives a frosted appearance unless the artwork is flush against the glass and even then it distorts the lines somewhat and softens. Of course, the latter could not be used in this instance, so you will have some reflections either way) If you cannot read a few sentences without comprehension, I apologize. Oh, and I'd rather meet at Chap's Pit Beef on Route 40.
 
Actually one of the knocks on Plasma screes are their reflective natures compared to LCD/LEDs. Plasmas have better viewing angles, contast ratios and screen refresh rates than LCD/LEDs but at a cost of requiring a relatively dark room to counter the reflectiveness of the screen.

That is mostly due to brightness. LCD (LED or CCFL) is brighter than Plasma or OLED.
 
Revenge is a dish best served cold.

MUAH-HA !!!

Count this as a positive on the non-reflective glass.

But, enough with the nice-nice.

Now we need a petition to have ONLY non-reflective glass allowed
for the next eight years :D

We can hear from the other side of the choir then...

My last iMac was the original G4 flatscreen which, as I recall well, was
hocked, by the Steve, as wonderful BECAUSE IT HAD NO GLARE .

*DING DONG DING DONG DING DONG*

SANCTUARY! SANCTUARY! SANCTUARY!

The Rear-View iMac is DEAD !!! LONG LIVE THE NRG iMac !!!!:p

SANCTUARY! SANCTUARY! SANCTUARY!
 
Last edited:
That is mostly due to brightness. LCD (LED or CCFL) is brighter than Plasma or OLED.

AND they have matte plastic screens instead of clear glass. Personally, at home, I'll take the better picture quality of plasma/Apple screens, as I can control my environment at home.

At work, however...



As an asside, the screen on my 4 year old iMac is by far the best I have ever seen and my mom's new iMac is every bit as good. And I've seen a lot of screens over the years. I also note that Apple's notebook screens are also superior to all others, especially when it comes to viewing angle.
 
I feel like a right freak of nature - am I the only person here happy with my iMac? I'm happy with the performance, reliability, build quality and all the features - does that make me a bit of an oddity on this website?

Me too, brother.

----------

I would not consider it "normal usage" if people touch the screen on every computer they see. Maybe the exhibited screens in a store, but in a working environment? Maybe an attached sign would help, reading "This is NOT a touchscreen!"...

Agreed. I have cleaned my screen only once in 4 years. Why touch it in the first place.
 
AND they have matte plastic screens instead of clear glass. Personally, at home, I'll take the better picture quality of plasma/Apple screens, as I can control my environment at home.

At work, however...



As an asside, the screen on my 4 year old iMac is by far the best I have ever seen and my mom's new iMac is every bit as good. And I've seen a lot of screens over the years. I also note that Apple's notebook screens are also superior to all others, especially when it comes to viewing angle.

True, though Samsung and Panasonic have non-reflective screens that do try to diffuse glare. I notice that my PS Vita with its plastic screen isn't super reflective, but is very hard to see in direct sunlight. The display just isn't bright enough...
 
I already gave you my answer. It was about personal preference, no real "advantage" to prove to you. (BTW- the preservation glass, which is often branded Masterpiece glass in the framing industry, still gets some reflections. The only glass that does not is the anti-glare glass which gives a frosted appearance unless the artwork is flush against the glass and even then it distorts the lines somewhat and softens. Of course, the latter could not be used in this instance, so you will have some reflections either way) If you cannot read a few sentences without comprehension, I apologize. Oh, and I'd rather meet at Chap's Pit Beef on Route 40.

OK, if you don't want to share with the class...

I (like everyone) have a lot of personal preferences, and no trouble expressing my personal reasons behind them to anyone who asks. I don't express my preferences if I'm not willing to discuss the reasons in polite company.

Not sure why you brought up the Anti-glare ("frosted") glass - neither print in my image is using it. Anti-glare is the only one w/o *specular* reflections; it's reflections are diffuse, in about a 30° cone. Yes, Anti-reflective glass still has some specular reflection, as I believe I said. The small reflection that remains has a color cast if it's a broadband-visible coating. Some of the coatings I specify in my work can have "zero" (visually-impreceptible) reflections, but only for a discrete narrowband.

Chaps is a bit out of the way for me, I'll letchaknow if I'm going to be up that way. Maybe have a MR meet up...
 
OK, if you don't want to share with the class...

I (like everyone) have a lot of personal preferences, and no trouble expressing my personal reasons behind them to anyone who asks. I don't express my preferences if I'm not willing to discuss the reasons in polite company.

Not sure why you brought up the Anti-glare ("frosted") glass - neither print in my image is using it. Anti-glare is the only one w/o *specular* reflections; it's reflections are diffuse, in about a 30° cone. Yes, Anti-reflective glass still has some specular reflection, as I believe I said. The small reflection that remains has a color cast if it's a broadband-visible coating. Some of the coatings I specify in my work can have "zero" (visually-impreceptible) reflections, but only for a discrete narrowband.

Chaps is a bit out of the way for me, I'll letchaknow if I'm going to be up that way. Maybe have a MR meet up...

You are too much. I don't have to explain my preferences to you. But, here, so this conversation will end, "YOU WIN" - hope that's satisfactory.
 
Yaaaaaaaaaawn! :D

And you walk away with the Irony Award. Never said you *had* to do anything. This all started with you telling what Apple *should* do... based on your preferences.
 
Thanks for the photo comparison, I was hoping to "see" what the difference was. Plus I would hate/ not guess that Apple would go back in time to crappy Matte. But anti glare glass, museum glass like coating would be awesome. best of both worlds, sure hope this pans out




Cool. There's an amazing Peruvian Chicken place right outside Goddard in Greenbelt - want to meet for lunch?

Here's my 1,000 words; So I don't seem like a random person asking random/mundane questions, let me show exactly what I am asking:


You were a framer so you recognize this instantly. Two identical prints of the last Space Shuttle launch, one with "regular" glass and one with anti-reflection glass. The one with the astronaut's signatures is the Museum Glass. (Duh.)

Point: I am at a loss to articulate any advantage visually against the anti-reflection material. You seem to know something I don't; Can you not articulate it with brevity? Enquiring minds would like to know.

Ummmmmmm... Peruvian chick-eeeeeen...
 
Thanks for the photo comparison, I was hoping to "see" what the difference was. Plus I would hate/ not guess that Apple would go back in time to crappy Matte. But anti glare glass, museum glass like coating would be awesome. best of both worlds, sure hope this pans out

My pleasure, Sir! Yes, the best of glossy and way better than Matte!
 
Thanks for the photo comparison, I was hoping to "see" what the difference was. Plus I would hate/ not guess that Apple would go back in time to crappy Matte. But anti glare glass, museum glass like coating would be awesome. best of both worlds, sure hope this pans out

The "crappy matte" isn't back in time when your current macs work like mirrors and are giving people headaches. Glass panels on the imacs have been way crappier than good quality matte monitors.
 
The "crappy matte" isn't back in time when your current macs work like mirrors and are giving people headaches. Glass panels on the imacs have been way crappier than good quality matte monitors.

I think that headaches and eyestrain attributed to Apple displays are due to the LED backlighting and not the display reflections.
 
I think that headaches and eyestrain attributed to Apple displays are due to the LED backlighting and not the display reflections.

I wouldn't think so, led backlighting is also there in macbook airs and no one complains about them.
 
I wouldn't think so, led backlighting is also there in macbook airs and no one complains about them.

I developed terrible eyestrain after using an 11" MBA for 1.5 hours. I got a headache in about fifteen minutes. It's the first time I had a problem with a computer display in over 15 years.

If you require further evidence that people are having problems using MacBook Airs, here is a thread on the Apple forum with hundreds of posts, including experiences using MBAs:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1677617?start=0&tstart=0
 
I developed terrible eyestrain after using an 11" MBA for 1.5 hours. I got a headache in about fifteen minutes. It's the first time I had a problem with a computer display in over 15 years.

If you require further evidence that people are having problems using MacBook Airs, here is a thread on the Apple forum with hundreds of posts, including experiences using MBAs:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1677617?start=0&tstart=0

The airs, esp. The small one with one of apples highest res, may give headaches because of the increasingly reduced font size and the ever increasing resolution. But all apple's line up is now led backlit, of you are not having problems with other macs just airs then your problem isn't led. In any case led or no led glass overlays that are not fused to the screen and increase reflections to such a high extent have received much more, incomparably more, user dissatisfaction and even direct discouragement from usage from ergonomics experts, even institutions such as universities.

Led backlit which is now almost ubiquitous in computer display tech with few models opting for no led, and almost none in laptops, may be a problem to a very small % of users, and I heard about this too. But to attribute the iMacs problem to led and not to the almost unbearable to some untreated glass mirrorlike reflections is missing the forest for the tree.:) Simply put apple's choice to use untreated glass over the last few years on the iMac -when even crts had some film like treatment to reduce reflections- and to make matters worse keep a distance between that and the screen -unlike crts- has been an ergonomics and usability nightmare. When the new models come out if one puts an old iMac next to a new one the difference will be so great most people will wonder how on earth they d been using the mirror like iMac so long.
 
Last edited:
From what you have written I assume that you did not bother to read many of the posts at the link that I provided. There is a lot of information on the Internet about LED backlight causing problems for some people. The possible causes include the color of the LEDs used in a display and the manner in which display brightness is handled. Some displays are more problematic than others.

The LED backlit display in my early 2011 13" MBP also caused me problems and it is decidedly not a high resolution LCD...

I'm sticking with high-quality CCFL backlit displays for my external monitors.

Granted, high resolution displays aren't for everyone. But the LED issue is not a fantasy; it's ironic that Apple current portable displays seem to be leading the pack when it comes to user-reported problems.
 
From what you have written I assume that you did not bother to read many of the posts at the link that I provided. There is a lot of information on the Internet about LED backlight causing problems for some people. The possible causes include the color of the LEDs used in a display and the manner in which display brightness is handled. Some displays are more problematic than others.

The LED backlit display in my early 2011 13" MBP also caused me problems and it is decidedly not a high resolution LCD...

I'm sticking with high-quality CCFL backlit displays for my external monitors.

Granted, high resolution displays aren't for everyone. But the LED issue is not a fantasy; it's ironic that Apple current portable displays seem to be leading the pack when it comes to user-reported problems.

There is indeed an issue with led backlits for some people, I have noted it too on support forums and hardware forums discussing display tech, and I said as much. I never said it was a fantasy, and I hope that your current set up is not giving you any issues with your eyesight and usability as I am keenly aware of this because I too have sensitivities to the quality of displays. Having said that I am quite sure reflections from the glass are not only a real issue as well, but a far more pronounced one affecting way more people, that's all.
 
blow45, me thinks that both of us posted with good intentions but that our points might be easily misconstrued. For my part, I made a mistake by implying that eyestrain attributed to using an iMac is due solely to the LED backlighting. I should have written that eyestrain may be due to the LED backlighting or the high reflective display, or both. (I also suspect that high-resolution displays are problematic for some people, but it doesn't seem to be as much of a problem.)

Sensitivity to LED backlighting and reflective displays is very subjective and it appears that sufferers are in the minority. But there is no way of knowing how prevalent it is because nobody is keeping track. I also think that there may be some people who are affected and who don't consider their computers as contributing to their symptoms. I have read more than a few posts where people spent time and money on doctors because they just assumed that they had a problem, not their computer display. Others just learn to live with it.

From my experience and what I have read, the LED backlight problem varies in severity depending on the Mac in question. The date of manufacture also matters, since online eyestrain-related complaints about portable Mac displays began showing up after the introduction of the first unibody MacBook Pro in late 2008.

I owned an early 2008 15" MBP with a matte display for over three years. It was my first LED display and it never caused me a lick of eyestrain. In fact, I purchased it mainly for its display after Apple discontinued offering matte displays in the MBP line.

The early 2011 13" MBP that replaced it caused me problems at first but it wasn't as bad as the MBA. Whether that is because the MBA is also high-res I cannot say but the MBA and MBP do utilize different LCDs. I was able to mitigate much of the problem by applying calibration settings suggested in that Apple forum link, reducing the brightness using the program Shades and limiting the amount of time that I spend staring at the display, especially when it is showing something bright like a white Web page.

I attribute the problem to the LED backlighting because of how the symptoms manifested and my response to the display even before I spent any time actually doing any detail work. Enlarging fonts didn't improve things. It isn't just the brightness of the display that is bothersome; it's the quality of the light itself.

I've worked on a number of glassy LED iMacs, sometimes using the display 3-4 hours without a break. I haven't experienced any appreciable eyestrain but in every case the iMacs were situated in rooms where there was no overhead lighting or windows causing reflections. I wore dark clothing so my reflection was greatly diminished.

I prefer a matte display because reflections are not a problem and I prefer the rendering of images. I do image editing and glassy displays are too saturated and lacking of nuance for my taste.

I won't be replacing my 2006 24" iMac with another even if Apple brings back a decent anti-glare display. Why? Because iMacs lack basic ergonomic adjustments. The only adjustment is a few degrees of tilt... That's helpful when dealing with annoying reflections of overhead lighting, but it isn't enough. At the very least it should be possible to easily adjust the height of an iMac. The G4 iMac may have looked funny, but it was an ergonomic masterpiece.

Since December I have been using an NEC 2490WUXi2 display connected to a 13" MBP. The colors are gorgeous, it is very accurate with basic calibration and the height can be adjusted with one hand. And yet its stand is more sturdy than an iMac. It also has a warranty that is a year longer than extended Applecare and you don't have to pay extra for it.

Apple has some catching-up to do, but I won't be holding my breath... :rolleyes:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.