ASD - The Nano Texture question

[learjet]

I'm facing a dilemma in choosing between the Nano Texture and the glossy variant of the Apple Studio Display. Throughout my life, I've predominantly used matte displays, as they are commonly found in the Windows ecosystem. Currently, I'm using the LG 27UL500-W 4K display.

Regarding "legacy" matte finishes like my LG display's, as these aren't glass but rather a treated plastic surface to minimize reflections, do they align more closely with the Nano Texture or the glossy finish of the Apple Studio Display?

Is the Nano Texture surface an even more pronounced "matte" finish? I've come across information suggesting that it might potentially result in a blurred perception of images...

 

[casperes1996]

If you don’t need anti reflectivity, glossy screens have generally always given better images. Nano texture is a better compromise than traditional matte panels allowing more of the quality of a glossy panel with some of the anti reflectivity benefits of matte displays

 

[darkus]

Nano is something different then you are used to.

I too exclusively use matte screens (except laptops). Matte is just a plastic finish that you don’t even notice and get used to. At least in my case.thats because there is no real air gap between the lcd panel and the matte cover.

Nano is glass like a glossy display except it doesn’t reflect (millions of little etches made in the glass create a diffusion screen).

It really works. It has no real reflectivity and to my eyes has vibrance somewhere inbetween a gloss and matte display. I’d say from a few feet away you couldn’t tell the difference between nano and gloss. It’s when you are at actual usable distances where the difference come to “light”

The first time I saw nano I was really put off because I was in an Apple Store and I compared it side by side to a gloss version. And yes in that context it was noticably more blurry, especially for text.

But if you took your matte and put it side by side to a glossy Apple display inside a super well light Apple Store it would also look really blurry, even though you might not think of your screen as blurry.

After a day of heavy use in my own computer (my eyes were really used to my screen) I went back and told myself I would go straight to the nano and ignore the other screens. When I did that to my surprise the screen looked awesome. It was sharper than my screen, more vibrant, etc. I also forced myself to just use the screen as I would at home, ie. Consume the actual content on display and not sit there and nitpick each pixel to find the blurry mess people were talking about. Really remarkable screen in my opinion. Best of both worlds.

So in my own opinion , yes it’s noticeable more blurry then glass versions and looks ugly on direct comparison. But if you are a matte lover then it might be a differ t story, in which case you might actually find it sharper and more vibrant. In my case I fell in love!

I would highly suggest seeing it in person if possible.

The other option is the Samsung s9. It’s true matte and similar resolution . I’ve yet to see one and see if it’s all hype (often the case in forums), but I’m going to try to find one on display after the holidays

 

[learjet]

Nano is something different then you are used to.

I too exclusively use matte screens (except laptops). Matte is just a plastic finish that you don’t even notice and get used to. At least in my case.thats because there is no real air gap between the lcd panel and the matte cover.

Nano is glass like a glossy display except it doesn’t reflect (millions of little etches made in the glass create a diffusion screen).

It really works. It has no real reflectivity and to my eyes has vibrance somewhere inbetween a gloss and matte display. I’d say from a few feet away you couldn’t tell the difference between nano and gloss. It’s when you are at actual usable distances where the difference come to “light”

The first time I saw nano I was really put off because I was in an Apple Store and I compared it side by side to a gloss version. And yes in that context it was noticably more blurry, especially for text.

But if you took your matte and put it side by side to a glossy Apple display inside a super well light Apple Store it would also look really blurry, even though you might not think of your screen as blurry.

After a day of heavy use in my own computer (my eyes were really used to my screen) I went back and told myself I would go straight to the nano and ignore the other screens. When I did that to my surprise the screen looked awesome. It was sharper than my screen, more vibrant, etc. I also forced myself to just use the screen as I would at home, ie. Consume the actual content on display and not sit there and nitpick each pixel to find the blurry mess people were talking about. Really remarkable screen in my opinion. Best of both worlds.

So in my own opinion , yes it’s noticeable more blurry then glass versions and looks ugly on direct comparison. But if you are a matte lover then it might be a differ t story, in which case you might actually find it sharper and more vibrant. In my case I fell in love!

I would highly suggest seeing it in person if possible.

The other option is the Samsung s9. It’s true matte and similar resolution . I’ve yet to see one and see if it’s all hype (often the case in forums), but I’m going to try to find one on display after the holidays

So in terms of a „ranking“, would you agree to the following:
1. Glossy - most reflections, but pristine image fidelity.
2. Nano Texture - almost no reflections, very good fidelity, most technologically awesome, best „compromise“, could be perceived slightly hazy (when directly compared to glossy or when “pixel counting”)
3. Classic (plastic) matte - like nano texture, but worse in almost any regard.

So, coming from a legacy matte context and without being used to glossy displays, I think I’ll jump straight to Nano Texture? Since Nano Texture does cost almost the same as glossy, at least in my country…

 

[darkus]

So in terms of a „ranking“, would you agree to the following:
1. Glossy - most reflections, but pristine image fidelity.
2. Nano Texture - almost no reflections, very good fidelity, most technologically awesome, best „compromise“, could be perceived slightly hazy (when directly compared to glossy or when “pixel counting”)
3. Classic (plastic) matte - like nano texture, but worse in almost any regard.

So, coming from a legacy matte context and without being used to glossy displays, I think I’ll jump straight to Nano Texture? Since Nano Texture does cost almost the same as glossy, at least in my country…

I wish it were so simple, but I don't think this is a situation where a rank can be created.
1. True
2. True
3. Not true. Some matte are certainly sharper then Nano, but many are equivalent. This is because the Studio display HAS an air/panel gap between the surface of the screen and the actual LCD panel. I hate air/panel gaps because they create an inherent distortion your eye has to see "through". In that sense many high end matte screens can be superior

Instead of a rank I would think of it as a feature set which you select as many features as fit your situation. Doing a head to head between two monitors in this situation doesn't exactly work IMO. If for example, one was clearly superior to the other why would Apple bother selling two variants? The closest analogy in this situation I can think of is why an iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max exist or why does the Canon R5 and R5c exist (in case you are into cameras). The one that is superior is the one that fits your particular set of requirements.

The way I would look at it is:
A) I want 5k resolution at ~27" display on a Mac
B) Therefore my options are Studio display Gloss, Studio display Nano, Samsung S9, LG Ultrafine
C) Glare bothers me, therefore I narrow my options to: Studio display Nano, Samsung S9, LG Ultrafine
D, i) I am most cost conscious, therefore I want Samsung
D, ii) I find the blur of the Nano equivalent to the LG and I want to stay in Apple eco system therefore I want Studio Display Nano
D, iii) etc..

Even if you said you are only between Nano and non-nano (bad proposition IMO because I believe many pure matte screens are just as sharp if not more so), to me it comes down to if you value brighter and more vibrant colors or you value anti-glare. The negatives of each (glare vs blurriness) are an immutable trait secondary to the basic question.

I think the point of my original post is that you will find alot of people making posts like "its blurry it sucks" as if its a 0 sum game and there is only one champion. My point was that it iss not tre. For my needs, absolute bright colors are not on my list of needs. I need true color fidelity, homogeneous screen quality, text and colors that are easy on the eyes for a long period of time. In that sense the Nano-tex Studio knocks it out of the park, given the lighting I work in and of course my particular pair of eyes.

Yes the nano is more blurry then the glossy, but it is not blurry by any stretch of the imagination. Head to head comparison of the two in a store will only highlight the difference in blurriness because apple stores are super well light and the backgrounds and display wallpapers are super bright colors where reflection become a non factor and you typically look at the monitor for what, 5 minutes? None of which is not true to real world monitor usage where as above there are just so many more factors.

IMO I find this decision to be to expensive on your wallet and more importantly eyes, so to get past step D, you should go see all of them in person. Im planning to do exactly that later in the week. I found an area where the Samsung, LG and Apple are up on display each within 5 min walking distance of each other. I plan to go to each one and just use them for a solid 30 mins back to back and then see which I prefer. If that's possible for you, I would suggest the same, since there is no superior option, ignore all the blogs and YouTube reviews, its all clickbait if not outright paid advertising.

 

[splifingate]

I plan to go to each one and just use them for a solid 30 mins back to back and then see which I prefer. If that's possible for you, I would suggest the same, since there is no superior option, ignore all the blogs and YouTube reviews, its all clickbait if not outright paid advertising.

Thank you.

 

[learjet]

How is the Nano Texture ASD compared to the Samsung S9 or the LG Ultrafine, in terms of a compromise between image fidelity and suppressing reflections? Better/worse/different?