Bringing the Matte screen back.

Discussion in 'iMac' started by WardC, Sep 5, 2008.

  1. WardC macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #1
    Anybody feel that way? That matte should at least be an option. I think the glossy screens are bright and crisp, but there's something about matte and the feel of the pixels with a matte that can't be beat.

    Compare the MacBook (glossy) to a matte MacBook Pro and that argument is easy to see.
     
  2. voxnj macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Location:
    Dark Side of the Moon
  3. WardC thread starter macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #3
    It's called "having an eye for the pixel" and knowing what active matrix screens were always designed to be like. Matte is not always about anti-glare, it's about the user feel and UI of the whole system when using the display. I think Glossy screens add a harsh aspect to it. The pixel pitch is better presented "the indiv. pixels" look nicer and are more accurate to what the image would look like on a CRT -- on a matte based LCD active matrix display.

    not glossy.
     
  4. benthewraith macrumors 68040

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #4
    Matte/Glossy is an option on the Macbook Pros...
     
  5. Willis macrumors 68020

    Willis

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    What feels like the middle of nowhere
    #5
    An option only on pro machines..

    I don't personally think Apple should have glossy screens in both of their consumer lines. At least keep an option where possible.

    I prefer matte screens a damn sight more than glossy, but I never really encounter that many issues with them. It's just personal preference.
     
  6. gehrbox macrumors 65816

    gehrbox

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Location:
    Charleston,SC
    #6
    I think Apple should provide the choice as either a free or extra cost option.
     
  7. ishopukisfake macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    #7
    I avoided buying the new imac because it was so glossy, I think it would be really distracting for doing work on screen for long periods of time. I find matte much easier on the eyes and you don't have subtle reflections distracting you subconsciously all the time.

    In my view apple should definitely review the decision to make them glossy and return to matte, then I would possibly buy one again, I still use my old matte imac G5 and the screen is beautiful.
     
  8. brand macrumors 601

    brand

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
  9. RealaT macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    #9
    I have a MacBook Pro with a matte screen, and an iMac with a glossy screen.

    I can definitely tell the difference between the two, but I honestly couldn't choose one over the other as they are both fantastic screens
     
  10. WardC thread starter macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #10
    agreed. They really are. But there is a distict difference in an older (white) iMac with the matte screen, and a newer one with a glossy. I believe the newer ones are much brighter, very crisp and sharp...but I think the matte screens are better for working with graphics (graphics editing) and they are easier on the eye.
     
  11. benoitgphoto macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    #11
    Partially agree...


    In high lit rooms, the Imac glossy screen is pretty hard on the eyes because of the reflections and in that aspect, the matte is much better. However and it looks like an industry trend, there are more and more glossy screens on the market...which is bad I think but perhaps Steve was right last year when he said that consumers want glossy screens...

    I'm an amateur photographer and I just bought a 24'' Imac (glossy) and my workstation is in the basement where reflections are not a problem. After calibration with ColorEyes Display Pro, I brought down the brightness to 105 cd/m2 which is very good. The Delta E of my calibration is 0.35 which IMO is very good too... In my color managed workflow, the screen matches very well my prints out of my Epson R1900 printer so as far as color accuracy...I think the Imac is pretty good and all that fuss about that is exaggerated (considering you know how to calibrate the screen). Also, I clearly remember that the last generation white Imac (24'') was very bright too...So in my case, the screen now is not too bright and the color accuracy looks pretty good.

    However, if you need a screen for pre-press pro work and you need to present color proofs to customers for the printing industry...it might not be the best choice but for amateur to advanced and pro photography, I think the 24''Imac glossy can suit the needs of more than 95% of people and is not a bad choice.

    Ben
    Share the knowledge
    Visit me at www.benoitgl.smugmug.com
     
  12. The Hammer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #12
    Take the glossy outside and the glare will make you choose the matte.
     
  13. WardC thread starter macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #13
    I am just hoping they can bring back the true black and white active matrix panels as an option.

    a la PowerBook 170 / Macintosh Portable / Duo 250 & 280 / PowerBook 540

    those kind of panels.
    (if you know what I mean)

    They are actually the best for outdoor use. Well I am kinda joking here but I miss the old feel of black and white active matrix. You turn off the backlight when you are outside.
     
  14. RealaT macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    #14
    Why would I want to take a 24" iMac outside? It wouldn't even work because there's nowhere to plug it in :p
     
  15. 204467 macrumors 6502a

    204467

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #15
    What is with people bringing this up as a reason to make the iMac's matte again? Who actually uses an iMac outside? And if you have that much light in your room, than you either need to move the computer or get some curtains for when you're using the computer.
     
  16. WardC thread starter macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #16
    Well...

    The iMac wasn't designed to be an outdoor luggable like the Mac Portable, agreed. It is heavier, and it's not really for using in your lap on on plane. agreed.

    But...speaking about matte vs glossy --- look at the high end Macs that make up the upper end of the Mac Spectrum. The ACDs are only matte...20-inch, 23-inch, 30-inch The MacBook Pro display most preferred by professionals is the matte. All pro-grade PowerBooks were ALWAYS matte displays. Glossy was introduced as a lower-cost option, and because some people think that a glossy produces brighter colors.

    Matte Active Matrix displays are still, and will always be the more preferred, creme-de-la-creme of displays. IMO Apple has cheapened the iMac and consumer MacBook by going glossy, but newschool consumer fanbase folks think glossy is the "way of the future" because it's basically what you are seeing on everything now (note: seeing on COMSUMER "cheap" stuff) not the upper end computer displays.

    ok, I think I make my statement about that.

    Also, I've used both. I own both. The glossy is bright, sharp, colorful, and pretty. It is BRIGHT and the lighting is even. It is also horrid on glare, it always seems like there is a clear sheet of plastic covering the REAL display. It is almost too sharp and doesn't have the warm even feel of a matte when working with video or motion graphics. Also, the MacBook glossy displays are horrible. They are not like the iMac displays, but rather dim and dull. and the glare is even worse. Matte is the closest thing you can get to a traditional CRT, but it's even better, the resolution is better, the refresh rate is better, and it's easier on the eye. The iMacs are probably brighter, sharper, more colorful now with glossy (*I give credit here) than when they had the former white-iMac matte screens. MacBooks would be better off with new bright matte screens. ok. enough
     
  17. The Hammer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #17
    MacBooks and MacBook Pro's were mentioned so that's what I was referring to, and were discussing screen types anyway.
     
  18. Thunderbird macrumors 6502a

    Thunderbird

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    #18
    I agree, WardC, I really hope apple decides to bring back the matte screen as an option. Even in a dark room, the reflections and not the glare, are a problem for me. The glossy screens do look vivid though. The colors have a nice saturation to them. I just find I can't look at the screen for too long.

    A matte option is the only thing holding me back from getting a current generation iMac.
     
  19. WardC thread starter macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #19

    Well, do not get me wrong. I think the current iMacs are awesome machines and the screens look beautiful and great. Maybe matte is not the best way at this point, but it should still be a consumer-option for the iMac if you want one, basically for people who would rather buy an iMac to have a matte screen than a Mac Pro and an ACD (which are only matte, made for upper-end). That said, come to think of it, it's not as big an issue with an iMac, but I think the MacBook (consumer b/w) models would be much much better with matte screens. The glossys turns out horrible on those models. Maybe something more like the PB G4 12" screen which was great, in my opinion.
     
  20. rogersmj macrumors 68020

    rogersmj

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    #20
    I have a MacBook Pro with a glossy screen. I don't mind it at all.

    I had an iMac with a glossy screen. I sold it because I hated the screen.

    In my case, I think it was a combination of not only the highly reflective glass on the iMac (which seemed to me to somehow be more reflective than the MBP), and the fact that Apple stuck the $#***iest quality screen I've ever seen in the aluminum iMac. Nasty color banding, horrible viewing angles...it was disgusting, especially compared to the gorgeous S-IPS screen in the white iMac and in my Cinema Display and Dell LCD.
     
  21. wingedturbo macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    #21
    what do you guys think of the air's screen? personally, i've never owned a glossy screen and was very angry when i saw every manufacturer of laptops drop the matte screens (other than apple), however; i've actually been fooled by them a couple of times. under the right lighting, they can look very deep and rich with no glare. everything just pops on them. they make matte's look boring. as i said, i've never owned one and suspect that with longer use, they might put added strain on the eyes and that the "boring" matte screens will be much more comfortable to work on with more natural images. i think the comparison is sort of like an slr vs. a point and shoot camera. one produces more natural images, and the other is an over-saturated, overly sharp image that pops. in regards to the air, i thought the screen was amazing but worry about strain and glare.
     
  22. WardC thread starter macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #22
    I think the whole key to it comes down to what brightness you are pumping out on a screen. A weak matte can look dull and boring, and a weak glossy can be absolutely horrible. But a bright glossy screen can be vibrant and rich, deep, and moving...also a good bright matte screen can do the same. It's when you have weak lamps, low cd/m^2 that everything just sucks.

    The old ACDs were 270 cd/m^2 but Apple upgraded the line in 2007 and replaced them with all super 400 cd/m^2 lamps. They are bright as day, and you can never run them at full bright beause they will burn your eyes out. Seriously.

    But I have issues with my rev.1 MacBook 1.83GHz display. I don't like the display. It's weak, not bright enough, and a bit wishy-washy. I would rather have seen a matte display on that unit, something clean and bright...and crisp.
     
  23. workerbee macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    #23
    I'd have bought 2 3Ghz 24" iMacs last week if it was not for the glossy screen. Now I'm wavering between getting an (overpriced) 1 CPU Mac Pro and a MacBook Air, or simply stay with my trusty MacBook Pro with 23" ACD as one and only machine.

    Opening Aperture (and, I guess, Lightroom even more so) on the iMac is not fun - I find the reflections in the dark screen area around the photos to be too distracting.
     
  24. Thunderbird macrumors 6502a

    Thunderbird

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    #24
    Yes, absolutely.

    I agree. 270 - 300 cd/m2 is more than adequate for brightness for almost any application. But 400 - 500 candelas is unviewable. Who on earth has the brightness set this high? I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind this design feature.

    Me too. If there's no matte option announced around MWSF 2009 for iMacs, I will have to get the most basic Mac Pro. I could possibly get a mini, but I need something more powerful.

    Yup. When the screen is mostly dark, it's almost mirror-like. I could shave by it :)
     

Share This Page