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

Glossy only MUST stop!

Europe calling

Europe calling

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 27, 2007
249
0
The Netherlands
I NEED A NEW LAPTOP BUT I DEFINITELY DON"T WANT A GLOSSY SCREEN!!! :mad:
Would the glossy/matte poll on this forum represent all professional users of Macbook Pro's? 70% preferring matte?
Can't we force Apple somehow into offering the matte screen BTO? :confused:
 
This thread is not about what someone prefers but about the fact that Apple is now denying people the option of choosing matte, which pisses me off!
 
Having it built into the screen would be nice, but can't you just use anti-glare films to achieve a matte display?
 
with ya

I'm with ya on this, I really don't like the fact that I don't have a choice. I was just about to buy this new MBP, but cannot now because of the glossy.

About a year ago, I bought a MB, and LOVED it, EXCEPT for the glossy screen, which caused me much eye straing and frustration (having to always reorient it) and I ultimatly got bells palsy.

It amazes me that apple is going this route, when these are some of the best, most powerful laptops in the world.
 
Europe calling said:
I NEED A NEW LAPTOP BUT I DEFINITELY DON"T WANT A GLOSSY SCREEN!!! :mad:
Would the glossy/matte poll on this forum represent all professional users of Macbook Pro's? 70% preferring matte?
Can't we force Apple somehow into offering the matte screen BTO? :confused:
Click to expand...

Its a glass covered screen. Have you ever seen a glass screen with a matte display behind it? It would still be shiny. If they went with matte it would have to be a complete glass-less redesign.

Maybe you should go to a store and see if its improved over the previous generation glossy displays. If it hasn't then your mind is made up. This wouldn't be near as annoying if this weren't about the 20th thread complaining about glossy only.
 
eidrunner247 said:
Am I the only one that likes the glossy?
Click to expand...

No, I also prefer glossy because it is more optically pure and so the images are just plain clearer. The matte introduces a layer of fuzz. Maybe this is a little helpful in some situations where you can't control the room lighting, but to me it's not worth the quality hit overall.

As for the matter of choice, I agree it is a real bummer. People should still have the option to choose. It probably would only add about 25 bucks to the price for Apple to offer a choice.
 
So basically you wanted the cheaper glass-less screen on the macbook. Just buy one of the screen films that will protect the screen and make it like a matte screen. It will cost you all of $20 bucks and everyone can start reading post that are actually productive.

If you don't want one don't buy it. The rest of us that like the design will. Send apple a comment on the website.

It makes sense that they are trying to make a common design theme between all of there products. It went form the iMac to the notebooks, and now the cinema displays. Its not like you didn't know it was coming.

What other high end notebooks give you the option?

Its much more cost productive to create one screen and for the people who don't like it just buy a screen protector.
 
Europe calling said:
I NEED A NEW LAPTOP BUT I DEFINITELY DON"T WANT A GLOSSY SCREEN!!! :mad:
Would the glossy/matte poll on this forum represent all professional users of Macbook Pro's? 70% preferring matte?
Can't we force Apple somehow into offering the matte screen BTO? :confused:
Click to expand...

THEN DO NOT BUY A MAC!!!
 
I would much rather have Apple focus their time and money on something more useful than a matte screen. :rolleyes: So many whiners, so little time.
 
detz said:
I would much rather have Apple focus their time and money on something more useful than a matte screen. :rolleyes: So many whiners, so little time.
Click to expand...

how much time does it take...?
they were already offering it!

probably took more time to arrange meetings and discuss removing the option...

and as there are so many people, as you acknowledge, we may have a point...
 
For all you NON Photographers and Video editors ou there let me clarify why we hatte glossy:

- The contrast is higher than it really is: you are not seeing the image as it really is.
- When we are on location there is more reflection, I dont want to build a tent around my computer.
- Unable to calibrate for "less contrast" we wont really know how our prints will look in the end... it becomes a guessing game.

Sam,
 
SamSchneeberger said:
For all you NON Photographers and Video editors ou there let me clarify why we hatte glossy:

- The contrast is higher than it really is: you are not seeing the image as it really is.
- When we are on location there is more reflection, I dont want to build a tent around my computer.
- Unable to calibrate for "less contrast" we wont really know how our prints will look in the end... it becomes a guessing game.

Sam,
Click to expand...

exactly!
people dont seem to get that its not the quality were concerned about but the reflection
 
SamSchneeberger said:
For all you NON Photographers and Video editors ou there let me clarify why we hatte glossy:

- The contrast is higher than it really is: you are not seeing the image as it really is.
- When we are on location there is more reflection, I dont want to build a tent around my computer.
- Unable to calibrate for "less contrast" we wont really know how our prints will look in the end... it becomes a guessing game.

Sam,
Click to expand...

I guess I'm surprised that someone would use an LCD for any kind of precision video/photo work anyways. Aren't you choosing between the lesser of two evils when going with either laptop design?

Secondly, as to your original question about 70% of users preferring matte screens: don't you think Apple keeps statistics on which models sell best, and then offer those?
 
SamSchneeberger said:
For all you NON Photographers and Video editors ou there let me clarify why we hatte glossy:

- The contrast is higher than it really is: you are not seeing the image as it really is.
- When we are on location there is more reflection, I dont want to build a tent around my computer.
- Unable to calibrate for "less contrast" we wont really know how our prints will look in the end... it becomes a guessing game.

Sam,
Click to expand...

Not to be an ass, but what did the photographers, video editors, and pre-press folks do for the 10+ years or so when glass CRTs were the only game in town? Yeah you'd need a hood to reduce reflection/glare, but to your other two points, either you can indeed deal with contrast issues just fine under glass, or the CRTs of yesteryear were able to be calibrated better than the current LED displays (which very well may be the case... I don't know).
 
Matte displays look washed out to my eyes and I’m not the only one who thinks this. If the contrast is higher on a glossy display, then why do blacks look more like true black than they do on a matte screen? Aren’t all LCD displays at this resolution (and lower) not capable of displaying millions of colors and have to use dithering anyway? A professional photographer’s colors would become misinterpreted on the screen regardless of matte/glossy in that case.
 
agbot said:
Not to be an ass, but what did the photographers, video editors, and pre-press folks do for the 10+ years or so when glass CRTs were the only game in town? Yeah you'd need a hood to reduce reflection/glare, but to your other two points, either you can indeed deal with contrast issues just fine under glass, or the CRTs of yesteryear were able to be calibrated better than the current LED displays (which very well may be the case... I don't know).
Click to expand...

Yup your correct about CRTs. CRTs are the mother of all screens. A lot of Pros still use CRTs because the contrast is SPOT ON. They will use them in Studios or rooms that hardly have any reflection.

Its more about contrast than anything else. On a Glossy LCD one image can be spot on the other can be absolut crap. You can't calibrate that. AND now imagine your printing a Bilboard or a Big ass $100 poster and the print doesn't turn out how you wanted it to be: OUCH. $100 Posters are commonly used.

But lets give it a 100mg chill pill, maybe the new LED Cinema displays might turn out to be good, we just need to wait for the first reviews. But if they turn out to be bad, well everyones going to move to Eizo screens that hasn't yet.
 
tivoboy said:
About a year ago, I bought a MB, and LOVED it, EXCEPT for the glossy screen, which caused me much eye straing and frustration (having to always reorient it) and I ultimatly got bells palsy.
Click to expand...

Bell's Palsy has nothing to do with your glossy screen. Sorry.
 
SamSchneeberger said:
For all you NON Photographers and Video editors ou there let me clarify why we hatte glossy:

- The contrast is higher than it really is: you are not seeing the image as it really is.
- When we are on location there is more reflection, I dont want to build a tent around my computer.
- Unable to calibrate for "less contrast" we wont really know how our prints will look in the end... it becomes a guessing game.

Sam,
Click to expand...

When doing all that "PRO" photo and video work, you shouldn't be doing it on a 15 inch laptop anyways, regardless of whether it's matte or glossy. I know my colleagues have connected their mbps to a matte 30-inch LG or NEC S-IPS display and worked from there... Matte or glossy, you're not going to get the color accuracy that you listed with a TN panel.

Yeah, you might argue that you sometimes might need to work on the fly, but then even if you DID have a matte 15- or 17-inch mbp, you'll end up with half the job that can be accomplished on a 24+ inch S-IPS monitor.
 
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