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

Glossy - simply awful

S

snowboarder

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 9, 2007
539
2,004
I know the subject has been beaten to death, but I just saw the MBP
for the first time. It is just awful! What have they been thinking?
The minimal angle of view change changes the colors completely
and the contrast is way too high for any serious color judgement.
MBP is the tool for every photographer and color artist right now,
I was able to calibrate mine the way it is almost perfectly matching my
"serious" Eizo monitor. It allows to work while on the field and often
my first color correction done on my MBP doesn't require any adjustments.
Now with the new one you can use as a mirror, but not for any serious work!
I'm really disappointed, I already ordered the previous model as my
backup, but I just hate if Apple is killing the matte display the way
the are killing the firewire port - it will be just the end of the perfect tool.
Why, tell me Steve, why???
 
With dozens of existing threads where this could have been posted, why start a new one? Why, tell me snowboarder, why??? :D
 
It's not glossy it's glass, and they haven't killed the firewire port because last time I checked it has a firewire 800?

Matte? Glossy? Glass? I personally feel there are minimal differences. All displays are hard to use in bright sunshine. I personally feel people just jump on the bandwagon. As has been said before, "proper professionals" use CRT's, CRT's use glass.
 
Red-red said:
It's not glossy it's glass,
Click to expand...
It's a glossy screen behind a slab of glass. So it's "doubly" glossy.

and they haven't killed the firewire port because last time I checked it has a firewire 800?
Click to expand...
They nixed the FW400 port, AND swapped the TI Firewire chipset for the agere, in effect nixing firewire altogether for a lot of us.


Matte? Glossy? Glass? I personally feel there are minimal differences. All displays are hard to use in bright sunshine. I personally feel people just jump on the bandwagon. As has been said before, "proper professionals" use CRT's, CRT's use glass.
Click to expand...
Wow, you certainly don't know any pros, nor do you have a clue about what one used to minimize glare when using CRTs, nor do you seem to recognise that very few CRT monitors are portable, let alone able to driven from a a small battery.
 
Again with this. I actually own the new Macbook Pro. (I'm not one of these people who are complaining without even trying it for longer than a few minutes.)
I had my concerns about the screen, but they are gone. In normal lighting there is no glare, and no noticeable reflections. The screen brightness really does knock out the reflectivity. I can switch between my new glossy 15" and my 17" matte MBP and not notice any difference. (aside from brightness of course :D)
Please let the glossy complaints simmer down please. It's a non-issue in my opinion.

Let the flames begin...
Just know I won't respond to them. I've said my piece.
 
Tosser said:
It's a glossy screen behind a slab of glass. So it's "doubly" glossy.
Click to expand...

I thought it's a piece of glass stuck straight on like the new imac? If it's not I apologise!

Tosser said:
They nixed the FW400 port, AND swapped the TI Firewire chipset for the agere, in effect nixing firewire altogether for a lot of us.
Click to expand...

But firewire still works doesn't it?

Tosser said:
Wow, you certainly don't know any pros, nor do you have a clue about what one used to minimize glare when using CRTs, nor do you seem to recognise that very few CRT monitors are portable, let alone able to driven from a a small battery.
Click to expand...

I'm no pro, I never said I was but using a laptop screen for proofing sounds distinctly unprofessional. The matte screens on the old MBP never impressed me all that much nor has any laptop screen for that matter. They are all fairly poor so I don't see what the fuss is about as a professional should surely use a external properly calibrated display anyway?

Using the g/f's £600 vaio that had a cheap glossy display removed my worries about it. It was just as useable in a bright light situation as any matte screen I have used and that wasn't even on full brightness.

I'm not saying your wrong or I'm right, that's just my opinion :).
 
The main problem with the Macbook Pro is that most of the so called pros are ugly and don't like to see themselves. LOL
 
yes, it sucks, yes it's glossy. yes, i'm upset.

But I think it's time we move on.

On another note, for those who can't tell the difference, there is especially when you're working on images, color tasks.
 
The reflection is terrible, but this is not the worst issue with
those screens. They are impossible to calibrate to any specs.
The angle of view is such that the colors change dramatically with
the slightest change. My matte display is much more forgiving
for the slight angle of view change. Also the difference in brightness
between the highest and just one step lower is huge!
The contrast is too high and there is no way to adjust it.
There is no detail in shadow area.
The are terrible and if anyone doesn't see the difference - I guess he's
a great Steve's customer.
I started another topic hoping that those morons are reading it
and they will change the terrible decision to go with glossy only...
One can hope. If not I wish there was some competition, Apple is starting
to act like Microsoft, full monopoly in OS X driven computers.
Somebody needs to step up and make some competitors.
 
snowboarder said:
I started another topic hoping that those morons are reading it
and they will change the terrible decision to go with glossy only...
Click to expand...
Apple is not basing their decisions on any comments made in this or any other forum. They're not sitting around reading your thread.
 
Red-red said:
I'm no pro, I never said I was but using a laptop screen for proofing sounds distinctly unprofessional.
Click to expand...

My MBP 2.4GHz LED can be calibrated a very accurate way.
I don't use it for the final colors, but I can see a pretty good representation
of the final colors straight in the filed. It's very good.
I know it's a 6-bit panel, but it's the best out there.
Now the new one is useless for any kind of color work.
 
snowboarder said:
The reflection is terrible, but this is not the worst issue with
those screens. They are impossible to calibrate to any specs.
The angle of view is such that the colors change dramatically with
the slightest change. My matte display is much more forgiving
for the slight angle of view change. Also the difference in brightness
between the highest and just one step lower is huge!
The contrast is too high and there is no way to adjust it.
There is no detail in shadow area.
The are terrible and if anyone doesn't see the difference - I guess he's
a great Steve's customer.
I started another topic hoping that those morons are reading it
and they will change the terrible decision to go with glossy only...
One can hope. If not I wish there was some competition, Apple is starting
to act like Microsoft, full monopoly in OS X driven computers.
Somebody needs to step up and make some competitors.
Click to expand...

the problem is that if Apple did decide to reinstate the matte screen option, I'm not sure how they are going to be able to do it considering their new line is all about glass.

You put a matte screen under a piece of glass, there ain't no difference.

Are they going to give up their glass look? I doubt it.

Unless they came up with a new separate line of notebooks catered to the professionals. But then they'll have to think of a separate name other than macbook pro lol
 
Snowboarder, your comparing it to the old MBP screen right? The same one that did everything you just said as well.

Again, comparing laptop screens is silly, they are all pants and shouldn't be used solely as a reference. As they change even from looking at the centre of the screen to the corner.

Now what I also think is apple will have some of the best designers, photographers, artists working for them. If it was such a big problem and it affected the use of the machine for those particular field so much they wouldn't have done it but the designers (again some of the top in their field) obviously thought it was a good move.

I also quite like the contrast a "glossy" screens gives, The blacks are blacker and the whites are whiter. Matte seems to make blacker duller and whites greyer. (cheap laptop matte screens)
 
Red-red said:
I thought it's a piece of glass stuck straight on like the new imac? If it's not I apologise!
Click to expand...
No need to apologise, but it's a non-matte (i.e. "glossy") screen that is put behind a slab of glass (which also happen to be "non-matte", or "glossy", if you will).

But firewire still works doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Well, the problem with the Agere chipset is that it sometimes does, sometimes it doesn't, and it's a hit'n'miss whether it works with the FW-equipment one has (no, I'm not talking just HDDs).
Since some of us rely on proper FW connectivity and will loose real money if we cannot get "stuff" properly into the computer, the MBP's firewire "solution" makes it more or less useless.




I'm no pro, I never said I was but using a laptop screen for proofing sounds distinctly unprofessional.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of "editing", "mixing" and so on? Besides, some of us have proper audio equipment, ALONG with a FW audio interface.
I used to own an Aaton Cantar X, now I use a Sound Devices 722 for most of my portable recording needs. Yet I'm still using a laptop for all sorts of audio related stuff. If you think those recorders aren't "professional", go take a look at them - the price alone should tell you something. Take a look at the 722 first. You don't want to have a heart attack.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that when you're out in the field, you cannot bring a stationary computer, and it's seldomly you actually need such processing power out there.

The matte screens on the old MBP never impressed me all that much nor has any laptop screen for that matter. They are all fairly poor so I don't see what the fuss is about as a professional should surely use a external properly calibrated display anyway?
Click to expand...
Sigh … You just don't get it, do you? Just because a laptop isn't as good as the best external monitors doesn't mean that one can then make do with the worst possible choice.
When will you people acknowledge that it's pure idiocy to suggest carrying around an external monitor when doing work in the field? Could you guys at least TRY to be somewhat practical in your apologetic workarounds?

Using the g/f's £600 vaio that had a cheap glossy display removed my worries about it. It was just as useable in a bright light situation as any matte screen I have used and that wasn't even on full brightness.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I'll trust that claim as much as I trust any consumer claiming there is no need to record in anything but MP3s, as noone can tell a difference.


I'm not saying your wrong or I'm right, that's just my opinion :).
Click to expand...
I know it's just your opinion. I just wish it wouldn't be as apologetic and as illinformed as it comes across.
 
snowboarder said:
I know the subject has been beaten to death, but I just saw the MBP
for the first time. It is just awful! What have they been thinking?
The minimal angle of view change changes the colors completely
and the contrast is way too high for any serious color judgement.
MBP is the tool for every photographer and color artist right now,
I was able to calibrate mine the way it is almost perfectly matching my
"serious" Eizo monitor. It allows to work while on the field and often
my first color correction done on my MBP doesn't require any adjustments.
Now with the new one you can use as a mirror, but not for any serious work!
I'm really disappointed, I already ordered the previous model as my
backup, but I just hate if Apple is killing the matte display the way
the are killing the firewire port - it will be just the end of the perfect tool.
Why, tell me Steve, why???
Click to expand...

Then why did you have to beat it in its grave?
 
rdowns said:
Not going to happen. If matte displays sold in sufficient quantities, they'd still make them.
Click to expand...

Did did selling sufficient quantities; of course since the MacBook, MacBook Air, and iMac are all glossy only, it's quite difficult to sell more matte!
 
rdowns said:
Not going to happen. If matte displays sold in sufficient quantities, they'd still make them.
Click to expand...

I´m sure they sold very well. Not a single person I know who bought the previous generations MacBook Pros opted for glossy. And they sure didn´t get glossy panels on their studio monitors either, although I´m not sure if Eizo, NEC, Dell or Apple even offered them in piano finish.
 
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