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

Is it really matte?

S

SmokyD

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 1, 2007
153
0
Does anyone know if the $50 antiglare option is a true matte screen or basically similar to the previous generation MBP glossy screen with an antiglare coating on it and no glass?

My impression is that the complaints about reflections on the new MBPs are actually complaints about the *glass*, not the screen behind it. Perhaps Apple is addressing this complaint by removing the glass, and that's about it.

Without having seen the antiglare screen, I'd bet it still a glossy screen with an anti-glare or anti-reflection coating, which, compared to a true matte screen, still reflects a lot, because it is, well, glossy.

Anyone know about this before those who think they are getting a matte find out too late?
 
SmokyD said:
Anyone know about this before those who think they are getting a matte find out too late?
Click to expand...

From all the info that's been gathered so far, it seems we'll be getting the exact same kind of finish that the previous hi-rez 17" anti-glare screen had.
 
The previous gen mbp had two options:

1. a glossy screen with an antireflective optical coating that does not diffuse light
2. a matte screen with a light-diffusing coating (rough to the touch)

So far I am not sure which one Apple is providing for their $50 option. It seems people are thinking it's the true matte, but I'm wondering if it's really just a glossy screen with an optical "anti-glare" coating on it.

In other words, at the end of the day the options for the new MBP screen could be:

1. glossy
2. REALLY glossy

with the first option available for 50 dollars extra, the second being the standard option with glass cover.
 
SmokyD said:
The previous gen mbp had two options:

1. a glossy screen with an antireflective optical coating that does not diffuse light
2. a matte screen with a light-diffusing coating (rough to the touch)

So far I am not sure which one Apple is providing for their $50 option. It seems people are thinking it's the true matte, but I'm wondering if it's really just a glossy screen with an optical "anti-glare" coating on it.

In other words, at the end of the day the options for the new MBP screen could be:

1. glossy
2. REALLY glossy

with the first option available for 50 dollars extra, the second being the standard option with glass cover.
Click to expand...

i am thinking the same, but am really hoping that it is true matte. (and it will trickle down to the 15" MBP!) as a previous member stated the 199.00 third party option looks to be an LCD and not an LED screen.
 
According to the keynote (amazing what you can learn when you watch the vid eh? :D ) the screen is done the same as the last one. They removed the glass panel and added the metal bezel just like the Air. The panel is probably a glossy screen with an anti glare coating on it, and not a matte screen. This is better because it will display colors more accurately than a matte screen could.
 
darngooddesign said:
According to the keynote (amazing what you can learn when you watch the vid eh? :D ) the screen is done the same as the last one. They removed the glass panel and added the metal bezel just like the Air. The panel is probably a glossy screen with an anti glare coating on it, and not a matte screen. This is better because it will display colors more accurately than a matte screen could.
Click to expand...

O ORLY?
Aren't glossy screens KNOWN to over-saturate colors? <_<
 
darngooddesign said:
According to the keynote (amazing what you can learn when you watch the vid eh? :D ) the screen is done the same as the last one. They removed the glass panel and added the metal bezel just like the Air. The panel is probably a glossy screen with an anti glare coating on it, and not a matte screen. This is better because it will display colors more accurately than a matte screen could.
Click to expand...

It may be done like the last one but which last one - the matte or the glossy? And it's certainly debatable as to which displays colors more accurately. More people would likely choose the matte, imho.

I personally like both about the same, but if the optional screen is actually just a glossy screen without the glass, I'm not sure if I'd bother. Not sure why apple would bother either.
 
They'll probably have it at the store soon.

What I gather from the LED displays is that it IS matte, they just put the special glass on top of it to get deeper colors and blacks. That's all they do.

A lot of recent HDTV's have this same anti-glare glass on them already. I hate glass on laptops. My Samsung HDTV has the glass, and it looks good because it's in a controlled environment.
 
i know matte matters to me, was just being cheeky. :p

I'm just waiting for them to offer it on the 15" and i'll be all over it. 17" while awesome, is just not portable.
 
eastercat said:
IMO, because glossy intensifies the colors, it is less accurate than matte.
Click to expand...

Glossy doesn't intensify colors. Matte diffuses them. If you calibrate them a glossy and matte are basically just as accurate with a slight advantage to the glossy.

This myth keeps getting told over and over, but that doesn't make it true. There is nothing inherently more accurate about the matte display.
 
bcaslis said:
Glossy doesn't intensify colors. Matte diffuses them. If you calibrate them a glossy and matte are basically just as accurate with a slight advantage to the glossy.

This myth keeps getting told over and over, but that doesn't make it true. There is nothing inherently more accurate about the matte display.
Click to expand...

True, glossy seems about as accurate on a laptop, just a little deeper. I think the extra saturation benefits laptops a little because of the lower color gamut, which could use more saturation to avoid looking washed out. Stand alone monitors don't need this, which is why I prefer the matte monitors still. IMHO, Apple's S-IPS 24 iMac monitor is not as crisp as Dell's PVA 2407/2408, for example.

I guess the question still remains: is the new MBP anti glare-option the same as the previous gen matte or the previous gen glossy? Both of those have no glass and a grey bezel, so a this point we could be getting either.
 
eastercat said:
IMO, because glossy intensifies the colors, it is less accurate than matte.
Click to expand...

Matte screens diffuse colors and wash them out a little. Everyone thinks that matte finish on laptops is the standard because until recently laptops only had matte.

This is a personal preference issue down to what you are used to, but a glossy screen with anti-reflection coating will produce more accurate colors than a matte finish display.

Its is all academic, because for any real color correction you should use an external CRT monitor in an environment you can control which is calibrated to the press you use. For online content none of it is relevant because you can't control the end-user's environment and monitors.
 
For me, the hard-wearing and protective glass screen that allows a sturdy clean makes it preferable to the more vulnerable coated screen. And for my all-purpose use (which includes plenty of graphic work) I much prefer the color rendition with the glass version to any relatively washed-out anti-glare screen I've used in the past.
It's just a matter of preference, like choosing to print photos on either glossy or matte paper, or prefering blondes to brunettes. Either will serve their purpose more than adequately.
 
nikhsub1 said:
I fail to see how putting glass over a matte screen makes the glassy screen a bit more color reliable? Seems backwards to me.
Click to expand...

That's a misconception. Apple doesn't put a glass screen over a matte screen. They put a glass screen over a plain, unaltered glossy screen.

Let's clear up a few things. In the previous generations of mbp, circa 2007 and before, there were two options:

1. A matte screen (which is an LCD screen with a relatively thick and rough surface added which diffuses light quite a bit. Glare is virtually non-existent on these screens but they are not quite as rich as screens without this coating. This is similar to developing photographs with matte vs glossy. Matte looks like it has tiny little dots on it, while glossy is smooth and a bit richer)

2. A glossy screen with an anti-glare coating. This screen IS glossy but it reduces SOME glare with a light but perfectly smooth coating. Think glasses with an anti-glare coating on them. They are NOT matte, they are almost indistinguishable from glasses without the coating, but the coating is there, and it helps reduce glare.

Now, as to the new generation MBP, I believe what Apple is offering is:

1. A glossy screen with glass over it and black bezel. The glass makes the overall effect SUPER glossy, since glass reflects even more than the screen behind it. The screen behind the glass is untreated, and it is NOT matte. Matte is not the default screen, glossy is. Matte is a coating that must be added.

2. A glossy screen with no glass on top, grey bezel,, and an anti-glare coating on it, as per #2 above. Let me repeat: this is NOT matte. It is glossy with some clear, smooth, thin coating to help a BIT with reflections. However, with no glass over it, it is certainly going to appear less glossy than the mbp with glass, since glass reflects even more than the glossy screen itself.

My only question at this point is whether the anti-glare option is as I've said above, or if Apple has mis-named it and it is really a matte screen. In the keynote, Schiller calls it an anti-glare screen as per the previous generation. This means GLOSSY, ie the first #2 above, not the first #1 above. In other words, the matte screen on the new gen probably DOESN'T EXIST. It is not being offered.

I repeat: it probably DOESN'T EXIST.

That means people ordering this machine with the $50 option without seeing one first may be in for an unpleasant surprise when they open it and discover that it is NOT MATTE.

I repeat: NOT MATTE. GLOSSY. It is shiny. It reflects.

For me personally, I don't care, I like the glossy, even the super glossy with glass over it, but let's end the misconceptions for those who DO care: if you want matte, this is probably not it (I say probably because there is still not a definitive clarification on this yet and it might actually turn out to be matte).
 
Hi guys,

Do you think that the lack of the thick anti-glare coating can cause eyestrain?

I've found this post searching google cause I'm getting pretty bad eyestrain with my laptops.

I've recently bought this eee pc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwQ-VykCPXg I thought it was matte, but you can see some reflections.

I thought it will be better than my other laptop (glossy but with an anti-glare filter like this one http://www.buyviewguard.com/en-us/15.4%22-Widescreen/15.4%22-Widescreen-ViewGuard%E2%84%A2-Anti...Glare-Matte-Screen-Protectors-(Width-13.09%22-x-Height-8.18%22-16:10-Aspect-Ratio), without the filter the eye pain was almost unbearable), but maybe it's even a little worse.

The glossy was my first laptop, I use to have a crt, never had eyestrain, and in one work, we had a very old desktop lcd monitor, which never cause me eyestrain, so it's not that I am allergic to fluorescent tubes, like other people who complain about lcds.

In this site http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml#differences they explain what SmokyD said.

Do you think it would be possible to add that thick anti-glare layer? :

I know this is nothing mac related guys, but I'm pretty desperated, I love my laptops, but sometimes it's a pain in the a** to look at the screen.
 
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