Is the 70% glare reduction on RMBP all that?

segovius

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 18, 2006
203
0
Barcelona / Berlin
Am waiting for the iMac like everyone but really needing it to have a matte option. If not then I'm going to have to get the bto MBP matte option with a third party screen.

I am seriously doubting Apple will make a matter option for the iMac but the lamination process that allegedly loses 70% of the glossiness might work for me.

Is the reduction really a solution? Does this new RMBP process really provide a solution that equates with a matte screen?
 

ixodes

macrumors 601
Jan 11, 2012
4,427
2
Pacific Coast, USA
A side by side comparison reveals that my 15" 2011 hi-res anti-glare is a far better option for my professional use.

The rMBP display has that "Wow it's shiny" appearance which impresses retail home buyers when you see one in an Apple Store. Apples research & marketing studies have proven that heavily influences customers to buy, therefore it's a foregone conclusion for Apples revenue stream.

If it were not for Apples easily influenced followers that agree with Apples every move and willingly surrender their right to think for themselves, we might be given the option of anti-glare.
 

segovius

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 18, 2006
203
0
Barcelona / Berlin
A side by side comparison reveals that my 15" 2011 hi-res anti-glare is a far better option for my professional use.

The rMBP display has that "Wow it's shiny" appearance which impresses retail home buyers when you see one in an Apple Store. Apples research & marketing studies have proven that heavily influences customers to buy, therefore it's a foregone conclusion for Apples revenue stream.

If it were not for Apples easily influenced followers that agree with Apples every move and willingly surrender their right to think for themselves, we might be given the option of anti-glare.
Yeah, what I thought. Am using 2009 matte MBP now and screen is perfect - just need bigger. Machine needs updating badly...

----------

For me the ghosting issue and non-upgradable HD/RAM make the rMBP a non-option.
Yeah, that too.

But as I get older I find I can't work on my 15" MBP screen so well and I'm not sure retina will improve that....quite the contrary.
 

iMcLovin

macrumors 68000
Feb 11, 2009
1,966
897
for me personally I prefer the glossy screen instead of the matte. Because contrast and the general image seems better somehow. The matte option, like the dell pro monitors, get such a dim look because of the matte screen, so this to me isn't a great option either. So for me the perfect solution would be a glossy screen without much reflection....and rMBP pretty much provides that. I've seen and compared it with the glossy oldschool MBP screens and there's a significant difference. Light in the background does reflect, but they are a lot darker and less noticable. Problem with the matte screens is that they reflect as much as the glossy screens, only different is that the reflection is more washed out, and therefor creates a worse result IMO.
So, at this moment the rMBP screen tech is the best yet. And if the iMac gets the same treatment, it's worth the wait alone. Especially for those, such as me, that has a window in the background.
 

twietee

macrumors 603
Jan 24, 2012
5,334
1,545
^^I wonder how the comparison rMBP/ MBA is regarding glare? The MBA display is far superior to the glossy cMBP and I find it acceptable compared to the matte screen as long as I'm not working outside in direct sunlight (which I sadly never do, so that's not a realistic scenario anyway for me).

The most interesting thing of the rMBP screen isn't imho the resolution or reduced glare (I'd prefer the matte I guess) but the possibility of increased screen- real estate which is a huge plus.
 

segovius

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 18, 2006
203
0
Barcelona / Berlin
^^I wonder how the comparison rMBP/ MBA is regarding glare? The MBA display is far superior to the glossy cMBP and I find it acceptable compared to the matte screen as long as I'm not working outside in direct sunlight (which I sadly never do, so that's not a realistic scenario anyway for me).

The most interesting thing of the rMBP screen isn't imho the resolution or reduced glare (I'd prefer the matte I guess) but the possibility of increased screen- real estate which is a huge plus.
Haven't used one but that increased real estate on a small screen would not be ideal for older people with diminished eyes right?
 

twietee

macrumors 603
Jan 24, 2012
5,334
1,545
Haven't used one but that increased real estate on a small screen would not be ideal for older people with diminished eyes right?
I guess so. When I came from my really old Powerbook G4 I was first 'shocked' how small everything got with the new high-resolution displays of the unibodies. One get used to it, but I'm not that old I've to say. My 13" MBA now has more screen real estate as my old 15" PB.

The nice thing with retina MBP is, I only guess as mine hasn't been delivered yet :rolleyes:, that one can switch really easily inbetween different resolutions. So within programs I use professionally, and mostly with hotkeys, I don't see a problem but a real benefit.

But a matte rMac would be really tempting I've to say!
 

IGregory

macrumors 6502a
Aug 5, 2012
669
5
I did a comparison at the Apple store between the rMBP and the 27" Imac to test the glare factor. IMHO the difference was significant. The retina performs as advertised. Further, I wanted to buy a Dell U2711 display. The Microsoft store sells them in the same mall where Apple is located. After using the rMBP for two weeks and seeing the Dell anti-glare coated display I could not bring myself to make the purchase. The visual difference is night and day. For me, it would defeat the purpose for my purchasing the retina. I will wait for the new Apple cinema display.
 

twietee

macrumors 603
Jan 24, 2012
5,334
1,545
Anyone here has some knowledge/idea how much (more) a new rACD would possibly cost?
 

edry.hilario

macrumors 6502a
Aug 1, 2010
815
0
why is some people crying over matte i agree theres no glare but i hate how it looks, apple is not gonna do matte and there isnt any matte available for the current imacs. On next imac apple is gonna use the same glass as the retina macbook pro. If you dont want reflection the put the imac in light controlled environment and problem solve.
 

segovius

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 18, 2006
203
0
Barcelona / Berlin
why is some people crying over matte i agree theres no glare but i hate how it looks, apple is not gonna do matte and there isnt any matte available for the current imacs. On next imac apple is gonna use the same glass as the retina macbook pro. If you dont want reflection the put the imac in light controlled environment and problem solve.
It's not just that....there's health issues too.
 

uptownnyc

macrumors 6502
Mar 28, 2011
497
401
^^I wonder how the comparison rMBP/ MBA is regarding glare? The MBA display is far superior to the glossy cMBP and I find it acceptable compared to the matte screen as long as I'm not working outside in direct sunlight (which I sadly never do, so that's not a realistic scenario anyway for me).

The most interesting thing of the rMBP screen isn't imho the resolution or reduced glare (I'd prefer the matte I guess) but the possibility of increased screen- real estate which is a huge plus.
Actually, when run at he "recommended" native resolution, the available screen real estate is less than the 1680-by-1050 high-res option. From Anandtech's great article analyzing the Retina MBP:

"By default, the Retina MBP ships in a pixel doubled configuration. You get the effective desktop resolution of the standard 15-inch MacBook Pro's 1440 x 900 panel, but with four physical pixels driving every single pixel represented on the screen. This configuration is the best looking, but you don't actually get any more desktop space. Thankfully Apple exposes a handful of predefined scaling options if you do want additional desktop space. Apple offers five scaled settings including the default pixel doubled option: 1024 x 640, 1280 x 800, 1440 x 900, 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200. Selecting any of these options gives you the effective desktop resolution of the setting, but Apple actually renders the screen at a higher resolution and scales it to fit the 2880 x 1800 panel."

So retina-native is the 1440x900 ... noticeably less than screen real estate available in the high-res non-retina 1680x1050 MBP.
 

edry.hilario

macrumors 6502a
Aug 1, 2010
815
0
Ahh, that old favourite. Lets redesign my house/work to accommodate a badly designed display.
If a glossy screen doesn't fit your needs then buy something else beside an apple computer if putting a 5 bucks shade on a window is too hard for you then perhaps an apple computer is not what you want
 

twietee

macrumors 603
Jan 24, 2012
5,334
1,545
Actually, when run at he "recommended" native resolution, the available screen real estate is less than the 1680-by-1050 high-res option.
Umm, that's why I wrote about the possibility of increased screen real estate. That means if one is fine that it's not "best for retina" which I think is ok for me, but doesn't have to for everybody else.


If a glossy screen doesn't fit your needs then buy something else beside an apple computer if putting a 5 bucks shade on a window is too hard for you then perhaps an apple computer is not what you want
You do know that not too long ago ALL screens made by apple were matte though? It's not crazy to mention that glossy is a pita, and well we know that they're already addressing this issue. But sloooowly apple, slowly...:rolleyes:
 

segovius

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 18, 2006
203
0
Barcelona / Berlin
Ahh, that old favourite. Lets redesign my house/work to accommodate a badly designed display.
Does seem to be in line with Apple's ethos though - we won't change so if you have an issue with our products you can just buy a new house or get a new job.

Or just pretend everything is perfect.
 

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,365
703
Am waiting for the iMac like everyone but really needing it to have a matte option. If not then I'm going to have to get the bto MBP matte option with a third party screen.

I am seriously doubting Apple will make a matter option for the iMac but the lamination process that allegedly loses 70% of the glossiness might work for me.

Is the reduction really a solution? Does this new RMBP process really provide a solution that equates with a matte screen?
The MBPr screen is definitely not a viable substitute for an antiglare screen, IMO. To me, the MBPr is just as glossy/glassy/reflective/annoying as all the other mirrors that Apple uses for screens. The lack of an antiglare screen option is one of the reasons I won't buy an iMac or ACD or MBPr. If they stop offering antiglare completely, I'll be forced to find an antiglare film, because the glossy screen is unusable for me.