I am ready to buy a new MBP but still debating the screen treatment.
I've read about 5 million posts debating the benefits of both glossy and matte screens in the MBP. It seems there is a pretty strong agreement among photo/graphics users that matte is better because it preserves color accuracy and contrast. I really have a hard time coming up with any technical explanation for why this is, and I am wondering if it is just a little bit of reluctance to change rather than an actual image quality issue.
How could putting a layer of essentially scratched-up glass in front of the LCD panel make colors more accurate?
I would think that this diffusing layer would actually distort the image compared to the clear (glossy) screen.
I think that matte has its place in certain environments, but the price you pay for reducing reflections has to be slightly degraded image quality.
I am not concerned with the reflections, just the claims that matte has better color accuracy.
How can this be true?
Rich
I've read about 5 million posts debating the benefits of both glossy and matte screens in the MBP. It seems there is a pretty strong agreement among photo/graphics users that matte is better because it preserves color accuracy and contrast. I really have a hard time coming up with any technical explanation for why this is, and I am wondering if it is just a little bit of reluctance to change rather than an actual image quality issue.
How could putting a layer of essentially scratched-up glass in front of the LCD panel make colors more accurate?
I would think that this diffusing layer would actually distort the image compared to the clear (glossy) screen.
I think that matte has its place in certain environments, but the price you pay for reducing reflections has to be slightly degraded image quality.
I am not concerned with the reflections, just the claims that matte has better color accuracy.
How can this be true?
Rich