Matte or Glossy? The price you pay for reducing reflections is lower image quality.

[madmaxmedia]

Besides the OP's calibration findings, are there any other sources that actually scientifically compare color accuracy? His findings (and of course it's only a sample size of 1) seem to indicate that both LCD's can be calibrated to about equal accuracy.

Why is it 'false' contrast, since he found both LCD's could be calibrated to similar accuracy? (actually the glossy a bit more accurate in his test.)

Now it may turn out that most consumers prefer over-contrasty images, which glossy screens tend to deliver. And there are other reasons for matte screens as well, the primary being reduced reflections. Or perhaps matte screens are generally easier to calibrate/fine tune, I don't know.

But to say that glossy screens all inherently have fake contrast and vividness seems technically inaccurate. All contrast and color is perceived, which is why he went through the trouble of calibrating the screens.

Thanks! Bye!

Can you get a S-IPS with glossy? No.

Thanks; bye.

But seriously, ever wonder why they don't have glossy screens in cars, high-end LCD televisions? It's because they don't need a piece of shiny plastic to give better colors or glare is not an option.

@OP: It's been said; why are S-IPS panels all matte? It's because you don't spend a lot of money on a great display only to have this false contrast ruin it all.

 

[madmaxmedia]

The glossy is relatively accurate only AFTER you calibrate it. Look at how inaccurate it is before he calibrated them for his tests. Even then, I'll still stick with my matte. Reflections are overrated, I like to be able to sit anywhere I want, not having glare dictate that. As far as neither is desirable, go back and look at his test, matte is a lot more desirable, especially when not calibrating your screen. GLOSSY is fixable, matte can be altered to be more accurate.

ALL monitors are calibrated, only it was done at the factory. The computer comes with a built-in color setting (of course not fine-tuned for each display.) So it's completely arbitrary which one is more accurate out-of-the-box.

Of course, if matte MBP's are more accurate of-the-box, then that can be a definite consideration for a buyer. But it should be quite simple for Apple to offer 2 settings, or for someone to develop a good calibration setting for MBP glossy screens that people can easily install on their computers.

(unless it turns out that glossy screens have more variability due to their increased perceived contrast, that could potentially be an issue.)

 

[Burtonsnow9]

so i see all these arguments against glossy, and i see people defending glossy but can anyone post a solid reason against matte?

 

[madmaxmedia]

so i see all these arguments against glossy, and i see people defending glossy but can anyone post a solid reason against matte?

Well, if it turned out that they were relatively equal in color accuracy (if calibrated), then you should simply choose the one that looks and works best for you. OP did some interesting work on actually testing color accuracy, and it would be nice to hear more comments on his findings, rather than repeat the status quo arguments that we all already know. Most people aren't going to calibrate their screens in this manner, but it might not be so hard to take your contrast and saturation down a notch (if necessary) and get reasonably accurate glossy LCD, I don't know.

Here's one thing that came to my mind. It might be easier to deliver more consistently calibrated matte screens than glossy screens, due to the increased contrast and saturation of glossy screens. The increased (which is different than 'fake') contrast/saturation may lead to more variability among individual units. Just an idea.

In the case of the screens the OP tested, there is no 'fake' contrast or saturation since both screens seemed to have been calibrated (more or less) equally well.

 

[MacPanda]

i am in my college's library at the moment using a flat panel alu imac avec the glossy screen and the glare on this thing is killing me at the moment - i keep on tilting it around to try and get rid of the glare - to be honest it isn't even very sunny today - it is worse when you are working on darker objects. It's a real bummer for me, they should give us anti-glossy glasses with the macbook and imac.

peace,

macpanda.

 

[Burtonsnow9]

so do the matte screens on the newest mbps still look real good even for movie viewing? I will be using this thing at college and the lake (probably outside alot) so would it prob be best in my situation to go with a matte simply so i wont have to worry about a glare in the various spots that i would use it?

 

[rjp]

so i see all these arguments against glossy, and i see people defending glossy but can anyone post a solid reason against matte?

I think the data show that the matte and glossy are pretty much equally accurate. They are two perfectly valid options, each with different pluses and minuses. So it is a matter of personal choice. Whichever you like to look at more. Some do say matte is closer to what a printer produces though, if that matters to you.

The only reason I can think of against matte is that it is less clear. I think that this only becomes significant because these screens are packed so densly with pixels and the "rough" surface of the matte diffusing layer seems to be on the order of pixel size. So, in my opinion, this matte layer is distorting my pristine view of the LCD display. I think I wouldn't notice this if the display were only, say, 1024 lines instead of 1440. I think this is also the reason why matte treatments are more common on larger high quality monitors, because the pixels are not as dense there.

Oh yeah, one other thing against matte is when in a bright room the whole screen gets washed out whereas with the glossy the reflections are distinct and you can therefore get rid of them if you move the screen. So some positions are awful and others are great. With matte your equally screwed from every direction. This is also why I think glossy is more usable outside.

 

[Burtonsnow9]

...
The only reason I can think of against matte is that it is less clear. I think that this only becomes significant because these screens are packed so densly with pixels and the "rough" surface of the matte diffusing layer seems to be on the order of pixel size. So, in my opinion, this matte layer is distorting my pristine view of the LCD display. I think I wouldn't notice this if the display were only, say, 1024 lines instead of 1440. I think this is also the reason why matte treatments are more common on larger high quality monitors, because the pixels are not as dense there.

so does anyone really notice that they arent as clear or is it just a very minor thing?

 

[rjp]

so does anyone really notice that they arent as clear or is it just a very minor thing?

Nobody can answer this for you. Just go to a store look at both side by side. You can see the clearness, you can evaluate the glare, you can get a general feeling for which you like looking at. Try some test pages, web pages, and photos. Try the exact same pictures on both screens.

Btw, your signature says you're waiting for a MBP. Did you already order it? I think I want to sell mine and just keep my MB. The MBP is 5 weeks old. PM if you're interested. I guess it ought to be worth at least 1600. Anybody know what these penryn's are going for? Is there a selling forum here?

Rich

 

[Burtonsnow9]

Nobody can answer this for you. Just go to a store look at both side by side. You can see the clearness, you can evaluate the glare, you can get a general feeling for which you like looking at. Try some test pages, web pages, and photos. Try the exact same pictures on both screens.

Btw, your signature says you're waiting for a MBP. Did you already order it? I think I want to sell mine and just keep my MB. The MBP is 5 weeks old. PM if you're interested. I guess it ought to be worth at least 1600. Anybody know what these penryn's are going for?

Rich

yea man, i'll try to go see them sometime but the apple store isnt close enough and i dont know if best buy will have both set up but i will see.

and i'm waiting to get one this summer for graduation present

 

[xhambonex]

ALL monitors are calibrated, only it was done at the factory. The computer comes with a built-in color setting (of course not fine-tuned for each display.) So it's completely arbitrary which one is more accurate out-of-the-box.

Of course, if matte MBP's are more accurate of-the-box, then that can be a definite consideration for a buyer. But it should be quite simple for Apple to offer 2 settings, or for someone to develop a good calibration setting for MBP glossy screens that people can easily install on their computers.

(unless it turns out that glossy screens have more variability due to their increased perceived contrast, that could potentially be an issue.)

Well guess what, they offer glossy, and its less accurately calibrated on their products than the MBP matte, btw he did a MBA glossy screen in his tests. So yes the MBP matte is more accurate out of the box, it is shown in his tests, apple doesn't offer two settings for glossy, so thats not an option either. you buy a calibrator, its just more money
I'd like to see a image comparison of the two monitors after calibration...if you got it OP, if not oh well.

 

[craig1410]

Can you get a S-IPS with glossy? No.

Thanks; bye.

Actually the iMac 24" display is H-IPS which as I understand it is better than S-IPS.

Thanks; bye.

Oh but seriously, and more importantly, the deltaE of the glossy display after calibration is BETTER than the matte. Anyone interested in accuracy would calibrate their screen as a matter of course. Glossy is best - end of story!!

 

[anirban]

I prefer the Matte display. I just cannot stand the glare of the glossy MacBooks in my school. And the Matte by no means, renders lower image quality. My LED display has been flawless and probably outshines (literally) the glossy ones in some cases.

 

[loungemonkey]

This whole thread by the OP just seems like one big post about justifying a glossy screen purchase to me.

 

[theBB]

I'd have prefer a glossy display but it seems that its viewing angle is much too narrow; while the display is gorgeous when looked at straight on, there is an unreasonable amount of yellow tinting across the entire display when viewed at a reasonable angle:

Shown here with a MacBook; no fudging with the color profiles either.

In this picture the notebook with the yellow tint is being at a much wider angle than the one your are closer to.

 

[rjp]

In this picture the notebook with the yellow tint is being at a much wider angle than the one your are closer to.

I think that yellowing you observe is the residual effects of the anti-glare coating. It works by causing destructive interference of light by reflecting from two layers in the coating. It is supposed to be tuned so that straight on viewing in not effected, and I think off axis viewing is being treated much the same as a reflection would be. Interesting that the MB doesn't seem to suffer as much in your photo - granted the angles are different.

 

[rjp]

This whole thread by the OP just seems like one big post about justifying a glossy screen purchase to me.

I am the OP.

I started the thread not to promote glossy, but to legitimize it. This was because so many people seemed to be criticizing it without any actual test data. "Glossy sucks and only an amateur would use it" became the prevailing mentality.

Now you have some data. It's just one point, granted, I am hoping some others will repeat the tests and give it more credence.

 

[alphaod]

I am the OP.

I started the thread not to promote glossy, but to legitimize it. This was because so many people seemed to be criticizing it without any actual test data. "Glossy sucks and only an amateur would use it" became the prevailing mentality.

Now you have some data. It's just one point, granted, I am hoping some others will repeat the tests and give it more credence.

Glossy does not suck; I just wanted to say matte screens have better color representation; I'm sure you can calibrate a glossy screen to looks like a matte screen, but then the question is what's the point; I however had tested my a glossy screen when I first got my computer (I was given the glossy by mistake at the store); I tried it out and my pictures looked wrong; didn't color match. However movies did looks vibrant and most stuff looks great. I was however annoyed mainly by the glare, so I ended with what I originally wanted.

 

[theBB]

Whatever anybody says, eventually it comes down to personal taste. I prefer matte screens, but I am surprised at the color accuracy argument. It just does not make sense to me for a laptop. The colors change much more once you tilt your laptop screen as these seem to be TN type. Granted these ones may have better screens than some other cheap laptops, but the variation is still substantial. It does not matter how much you calibrate the screen, this problem will not go away.

Under direct strong sunlight, glossy screen will have reflections, matte screens will get washed out. Pick your poison.

At home when the indoor lighting starts causing reflections, I can increase the backlight and reduce the reflections (actually overpower the reflections), so it does not look that bad. It is also much easier to keep the screen clean. In the end, I prefer a matte screen, but I don't think there is a real scientific reason to pick one over the other on a laptop.