Matte screens are overrated, no?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by PAUL BRIAN, Oct 15, 2008.

  1. PAUL BRIAN macrumors member

    Feb 27, 2008
    Couldn't you correctly calibrate a glassy screen to where the difference between the matte is basically neglible? if the only problem is the contrast than it should be a simple fix no? also, if you want "true color representation" than you shouldnt be doing your final tweaking on a laptop screen, period. go grab a crt

    graphics users have been yelling for better graphics cards for a while now and apple gives you 2 and yet the glassy screen all of a sudden becomes the "deal breaker"

    peace :)
  2. LinMac macrumors 65816

    Oct 28, 2007
    Not really.

    Matte screens are much more accurate in terms of black level and color. The more general use benefit of matte is less reflection/glare in outdoor or very bright environments.
  3. PAUL BRIAN thread starter macrumors member

    Feb 27, 2008
    i'm an audio guy so it doesnt really apply to me i guess, as for reflectiveness there are several ways around it.. visors and antireflective film come to mind.
  4. zer0tails macrumors 65816


    Mar 23, 2008
    No they aren't. There's a reason why so many people love matte screens.
  5. thomasp macrumors 6502a

    Sep 18, 2004
    I really can't see the issues with glossy vs matte screens. I know of quite a few professional photographers who use the new iMac quite easily and happily - with a glossy screen.

    I've got a PowerBook with matte screen and my dad has an Al. iMac with glossy - I can't use my PowerBook near a bright window, he can use his iMac by the same window. I've tried using my PB outside and the matte screen just makes the light "reflect" across the entire screen meaning I can't see what I'm working on - my PB is pretty much useless outside or with sunlight shining right on it. The iMac seems much better at this in my opinion.

    Also, weren't all screens glossy back in the CRT days? I don't ever remember seeing a matte CRT - even the original G3 iMacs had more gloss on their screens than the matte laptops.
  6. PDE macrumors 68020

    Nov 16, 2005
    No, apparently they are underrated. Sadly, it seems like it's the end of an era and that we now have to get used to glossy.

    Maybe that will make up for the loss in value of our old MBP because of the defective nvidia chips? Perhaps they will be attractive anyway on the used market because of their matte displays? :)
  7. design-is macrumors 65816


    Oct 17, 2007
    London / U.K.
    If you compare a powerbook screen to a new (or new -1) macbook pro matte screen and you will see that things have moved on a little. The 17" HD LED matte screen on my MBP performs well in all light. No reflections.

    The images leaked of the new MB & MBP before yesterday clearly show a reflection.

    Maybe not. They haven't refreshed or ended the line of the original 17" MBP yet.
  8. 103734 Guest

    Apr 10, 2007
    they are overrated

    first people wouldn't use LCD screens for graphic art and CRT's ruled, still to this day there are graphic artist and photographers that will only use a CRT.

    For some reason its ok to have a glossy screen on a CRT but not a LCD

    and the iPhone has a glass glossy screen and I use it all the time outside in sunlight no problem.

    I had a first generation macbook pro and I could not use it outside, I remember how surprised I was when I got a glossy screen macbook and I was actually able to see the screen outside, it was the first laptop I could use outside.
  9. Eric5h5 macrumors 68020

    Dec 9, 2004
    Hardly; my CRT is 100X less reflective than the screens in those photos of the new notebooks. There is no gloss. The only thing you can see is the reflections, highlights, glare, or anything like that, even with an overhead light or sunlight coming in through the window. Even when it's off, you can only see the vague hint of a reflection. I have an old non-flatscreen CRT which is a little glossier, but not that much more.

  10. PAUL BRIAN thread starter macrumors member

    Feb 27, 2008
    i can say confidently throughout my entire life in computer land, that more than 85% of the time I have stared at a glossy/glass CRT screen. so the whole "getting used to glossy" is kind of funny to me

    and dont let me get started on TV
  11. design-is macrumors 65816


    Oct 17, 2007
    London / U.K.
    Indeed - I don't remember ever coming across a CRT display with a gloss finish applied. They tend to have no finish, so its just glass & screen, which is OK, or they had anti glare treatment which pretty much wiped out any sort of reflection (but was prone to scratching when cleaned).

    TVs have completely different priorities than monitors. Not comparable.
  12. MVApple macrumors 6502a

    Jul 18, 2008
    I actually like glossy screens, but they need to be bright enough to offset certain light conditions. We'll see how bright these new screens are. From the pictures I've seen so far I'm a bit worried because they are is quite a bit of reflection. We should all wait to see them in person first though.
  13. mrtrilby macrumors member

    Jul 23, 2008
    So overrated that I'm setting up a comparison at my local Apple store to compare the old matte screened Macbook Pro with the new glossy one. I'm a photographer and have a number of issues with glossy screens:

    (a) Using them out at events, it's not practical or sensible to re-orientate the laptop to suit the lighting conditions, and I need it to be viewable from a wide range of angles. And yes, that's in addition to the 24" (matte) monitor that it's also driving.

    (b) Visiting clients and showing them photos, reflections from glossy screened laptops are hassle in terms of trying to find an angle that everyone can see the screen rather than the reflection.

    (c) Whilst proper calibrated work is done under controlled lighting, it's nice to have the freedom to be able to go sit on the sofa by the window to do first cut editing. Something I cannot do with the glossy screened laptop I currently own, but is with my wife's matte screened HP laptop from her office.

    (d) All the emphasis on how the new screens are so bright they can overpower glare has me worried - most LCDs require the brightness cranking right down to get them to calibrate. Plus having the LCD at maximum brightness means you risk images look fantastic on your screen, yet muddy and dull on someone else's screen, or in print.

    I waited for the new announcements, and if there had been a matte screen option, my credit card would currently be getting a pounding. But as it is, I'm now pondering how financially bad an idea it is paying premium money for an old spec laptop - unlike the USA, the UK doesn't seem to have a big tranche of heavily discounted Macbook Pros on the refurb store :(
  14. Davidkoh macrumors 65816

    Aug 2, 2008
    Okay, first of all. If most people would of ordered the matte screen Apple would have continued to supply that, it's simple economics.

    Secondly, people who complain about reflections are just mentally challanged. Our brain have no problem to divide things into layers, and dismiss them. If you do not concentrate on the reflections you don't see them, simple as that. Try it yourself, I been using glossy screens everywhere, but since I don't get upset at the drop of a pen I do not focus on the reflections, and then they are no bother.
  15. UltraNEO* macrumors 601


    Jun 16, 2007
    Your missing the point. Most people who've order the Mac have brought them because their schools or university recommended them, that would account for the majority of sales. Also, they're not technically classes as Professional users... It's Apple's Professional users who are missing out here, we're moaning cause we hate using Glossy displays for our work.

    I'm in many ways I'm glad they haven't tampered with the MBP17 yet
    and the ACD still remain Matte finished - hopefully they're remain that way for the sakes of the MacPro users who actually brought them instead of the consumer counterpart.
  16. Batt macrumors 65816


    Dec 17, 2007
    Syracuse, NY
    Agreed. There is no objective proof of the color accuracy claims made for matte. I do graphics work, I've had both screens, and matte is no more accurate than glossy - it's purely a matter of choice. On the other hand, I've found out first hand that glossy is much more usable outdoors than matte.
    One more thing - people will bitch if you hang them with a new rope. I think the loss of firewire is a bigger deal than the loss of matte screens.
  17. Davidkoh macrumors 65816

    Aug 2, 2008
    Your talking as the industry is a group, it's a few induviduals who feel that matte is better. It's not scientfic proven or anything. It's all a matter of preferenses, and apparently most people prefer the glossy screens.
  18. tofudc5 macrumors member

    Oct 13, 2008
    Brisbane, Australia
    i sometimes seriously wonder if some people should be even called designers and not understand the difference between a matte and a glossy screen when it comes to colour correction and print work.

    if you're all about print a matte screen is always superior to a glossy screen.

    you'll just wait and see, there won't be many professionals out there that will buy that new 24" Cinema Display.
  19. DaveTheGrey macrumors 6502a


    Dec 28, 2003
    Everyone got a point here but fact is that apple turnes to glossy. Perhaps they aren't turning to glossy but to glass and glass just is glossy and more environmental responsible. There are infinite possibilities to argue which is better. I don't think apple is making random decisions.
  20. Davidkoh macrumors 65816

    Aug 2, 2008
    Show me scientific proof that proves that the glossy coating distorts colors enough that it cannot be corrected via software and I will believe you. Until then it is just your own impression.
  21. Timur macrumors 6502a


    Oct 14, 2008
    As far as I know none of today's laptop screens are anywhere near suitable for color-accurate work, they are comparable pieces of sh*t with small gamut and bit-deepth (LUT) and incredibly bad viewing angles (the last Powerbook had quite good viewing angles though).

    There is no such "coating" on glossy, modern glossy screens try to diffract incoming light into being swallowed by the screen instead of being reflected. That works similiar to a water surface that, depending on the angles, either lets you see through (screen looks like a black hole when turned off) or reflects (screen looks like a mirror when turned off).

    Unfortunately to reduce manufacturing costs it isn't done very well on most screens. You'd need thicker layers of different glass for that and the result also depends alot on the frequency/color and angle of the incoming light.

    By the way, matte screens do not reflect less light (in fact even slightly more) and are less color accurate because the rough/uneven surface spreads/distorts colors more. You can easily see that when looking at large unicolored surfaces (like the gray/light blue areas of this forum). On matte screens they appear to have a twinkling and silky appeal that changes with viewing angle.

    Some of the "professionals" on this forum also mention how graphic-professional monitors often come with large hoods to help against reflections from the sides and above. This argument has nothing to do with glossy at all. All screens reflect light including matte ones and because most of those screens are in fact matte those hoods are offered for matte screens mostly. ;) Besides, those hoods serve another function, namely to keep the eyes from adapting to enviromental lighting temperature and brightness.

    The reason why "print" professionals prefer matte is that it resembles paper's "inaccuracies" like lack of contrast and color intensity more than glossy screens do. Video and Web professionals should really be prefering glossy screens, simply because of the fact that end-users nowadays use more glossy than matte (both as computer screens and as TV screens).

    In a properly setup workplace for professional color acurate pre-press work you don't need to worry about most of these things aside from the more paper-like appeal of matte. These workplaces are setup with normed indirect lighting of correct color temperature and normed "gray" wall painting while using hardware calibrated monitors.

    If I find time I may write a more detailed post about all this, because it's astounding how many "professional" people with no real idea about the technical aspects post their "oppinion" instead of knowledge.
  22. mrwizardno2 macrumors 6502a


    Jun 19, 2007
    Columbus, OH
    Ahhhh, but you see - that's what it comes down to. Opinion and personal preference. Good for you that you enjoy looking at your own reflection in your computer screen. I personally would not buy one of the new MBP's unless I could get it with a matte screen. Not necessarily because of color accuracy (or lack thereof), but because that is my preference. ;)
  23. Davidkoh macrumors 65816

    Aug 2, 2008

    Thanks for explaining ;) I just grow tired of people saying that Matte is the best without backing it up. I didn't really know exactly how the glossy process works, mainly because I do not work in the design field so I just take what works best.

    As I posted before, your brain is capable of dismissing the reflections if you let it. Well, atleast if you are of normal mental capacity which I believe you are.
  24. Batt macrumors 65816


    Dec 17, 2007
    Syracuse, NY
    Bingo. I've worked in printing and computer-based graphics for years, and you are absolutely correct.

Share This Page