MBP: Glossy or Matte?

[Zadillo]

i am still following that one guy's opinion who said the glossy screen totally goes against the look of the macbook pro/powerbook casing. a glossy wet looking screen does not look good with a brushed aluminum casing. matte goes PERFECT with it. not to mention matte screens look better too!

I'm really not sure I buy this. From looking at them in the store I think both the matte and glossy MBP's look great with the rest of the MBP case.

Of course, that's just an opinion. Same with the opinion that a matte screen "looks better"; I personally am leaning more towards the glossy just because of the additional color vibrance (if you look at them side by side in the store, run the iPhoto slideshow for example..... look at things like the beach scenes, and compare how the water looks, or how forests look, etc.).

 

[GraceMolloy]

still waiting on the Glossy Mac but I have a 19" Sony Flat Panel in Glossy and it's freakin' gorgeous! No big issues with Glare, and I'm already anal retentive enough not to touch my screen (fingerprints)

 

[stealthman1]

still waiting on the Glossy Mac but I have a 19" Sony Flat Panel in Glossy and it's freakin' gorgeous! No big issues with Glare, and I'm already anal retentive enough not to touch my screen (fingerprints)

This reminds me of the debate about HDR (high dynamic range) photography. Many can't stand it, say it looks unnatural, others, and my bias will show here, think it's very cool to see on print or screen, what is real, but our eyes can't see. It's akin to The Allegory of the Cave....
Now I admit our eyes can't see naturally the DR that HDR is capable of, but does that make it wrong?

 

[PygmySurfer]

I personally am leaning more towards the glossy just because of the additional color vibrance (if you look at them side by side in the store, run the iPhoto slideshow for example..... look at things like the beach scenes, and compare how the water looks, or how forests look, etc.).

In another thread, someone mentioned you can always purchase a filter for the glossy screen, to make it more like the matte screen. However, you can't purchase a filter that'll make the matte screen as vibrant as the glossy screen.

Get the glossy, and if you don't like it, purchase a filter.

 

[millerrh]

Just got back from the Apple store in Sacramento and I got a chance to play with the older MBP with the core duo. I had my wife with me and we compared the glossy vs matte next to each other and the glossy looked far better than the matte screen even with the lights above shining on the screens. The glossy had far deeper blacks, the colors were more vibrant and it was much more pleasant to look at compared to the washed out matte screen. I think people that opt for the matte screen are insane or have some heavy prescription glasses on.

I agree with you unless you do photo editing. Let's say you tune a photo to be "perfect" on you new glossy MBP. Then someone else looks at it on a non-matte screen or you print it out and the contrast just doesn't seem as good as when you were editing or the saturation isn't high enough, etc. The glossy screen does look better. I agree. I liked it too. But if you're going to be trying to reproduce photographs for others to see and you can't judge what it will look like cause your screen makes it look artificially good, you'll be screwed.

By the way, I've had my new matte MBP for two days now and the screen is so much more saturated and contrasty compared to my 12" Powerbook that it's not even funny. I actually think this screen is going to give my 23" cinema display a run for it's money. (both matte to help in consistency by the way). I couldn't be happier with my purchase!

 

[Maximus434]

I agree with you unless you do photo editing. Let's say you tune a photo to be "perfect" on you new glossy MBP. Then someone else looks at it on a non-matte screen or you print it out and the contrast just doesn't seem as good as when you were editing or the saturation isn't high enough, etc. The glossy screen does look better. I agree. I liked it too. But if you're going to be trying to reproduce photographs for others to see and you can't judge what it will look like cause your screen makes it look artificially good, you'll be screwed.

Nonsense. This is why you calibrate your printer (screen too). If you're printing out regularly you're going to have to calibrate regardless if you have matte or glossy. Where did you get the assumption that matte screens will print out perfectly? The contrast and saturation is going to be off if you're printing from matte aswell. You're completely neglecting the fact that the printer will not show exact colours or contrast just because you hit "Print".

If you have a glossy screen, you can calibrate your printer (any real photo printer) to match the screen very well. So that point is out the window.

I'm constantly amazed at the uneducated and unresearched stuff people here come up with in order to make them feel better about their purchases. Who cares if it's accurate or not!

 

[millerrh]

Nonsense. This is why you calibrate your printer (screen too). If you're printing out regularly you're going to have to calibrate regardless if you have matte or glossy. Where did you get the assumption that matte screens will print out perfectly? The contrast and saturation is going to be off if you're printing from matte aswell. You're completely neglecting the fact that the printer will not show exact colours or contrast just because you hit "Print".

If you have a glossy screen, you can calibrate your printer (any real photo printer) to match the screen very well. So that point is out the window.

I'm constantly amazed at the uneducated and unresearched stuff people here come up with in order to make them feel better about their purchases. Who cares if it's accurate or not!

I don't think matte screens print perfectly. Of course, you have to calibrate everything, whether matte or glossy. All I'm saying is that I agree with those who say that glossy "just looks better." And would you rather be judging the quality of your pictures based on something that looks that much better when others might not see it the same way you do? If I did not do photo editing, I'd say glossy all the way. But I guess I'd rather be editing with respect to a more matte screen so that my photos will look good regardless of what screen is used and really POP if it is used with a glossy screen. Also, let's not forget the fact that I'll be using a cinema display (which is matte) for most of my work. I don't want the two screens to look different or my photo editing will not be as consistent between the two.

I'm sure either is good, and I think that I'd probably enjoy looking at the glossy more. I'd just rather not sell myself short on the contrast and saturation adjustments thinking they look good, but where they don't look as good for anyone who doesn't have a glossy display.

 

[Imidazole]

Every desktop LCD that I use is matte.

They look gorgeous.

Decision made. Why should my laptop be any different?

 

[jaxon]

well i have my matte c2d mbp and am absolutley loveing it. I have it hooked up to a crt for dvd watching, its a great combo.

 

[glow9]

Can someone please take pics so we can compare

 

[chiefillini]

Every desktop LCD that I use is matte.
They look gorgeous.
Decision made. Why should my laptop be any different?

I agree and is one of the reasons I am getting matte.

 

[Konfabulation]

Can someone please take pics so we can compare

Pics are completely useless. You need to go to a store and see for yourself.

 

[e12a]

I went Matte, glossy displays are harder to "clean" (shirt wiping away dust ). I also need more realistic color, as I am going to go into graphic design.

No! dont use a shirt! lol microfiber cloths ftw.

Some say that the glossy depicts oversaturated pictures.

I dont know, but i cant stand glare..i got matte. I dont want to strain my eyes trying to ignore the reflection of myself, or people behind me. Why even bother and just get matte.

 

[tarjan]

You guys are getting your terminology wrong.

I know how it seems right, but there are many ways to go very wrong here in this discussion. You have two screens with one differing characteristic, the light defraction (or lack there of) in the material between the light source and the viewer.

When you say "saturated" what you are probably actually talking about is the contrast ratio, which has little to do with actual saturation. In a "glossy" (which is bit of a misnomer but it works) screen, you see something much closer to what the lcd is actually producing because there is no filtering or diffusion. That results in pixels that will be accurately re-produced as based on the lcd panels characteristics, but not neccessicarily accurate in terms of red/green/blue. Of course as we all know, the issue here is one of external glare. Since the screen does not modify or diffuse light, bright images will show on the screen which causes some to not like the image. This is what I would consider to be the only drawback to glossy, the "accuracy" of the image talked about for matte is probably mostly attributed to reflected images in the screen or a prejudice against the screen for some unknown reason.

The matte screen has a defusion layer which causes a scattering of light. This layer diffuses incoming light from a coherent image light which is not generally localized, giving it glare resistance. The drawback is that it also scatters light outbound from the lcd panel which reduces the maximum contrast ratio and turning black (or close to black, since lcd cannot produce black) to a visible grey image. This will drop detail from dark images and the diffusion may also act as a filter to the light output from the screen (which may in fact be good or bad). This also lets the screen be useful in just about any indoor lighting condition, which can be a major advantage in an office where you cannot adjust your surroundings or desk.

Getting back to that terminology problem... Your eyes determine quality and "saturation" based mostly on the difference between the brightest and darkest parts of an image (contrast ratio). We are EXTREMELY sensitive to this difference, and the glossy is better in this respect. The problem is that we are also EXTREMELY sensitive only to the max brightness and the darkest area, the color itself is less important, at least in a casual glance. Most manufacturers understand this and make their displays so rather than the colors be perfectly balanced, they try to make each color as bright as possible. Since they are not made in equal amounts red might be much brighter than the rest which throws off the image. This is where true color saturation becomes an issue, since red in greater quantities than blue, an image might have a red tint to it when it should be producing white or something similar, but most people don't associate that characteristic with "saturation".

Thats why you need to color balance, to fix the manufacturer's attempt to sell the device.



Now if we can just get apple to put a 16.7m color capable panel on the mbps, that would be a huge step forward. Remember that you are NOT getting all those colors now, and you can see the difference.

 

[3nm]

g l o s s y

i've been having glossy screen since MB. and now i'm using a glossy screen CD MBP. in fact, i haven't purchased a C2D MBP because my local apple store doesn't have a glossy C2D yet.

never had any issues with it, except it does require high maintenance. i have to clean it at least 1-2x a week w/ iklean vs my roommate cleans his PB screen once in 3 months w/ his fingers...

as for working outdoor... the matte screen won't be any more easier to read if it's under direct sunlight.

get the glossy and enjoy it!

 

[andrewfee]

Just posted this in another topic here about Matte vs Glossy, and thought it might be of interest to people here too:

If I ever get my MacBook Pro (I've been without a computer for 3.5 months since sending my Powerbook in to Apple for repair) I'll take comparison shots with it and my sister's MacBook.

I've owned a Sony XBlack LCD monitor, and have been using my sister's MacBook for the last 2/3 weeks. Go with a matte screen.

With the Sony XBlack monitor I had, the glossy screen was great as I was able to put it in a location that didn't get reflections, and it added a nice level of punch / depth to the image. (it was mostly used for watching TV/playing games)

The MacBook, however, is used all around the house, and I'm constantly repositioning it to avoid glare, and often end up using it at an angle, which is very annoying.

If you're doing any kind of image editing, or anything that requires accuracy, forget a glossy screen. If not, make sure you like sitting in the dark, or can move so that any light source is in front of you.

Here's some quick snaps from where I'm sitting right now. Browsing the web:

In the dark.
Light turned on.

Lots of people say the glossy screens are better for games. Well, they are and they aren't. They usually have richer blacks, and stronger colours, but most of the games I see these days often have a lot of dark areas, which I would imagine are quite hard to see with glossy. Here's a snap from a game trailer:

In the dark.
With the light on.

With a matte screen, these bright areas would be very diffused, and would just be a slightly brighter area, rather than making that section unreadable.

I don't know how it compares to the MacBook Pro screens, but colour isn't great on this (lack of accuracy - they're strong enough) viewing angles are very poor, and contrast is only measuring about 38:1 on/off. (it's not nearly as bad as it sounds) Perhaps it's just like this as it's a "consumer" machine, rather than pro, but my Powerbook was much better than that, around 150:1 if I remember correctly. (but it maxed out at 90cd/m2, whereas this can go to 190cd/m2, which is far better for viewing in a brighter room)

 

[5150 Joker]

Every desktop LCD that I use is matte.

They look gorgeous.

Decision made. Why should my laptop be any different?

Because desktop matte screens are usually far brighter with better contrast ratios thus they have more vibrant colors, darker blacks and sharper pictures. There is absolutely no comparison between a decent matte desktop display vs. laptop, the laptop will always pale in comparison. In fact I'll go further and even say that the glossy laptop screen is the only one which will come remotely close to a good desktop matte display.

 

[iBorg20181]

I agree with you unless you do photo editing. Let's say you tune a photo to be "perfect" on you new glossy MBP. Then someone else looks at it on a non-matte screen or you print it out and the contrast just doesn't seem as good as when you were editing or the saturation isn't high enough, etc. The glossy screen does look better. I agree. I liked it too. But if you're going to be trying to reproduce photographs for others to see and you can't judge what it will look like cause your screen makes it look artificially good, you'll be screwed.

By the way, I've had my new matte MBP for two days now and the screen is so much more saturated and contrasty compared to my 12" Powerbook that it's not even funny. I actually think this screen is going to give my 23" cinema display a run for it's money. (both matte to help in consistency by the way). I couldn't be happier with my purchase!

The "trueness" of the color shouldn't be a problem if you calibrate the screen correctly, should it? You may have to purchase a professional color calibration, rather than using Apple's built-in offering, and if you're a "pro," you probably should do this anyway.

I think the only issue is which screen you find more pleasing, whether you are bothered by the very minor glare of the Apple "glossies" (other laptop manufacturers have some extremely glaring screens that are, IMHO, almost unwatchable!), or b the "dull, washed-out" look of the "matted."

I've gone to several Apple stores and CompUSAs to compare the glossy and matte screens, side-by-side, and taken USB pen drives with colorful, high-rez pics to compare simultaneously, and I've been consistently amazed at the beauty of the glossy screens! And no matter how I twist and turn and bend these babies around, I cannot get the glare to bother me!

This is all personal preference, and any buyer should do a side-by-side comparison to find out which type is right for you! In the end, these are both excellent screens, and I'd be thrilled with either! (Just a little more thrilled with my soon-to-arrive glossy MBP!)



iBorg

p.s. the 12" PowerBook had the same cheap screen that was used in the 12" iBook, so the MBP had better be world's better than that!

 

[NewSc2]

Just posted this in another topic here about Matte vs Glossy, and thought it might be of interest to people here too:

I've had the exact opposite experience. I use my Macbook all over my work, and I've never seen a single glare on it, even outside. Of course I'd see glare if I have a bright light shining directly on it, but light shining on matte displays bug me too.

Personally I think this whole thread has gone a bit too far. There's a reason why Apple put glossy on Macbooks, and put the option on Macbook Pros -- the colors are more vibrant! If colors look better on matte, then why would Apple do such a stupid move?

 

[ieko]

I held off my purchase of a MBP 17" until I could go down to the store and see the difference between the two screens. I honestly really hated the glossy screen, the glare in the store itself was annoying. I can't imagine being able to use it outside during the day or anything like that. Besides, the matte screen looks pretty good as far as I'm concerned.

 

[tarjan]

Andrew, with the glossy dark games should be MUCH easier to play. The main issue is similar one referred to in the projection world as "halo" and is close enough in practice here.

First point, glossy has a higher contrast ratio. This lets you have brighter brights vs darker darks. Some would assume that various darks would then be hidden, but thats not the way it works. You actually end up with more definition between the gradations of light and dark, allowing for more detail in the end image. (remember we are talking about 262k screens here, not 16.7m color screens, so the gradations are actually fairly large from one step to the next. A 16.7m color screen would have less of an issue with this, same with an enhanced bit depth next gen screen, whenever they are released)

Second, and the major one. Matte screens diffuse light. If I have one small pixel set at full brightness, ALL of the pixels around it get some fairly large portion of that light, say 25% of the overall brightness, shared in their space. This is then shared with the next few out, say at 10%, then at 5% and so on and so forth. Producing a "halo" around each dot. Of course since LCDs cannot perfectly block light, the massive diffusion and that the backlight is always on, the halo itself is not really defined as a visible small ring as in projectors. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that it does affect everything around it. This causes an image which should be a steady ramp from 0ire to 30 ire, to mostly look like 30 ire, hiding all of the detail from 0-30.

The one positive is that a matte screen "fudges" each pixel slightly, creating what you might think of as a "smoother" image. I find the artificial smoothing to be a bit distracting, but again matte can be used just about anywhere indoors which is its big advantage.

 

[thiagofll]

Because desktop matte screens are usually far brighter with better contrast ratios thus they have more vibrant colors, darker blacks and sharper pictures. There is absolutely no comparison between a decent matte desktop display vs. laptop, the laptop will always pale in comparison. In fact I'll go further and even say that the glossy laptop screen is the only one which will come remotely close to a good desktop matte display.

WELL SAID. I had a Macbook Pro Core Duo (Matte) before I purchased the C2D(Glossy). I also have a 24" iMac. Everytime I would use the iMac (which also has Matte but it's vivid, beautiful sharp colors) and go back to the Macbook Pro, I had to check if my brightness was all the way up because I could not believe how dull the screen was (Desktop Matte is beautiful, but on a laptop it is dull) . I even went as far as exchanging my first Macbook Pro thinking that the screen was defective.

Also people comparing the Macbook Glossy to the Macbook Pro Glossy. I am sorry but there is no comparisson. I had a white Macbook for a week and the screen was subpar(compared to the Macbook Pro).

I now have a C2D Macbook Pro with Glossy Screen and I can seriously say WOW. The screen is vivid and I don't have to be checking my brightness anymore.

For the people in doubt, don't be, it's not as glossy as Sony Vaios and HPs, but yet extremely beautiful.

BTW, if the Macbook used matte screen it would have a horrible, dull picture. That's the reason why Apple chose Glossy on all Macbooks.
Macbook Pros use a higher quality LCD which can be used by Professionals who choose Matte and Glossy for the Consumer. The only reason why photographers use Matte is because they want their picture as accurate as possible because of the finished printed material which is sometimes unnoticed by the consumer.
If you buy/rent a DVD nowadays, all the colors are a bit more saturated, plasma TVs are usually more saturated than LCDs. HD Channels are more saturated than regular channels. People nowadays prefer a little bit more saturated picture than the 90's look on their pictures and movies...Just my opinion...

 

[sdaniels]

Pix ?

WELL SAID. I had a Macbook Pro Core Duo (Matte) before I purchased the C2D(Glossy). I also have a 24" iMac. Everytime I would use the iMac (which also has Matte but it's vivid, beautiful sharp colors) and go back to the Macbook Pro, I had to check if my brightness was all the way up because I could not believe how dull the screen was (Desktop Matte is beautiful, but on a laptop it is dull) . I even went as far as exchanging my first Macbook Pro thinking that the screen was defective.

Also people comparing the Macbook Glossy to the Macbook Pro Glossy. I am sorry but there is no comparisson. I had a white Macbook for a week and the screen was subpar(compared to the Macbook Pro).

I now have a C2D Macbook Pro with Glossy Screen and I can seriously say WOW. The screen is vivid and I don't have to be checking my brightness anymore.

For the people in doubt, don't be, it's not as glossy as Sony Vaios and HPs, but yet extremely beautiful.

BTW, if the Macbook used matte screen it would have a horrible, dull picture. That's the reason why Apple chose Glossy on all Macbooks.
Macbook Pros use a higher quality LCD which can be used by Professionals who choose Matte and Glossy for the Consumer. The only reason why photographers use Matte is because they want their picture as accurate as possible because of the finished printed material which is sometimes unnoticed by the consumer.
If you buy/rent a DVD nowadays, all the colors are a bit more saturated, plasma TVs are usually more saturated than LCDs. HD Channels are more saturated than regular channels. People nowadays prefer a little bit more saturated picture than the 90's look on their pictures and movies...Just my opinion...

Any chance you could take a few pix of that glossy MBP with your SD800 ?? I will be purchasing a 15.4/2.33/160GB glossy, but I have to wait until Christmas! A few pictures of yours would surely tide me over for at least a couple of hours!

 

[andrewfee]

The "trueness" of the color shouldn't be a problem if you calibrate the screen correctly, should it? You may have to purchase a professional color calibration, rather than using Apple's built-in offering, and if you're a "pro," you probably should do this anyway.

There's only so much calibration can do, and even if you've got two displays that calibrate roughly the same, the gloss still makes things look quite different.

Here's the results of calibrating this MacBook screen compared with sRGB:


(target was 1.8 gamma, native whitepoint, using a Spyder2PRO)

Andrew, with the glossy dark games should be MUCH easier to play. The main issue is similar one referred to in the projection world as "halo" and is close enough in practice here.

I've never seen this on and of the matte LCDs I've owned, and did you not see the photo I took? As soon as there's anything dark onscreen, the glossy reflects back everything.

First point, glossy has a higher contrast ratio. This lets you have brighter brights vs darker darks. Some would assume that various darks would then be hidden, but thats not the way it works. You actually end up with more definition between the gradations of light and dark, allowing for more detail in the end image.

Well that's not what I'm measuring. I'm getting a 40:1 real-world on/off contrast ratio here on the MacBook. Granted, it's going to be a lower quality screen, but is it really that much lower quality?

Black levels are awful on this - I measure over 2cd/m2 for black when white point is set to 80cd/m2. If I turn the backlight up to 200cd/m2, blacks are over 4cd/m2.

(remember we are talking about 262k screens here, not 16.7m color screens, so the gradations are actually fairly large from one step to the next. A 16.7m color screen would have less of an issue with this, same with an enhanced bit depth next gen screen, whenever they are released)

Can I ask what makes you say this? It doesn't look like any 262k screen I've ever seen, and Apple claims both the MacBook and MacBook Pro displays support "millions of colours."

This causes an image which should be a steady ramp from 0ire to 30 ire, to mostly look like 30 ire, hiding all of the detail from 0-30.

I'd love to know what experience you've had with matte LCDs, as none of the ones I've ever owned or used have been anything like that.


Now don't get me wrong, I can see the appeal of glossy screens, but there's no way I'd buy one for a laptop, given the option.

 

[logicpro7]

just found a side by side matte/glossy pic

click
http://img92.imageshack.us/my.php?image=glare8ng.jpg