I don't get the deal with matte. You still can't use it in the sun or outside. You get the best colours hiding away in the corner of a room with no bright lighting hunched over your mac like a troglodyte, with glossy, anitiglare or matte regardless. I also don't know why they kept the black bits on the anitglare. It looks stupid, they should have just made it like the non-unibody MBPs, and put back in the old keyboard. Small gripe but it really annoys me how bad the backlighting is on the the new keyboards.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MBP matte screen = freakin' gorgeous
- Thread starter kis
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've used both types of displays and, hands down, the glossy display wins. Even for video editing, photo editing...glossy is better. At least for me. Everyone has their own opinion.
I have both-- my glossy 13" MBP, when I take it to work, gets plugged into my older matte 20" Cinema Display. I work all day with the two of them side by side, and each has its strong points. If I had to choose only one, though, for me it would be glossy, because text is the more important thing for me, and it's sharper on the glossy. But my matte ACD is somehow more soothing...
I like the black bezel and the glossy screen more on my MBP, but since I never use it outside glare isn't a problem for me. On the other hand, I wish Apple would make a matte option for the iPhone, but that's what Anti-Glare films are for.
You seem to have forgotten that Apple has introduced the matte screen as an option (I guess because of all the complaints, etc). They didn't introduce and design a new machine. They offered an option for the people who "needed" a matte screen (read: the people who've been going on and on and on about it for months).
In my humble opinion there's no way that you can expect Apple to redesign their existing (imo) very good design.
Wow.. you must be exceptionally tone death to your own ignorance. That is most moronic statement I have heard this month. Thank you. Please post more replies like this and I hope you speak the same in reality. (If you havn't already) Consistent statement like this will guarantee you to be the butt of all jokes for anyone who has half a brain. There is about 3 levels of stupid that in that statement alone, yet you do it so well. Bravo.
<Fake Edit> Did not realize it is an old post.
Coming from a Lenovo T61 I am used to the matte screen. However my new MBP 13 currently ONLY offers GLOSS. I do have to make screen tilt adjustments when I am in a well lit room or we aware of light source. I really love hte compact size of 13 and would consider a matte option in the future. I just hope Apple makes better cosmetic changes to integrate the matte display with the unibody.
Not only that but isn't the "glass" on the Macbook Pro acrylic? At least that's what it feels like to me.
In any regards, it's the same stuff Dell and other companies are using to put over the LCDs in their glossy laptops.
So to think that Apple's doing something premium by using "glass" is just wishful thinking.
i can defo see why people are on the fence about this subject, but i had my decision confirmed to me today when i potentially scratched my screen with my cinema display and there was nothing to be seen.. whatever your preference to the glass/acrylic/whatever they are pretty damn durable!
+1
I do photo-editing everyday at work. Since I got the glossy imac, I stop using the mac pro with a matte screen.
I do lots of video editing, and I prefer the glossy screen. From a functionality standpoint, I like having the screen covered in glass rather than a thin layer of plastic. I also can see how the black border makes the images pop--especially after several years staring at a white MacBook. As far as looks go, if the matte MBP had a gray border like the Air, it would look a whole lot better.
I'm not a pro photographer, but I always treated the visual arts (mixing video, editing photographs etc) much like mixing audio, which is something I know more about.
When mixing audio, you don't want monitors that hype certain frequencies while mixing. The best mixing monitors are ones that are flat, and represent the captured frequencies accurately - not ones that hype the sound like a home stereo system would. I think this applies to video monitors as well. This idea is supported by a previous poster who noted that all the professional (La Cie etc) video monitors were in fact matte and NOT glossy. I'm not even talking about glare issues and eye fatigue here - that's a no-brainer.
This being said, I'm not sure why photographers would prefer a glossy screen. I personally don't mix and edit on my home stereo system because of it's scooped EQ and subwoofer. At the risk of offending, I can only guess that there are a lot of self-proclaimed professional photographers out there that don't know any better. You don't need it to "pop" while editing, you need to make it pop on the destination device you're editing/ mixing for.
I managed to stop by the Apple store and check out the matte screen. I really liked the looks and the glare difference was obvious sitting beside two glossies. I know that people don't dig the black ring around the bezel, but I think it compliments the rest of the black parts well.
Attachments
I agree. i couldn't have said it any better. and just to add to your statement, i have even seen some of those lacie monitors come with shades/hoods for maximum glare-free work. sort of like a lens hood you see on lenses in cameras. it just goes to show how far some people (who are probably professional professionals. like really really professionals) need their work to be totally free of glares. but then again, i have never seen people actually use those monitors in all the "professional" places i've worked or visited in.
my theory to that is that people aren't as nit-picky as before because the tech of lcd monitors has come so far that the "flatness" professionals were seeking can now be quantified via the lcd market. not sure if i said that sensibly but sort of like there is an even playing field now with "professional" products and "consumer" products being equal, if not, in the same ballpark.
so, the fact that apple chose glossy was to wow people in order to play into that field. and perhaps, shocked the professionals and designers when apple only had a glossy option but also knew they would bring back the matte once they figured out how to do it. does this make sense? oh boy, it's 1:30am and i am still rambling... night all.
Apple, who used to cater mostly towards professionals is looking to try and take a piece of the consumer pie. The glass on the laptops and iMacs give the appearance of a larger screen and hype the contrast and colours in order to give them better curb appeal in the stores. Now Apple is trying to sacrifice pro features for consumer features and cheaper prices (SD card slot vs expresscard, the temporary elimination of firewire in the Macbooks etc) It's pure marketing, and the pro guys are starting to suffer.
I just picked up the 15 uMBP 2.8ghz. I went back and forth over the glossy vs matte screen and at the store I can to a decision.
They had two side-by-side for comparison and I was looking at this image. In the glossy screen the color letters on the boy's shirt were close to black, when on the matte screen the color of the letters is royal blue (which is the true color). As a photographer I have to have accurate color representation and density. Although the glossy screen had a touch more "snap" to it I believe the matte screen will serve pros better in the long run. Sharpness was also exactly the same in both.
I got the anti-glare screen and I'm happy with it.
They had two side-by-side for comparison and I was looking at this image. In the glossy screen the color letters on the boy's shirt were close to black, when on the matte screen the color of the letters is royal blue (which is the true color). As a photographer I have to have accurate color representation and density. Although the glossy screen had a touch more "snap" to it I believe the matte screen will serve pros better in the long run. Sharpness was also exactly the same in both.
I got the anti-glare screen and I'm happy with it.
It's just Apple marketing. A lot of the people who bought a unibody before the matte option was out just feel F'ed in the A and just wanna come defend their purchase on these forums without any decent arguments, that's what it is
ORRRR.... here's a really, really crazy far out idea. Maybe some people actually like the glossy screen better than the matte! Friggen crazy idea right?
They have these things called preference and opinions. Yeah, it's kind of a new concept, try googling it. It's far too complicated for me to explain.
I like glossy better. It has it's share of cons, but I like the fact that it's a bit more durable and easier to keep clean. The colors also pop out more for me. I think it's because of the black frame but who knows.
Matte looks nice too. Images look very sharp, but when you put it next to the Glossy it sort of looks like someone put a opaque grayscale filter on it or something the colors look ever so slightly more muted.
I'm also not a fan of the Matte's frame. What gives? It looks kinda halfassed, why can you still see some of the black on it? It looks way more tacky and half finished than the glossy.
Matte option downside
This is the best argument for the glossy. They are more durable than the matte screen. I just got a matte MBP and while I love it, it already has a couple of scratches. It also gets dirty easily. Spent awhile getting some smudges off it. It seems to soak up the oil & dirt from fingers. I'm about to post a new thread about this.
This is the best argument for the glossy. They are more durable than the matte screen. I just got a matte MBP and while I love it, it already has a couple of scratches. It also gets dirty easily. Spent awhile getting some smudges off it. It seems to soak up the oil & dirt from fingers. I'm about to post a new thread about this.
Looks blue to me too. Matte ftw.
Why any "professional" photographer/editor would want anything to further influence the look of their images is beyond me.