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.
Next Retina MBP's -- with Anti Glare option?
- Thread starter sparkie7
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have to agree with Mike.
I use my rmbp in stadiums, outdoor events etc and find the glare is greatly reduced from the cmbp (not totally eliminated)
Apple is correct that the glare is reduced in the rMBP, but it's still got glare.
Which is why I compared it to an anti-glare high res in the Apple Store, and bought the anti-glare high res instead.
It'll takes years (if ever!) before anti-glare comes back.
Which is why I compared it to an anti-glare high res in the Apple Store, and bought the anti-glare high res instead.
It'll takes years (if ever!) before anti-glare comes back.
What are the chances will offer an AG/Matte display option for the next revision that's expected soon?
I cannot stand that glass mirror on current MBPs as standard
Apple is focused on the consumer market where shiny toys sell.
In that case they should call it the Macbook Con. LOL
Instead of the Macbook Pro ----------
Why have gotten rid of the AG option? So we are stuck with 3rd party overlays? How crap
In that case they should call it the Macbook Con. LOL
Bravo
My 15" mid 2010 MBP with Hi-Res, Anti-Glare is a stellar display.
The frustration of Apples blind eye towards anything other than obscene profits is unlikely to allow them to build a true enthusiast / pro model. They have traditionally shunned providing choices other that what they think is best. Sadly the cult like programming of their followers has been so effective that even those individuals have bought into Apples hype. No longer thinking for themselves they look to Apple for guidance. Apple builds it, they buy it, no thinking required.
Cheap TN panel, bad view angles, wash-out colours, mediocre resolution, LED-backlit.
Yeah. Stellar!
thats a dmb move
Cheap TN panel, bad view angles, wash-out colours, mediocre resolution, LED-backlit.
Yeah. Stellar!
ive had ag and upgradaed to retina there is no comparison, the retina is much ebtter, colors, quality and obviously reslution, everything is better
Cheap TN panel, bad view angles, wash-out colours, mediocre resolution, LED-backlit.
Yeah. Stellar!
You're making it sound like those very dark and image retaining retina displays are perfect.
I hope the rMBP 2.0 will have brighter displays and the image retention issues solved. ( I have experienced the image retention issues, hence why i don't have a rMBP yet )
The only reason you'd ever want a matte display is you're always using the device outdoors. In this case, what matters is you get a readable screen while outside, all the other bits don't matter.What are the chances will offer an AG/Matte display option for the next revision that's expected soon?
I cannot stand that glass mirror on current MBPs as standard
The reasons you don't want a matte display are "all the other bits".
----------
Unless you have the equipment to optically bond the 3rd party matte overlays, you're only going to make the screen worse than if you leave it alone.Why have gotten rid of the AG option? So we are stuck with 3rd party overlays? How crap
There was an interesting post here, which unfortunately I was unable to locate. Basically, the poster said (if I understood them correctly) that it is not possible to coat the rMBP display because of the way its constructed (single glass sheet). I don't know nearly enough about display technology to comment on that claim.
As far as practice goes, the 'proper' matte screen is just as usable as the rMBP one - the later does have some reflection, but it works fine outdoors (as long as you are in a shade etc.) - while both of them utterly fail outside of shade. What we need are displays which do not need backlights
As far as practice goes, the 'proper' matte screen is just as usable as the rMBP one - the later does have some reflection, but it works fine outdoors (as long as you are in a shade etc.) - while both of them utterly fail outside of shade. What we need are displays which do not need backlights
I cannot stand that glass mirror on current MBPs as standard
I used to be a huge fan of Anti-Glare but now I like glossy better. You just get used to it and the colors look a thousand times better. Glossy IPS is just amazing........
Now I know why I haven't bothered cleaning out my Firefox browsing history. Posts like yours put me into digging mode. Took awhile but found it.
"Glare" and "Reflections" are not interchangeable terms.
There are three basic ways you can categorise reflections, Diffuse Lambertian (Dl) Specular (S) and Diffuse Haze (Dh)
Image
Glare on a matte LCD is a combination of Diffuse Lambertian (reduced contrast) and Diffuse Haze. (large area of impact, even from point light sources)
The Retina MacBook Pro is primarily affected by specular reflections, lambertian reflections + haze reflections are minimised due to the glossy surface.
Most of the images in your post are of the older MacBook Pros which have an additional pane of glass over the display. (you can tell from the "MacBook Pro" text, and the terrible reflections)
The images at Anandtech show a far more realistic comparison between the display types in more typical usage scenarios (though most people won't have video lights hovering above their notebook while they try to use them)
1. "Glossy" MacBook Pro on the left, Retina MacBook Pro on the right:
Note the significantly reduced intensity of the specular reflections. This is because it's reflecting directly off the LCD glass, rather than having an additional pane of glass over the display with an air-gap in the midddle.
2. Retina MacBook Pro on the left, Matte MacBook Pro on the right:
Note how the Retina MacBook Pro image is significantly higher contrast than the matte display, this is because diffuse reflections in the matte film mean that any light source hitting the screen affects the entire display, making it look washed out, and not just the area of the light source itself.
And look at the amount of glare (haze) over the area where the light is hitting the display. That's far worse affected than the same area on the Retina MacBook Pro. Try reading the menu bar on the matte display, then try reading the Retina display's menu bar.
The only time where a matte display has a possible advantage, is using them outdoors, where you might have a very low contrast, very dull, but usable image, rather than one that is darker with a lot of reflections. In most lighting conditions, the Retina MacBook Pro will look better.
Furthermore, because there is nothing over the front glass of the LCD, I am quite sure that there will be third-parties offering matte films for the Retina MacBook Pro.
Unlike trying to put a matte film on an iPad or the older MacBook Pros, this will be no different to any matte Retina MacBook Pro that Apple may or may not release at some point in the future, as all matte LCDs are simply a matte film laid over the LCD glass, and the Retina MacBook Pro surface is the LCD glass.
For example, removal of the film from a matte Dell monitor by soaking the panel with wet paper towels for a few hours:
Source
Both have a specular reflection but the rMBP is more reflective due to the use of glass. The MBA uses plastic which is less reflective but not perfectly flat so the distortion is often distorted a bit (like a distorting mirror).
Overall the rMBP's display is a lot better than the MBA's despite the glare. I also like it more than the matte cMBP's even if you don't take resolution into account. It has much lower reflectance. The reflection type is specular rather than diffuse like some people would prefer but there's no doubt that the amount of light reflected itself is lower than on a matte cMBP.
See the middle picture in the long post up there. You can barely see what's on the top left of the cMBP and it's all gray and washed out. Meanwhile the top right of the rMBP is legible and colors stay accurate.
I can understand why people find diffuse reflections less distracting (you only see white gradient rather than actual shapes) but I personally find the trade off of getting lower reflectance, better color saturation and deeper blacks well worth it. I also read somewhere that the anti-glare filter's grain (microscopic bumps) create some some of refraction that decreases sharpness on high-density monitors, but I don't know if that's true.
Last edited:
None. Apple will continue to brag about how "anti-glare" the retina is. Even though it's total crap in the glare dept compared to the older matte display.
Oh good you're back and as adorably naive and misinformed as ever. Gods forbid you do any of MY design or graphics work. You're telling me that the retina beats a matte display in glare? You haven't seen this have you...
Arrogance
----------
What does "sarkey" mean? And for that matter, what is LOLOL? I haven't seen that since I chatted with my kid sister in 2003.
i dont understand why you need to be rude and troll me. guy who "has all iphoes, all ipods, and all macs" you think your top dog because of that?
in regards to yourpicture, you proved my point. apple much improved the glare compared to the original glossy macbook.
and im sure you as a designer would love to work with a screen that you can barely see outdoors judging by your pic "captainknowitall"