THANK YOU.
I hate matte displays. In 95% of my working conditions, gloss just flat-out looks better (contrast, richness, sharpness), and this new single-pane should help substantially in that extra 5%.
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.
Retina Macbook Pro, don't like the screen.
- Thread starter mark28
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
THANK YOU.
I hate matte displays. In 95% of my working conditions, gloss just flat-out looks better (contrast, richness, sharpness), and this new single-pane should help substantially in that extra 5%.
This is not how the Matte Macbook Pro is made. Look up which screen models are used for the Matte Macbook Pro. I looked mine up and it was a Matte laptop screen from Samsung.
So why would Apple put a film over a screen that is already Matte? It's obvious that the Matte screens aren't made like you suggested.
----------
Eizo also has Matte display which are professional grade monitors. I guess a company like Eizo which sells professional monitors have no clue what they are doing.
----------
I went toying around at Best Buy today during my lunch break, couldn't get enough of the new screen, it's amazing.
Between the regular Glare MBP and the Retina Glare MBP, the Retina MBP is obviously much better. No contest.
Once sales are down because of no matte, Apple will have to give what the professional customers want. It happened with the uMBP and it will happen again.
They buy a "matte LCD panel" from Samsung. Which is a regular LCD with a matte film already affixed to the glass at the factory. I didn't mean to imply that Apple were putting a matte film on all their LCDs, just that all matte LCDs are a regular LCD with a matte film bonded to the glass.
Because there is nothing covering the LCD glass with the Retina MacBook Pro, if you really want a matte finish, I'm sure that third parties will be producing a film you can put on yours with good results. (unlike films that went on the older MacBook Pros or iPads etc. where the film is several millimeters above the LCD panel)
Eizo's professional monitors are also used primarily for print, where a glossy magazine is 15:1 contrast. You actively have to reduce the contrast ratio of a display for print work, so having a matte finish that reduces contrast is going to have no effect. You will also find that the environments that professional monitors are used in, are highly controlled and monitor hoods are supplied with most professional displays to shield them from ambient light.
Oh, and if we're talking professional monitors, why does Sony's $23,400 broadcast monitor have a finish similar to the Retina MacBook Pro?
I remember those pictures from the Sharp 835U 3D TV thread on the AVS forum last year.Actually, glare is a significantly worse problem on matte displays compared with glossy displays. Glossy displays typically manage to avoid glare altogether, but do so at the cost of having hard specular reflections rather than diffused reflections.
With a matte screen, any bright light source that hits the display, affects the entire display. With a glossy screen, only the small area that is reflecting the light source is affected.
Matte screen coatings are an additional layer on top of the LCD glass, that also adds speckling/grain to the image and reduces sharpness of the display.
Notice how the matte LCD (left) is significantly more affected by reflections than the glossy one, and contrast over the entire display is reduced significantly.
Without being bonded to the glass, as you have with the iPhone and Sony's Televisions, having a sheet of glass over the display as you had with previous MacBook Pro models, was a big problem, as it introduced double reflections that reduce contrast and clarity of the display. (though it offered good protection and made them easy to clean)
Not putting anything over the LCD glass with the Retina MacBook Pro, is better for image quality.
What I'd much rather see next year instead of a matte option, would be a "high resolution" 3360×2100 retina display. (4× 1680×1050, rather than 1440×900)
The standard 1440×900 "retina" resolution just doesn't offer enough workspace for me, and there's a noticeable reduction in image quality when using the scaled 1680×1050 or 1920×1200 resolutions.
They buy a "matte LCD panel" from Samsung. Which is a regular LCD with a matte film already affixed to the glass at the factory. I didn't mean to imply that Apple were putting a matte film on all their LCDs, just that all matte LCDs are a regular LCD with a matte film bonded to the glass.
Because there is nothing covering the LCD glass with the Retina MacBook Pro, if you really want a matte finish, I'm sure that third parties will be producing a film you can put on yours with good results. (unlike films that went on the older MacBook Pros or iPads etc. where the film is several millimeters above the LCD panel)
Eizo's professional monitors are also used primarily for print, where a glossy magazine is 15:1 contrast. You actively have to reduce the contrast ratio of a display for print work, so having a matte finish that reduces contrast is going to have no effect. You will also find that the environments that professional monitors are used in, are highly controlled and monitor hoods are supplied with most professional displays to shield them from ambient light.
Oh, and if we're talking professional monitors, why does Sony's $23,400 broadcast monitor have a finish similar to the Retina MacBook Pro?
You do know that there are 2 types of Anti-glare screens? You have missed the chemical-treated Matte screens which retains the sharpness and color reproduction. This is the type of Anti-glare screens Apple uses .
Yes, sorry I forgot to link the source.
I have owned several matte MacBook Pros (actually, PowerBooks too) because I didn't want a pane of glass over the display. While they may use a chemically treated finish, there has always been speckle and reduced sharpness with them compared to other non-matte displays.
I made no claims about color reproduction.
Fail
Your example has little to do with real-world use of portable computer displays.
Moving on... A good anti-glare film should do the trick when it comes to the rMBP. The Power Support film is excellent.
Personally, I wouldn't touch the rMBP with a ten foot pole until it has been around for awhile. And even then I am still unconvinced that I need to pay a premium to own a Retina display MBP. I rather spend the money on more useful/fun things...
Your example has little to do with real-world use of portable computer displays.
Moving on... A good anti-glare film should do the trick when it comes to the rMBP. The Power Support film is excellent.
Personally, I wouldn't touch the rMBP with a ten foot pole until it has been around for awhile. And even then I am still unconvinced that I need to pay a premium to own a Retina display MBP. I rather spend the money on more useful/fun things...
yes totally agree too. good job beta.
i am impressed that Apple doesn't charge extra for this film lol (matte price = lcd price @ same resolution)
Sounds like you didn't read his posts after the one you quoted.Your example has little to do with real-world use of portable computer displays.
Moving on... A good anti-glare film should do the trick when it comes to the rMBP. The Power Support film is excellent.
Personally, I wouldn't touch the rMBP with a ten foot pole until it has been around for awhile. And even then I am still unconvinced that I need to pay a premium to own a Retina display MBP. I rather spend the money on more useful/fun things...
I have to disagree. For me, the most significant advantage of a matte display is that it eliminates distracting low-intensity reflections. For example, on my Air right now in my office I clearly see a reflection of recessed circular fluorescent lights that are in the hallway. The intensity of those reflections is very low--not enough to have any noticeable wash-out effect on a matte display because they're far away and not directly shining on the screen--but the reflection is clearly visible on the Air's glossy (but not glassy) display and are very distracting.
I agree that bright light sources are going to wreak havoc on matte displays and glossy displays alike (just in different ways, as the pictures posted in this thread aptly demonstrate). But on my Air I'm frequently distracted by low-intensity reflections from various light sources, which a matte display would eliminate with perhaps only a slight bit of wash-out that would probably not be noticeable. Before my Air I had a 15" with a matte display, and this issue has been my only complaint with the Air.
Assuming this is all true, why would Eizo choose to make their monitors matte instead of glossy? They clearly do so for a reason, but if contrast during proofing would have to be reduced even with a matte display, and if the reflectivity of a glossy display could be neutralized with monitor hoods, what is the reason?
You took words out of my mouth - precisely the reason why I have a matte display on my MBP. On the other hand, I will admit that the sharpness is reduced a bit. The tradeoff to me is worth it, however I'm not here to tell people one is better than the other - it's just a matter of preference. I just wish that Apple offered matte as an option for Retina screens.
Actually, glare is a significantly worse problem on matte displays compared with glossy displays. Glossy displays typically manage to avoid glare altogether, but do so at the cost of having hard specular reflections rather than diffused reflections.
With a matte screen, any bright light source that hits the display, affects the entire display. With a glossy screen, only the small area that is reflecting the light source is affected.
Matte screen coatings are an additional layer on top of the LCD glass, that also adds speckling/grain to the image and reduces sharpness of the display.
Notice how the matte LCD (left) is significantly more affected by reflections than the glossy one, and contrast over the entire display is reduced significantly.
Without being bonded to the glass, as you have with the iPhone and Sony's Televisions, having a sheet of glass over the display as you had with previous MacBook Pro models, was a big problem, as it introduced double reflections that reduce contrast and clarity of the display. (though it offered good protection and made them easy to clean)
Not putting anything over the LCD glass with the Retina MacBook Pro, is better for image quality.
What I'd much rather see next year instead of a matte option, would be a "high resolution" 3360×2100 retina display. (4× 1680×1050, rather than 1440×900)
The standard 1440×900 "retina" resolution just doesn't offer enough workspace for me, and there's a noticeable reduction in image quality when using the scaled 1680×1050 or 1920×1200 resolutions.
Don't know if it's just the picture, but your glossy TV is so over-contrasted that details are lost in the shadows (and presumably the highlights, though there aren't really any in that scene). That's the other BIG thing matte screens had over glossy screens in the previous generations of MBP: color accuracy. I can't speak for the retina display, but all the glossy MBP screens are over-saturated. Fine for normal use, but no good for anything where even the slightest amount of color accuracy is required.
I think that's probably just the photograph, though Samsung displays can be quite bad for that. What it illustrates though, is how the overall image is lower contrast, and with direct reflections from bright light sources, the matte display is actually worse affected than the glossy one. The reflection itself is somewhat dimmer, but it results in a lot of glare around that area and reduced contrast over the entire display. Sharp's LCDs are actually higher contrast than Samsung's, but you would never know it from those photos.
Sometimes the only solution is to move the display, and a having matte/glossy screen won't make a difference as far as reflections are concerned.
And I disagree about color accuracy. When calibrated, a glossy display is no more or less accurate than a matte display. Actually, that's not entirely true—a glossy display's accuracy will be less affected by the environment around it compared to the matte display which diffuses any light hitting it across the surface of the display.
A glossy or matte finish has no bearing on the display's saturation. That is determined by the LCD panel technology (color filters used etc.) and the backlight source. Measure any matte/glossy MacBook displays with a spectrophotometer and you will find that they are almost identical. (note: colorimeters are not suitable for this task)
None of the MacBook displays are oversaturated—in fact it's only in the last couple of years that they've even been able to meet the sRGB spec, prior to that, they have been woefully undersaturated. And if you're talking about graphics monitors, rather than just something to browse the web with etc. you really want something that meets the Adobe RGB spec rather than sRGB.
Matte displays can appear to be less saturated due to the loss of contrast in the display however. That Sharp TV with the matte finish is actually a Quattron model, which is more saturated than the Samsung display, but due to the loss of contrast in a bright room, it looks less saturated under those lighting conditions. (in this case, that also looks more natural, but that's a calibration issue)
And here are the numbers from Anandtech:
The matte 2011 MacBook Pro display is actually more saturated than any of the other MacBook displays, including the Retina one.
Is your home lit up like the BB (best buy?) store? Did you compare your MacBook Pro under the same lighting conditions?
I'm not making the argument that a glossy screen beats a matte one in every single scenario, but in most common ones, it does look better if you actually compare the two machines, rather than just looking at one and saying "well obviously it's better/worse than the other here."
Again, I think it's important to actually do the comparison here. It's very easy to say "the glossy screen is bothering me here, a matte one would be better" but I think it would surprise a lot of people how the matte display may actually look in the same conditions.
Especially with the larger notebooks (I had a 17" Powerbook, MacBook Pro, and then downsized to a 15") I found reflections to be an issue regardless of whether they were matte or glossy. With the matte ones, reflections resulted in a lot of glare, whereas the glossy screens (mostly) just required that I reposition the notebook, or the reflection was contained to a small area of the display and wasn't an issue.
I really think that the Anandtech comparison is one of the best examples of this:
If you just looked at the Retina MacBook Pro (or Air, in your case) you might say "well a matte screen would be better here" but then when you look at the matte display, it's actually a lot worse. As I said before, try reading the menu bar on each display.
The reflection on the matte display may have less intensity, but it has a far more destructive impact on the image itself.
Because a lot of people are set in their ways and think it couldn't possibly be a "professional screen" if it isn't a matte display (but then why are Sony not making their $23,400 monitor matte?) and when you are going to be reducing the contrast of an 800:1 LCD for print anyway, the contrast loss from having a matte display doesn't matter at all.
And these days, I don't know how much you should pay attention to Eizo. Perhaps they've gone back on their decision now, but a couple of years ago they started switching from using IPS displays to Samsung S-PVA panels, which are totally unsuitable for use in a graphics monitor. (terrible color & gamma shifts with slight viewing angle changes, but high contrast specs on paper)
Last edited:
Notice how the matte LCD (left) is significantly more affected by reflections than the glossy one, and contrast over the entire display is reduced significantly.
I think it's clear that the reason the picture on the right looks better is because someone removed the Scooby Doo stuffed animal from behind the end table.
Thank you Beta for this and your other informative posts. This is very interesting, especially for someone like me who feels exactly like that. That is, that matte screens are better, because glossy screens are glare prone. This is really food for thought. Anymore insights you could share would be much appreciated, as I am currently debating whether to get the retina macbook pro, and the only thing holding me off is the non-matte screen.
I'm not sure that there is much more to add to that really.
If you're used to a matte display and do buy one, I'm sure that at some point you will probably find yourself in a situation where you're using the Retina MacBook Pro, and there's some reflection on the screen that's bothering you, so you'll be thinking to yourself "I wish I had a matte LCD" but even if you had one, I bet you would find that glare, rather than reflections, was just as big a problem in those same conditions. I'm sure that as an owner of a matte display, you will have also found glare to be problematic at times.
Ultimately, it's up to you whether you think it's worth it to get the retina display, I just don't think it should be immediately discounted, because it's nothing like the old "glossy" MacBook Pros, and in many situations a glossy display will look better. (most situations, in my personal experience)
Are you willing to wait a year to see if Apple does release them with a matte display eventually? My money would be on them not offering a matte display. It was different when Apple had decided to put an additional pane of glass over the LCD, and then brought back the matte option due to backlash. I'd be surprised if the same thing happened with the Retina display.
Another thing to consider is that the Retina display is also an IPS panel rather than the TN panels you will find on any of the other MacBook Pros, which means that you should have a lot more flexibility in positioning the display, because the image shouldn't change dramatically as the vertical viewing angle changes any more.
Again, many thanks for your insights, which are really helpful. In your previous post you mention that you wouldn't be surprised if an anti-glare/matte screen cover will be released for the retina. Should this not be the case, do you by any chance know if the current screen covers for the glossy display will work (not taking into account any size difference, which I presume can be addressed with a pair of scissors and a steady hand)?
I'm thinking that if I regret the retina glare, should I decide to buy one, I will always have this to fall back on.
Thanks!
There is no way, ever that a matte cover is released for the retina, whoever says otherwise doesn't understand basic tech and apple. First a film cant be stuck on there without a penalty in manufacturing, second, and this is far more important apple are heading towards eliminating the matte/glossy dichotomy (others too are heading there) with a film that has .0something reflections, that is negligible and also by virtue of it not being grainy like a matte film is the best for text and image clarity. The future isn't matte or glossy, the future is a transparent non grainy layer, treated glass more than anything that's been treated to minimize reflections to close to nothing, when that reaches mass production and that will be much sooner than later there will be no point for matte or glossy.
Dude.
It's IPS-based technology. Color range and shadow detail will be better. Ditto for viewing angles. It's a godsend to graphic and web designers.
The glare on it is nothing compared to other glossy screens. The plastic frame around the panel has far more glare compared to the screen itself. I'm impressed. And I prefer glossy screens because AG coating reduces viewable quality of colors (to a small extent but the difference is visible)...
If the thing doesn't get up to 100C when doing 3d rendering or other math-intensive functions, it will be the best Mac ever.
----------
I think that's probably just the photograph, though Samsung displays can be quite bad for that. What it illustrates though, is how the overall image is lower contrast, and with direct reflections from bright light sources, the matte display is actually worse affected than the glossy one. The reflection itself is somewhat dimmer, but it results in a lot of glare around that area and reduced contrast over the entire display. Sharp's LCDs are actually higher contrast than Samsung's, but you would never know it from those photos.
Sometimes the only solution is to move the display, and a having matte/glossy screen won't make a difference as far as reflections are concerned.
And I disagree about color accuracy. When calibrated, a glossy display is no more or less accurate than a matte display. Actually, that's not entirely true—a glossy display's accuracy will be less affected by the environment around it compared to the matte display which diffuses any light hitting it across the surface of the display.
A glossy or matte finish has no bearing on the display's saturation. That is determined by the LCD panel technology (color filters used etc.) and the backlight source. Measure any matte/glossy MacBook displays with a spectrophotometer and you will find that they are almost identical. (note: colorimeters are not suitable for this task)
None of the MacBook displays are oversaturated—in fact it's only in the last couple of years that they've even been able to meet the sRGB spec, prior to that, they have been woefully undersaturated. And if you're talking about graphics monitors, rather than just something to browse the web with etc. you really want something that meets the Adobe RGB spec rather than sRGB.
Matte displays can appear to be less saturated due to the loss of contrast in the display however. That Sharp TV with the matte finish is actually a Quattron model, which is more saturated than the Samsung display, but due to the loss of contrast in a bright room, it looks less saturated under those lighting conditions. (in this case, that also looks more natural, but that's a calibration issue)
And here are the numbers from Anandtech:
Sharp - I had a TV of that model... colors in the yellow region were better, but overall it was a gimmick (many independent reviews also call it as such). Worse, the model I had (LCD edge-lit) was poor with dark colors, crushing them in the process to black. The 40" Quattron was a joke, but other models might be better... and I did calibrate...
Anandtech is good, but their CPU temps seem off (75C for a 2011MBP? The ones I've seen get up to 90 or higher under load... still, 12 degrees cooler for the 2012 model is one heck of an accomplishment... if I had the money I'd be tempted to upgrade now... Even 78C max is less taxing on a CPU's lifespan...)
There's no way Apple are going to release a matte film for the Retina display, but I bet third parties do, as they have done for iPads and previous MacBook Pros. The results should be much better though, as the film will be applied directly to the display glass, rather than the cover glass of an iPad/MacBook Pro, which is several millimetres above the display glass. (a terrible thing when the matte film diffuses light)
And I agree that the future is "reflection-free" glass. Sony have already developed coatings which cut reflections to below 0.1% years ago, and yet they still decided not implement it on their $23,400 broadcast monitor. (this is not the HX920 pictured below) Instead they chose to go with a finish similar to the Retina MacBook Pro.
Interestingly though, Philips have actually released a television in Europe using this "moth-eye" coating, the 46PFL9706.
Here's a comparison between Sony's HX920 which has an AR coated gorilla glass panel optically bonded to the LCD display panel (more in common with an iPhone than the Retina MacBook Pro) and the Philips 9706 which has the lowest-reflection matte coating of any display available today. (far more advanced than anything Apple uses in their displays, or is likely to)
The philips coating seems to minimise loss of contrast across the display, but still suffers from significant glare, whereas the Sony suffers from reflections. In this comparison, it seems like it's basically a wash, and remember that the Sony display has an additional layer of glass on top of the LCD that the Retina MacBook Pro does not. (so it will suffer more from reflections)
Sharp's Quattron displays are all terrible in my opinion, but the images are a good comparison between a matte LCD and a glossy one in a home environment, as it shows how you still suffer from reflections (though somewhat muted) and significant glare & contrast loss with matte finishes compared to glossy ones.Sharp - I had a TV of that model... colors in the yellow region were better, but overall it was a gimmick (many independent reviews also call it as such). Worse, the model I had (LCD edge-lit) was poor with dark colors, crushing them in the process to black. The 40" Quattron was a joke, but other models might be better... and I did calibrate...