RMBP + Matt screen?

Would you like to see a Matte Option?

  • Yes: I would love an anti glare option.

    Votes: 45 51.1%
  • No: I'm fine with the current display.

    Votes: 43 48.9%

  • Total voters
    88

BigJohno

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 1, 2007
1,392
395
San Francisco
Hey everyone. I wen't to see the RMBP in the store yesterday and was really impressed. However, I have the matte high res macbook pro and I just love the quality of that screen and the fact that there is no glare. Are you guys upset about the fact that its just as reflective as the glass model? Do you think they will make a matte one?
 

edk99

macrumors 6502a
May 27, 2009
708
711
FL
Hey everyone. I wen't to see the RMBP in the store yesterday and was really impressed. However, I have the matte high res macbook pro and I just love the quality of that screen and the fact that there is no glare. Are you guys upset about the fact that its just as reflective as the glass model? Do you think they will make a matte one?
All reports I've read is that the screen is less reflective then previous glass models. Apple says 75% less reflective.

I have not seen one yet so I'm just going by what others are saying. Your the first to report it is as reflective as previous models. :confused:
 

BigJohno

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 1, 2007
1,392
395
San Francisco
All reports I've read is that the screen is less reflective then previous glass models. Apple says 75% less reflective.

I have not seen one yet so I'm just going by what others are saying. Your the first to report it is as reflective as previous models. :confused:
I personally thought it was too reflective. I read a report saying its as reflective as the old 2006-7 macbook pro with the silver bezel.
 

Krazy Bill

macrumors 68030
Dec 21, 2011
2,985
3
The discussion about matte screens is moot since it will no longer be offered one day.

Biggest surprise of WWDC is the streamlined path and user limitations Apple has set for all its macbooks in the near future. :(
 

wundram

macrumors member
Nov 21, 2009
44
61
I'm pretty sure you will not see any matte screens for this kind of pixel density. Making the surface of the screen matte means that it will scatter the light, and blur the image slightly. The amount of bluring will depend on the distance between the matt surface (the side of the glass facing you) and the actual image (on the other side of the glass), and that glass is going to be at least a couple of mm thick. So if you give it a matte surface, it will probably fuzz out the detail of a retina screen.
 

Cypther

macrumors member
Jan 15, 2012
61
0
Probably will be a Matte screen in the future once sales start dropping because some of the Professional users want it. It happened to the unibody macbook pro when it first came out, so it might happen again.
 

therealseebs

macrumors 65816
Apr 14, 2010
1,057
312
All reports I've read is that the screen is less reflective then previous glass models. Apple says 75% less reflective.

I have not seen one yet so I'm just going by what others are saying. Your the first to report it is as reflective as previous models. :confused:
It is almost certainly reflecting less light, but it's functionally just as reflective.

Look at it this way: It's a new IPS panel. Supposedly it really has at least 24-bit range for expressing values, right? And the old ones had... I dunno, say they were 18-bit values. So they went from being able to express 64 non-dithered values of grey to 256, right?

So. We care about this, because it looks better. But wait! All that new resolution we're talking about? All of that is happening within 1/64 of the available brightness. Which is to say, if you start with an 18-bit display, and go from the very blackest black it has, to the next brightest grey, that next brightest grey is 1/64 of the way to pure white, right? And we want the IPS display because it can show details more precise than that.

Which is to say: 1/4 as bright is not a very big difference, compared to the scale on which we are talking about seeing light and color.

The display may not reflect as much light, but it's reflecting exactly the same things, just not as brightly. It's like turning the brightness on a display down; it may make it a little harder to read, but it doesn't make the display go away. You can still see with perfect clarity in the reflections, because they are still perfect reflections, even if they're not as bright. So if you look at a MBPR screen, and behind you there is a medium grey surface with some dark grey text on it, you can read the text as clearly as you could in a mirror. It won't be as bright as it was on the previous ones, but it's still just about as noticeable, because your eyes are way, way, more sensitive than they'd need to be to pick out reflections.

If anything, it's effectively more noticeable, because you are looking at a heck of a lot more pixels with a much broader range of colors. If you take an amount of reflection that was, previously, just barely as much as the smallest difference between greys the MBP could show, it will now be many times larger than the smallest difference between greys the MBP can show...
 

jimmyz80

macrumors member
Jun 12, 2012
68
5
Apex, NC
I'm pretty sure you will not see any matte screens for this kind of pixel density. Making the surface of the screen matte means that it will scatter the light, and blur the image slightly. The amount of bluring will depend on the distance between the matt surface (the side of the glass facing you) and the actual image (on the other side of the glass), and that glass is going to be at least a couple of mm thick. So if you give it a matte surface, it will probably fuzz out the detail of a retina screen.
Put an anti-glare screen protector on a retina iPhone or iPad and you'll see how much you hate life. It kills the benefit of the higher pixel density like this poster just mentioned.

I have an RMBP and I have no complaints about the reflectivity of the screen, but I only use it indoors.
 

therealseebs

macrumors 65816
Apr 14, 2010
1,057
312
Put an anti-glare screen protector on a retina iPhone or iPad and you'll see how much you hate life. It kills the benefit of the higher pixel density like this poster just mentioned.
Anti-glare screen protectors are very different from matte screens. If you put an anti-glare screen protector on a high-resolution matte screen, it will look horrible, even if the screen looked fine to begin with.

I have an Air, and even indoors, I find the glare frustrating and difficult. I run it as a clamshell with an external monitor most of the time as a result. The RMBP's display is, it seems to me, slightly more reflective than the Air, though less reflective than the full-on glossy screens of other models.
 

jimmyz80

macrumors member
Jun 12, 2012
68
5
Apex, NC
Anti-glare screen protectors are very different from matte screens. If you put an anti-glare screen protector on a high-resolution matte screen, it will look horrible, even if the screen looked fine to begin with.

I have an Air, and even indoors, I find the glare frustrating and difficult. I run it as a clamshell with an external monitor most of the time as a result. The RMBP's display is, it seems to me, slightly more reflective than the Air, though less reflective than the full-on glossy screens of other models.
I have both the RMBP and a 13" Air, and IMO the reflectivity looks about the same to me. As long as I don't have my back to a window, I'm ok in either case.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,735
1,900
It is almost certainly reflecting less light, but it's functionally just as reflective.

Look at it this way: It's a new IPS panel. Supposedly it really has at least 24-bit range for expressing values, right? And the old ones had... I dunno, say they were 18-bit values. So they went from being able to express 64 non-dithered values of grey to 256, right?

So. We care about this, because it looks better. But wait! All that new resolution we're talking about? All of that is happening within 1/64 of the available brightness. Which is to say, if you start with an 18-bit display, and go from the very blackest black it has, to the next brightest grey, that next brightest grey is 1/64 of the way to pure white, right? And we want the IPS display because it can show details more precise than that.

Which is to say: 1/4 as bright is not a very big difference, compared to the scale on which we are talking about seeing light and color.
You may already know some of this, but it's not clear in your explanation. First they all use dithering, including 10 bit panels. If they do it in a way that's not noticeable, it's not bad. The values aren't 100% evenly distributed in brightness scaling. Given the limited dynamics range of such devices, they're plotted approximately to a gamma 2.2 curve. This doesn't leave you many values allocated to deep shadow regions. If they were linear values, 244 would be twice the luminance of 122. It's not that way here as it isn't practical within such gamuts and contrast ratios. Gamma encoding isn't exactly evil. It's necessary to properly display images in a pleasing manner within a low dynamics range. Beyond this keep in mind that you lose a few addressable values when profiles are tweaked especially if you're profiling via colorimeter to compensate for display drift as it ages. I'm getting off track here, but the point I'm trying to make is that things don't line up as perfectly as you're suggesting in a real computer display.
 

ebolamonkey3

macrumors regular
Apr 9, 2011
131
0
Boston
I'm really surprised by the poll results. Even though Apple reduced the reflection, it's still not matte. If I have the choice, would definitely love to see the option.
 

therealseebs

macrumors 65816
Apr 14, 2010
1,057
312
You may already know some of this, but it's not clear in your explanation.
Many thanks; I knew some but hardly all. Appreciate the corrections. In particular, I was totally unaware that 10-bit panels were still dithering!

First they all use dithering, including 10 bit panels. If they do it in a way that's not noticeable, it's not bad. The values aren't 100% evenly distributed in brightness scaling. Given the limited dynamics range of such devices, they're plotted approximately to a gamma 2.2 curve. This doesn't leave you many values allocated to deep shadow regions. If they were linear values, 244 would be twice the luminance of 122. It's not that way here as it isn't practical within such gamuts and contrast ratios. Gamma encoding isn't exactly evil. It's necessary to properly display images in a pleasing manner within a low dynamics range. Beyond this keep in mind that you lose a few addressable values when profiles are tweaked especially if you're profiling via colorimeter to compensate for display drift as it ages. I'm getting off track here, but the point I'm trying to make is that things don't line up as perfectly as you're suggesting in a real computer display.
These are good points, and yes, it's not at all linear.

But the net result remains: There's more subtle coloration available on the IPS display, so reflections are more significant compared to the display's internal qualities. There's more detail to be had from the much higher color fidelity, but some of that detail is wasted/lost if you've got larger differences in brightness and color coming from things between you and the screen. For me, at least, being able to clearly see myself in the display sort of undermines the effective quality of the display...
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,735
1,900
These are good points, and yes, it's not at all linear.

But the net result remains: There's more subtle coloration available on the IPS display, so reflections are more significant compared to the display's internal qualities. There's more detail to be had from the much higher color fidelity, but some of that detail is wasted/lost if you've got larger differences in brightness and color coming from things between you and the screen. For me, at least, being able to clearly see myself in the display sort of undermines the effective quality of the display...
I understand you better now. There are a lot of misconceptions. Some people like Apple displays, so they assume the color must be accurate to the profile. It doesn't really work like that. Vibrant != accurate. Then of course displays drift over time, so it becomes a case of at what point was it so accurate? Dithering seems to just be implemented where it's needed, and I have to wonder when manufacturers are playing with numbers. Can the hardware reproduce a true 2^10 color values per channel? Do they all mix properly without problems? What about when you dim the display? Is it a backlight control or panel blocking to maintain a consistent black point? I try not to get hung up on specific points but rather evaluate the display overall. By the way, 10 bit displays assuming a 10 bit displayport connection (not really available under OSX except for 1 or 2 cards under the original Leopard) mostly helps with shadow detail. That may not sound like much, but if you're doing a lot of photo or illustration work, it can be quite helpful. As it is I kind of deal with it as I'm not quite ready to migrate everything, and even Bootcamp has quirks to it in terms of emulated bios and occasional missing features.
 

Marrakas

macrumors 6502
May 23, 2012
407
111
It might just be me, but I find laptops with matte screens to look alot cheaper than the glossy ones. Same goes with TV's.
 

altmac

macrumors member
Aug 10, 2007
34
0
Bring a matte option Apple!

The new RMBP is so shiny and reflective! I saw it today at the store and could not believe the biggest marketing ploy by Apple saying its 75% less reflective...Its NOT! My eyes can tell....and I do have an excellent vision!... Ok maybe cannot quantify it by percentage..but still very glossy...way too much if it!
It looks like an expensive mirror. Just like the previous glossy option.
Give the consumer a choice Apple; bring the matte option!
 
Last edited:

therealseebs

macrumors 65816
Apr 14, 2010
1,057
312
It might just be me, but I find laptops with matte screens to look alot cheaper than the glossy ones. Same goes with TV's.
Oh, it's not just you. It's moderately common; one survey suggested about 15% of computer buyers like glossy better.

But you've nailed the essence of the problem. The people who want matte screens want them because they function better. The people who want glossy screens want them because they look more expensive. Normally, that's not a big problem, but every so often we end up with a case where "look cheap" and "actually work better" are tied to the same feature, so Apple has to either make something that doesn't work as well, or make something that doesn't sell as well to a large subset of their market.
 

Michal11

macrumors member
Jul 31, 2011
64
0
The new RMBP is so shiny and reflective! I saw it today at the store and could not believe the biggest marketing ploy by Apple saying its 75% less reflective...Its NOT! My eyes can tell....and I do have an excellent vision!... Ok maybe cannot quantify it by percentage..but still very glossy...way too much if it!
It looks like an expensive mirror. Just like the previous glossy option.
Give the consumer a choice Apple; bring the matte option!
is it more glossy than Macbook Air display?
 

dusk007

macrumors 68040
Dec 5, 2009
3,386
61
Interesting view. To me it also looks cheaper with glossy, more like a toy for children. I guess you are right.

The display may not reflect as much light, but it's reflecting exactly the same things, just not as brightly. It's like turning the brightness on a display down; it may make it a little harder to read, but it doesn't make the display go away. You can still see with perfect clarity in the reflections, because they are still perfect reflections, even if they're not as bright. So if you look at a MBPR screen, and behind you there is a medium grey surface with some dark grey text on it, you can read the text as clearly as you could in a mirror. It won't be as bright as it was on the previous ones, but it's still just about as noticeable, because your eyes are way, way, more sensitive than they'd need to be to pick out reflections.

If anything, it's effectively more noticeable, because you are looking at a heck of a lot more pixels with a much broader range of colors. If you take an amount of reflection that was, previously, just barely as much as the smallest difference between greys the MBP could show, it will now be many times larger than the smallest difference between greys the MBP can show...
I don't do picture or movie editing and care only for sort of accurate colors but glossy still sucks.

The big problem some people don't seem to care about but I do a lot is that the brightness of the display and in relation the brightness/contrast of the reflections doesn't help if you display dark content.
Yes if you surf on predominantly white pages with a bit of black text the bright screen can over power the reflections and the less bright reflections will need a little less brightness to disappear. Yet Spotlight, iphoto, movies, games many other apps display loads of black and dark grey. You can have a blindingly bright display and reflections will still be annoying because only white or light colors are bright.

I think glossy is cheap toys for kids but I don't want to bother with glossy not even indoors. It is only acceptable at night when I can control every light source perfectly or turn it off completely. During the day even indoors the light that illuminates myself or my shirt creates an annoying reflection. All you need to do is sit next to a window or a in a generally well lit room. I greatly prefer working in well lit environments and also prefer matte because it enables me to do so.
 

MagicBoy

macrumors 68040
May 28, 2006
3,881
898
Manchester, UK
Unlike the standard MacBook Pro there is no separate glass cover on the retina screen - the surface glass is part of the construction of the screen.

With the reduction in reflectivity on this screen I really doubt there will a matte/anti-glare option.
 

aoaaron

macrumors 6502
Sep 4, 2010
451
41
apple's AG last year was phenomenal and a beauty to work on with dark content in so many different areas.

deal breaker this year for me, i hope they return the AG back next year.
 

wdahab

macrumors newbie
Jan 19, 2011
25
0
Still too reflective

I have the Hi-Res AG MBP, and I've played with the RMBP a few times in store. The RMBP is definitely too reflective for anyone who doesn't like reflective screens, and not too reflective for people who don't mind reflective screens. You will see the reflections of lights behind you. If you get it so that the screen is actually pointed toward your face, you will see your reflection in it. If you are trying to watch a video on it with friends, no one will who is standing at a reasonable angle will be able to watch, its much too reflective.

Also, I'll be honest, 1680x1050 on the RMBP might look better than 1680x1050 on the normal HR MBP, but not the HR AG MBP. The matte display just looks so much than glossy.

AFAIK, most high-quality matte displays are actually cellulose (effectively paper) fronted, rather than glass or plastic. So, my guess is that there's a production issue at play, where the grain of the matte (since its basically really fine wood pulps) needs to be so fine as to not cause diffraction. This may just be physically impossible, or it might be right around the corner with some better engineering.
 

Marrakas

macrumors 6502
May 23, 2012
407
111
Oh, it's not just you. It's moderately common; one survey suggested about 15% of computer buyers like glossy better.

But you've nailed the essence of the problem. The people who want matte screens want them because they function better. The people who want glossy screens want them because they look more expensive. Normally, that's not a big problem, but every so often we end up with a case where "look cheap" and "actually work better" are tied to the same feature, so Apple has to either make something that doesn't work as well, or make something that doesn't sell as well to a large subset of their market.
Glossy functions just fine for me. And personally I don't pick glossy because of the fact I think it looks more expensive, but because I think the image looks better on them.
 

Similar threads

Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.