Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by sparkie7, Jul 20, 2012.
um, why is there no AG option?
Because the screen has less glare than the glossy cMBP. Apple claims it has 75% less reflection than The previous generation.
i'll believe it when i see it LOL
The amount of glare is still very noticeable and I would not use that device when you are outside, mainly because the brightness is very bad and even on full brightness it only has 250 cd/m²... that's not acceptable for a screen with glare.
The screen is still highly reflective, regardless of what Apple claim.
No its not.
Uh, yes it is.
Compared to the non-retina macbook pros, the glare on the retina's screen is substantially less. However, there is still some glare. Depending on each user's individual needs, the amount of glare on the rMBP may or may not be an issue. For me, the glare is substantially less than the glare on my old white MacBook.
Its subjectively better but its defiantly NOT like a matte display.
You cannot power through glare with the limited brightness.
If you must use it in high glare conditions its not really the machine for you.
Shows the difference and explains what's up...
I've been using mine in a very bright room, white walls, big skylights, etc, and have noticed NO glare whatsoever from my rMBP. Of course its on full brightness as well, which helps.
Basically, its no longer a built in mirror. My iMac on the other hand just loves making me stare at my own face no matter what content is on screen.
Spent some time comparing the rMBP with the AG cMBP in the local Apple Store for this very reason. The rMBP is a massive improvement over the old glossy MBP screen, but still not as good as the AG (HiRes) screen in terms of glare reduction. Thought the reflections were reduced (by an enormous amount), the fact that they are still sharp-edged and in focus was - for me - still too distracting. Lovely screen, just not for me.
Here's another comparison image between the rMBP (left) and cMBP with glossy display (right).
Click to enlarge.
It's hard to put a number on how less reflective it is (Apple said 75%, not sure how it's measured) but there definitely is a huge difference.
An anti-glare display like the one found in the cMBP with BTO option is still reflective, it's just that the reflection it produces is matte instead of glossy which makes your screen washed out evenly instead of producing a clear reflection.
I think you get the best of both world with the rMBP since it's less reflective without washing out what's underneath the reflection.
EDIT: I just tried to do my own measurement with the picture above. I converted the image to grayscale and assumed the ceiling in the reflection is supposed to be pure white (#FFFFFF) and that the screens are supposed to be pure black (#000000).
Putting the Eyedropper Tool in the same spot of the ceiling reflection gave me a result of 17% gray (#111111) for the rMBP and 53% gray (#353535) for the cMBP.
100%-17/53 = 68% glare reduction.
Think Apple is smoking crack... b/c though the rMBP looked better to me reflection wise vs my glossy 13, it's nowhere near the high res antiglare on my 15.... 75% my ass lol. To me it seemed similar to the Airs screen as far as reflections, maybe slight edge to the Air?
Really hope they give it an antiglare option in the future even if it reduced dpi a bit, would still look great.
Nowhere does it say that the screen isn't glossy and isn't still very reflective, as a glossy surface, by nature, would be.
No, that's right.
No, you're wrong.
No, that's right.
It explains how reflectivity and glare actually relate to one another, and how the specular reflections are tolerable and not as annoying as diffusive glare. Which is relevant, but it's hard to tell because you're arguments so far in this thread have been along the lines of "Nuh Uh!".
So if I missed the mark in refuting any of your profound statements, I assure you it was not intentional, however, that post (and the rest of that 3 page thread that goes into very much more detail) explains why matte screens are usually not, in fact hardly ever, the best option.
Edit: For clarity, I never said glossy screens weren't glossy... I said you were wrong about the Retina screens being highly reflective in relation to the matte screens. I may be misinterpreting, but from the previous posts it seems people were attacking the person who said the Retina screen is large improvement. But it undoubtedly is, and according to the information I provided, it is also usually superior to the matte screen.
Feel free to disagree, I was just trying to help.
At least for indoor use, what's the big deal with glossy screens? For me, glossy is a huge selling point. IMHO, they look much more vibrant then antiglare.
According to a lot of people:
Glossy = For consumer devices, only there to make the device shiny, puts form over function.
Matte = For professional devices, lets you see what's on the screen better, puts function over form
They will automatically reject anything that's glossy without considering how reflective it is only because it doesn't fit in their definition of a "professional" screen.
Fact is in average conditions, the screen of the rMBP allows for better visibility than the one in the matte cMBP, as well as better contrast.
For example, look at this picture from the other thread:
Try to read the right of the rMBP's menubar. Now try to read the left of the matte cMBP's menubar. Which one is easier to read?
Now compare how dark are the blacks on each display, and how white are the whites. Which one looks better?
It's like people automatically hate what's glossy but they forget the reason they should hate glossy in the first place.
People that are claiming this thing has tons of glare and reflections are either trolling or crazy. The screen is almost as non-reflective as the AG display on prior generations, only without the drawback of crappy contrast that those screens had. The rMBP really is the best of both worlds.
This is absolutely correct.
The cMBP's Dock is smaller. The resolutions are different. The distance the picture was taken from is closer to the rMBP, and the angle is not fair too. You are trolling against the cMBP...
How in the world is that trolling?
For that matter, what would you call the comments you post that talk about your issues/concerns with the rMBP? Are those trolling, as well?
Edit - To the OP: If you would like to see a few more images that compare the Retina's screen to the antiglare MBP, Anandtech's review is quite helpful: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/4. Personally, I was on a matte 17" MBP for four years, and switched to a Retina model about a month ago - while I do miss the matte finish for some applications, the added visual clarity of text on the Retina model definite eases the "pain" of the transition. It really is worlds better than the glossy MBPs that I used in the intervening years.
That said, I agree that a matte option for the Retina would be nice, so long as it could be done in such a way that minimized the degration of image quality.
It has fewer icons on the dock, but as far as I can see the scaling seems to be the same.
The text on the cMBP's menubar is not unreadable because it is too small, in fact I can see the shapes of the letters just fine. It's the contrast in glare that's an issue.
What is being pointed out is that there is still glare on a matte screen, it's just a different kind of glare that affects contrast over a portion of the screen.
The reason why the cMBP with matte screen is unreadable in the corner is because the reflection makes it lose all contrast. The size of the dock, resolution and distance have no effect on contrast. If it wasn't of that reflection the text would be readable, as proven by the middle of this same screen which doesn't reflect the white softbox.
Here's a color measurement that has nothing to do with all those factors.
Notice the washed out colors and low contrast. Given that the background image is blue and that the menubar is translucent, it should have a blue tone like on the rMBP's screen. The cMBP displays it as complete grayscale. Even the background image appears to be in grayscale.
Bounce a light source against a MBPR.
Then bounce a light source against a matte cMBP. Apple retail stores usually have a custom 15" display model with the matte screen option.
Try and read text on them with the light still bouncing off the displays.
Now tell me which one looks better.
I can dispute your claim by aiming my 2AA Maglite with a 1W LED bulb at max brightness on my MBPR. Highly reflective means the entire display turns into a mirror... nope, it does not, only the small part of the screen where I can see the light bulb is reflective.
Only when you are outside - where you have little to no control of lighting - does a matte screen help you. When you are indoors, matte looks terrible.
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
Whoever you're replying to is not trolling against the cMBP, those are facts.
Time to pull out a movie quote...
"You can't handle the truth!"
uhhh no right back at you. I have the 13" glossy and 15" high res antiglare. Doesn't matter if inside or not, the glossy screens still reflect like crazy. I have two offices which are fairly open and airy, same with my home office, windows, light etc all cause glare and reflections like a mofo. The 15" is waaaaaaay better to use for that.... otherwise it's like working on a combination of a mirror/clouds/lights/tree's even w/ brightness 100% (black border doesn't help). Like my home office is open with views of my pool and intracoastal, and the water causes extreme reflections, I can even see pool ripples on my 13... but I'm not remodeling the house or closing off the windows (whole point is the view lol) to avoid glare/reflections, same for my actual offices as it's so much more productive and comfy for employe'es having an open airy feel I never said the rMBP sucked for that (reduced glare and reflections), I even said I felt it was better then the glossy, just not up to the high res antiglare screen on my 15". Not sure what you mean by it looking terrible, the high res version on my 15 looks very sharp and accurate, I was surprised the rMBP only looked a little better given the big difference in dpi, I was really expecting a night and day difference, but it was more noticeable vs my 13 especially in regards to text.
I still think if these screens become the norm, disregarding sharpness etc, it'll be worth it alone for the reduced glare and reflections, that is my one nagging pet peeve on the 13". I hope they bring out a retina version of the 13... was thinking of replacing with a new Air, but I'll wait a few months and see if the rMBP 13 comes true. I travel a lot and the 15" is a little cumbersome on planes, so here's to hoping we get a 13" rMBP