Terrible glare even from Retina screen

[katewes]

Have a look at this photo. Who can tolerate this sort of glare when working?

Admittedly, in many environments, you can shift the furniture and re-position the Retina Mac to minimise such glaring reflections. BUT NOT ALL. Some environments, you have no control over the lighting.

When Phil Schiller says that the Retina screen is 75% less reflective, I notice that the reflections are darker or dimmer, but the reflections are still there.

In this photo, the fluorescent ceiling lighting is reflected in the Retina MacBook Pro's glossy screen.

http://macmatte.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/terrible-glare-retina-macbook-pro-screen2.jpg

 

[calderone]

When Phil Schiller says that the Retina screen is 75% less reflective, I notice that the reflections are darker or dimmer, but the reflections are still there.

Yes, they didn't say NO reflections.

 

[katewes]

No one is arguing that Phil Schiller was selling a 100% reflection-free Retina. What I am saying is that, for certain environments, even 75% less reflective is not good enough. It's obviously good enough for many people, but there's lots of us that yearn for a conventional anti-glare or matte screen with Retina resolution.

 

[alphaod]

Yes, it's annoying sometimes. I even have a screen protector on mine which probably makes it worse.

I am however used to it now. I don't think we'll ever see anti-glare with a Retina display. This being you're not suppose to be able to see the pixels, but the qualifications of a anti-glare coating will cause refractions which means you will be able to discern pixels.

 

[calderone]

No one is arguing that Phil Schiller was selling a 100% reflection-free Retina. What I am saying is that, for certain environments, even 75% less reflective is not good enough. It's obviously good enough for many people, but there's lots of us that yearn for a conventional anti-glare or matte screen with Retina resolution.

So don't buy it.

 

[katewes]

Let's be clear on the end-goal. The goal is no reflections. Now, perhaps traditional anti-glare technology would make us see pixels, but the goal is not the use of traditional anti-glare technology. There are lots of technologies now that can be used to get rid of the glare.

I do, however, suspect that the marketer in Phil Schiller purposely wants to keep 25% glare to make the products shiny in a show room. Otherwise, what reason could there be for Apple to ignore other technologies that could have reduced the glare even more.

Remember, for 6 years, Apple has inflicted glare screens on iMac users, with no option of an anti-glare. There is no doubt that Apple wants AT LEAST SOME GLARE to make their products shiny.

----------

So don't buy it.

The "don't buy it" is more smugness, than an real thoughtful reasoning. There are some instances where it is called "golden handcuffs". In this case, OSX is the golden handcuffs. Are you expecting me to go to Windows!!! So, you see, since I can't go back to Windows, I'm stuck with OSX. And that means being stuck with Apple hardware. So, really, the "don't buy" it is just plain smugness.

It's like in a political election. If you hate the policies of candidate-A, then the smug reply is, go vote for candidate-B. But if B is more pathetic than A, then it's not a matter of being smug, it's a matter of entering the process of trying to improve A.

 

[entatlrg]

I greatly appreciate the 75% reduction in glare, it's a huge improvement. Retina display is best I've ever seen.

I dislike AG screens and the stretched pantyhose / screen door effect they have. Very irritating and eye straining ....

 

[alphaod]

Right now Nokia has a technology called ClearBlack which uses polarizing layers on the LCD to reduce glare and improve clarify in sunlight. It however does not reduce glare completely. Even my antiglare monitor isn't fully reduced. If the sun is too bright it will cause so much refraction I think it would be worse than a glossy display.

 

[katewes]

I greatly appreciate the 75% reduction in glare, it's a huge improvement. Retina display is best I've ever seen.

I dislike AG screens and the stretched pantyhose / screen door effect they have. Very irritating and eye straining ....

If so, then Apple should explore alternative technologies that keep the clear finish of glossy screens, but reduce the glare.

You do realise that such technologies exist, but Apple purposely, it seems, retains 25% glare to make their products shiny in the show room.

If you disagree with that, then you have to find some reason why Apple ignored those technologies to go with something that gives 25% glare.

 

[calderone]

The "don't buy it" is more smugness, than an real thoughtful reasoning. There are some instances where it is called "golden handcuffs". In this case, OSX is the golden handcuffs. Are you expecting me to go to Windows!!! So, you see, since I can't go back to Windows, I'm stuck with OSX. And that means being stuck with Apple hardware. So, really, the "don't buy" it is just plain smugness.

It's like in a political election. If you hate the policies of candidate-A, then the smug reply is, go vote for candidate-B. But if B is more pathetic than A, then it's not a matter of being smug, it's a matter of entering the process of trying to improve A.

http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/

*smug*

 

[vpro]

concerning...

interesting about apple they put all this money and innovation into the r-mb but don't give premium options like anti-glare option.

perhaps they are saving the best for last, a 17" r-MBP with the anti-glare option.

 

[sectime]

If so, then Apple should explore alternative technologies that keep the clear finish of glossy screens, but reduce the glare.

You do realise that such technologies exist, but Apple purposely, it seems, retains 25% glare to make their products shiny in the show room.

If you disagree with that, then you have to find some reason why Apple ignored those technologies to go with something that gives 25% glare.

Which other laptop makers are using "these technologies" Glare bothers me but
I don't like antiglare screens, My rMbp screen isn't a problem for me.

 

[flipnap]

matte screens diminish color fidelity and contrast. do you think matte screens magically eliminate light? no they just spread it across the surface in a wider pattern. you are seeing reflections on a rmbp, not glare. glare is what you get with matte screens and a bright point light source being spread across the screen washing half of it out. Im a professional working in a controlled lighting environment. same way a singer works in an iso booth, or a silicon room is dust proof. when i go outdoors or the flourescent death of an office building, i bring my matte cover.

i personally hate matte screens because of how they destroy the integrity of the images coming OUT of my panel. This is why i bought a retina in the first place. Not coming down on anyone but please dont be naive when it comes to the science of whats going on with matte screens. With the loss of "reflection" you are gaining "glare" and loss of fidelity. it comes at a cost. I can totally understand why apple didnt put matte finishes on these panels. its like painting a gorgeous finish on a car then hitting it with light sandpaper before it leaves the floor.


/gets off pedestal

 

[here2rock]

The only way to have the best of both world is to control your lighting environment. As you mentioned that it is not possible at times but that is the decision a buyer has to make when purchasing these glossy screens. If you constantly work in environment where there is a lot of light then these screen do not work as well as matte screens.

This is a very similar scenario LCD V Plasma screens. Why do the the movies look better on Plasmas screens? The reason is better colour reproduction and contrast.

 

[katewes]

matte screens diminish color fidelity and contrast. do you think matte screens magically eliminate light? no they just spread it across the surface in a wider pattern. you are seeing reflections on a rmbp, not glare. glare is what you get with matte screens and a bright point light source being spread across the screen washing half of it out. Im a professional working in a controlled lighting environment. same way a singer works in an iso booth, or a silicon room is dust proof. when i go outdoors or the flourescent death of an office building, i bring my matte cover.

i personally hate matte screens because of how they destroy the integrity of the images coming OUT of my panel. This is why i bought a retina in the first place. Not coming down on anyone but please dont be naive when it comes to the science of whats going on with matte screens. With the loss of "reflection" you are gaining "glare" and loss of fidelity. it comes at a cost. I can totally understand why apple didnt put matte finishes on these panels. its like painting a gorgeous finish on a car then hitting it with light sandpaper before it leaves the floor.
/gets off pedestal

Ok, you're drawing me into semantics. So let's get to the end result I want to achieve. I mostly do writing for my work, and so I want to see what is on my screen, and nothing else. Call that glare, or reflections or whatever. I don't want anything to distract me from what is on the screen. I don't care if colors pop, because on a word processor it's mostly black, white and a few grays. I don't want to see the scenery behind me. It really doesn't bother me what you call it -- reflections, glare, whatever -- I don't want it. A matte screen diffuses all that to the extent that it is no longer distracting.

 

[Barna Biro]

A matte screen diffuses all that to the extent that it is no longer distracting.

Then go and get a matte screen ( or a bulk of paper or whatever ). What's the point of you complaining here again? Sure the screen / notebook / etc. doesn't fit the needs of everyone... learn to deal with it like an adult.

 

[flipnap]

Ok, you're drawing me into semantics. So let's get to the end result I want to achieve. I mostly do writing for my work, and so I want to see what is on my screen, and nothing else. Call that glare, or reflections or whatever. I don't want anything to distract me from what is on the screen. I don't care if colors pop, because on a word processor it's mostly black, white and a few grays. I don't want to see the scenery behind me. It really doesn't bother me what you call it -- reflections, glare, whatever -- I don't want it. A matte screen diffuses all that to the extent that it is no longer distracting.

First off, its not semantics. These are the definitions of the problems. Secondly, with all due respect, if you are primarily in need of a word processor and could care less about color fidelity why buy a 3 thousand dollar retina macbook pro with a gloss screen? What reasons do you need a macbook pro over, say, a MUCH cheaper windows machine with a matte finish and "word"? what exactly is it that you want with this post? we all know what the screen looks like with respect to refectivity. Are you asking people to boycott Apple because of the screen or something? Im not sure i get what your purpose of the post is.

thanks

 

[katewes]

First off, its not semantics. These are the definitions of the problems. Secondly, with all due respect, if you are primarily in need of a word processor and could care less about color fidelity why buy a 3 thousand dollar retina macbook pro with a gloss screen? What reasons do you need a macbook pro over, say, a MUCH cheaper windows machine with a matte finish and "word"? what exactly is it that you want with this post? we all know what the screen looks like with respect to refectivity. Are you asking people to boycott Apple because of the screen or something? Im not sure i get what your purpose of the post is.

thanks

Given the large sales of Microsoft Office and Apple's Pages/Numbers -- many people forget that basic word processing and office functions is a major area of use of computers. It's so narrow-worldly to think that, if I don't need color fidelity then I can go and use a cheaper Windows computer with Word. I mean, c'mon, where's your world view?

 

[flipnap]

Given the large sales of Microsoft Office and Apple's Pages/Numbers -- many people forget that basic word processing and office functions is a major area of use of computers. It's so narrow-worldly to think that, if I don't need color fidelity then I can go and use a cheaper Windows computer with Word. I mean, c'mon, where's your world view?

Im lost. What exactly is it that youre asking? You want a retina macbook pro but cant use it because of the reflectivity of the screen? Then your answer is to buy a classic with a matte finish. Whats the problem?

 

[zeeklancer]

The real problem is people using a pro device in a non pro environment.

The glare causing you work problems? Turn the lights out then...

 

[T5BRICK]

If so, then Apple should explore alternative technologies that keep the clear finish of glossy screens, but reduce the glare.

You do realise that such technologies exist, but Apple purposely, it seems, retains 25% glare to make their products shiny in the show room.

If you disagree with that, then you have to find some reason why Apple ignored those technologies to go with something that gives 25% glare.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory here. Where are the non-matte screens with no glare or reflection? Do you have an example of this technology?

Is it cost effective? I bet something out there does exist, but if it adds $1000 to the price of the laptop, would people buy it?

How about thickness? If it adds a quarter inch to the laptop, would people buy that?

 

[bill-p]

Even anti-glare is not... free of glare.

And what's stopping you from applying an anti-glare screen filter/protector on your rMBP?

 

[stevelam]

Let's be clear on the end-goal. The goal is no reflections. Now, perhaps traditional anti-glare technology would make us see pixels, but the goal is not the use of traditional anti-glare technology. There are lots of technologies now that can be used to get rid of the glare.

I do, however, suspect that the marketer in Phil Schiller purposely wants to keep 25% glare to make the products shiny in a show room. Otherwise, what reason could there be for Apple to ignore other technologies that could have reduced the glare even more.

Remember, for 6 years, Apple has inflicted glare screens on iMac users, with no option of an anti-glare. There is no doubt that Apple wants AT LEAST SOME GLARE to make their products shiny.

----------

lots of anti-glare technologies now? you mean the ones used in current Dell monitors that everyone complains about because it screws with onscreen colours? yah that sounds awesome.

 

[MyAppleWorld]

Have a look at this photo. Who can tolerate this sort of glare when working?

Admittedly, in many environments, you can shift the furniture and re-position the Retina Mac to minimise such glaring reflections. BUT NOT ALL. Some environments, you have no control over the lighting.

When Phil Schiller says that the Retina screen is 75% less reflective, I notice that the reflections are darker or dimmer, but the reflections are still there.

In this photo, the fluorescent ceiling lighting is reflected in the Retina MacBook Pro's glossy screen.

http://macmatte.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/terrible-glare-retina-macbook-pro-screen2.jpg

quite clearly the problem there isn't the macbook anti-glare, it's the non anti-glare lights in that ceiling!!!

 

[pgiguere1]

Adding an anti-glare filter would simply create a diffuse reflection instead of a specular reflection, but it wouldn't reduce the amount of light that's reflected. In fact, it could even accentuate the amount of light you see being reflected since there would be two separate layers reflecting light: the panel and the filter.

In other words, the reflection would be blurry, creating a smooth gradient, instead of clear shapes. I can understand that this possibly be less distracting, but saying a matte screen is less reflective is wrong.

Here's an image showing that the rMBP actually reflects less light than the matte cMBP:

There's also a bunch of other problems with matte screens, like reduced contrast and color saturation, worse black level, dust getting stuck in corners, more fragile screen, and the anti-glare filter's grain being of lower density than the rMBP's pixel density, resulting in a loss of sharpness.

You're still free of adding an anti-glare filter yourself. That's how display manufacturers do it anyway:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1674033