Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Who owns the glossy screen Macbook Pro?

I don't see a problem having a laptop with glossy, even if you are a pro with 10 years of experience. Chances are that experience has taught you not to work at a 15-17" screen, but hook up a external display (we are in the mbp forum, remember).

Edit: and that external could have whatever glossy/matte effect that you desire
 
Isn't the MBP glossy and anti-glare the same screen with the only difference being that the glossy has an additional layer of glass on top of it? If that's true, then that's an additional layer that can distort the color accuracy.

As for radiologists, they need sharpness not color accuracy.

And anyone who uses a hardware color calibrator will realize that calibrating on a glossy screen does not go well.
 
I went with glossy, not because of cost or anything, it's a $40 difference on the refurb store, when I'm spending $2500+ after tax on a computer, I'm not concerned about another $40. I went with glossy because I like glossy, and all the rest of my computers are glossy and I like consistency between my products. The glare isn't that big of a deal to me and I can always find an anti-glare film cover if I someday decide glare is too much. Besides, I never use my macbook pro outside. Never seen any reason to, if I have to use something outside, it's my iPad. The macbook pro is just too much computer for outside usage.
 
Vudoo said:
Isn't the MBP glossy and anti-glare the same screen with the only difference being that the glossy has an additional layer of glass on top of it? If that's true, then that's an additional layer that can distort the color accuracy.

As for radiologists, they need sharpness not color accuracy.

And anyone who uses a hardware color calibrator will realize that calibrating on a glossy screen does not go well.
Click to expand...

I'm lost, are you saying glossy = matte + glass?

That's definitely not how it works...

Glossy's a bitch to calibrate... due to glare. A clean window offers a much better view of the outside than a dirty one with soap scum all over it. It really is THAT simple.
 
stefmesman said:
glossy and happy :) i edit photo's and video's, and i find them most of the time more color accurate as most people also have glossy tv's and glossy photo's. i like the black bezel better. i do not mind the reflections, not that there are many.
Click to expand...

Glossy screen is actually more vibrant and makes the colors "pop" out more. But it is not as color accurate as matte screens. It's good for watching movies and pictures, but if you need to edit photos and need color accuracy, matte is the only way to go.

There is a reason all the professional displays used by imaging professionals are matte. Apple's 27" display is the only high end glossy panel on the market.
 
Ok, this topic blows. What standard unit of measure is a "pop"? The glossy screen isn't some magical self-intelligent piece of hardware that determines, hey I should make this red redder! All it does is allow light to pass freely, unobstructed, unaltered. The truest form and representation of whatever's on the other side. Matte diffuses light. Can't believe I spent the last page explaining the exact science behind it and people are still ignorant to the fact of the matter.

You guys win. Science and facts are fake.
 
Vudoo said:
Isn't the MBP glossy and anti-glare the same screen with the only difference being that the glossy has an additional layer of glass on top of it? If that's true, then that's an additional layer that can distort the color accuracy.
Click to expand...

Nope, LCDs are not inherently matte. Your anti-glare screen is coated with a matte film that diffuses light, while glossy screens are just a layer of transparent glass in front of the bare LCD. Think of the difference between a shower door (matte) and a window (glossy) and it will make sense.
 
goomba said:
Nope, LCDs are not inherently matte. Your anti-glare screen is coated with a matte film that diffuses light, while glossy screens are just a layer of transparent glass in front of the bare LCD. Think of the difference between a shower door (matte) and a window (glossy) and it will make sense.
Click to expand...

My wife has a 13" MBA and that is suppose to be glossy (without the glass) and it looks pretty much identical to my anti-glare MBP.
 
Have the glossy (specs in sig).
Probably wouldn't change for the AG. If it's anything like the Powerbook G4 screen was (sort of squishy) I'd hate it.
 
Vudoo said:
My wife has a 13" MBA and that is suppose to be glossy (without the glass) and it looks pretty much identical to my anti-glare MBP.
Click to expand...

I've never seen them side by side but I'm curious. Lots of matte/glossy comparison threads on this board, but none that compare the glass-less MBA screen to the matte MBP.
 
The only reasoning that those trying to claim glossy is not as accurate as matte have is that "it isn't what the pros use." It seems like they are trying to justify the fact that they bought a laptop with a matte screen for editing because you were convinced that it was somehow more accurate because people better than them at Photoshop and editing in general use it.

Anyone claiming that "Matte is more accurate than Glossy" should probably post something other than references to others' abilities and unconvincing observations in their field.
 
Archlord said:
The only reasoning that those trying to claim glossy is not as accurate as matte have is that "it isn't what the pros use." It seems like they are trying to justify the fact that they bought a laptop with a matte screen for editing because you were convinced that it was somehow more accurate because people better than them at Photoshop and editing in general use it.

Anyone claiming that "Matte is more accurate than Glossy" should probably post something other than references to others' abilities and unconvincing observations in their field.
Click to expand...

I own a glossy MBP for four months and I couldn't properly calibrate it with my spyder. So I replaced it with the anti-glare and it's much better. I would have loved to save the money by not upgrading or selling my glossy for a lost.

People who are serious about photo and design work will use a hardware calibrator to make sure that their colors are accurate to prints. They will not just eye-ball it. I was a web designer and I currently am a photographer.
 
No one is arguing the practicality of either surface; matte is clearly more practical to work with.

Merely pointing out colors emitted from the diodes are more accurate displayed through a glossy screen (aka clear/invisible). Whatever "pop" adjective you apply makes little difference to the simple fact that light passes through a clear smooth surface much more accurate than light through a roughened surface.

Calibrations on a matte surface ensures colors are true to print. But essentially, you're altering the actual display panel itself to perhaps show a brighter red, which is then compensated with the passing through the matte display.

The true color accuracy depends on the display panels itself (where IPS screens are king). Glossy just allows that accurate transition of image -> light -> eyes, unfiltered, unedited.

Again: your eyes are glossy.

Are you guys really telling me the colors you see with your own eyes are "fake" and "pop out" more than it should?

Are your eyes lying to you and greatly increasing the contrasts of reality?

Would you prefer a matte set of eyes?
 
GermanyChris said:
Glossy, I like the colors and the added stoutness it gives to the lid/screen.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I've had 2 macbook pros. The first one was a first generation intel MBP... back when you could get matte at no charge.

And that's what I did, because I thought that the glare from the glossy screen would really be an inconvenience.

Now, my second MBP is glossy screen. And I love it. I very, very, very RARELY have any issues with the reflection being a problem. If you're in an environment where a window (that you can't shutter) is going to be right behind you, or where you screen will be pointing directly at a light... then maybe you should go for the matte.
But otherwise, you'll better color, a sharper image, a better looking computer, and a screen that's made out of glass instead of soft plastic that I was always afraid to clean lest I rub a piece of dirt into the soft plastic and scratch it.
 
I bought the 13" for its size, but alas no anti-glare for me. So instead I bought an anti-glare screen protector, which is working out fine.
 
2hvy4grvty said:
You guys serious? Actual display is the same, the screen cover is what's different.

The science of the matter is, glossy = more accurate/better contrast. .
Click to expand...

You realize you just contradicted yourself here.
How could one display produce more accurate colours/contrast when you claim that the two are actually just the same?

And if your definition of "better" contrast is crushed blacks and peaking whites then sure, you win. But do not mistake this as "accuracy".
You would know this if you had ever compared an image with lots of dark areas on both a matte and glossy screen. You will notice that an image that actually still has information in the blacks will be visible on the matte display, yet the apple glossy display (cinema or macbook) will crush the blacks to the point where the image is lost. This is because apple believes that its users will be happier with "pretty" contrasty images instead of accuracy.
Your nice diagram is interesting if you were talking about using the displays outside in the sun. But interestingly, most professionals like to edit photos INSIDE. Where there is no ambient light to be diffused by a matte display.

Like I said in my post, try and buy a high quality professional editing monitor with a glossy display. You can't. Because no one uses them
And apple cinema displays don't count.
 
I understand 2hvy4grvty's points and i'm not arguing anymore as there's no winning with him, but I still dont understand why, if he's right and glossy screen coatings make for better colour transmittance, then why haven't top manufacturers been making reference screens with glossy finishes for years?

It's not like the technology is new.

This is a major argument as it's obvious it's the PANELS that make the reference screens great, so why stick an antiglare coating on if it supposedly screws things up? This leads me to believe there must be merit in using this finish over the glossy as they have been for years
 
duncanbrodie1 said:
Like I said in my post, try and buy a high quality professional editing monitor with a glossy display. You can't. Because no one uses them
Click to expand...
I'm not going to dispute the merits of your claims, because I can't. :D Professional displays are matte, and for good reason.

Personally I just happen to prefer glossy, but that's because I don't work as a graphic artist or such. I surf, play games and watch movies mainly, and for those tasks I feel the deeper blacks and poppier colors of glossy gives a more visually pleasing image.

I've no illusions it's a "better", or more accurate image, but that doesn't matter in this situation. :)

So glossy all the way for me babyyyy! (Except I curse its shiny appearance when there's bright light - even indirect - falling on me and/or the screen... Heh. Oh well, nothing's perfect.)
 
I think it's safe to assume he meant direct?

Anyway can you explain my post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back