PDA

View Full Version : Matte Vs Glossy



Blue Water Boy
20th February 2008, 02:32 AM
Im a recently graduated (high school) student soon to start UNI. Im putting off buying a MacBook Pro till the update but i need help deciding what screen to get, matte or glossy...im studying graphic design and i will be going into a job in the graphic design area....thanks!

Huy
20th February 2008, 03:06 AM
Matte for you then.

Gerbils
20th February 2008, 05:57 AM
Matte. I work in graphic design and have had to use an aluminium iMac at work... when you're trying to retouch dark/black areas in Photoshop, all you can really see is yourself staring back at you!

mwot
20th February 2008, 06:03 AM
for a fleeting second (ok, perhaps longer) i thought this was about photography prints ...

Brains
20th February 2008, 06:38 AM
... I'm studying graphic design and i will be going into a job in the graphic design area ...

Three bits of advice for you, then.

1) Go for the matte screen.
2) Don't throw out your old CRT monitor
3) Add $200 to your computer budget for a Colorvision Spyder2 Express screen calibration system.

The LCD display in all Apple laptops is an 18-bit panel, meaning that whilst the actual graphics chip & video circuitry can generate the 16.2 million colours you need for accurate design & image work, the internal display can only display 262,000 colours. The Spyder2 will help re-equalise the internal display so that you can get better (but still not perfect) colour accuracy on-screen. When you're at home, use your CRT monitor as an external display, and hang your work in that -- CRTs, even old ones, are far more colour-accurate than all but the most hideously expensive LCD screens.

krafty
20th February 2008, 06:43 AM
Matte. I work in graphic design and have had to use an aluminium iMac at work... when you're trying to retouch dark/black areas in Photoshop, all you can really see is yourself staring back at you!

this may have a bit to do with the lighting in your office, as well as the screen.

Blue Water Boy
21st February 2008, 11:09 PM
thanks...thats pretty unanimous. but i have 1 last query. on the apple site it indicates that glossy is better for images and video??? what does that mean for someone who is going to use adobe/apple programs??

thanks again

bande28

cjuiz
21st February 2008, 11:14 PM
It's better for consumers, who think that blacker blacks and over saturated images look better.

For designers, it just means, you'll be constantly adjusting your display to show the different gradients for better detail.

sighclops
21st February 2008, 11:37 PM
i had the same dilemma when i was about to buy my macbook pro

i recommend matte :) besides, choosing a glossy screen will make you wait like 2 weeks longer for it to arrive!

Gerbils
22nd February 2008, 06:03 AM
this may have a bit to do with the lighting in your office, as well as the screen.

Well there's nothing I can do about the lighting... and the Mac is not facing a window.

snark
27th February 2008, 08:45 AM
It's better for consumers, who think that blacker blacks and over saturated images look better.
If glossy looks better (supposedly), wouldn't we be seeing loads of standalone LCD monitors with glossy finishes? (I don't know - are these on the market at all?)
Or is it only on laptops? or what?

BTW, thanks for everyone's suggestions. I hope to be buying a MBP soon, and matte or glossy is a decision now confronting me.

Hamsmyth
27th February 2008, 09:19 AM
Matte for sure. If your serious about being a designer that is.

SilverJ
27th February 2008, 09:43 AM
Matte for certain.
I'm a graphic designer and have to use an alu 20" glossy screen at work and its terrible, tired of seeing my reflection, the colors aren't accurate and the color difference between the same color from top to bottom is quite bad...
I have a matte screen MBP and it's great, although when I am doing photo editing etc I have it hooked up to a Dell 2408WFP 24" with spyder color calibration and that screen is excellent.. Hope that helps. Even color calibrating your on board laptop screen makes quite a difference, so I highly recommend the ColorSpyder and no I don't work for them haha!

marc
27th February 2008, 10:45 AM
CRTs, even old ones, are far more colour-accurate than all but the most hideously expensive LCD screens.
I don't agree with that at all.
(Been retouching for over 10 years)

CRTs are awful when compared to the latest batch of LCDs. The only exception is when compared to an 18bit display (ie. what's used on laptops and the 20" iMac). And even then, if you're trying to see shadow detail, there's some tricks in PS that CRT users should be using anyway.

The Apple cinema displays are very, very good.

iTalk
27th February 2008, 11:32 AM
Edited: Never mind.

morn
27th February 2008, 01:37 PM
Glossy is for vain people who's rather see themselves than what's on the screen.

Galumay
27th February 2008, 06:05 PM
Glossy is for vain people who's rather see themselves than what's on the screen.

morn thats a cheap shot!

i have never seen myself in my MBP any more than i have in my matte PB screen.

having owned both i will not buy another mac with a matte screen, the glossy is just so much better IMO.

there is no wrong or right in this discussion, its simply a matter of subjective personal opinion - and often the anti-glossy brigade are people who have never used a glossy mac screen so it is really an ignorant opinion expressed in prejudice.

mjankor
27th February 2008, 06:14 PM
Three bits of advice for you, then.

1) Go for the matte screen.
2) Don't throw out your old CRT monitor
3) Add $200 to your computer budget for a Colorvision Spyder2 Express screen calibration system.

The LCD display in all Apple laptops is an 18-bit panel, meaning that whilst the actual graphics chip & video circuitry can generate the 16.2 million colours you need for accurate design & image work, the internal display can only display 262,000 colours. The Spyder2 will help re-equalise the internal display so that you can get better (but still not perfect) colour accuracy on-screen. When you're at home, use your CRT monitor as an external display, and hang your work in that -- CRTs, even old ones, are far more colour-accurate than all but the most hideously expensive LCD screens.

Are you positive about this Brains. I thought that was the case too but then I checked my new MBP's (2.2ghz, 15.4") with the 18bit vs 24bit test image and it passed perfectly.

http://www.leppik.net/david/blog/?p=58

This test here ^^^

Lutze
27th February 2008, 06:24 PM
Hell I'm using a MB C2D and it's displaying that 24bit image perfectly well - no sign of black bars whatsoever. Shame really - as if it was advertised as 24bit and only showing 18bit I'd have an excuse to send it back and get a new one :)

Huy
28th February 2008, 12:58 AM
I really like the glossy displays on the iMac, MacBook and MacBook Air.

The 'dull' matte display just doesn't do it for me anymore, on the MacBook Pro. But I would settle for it, if I buy Phase's MBP... :D

morn
28th February 2008, 01:01 AM
Lutze, but it is a 18bit screen. :D

Galumay
28th February 2008, 02:09 AM
Lutze, but it is a 18bit screen. :D

yup, i did that test too - and with my 17" MBP it confirmed it as 24bit so if in fact the apple screens are 18bit then the test is crap. do we really know what the screen specs are??

mjankor
28th February 2008, 08:48 AM
Well, imo, if I can't see the difference between a known 24bit screen (iMac 24") and my MBP 15" then I don't care if it's 18 or 24 bit. If it looks 24bit then i'm happy to believe it is. If Apple are magically making 18 bit screens act like 24bit, then I'm still happy.

morn
28th February 2008, 08:22 PM
yup, i did that test too - and with my 17" MBP it confirmed it as 24bit so if in fact the apple screens are 18bit then the test is crap. do we really know what the screen specs are??

Hmm, nearly all 17inch screens out there are 18bit, and I'm sure that all 15inch screens are, I would be sceptical of that test.

dotnet
29th February 2008, 12:21 AM
AFAIK, all laptop screens are 18bit or worse. All current Apple laptops have 18bit screens. A colour gradient displayed on these will appear more "stepped" or banded than on a 24bit screen.

The better 18bit panels make up for some of the lost gamut through dithering (in time). If the video card sends a colour value for a pixel that can't be mapped into the 18bit space of the panel, the screen will choose the nearest adjacent values - above and below - and alternate between them rapidly, creating the impression of a colour it cannot natively produce. This is how dithered 18bit screens end up with 16.2 million colours (instead of 262,000).

The glossy vs matte argument as such doesn't exist. There is good vs bad matte coating (ever seen an Eizo?), and good vs bad panels (regardless of coating). It's a fact that a matte (light dispersing, therefore white-ish) coat will reduce the gamut of the screen by eliminating its saturated end. Glossy screens don't disperse the light much, so you get the pure colour from the backlight filtered only through the LCD. You do get those reflections, as well...

The forces of the free market have decided that glossy finish is mostly applied to consumer grade panels, so we have no way of knowing what an ACD would look like in glossy. Maybe it just takes one manufacturer to apply a glossy finish to a quality 24bit panel to find out how objectionable reflections really are in day-to-day professional use. All those complaints you hear about glossy screens being not colour accurate etc do not reflect (sic!) on the finish but the quality of the panel underneath!

If one could be sure that MB screens are the same in every regard but the surface finish it would be a no-brainer to choose the glossy finish, provided one has a way of controlling the environment (for bright light sources).

I guess the closest we get to having a good quality panel with a glossy finish is the 24" Alu iMac. From my own walk-by observations the panel underneath the glass isn't nearly as good as the ACDs but it's a *lot* better than the 20" Alu iMac.

Then there are elaborate and expensive coatings with little reflections that don't disperse much light either. The look neither glossy nor matte, IMO. You'll find them in super-expensive screens, but I'm sure better coatings will trickle down to more affordable gear in the near future.

Cheers
Steffen.

rtc
29th February 2008, 06:19 AM
for a fleeting second (ok, perhaps longer) i thought this was about photography prints ...

ha me too

Brains
29th February 2008, 07:40 AM
I don't agree with [CRTs are better] at all. (Been retouching for over 10 years)

And I started out on the Qantel PaintBox, and spent the 90's designing and maintaining precision prepress systems -- gamut across the entire design chain is something I used to eat and breathe :)


CRTs are awful when compared to the latest batch of LCDs. The only exception is when compared to an 18bit display (ie. what's used on laptops and the 20" iMac).

Even an average CRT that has been used for two years or less still exhibits a much broader and more accurate gamut than all but the best S-IPS LCD panels. CRTs that have been used for more than two years will show a shifting in white-point and an overall gamut shift to the right, but can still be more accurate than most LCD panels if calibrated regularly.


The Apple cinema displays are very, very good.

Yes, they are -- S-IPS 24-bit panels throughout, and Apple spent the extra R&D time to ensure the disply image is as good as they can make it, by using self-balancing EL backlight circuitry and a bloom-corrected layer of museum-grade optical crystal. Put an ACD alongside a Dell screen which uses the exact same LG Philips panel, and the quality difference is very noticable even to the untrained eye. It is the use of traditional mechanical colour-correction engineering which makes the ACD a much more expensive monitor compared to the Dells.

Professional-grade LCD monitors such as the LaCie and the Eizo ColorEdge also use mechanical colour correction, but use the expensive H-IPS technology in the panels and true-white (triple-element) white LEDs for the lightsource.


Are you positive about this Brains. I thought that was the case too but then I checked my new MBP's (2.2ghz, 15.4") with the 18bit vs 24bit test image (http://www.leppik.net/david/blog/?p=58) and it passed perfectly.

I am absolutely positive. Due to a recent stink, which involved a class-action suit against Apple, Apple have improved the ColorSync system to better handle the 18-bit displays now prevalent across the Apple range of products. The image test linked above is not accurate -- if you want to really gauge the performance and accuracy of your LCD screen (and don't have a hardware calibrator) then visit the Lagom LCD test Page (http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/).


yup, i did that test too - and with my 17" MBP it confirmed it as 24bit so if in fact the apple screens are 18bit then the test is crap. do we really know what the screen specs are??

This has been covered in the 'Is your Mac colourblind' (http://forums.mactalk.com.au/showthread.php?t=36961) thread from Sep 07, in which you can find links to manufacturer's specs on all panels used in Apple (and other) products which clearly detail the actual technology and bit-depth of the LCD panel used. The most recent generation of TFT-TN panels used by Apple now contain hardware-based dithering and "proximity matching" algorithms -- they are still 18-bit displays, but they do a better job of correctly handling 24-bit data without any real intervention by the OS.


Brains

ford.boy
29th February 2008, 07:55 AM
Matte for certain.
I'm a graphic designer and have to use an alu 20" glossy screen at work and its terrible, tired of seeing my reflection, the colors aren't accurate and the color difference between the same color from top to bottom is quite bad...
But that is, of course, because the monitor is a 6 bit panel in the 20" iMacs. Not because of the glass layer over the screen. And it's a crap panel.

dotnet
29th February 2008, 11:18 PM
and Apple spent the extra R&D time to ensure the disply image is as good as they can make it, by using self-balancing EL backlight circuitry and a bloom-corrected layer of museum-grade optical crystal.

Interesting. Seeing that Apple isn't exactly forthcoming with that sort of information, where did you find this?

Cheers
Steffen.

Brains
1st March 2008, 12:12 AM
I worked for the Australian distributor of AG Neovo screens for a little while, and one of the engineers told me they discovered it when they disassembled & analysed the ACDs to compare against the Neovos :)

snark
1st March 2008, 01:54 PM
I had a look at a MBA (glossy) next to a MBP (matte) today, and apart from the fact that they were not the same size (13 vs 15 inch), there were some interesting comparisons.

For example, both screens reflected the overhead lights when you angled the screens a certain way. On the glossy screen, the reflection obscured a small, well defined area of the screen, but on the matte screen, the same reflections were "smeared out", and actually obscured more screen area. So the matte screen wasn't nearly as anti-reflective as I expected.

Also, I thought the blacks were deeper on the glossy. On the matte screen, they were slightly greyer - maybe due to the diffusing effect of the coating, as pointed out by dotnet a few posts back.

On the other hand, I though the matte screen had less colour variation over different vertical viewing angles than the glossy. In other words, if you move up and down (or tilt the screen forward and back), some colours on the glossy screen became much deeper. In this case, the diffusing effect of the matte screen might actually have worked in its favour.

Anyway, to my eyes, the glossy looked better, so I think that's what I'll be ordering.

decryption
1st March 2008, 03:00 PM
For a compu-visual layman like me who does nothing at all colour accurate and never prints his digital photos (paper? they used that last century right?), I quite like the glossy screen in the MacBook Air. It's much nicer than any laptop LCD I've seen so far.

Call me a philistine, but hey, my eye likes what it likes :p

snark
1st March 2008, 03:15 PM
...but hey, my eye likes what it likes :p

...beauty being in the eye of the beholder, and all that.


Neither is a perfect technology yet, so for me, it came down to just two things: the glossy screen looked better; and when I searched the web for comparisons, I found very few people who thought they'd made a poor choice. Many of the people who were recommending matte hadn't even owned a glossy screen - a classic case of prejudice.

Brains
1st March 2008, 04:43 PM
paper? they used that last century right?

I still go through two reams per month, give me paper over a screen any day of the year!

I'm still waiting for E-Ink technology to improve, but the second generation of their electronic paper displays is so good, my next tech purcase will be a Jinke Hanlin V3 with Visplex.

halledise
1st March 2008, 05:22 PM
if you are a painter, then you'd have to go for a matte finish

other than that glossy lipstick wins out

Galumay
1st March 2008, 07:06 PM
..... So the matte screen wasn't nearly as anti-reflective as I expected.....

thats also been my experience owning both.

dotnet
1st March 2008, 10:25 PM
If you buy a glossy screen and end up not liking it you can always tape a sheet of tracing paper over it - et voila, a matte screen... :D

Cheers
Steffen.

snark
3rd March 2008, 07:23 PM
Cinema display will (hopefully) never be glossy. The cinema screens are generally for Pro work - and for correct colour display glossy screens suck monkey balls.

I've heard this statement repeated time and time again - that glossy screens have worse colour reproduction than matte.
Surely the underlying panels are the same as the ones they use for matte screens, so how does this "incorrection" arise? Is it because matte screens somehow dilute the apparent variation in colours that you get when you vary the angle from your eyes to the different parts of the screen? (such as moving your head up and down relative to the screen).

ford.boy
3rd March 2008, 07:47 PM
I've heard this statement repeated time and time again - that glossy screens have worse colour reproduction than matte.
Surely the underlying panels are the same as the ones they use for matte screens, so how does this "incorrection" arise? Is it because matte screens somehow dilute the apparent variation in colours that you get when you vary the angle from your eyes to the different parts of the screen? (such as moving your head up and down relative to the screen).
I also wonder this, and have raised it a few times, no one has ever actually answered.

Brains
3rd March 2008, 11:31 PM
Matte screens use a thin layer of PEVC plastic with a diffusion texture that lies very close to the front surface of the display panel. because if the thinness, the gamut-shift (towards blue-green) is negligible.

The glossy screens (and I'm not referring to the glass ones on the iMacs) use a thick layer of transparent polyacrylate -- because of this thickness (it's about eight to ten times as thick as the PEVC matte cover) there is a distinct gamut-shift towards the blue-indigo as well as a broadening of the contrast ratio. Increasing blue-violet in an image makes it more 'vibrant' is an old trick.

The other advantage of the glossy over the matte is that the thicker covering provides increased protection to the very fragile (and incredibly thin) glass sandwich that makes up your actual LCD panel.

Jizo
3rd March 2008, 11:46 PM
I ordered my MBP with a matte, coz' I do graphic design. But what I found great was just going to the store and comparing them side by side. If I didn't do graphic design, I probably would have gone with matte anyways because the reflections annoyed the hell outta me.

If you go to a store, the sales people will be helpful, and move them around, seeing which one you like. I didn't hate the glossy, just I preffered the matte.

Its all about personal choice though so....:rolleyes:

Evad
4th March 2008, 12:15 AM
Yeah Jizo that seems to be the best advice.

I did exactly that (went into a store and compared the two displays). I ended up liking the glossy screen more and ordered it. :)

snark
4th March 2008, 06:54 AM
Thanks Brains for that detailed post. I'm surprised to hear that the glossy screen is actually thicker overall than the matte, due to the polyacrylate layer. Any idea of its thickness in absolute terms?

johndoe
6th March 2008, 09:54 PM
I opted for the Matte screen due to the reflection. Gloss looks great but being
mobile and often outdoors, I thought the Matte would be more ideal.

I also toy around with graphics, so I wanted more accurate color reproduction.

phoenixonline
6th March 2008, 09:56 PM
I would say Matt for any kind of visual work where colour is important. Or if you need to be looking at the screen for long periods of the day in varied light sources. The glare can really get to you from the glossy after a while.

NeoRicen
7th March 2008, 03:23 PM
Colour doesn't mean much to me, obviously I want it to be reasonably accurate but I'm no professional.

I much prefer glossy, it just looks much nicer.

Katey
7th March 2008, 04:09 PM
Glossy is for vain people who's rather see themselves than what's on the screen.

This is why I stare at the back of my ipod touch more than the front.


For anyone that does not have the chance to see glossy vs matte in person. Here is a link to a page of Anandtech comparing matte and glossy macbook pro's side by side.

AnandTech: Appleā€™s 45nm Refresh: New MacBook & MacBook Pro (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3246&p=9)

SilverJ
7th March 2008, 04:15 PM
Cool link Katey,
I still think Matte all the way,
my glossy screen drives me nuts at work in the afternoons because we have large windows in our office. Very open plan.

morn
15th March 2008, 03:07 PM
Thanks for that Brains, that pretty much settles the debate. Matte has more realistic colors. Whether you're a pro user or a consumer, if you're sane, you'll prefer your images look as real as possible, compared to as cool as possible. ;)

snark
15th March 2008, 03:19 PM
I guess that depends on whether you care about the blacks in your images, or whether you're happy with them being grey. :rolleyes:

Brains
15th March 2008, 03:37 PM
Until LCD panels with individual LED elements for each pixel become affordable (they exist, but they're insanely expensive), if you care about blacks you shouldn't go anywhere near an LCD :)

dotnet
15th March 2008, 04:55 PM
Until LCD panels with individual LED elements for each pixel become affordable (they exist, but they're insanely expensive), if you care about blacks you shouldn't go anywhere near an LCD :)

That said, glossy LCD screens do have much deeper blacks than matte ones.

Cheers
Steffen.

morn
15th March 2008, 07:20 PM
Why in gods name would I care more about black than the rest of the spectrum? ;)

Galumay
15th March 2008, 07:34 PM
not just the blacks look better on a glossy screen, all colours look richer and lusher on my glossy compared to my matte.

the answer is still the same, there is no better or worse, right or wrong, its about personal preference. personally, having both, i would not get another matte - glossy all the way for me.

other people have a preference for matte, having owned both.

another whole group think they know which is better - despite never having used a mac with a glossy screen in real life!

drumstix4
15th March 2008, 07:35 PM
my screen is glossy but i would prefer a matte
GET THE MATTE
GOES GOOD 4 WAT U GONNA DO

Galumay
15th March 2008, 10:09 PM
my screen is glossy but i would prefer a matte
GET THE MATTE
GOES GOOD 4 WAT U GONNA DO

Who is the shouting directed at??

morn
16th March 2008, 02:15 AM
Matte screens use a thin layer of PEVC plastic with a diffusion texture that lies very close to the front surface of the display panel. because if the thinness, the gamut-shift (towards blue-green) is negligible.

The glossy screens (and I'm not referring to the glass ones on the iMacs) use a thick layer of transparent polyacrylate -- because of this thickness (it's about eight to ten times as thick as the PEVC matte cover) there is a distinct gamut-shift towards the blue-indigo as well as a broadening of the contrast ratio. Increasing blue-violet in an image makes it more 'vibrant' is an old trick.

The other advantage of the glossy over the matte is that the thicker covering provides increased protection to the very fragile (and incredibly thin) glass sandwich that makes up your actual LCD panel.

Galumay, did you not read this? ;)

Galumay
16th March 2008, 04:01 AM
Galumay, did you not read this? ;)

I did, but so what?!

All i know is the same photos look better on my glossy screen than on my matte screen.

I couldn't care less if technically one is more 'accurate' than another, if one looks better thats the end of the story for me!

Anyway I have read other technical opinions stating that the whole colour accuracy thing is a load of bollocks when you are comparing versions of consumer grade laptop screens.

As I keep reiterating, its entirely personal preference in my opinion. The only real way of deciding which is better for you is to try both in real world apllications and make your choice.

There is a lot of pretentious twaddle written about this subject - often from people who have never used a MBP with a glossy screen.

jacobus
16th March 2008, 02:08 PM
Matte wins hands down for me. A glossy screen gives me a headache after a few hours. Also, glossy screens remind me too much of pc's :thumbdn:

Galumay
16th March 2008, 03:08 PM
Matte wins hands down for me. A glossy screen gives me a headache after a few hours. Also, glossy screens remind me too much of pc's :thumbdn:

the first part of your opinion i can understand, but your second part makes me think maybe you havent used a mac with a glossy screen - sitting here at my MBP i cant possibly see how it could remind anyone of a PC!

dotnet
17th March 2008, 12:37 AM
Anyway I have read other technical opinions stating that the whole colour accuracy thing is a load of bollocks when you are comparing versions of consumer grade laptop screens

I think so too, colour accuracy is first and foremost a function of properly applied colour management.

Cheers
Steffen.

chrsha01
17th March 2008, 05:21 PM
A glossy screen always looks better than a matte screen

themessup
17th March 2008, 05:26 PM
A glossy screen always looks better than a matte screen

I agree. I was speeking to this guy on youtube about glossy or matte on a MBP. He went with glossy and he said he was never regreted it. The colours appear more vibrant and strong and the blacks are deeper. I would prefer glossy aswell.

Galumay
17th March 2008, 05:29 PM
A glossy screen always looks better than a matte screen

well, only in your personal opinion - one i happen to share, but its just personal preference.

as you will see if you read this thread fully there are plenty of people who prefer a matte screen and think it looks better.

Jizo
17th March 2008, 11:31 PM
This argument is pretty trivial, its like comparing the white and black macbooks - neither is better, its all about personal decisions.

morn
18th March 2008, 02:14 PM
This argument is pretty trivial, its like comparing the white and black macbooks - neither is better, its all about personal decisions.

I disagree, there is something objective here.
How accurate color reproduction is!

dotnet
18th March 2008, 03:14 PM
I disagree, there is something objective here.
How accurate color reproduction is!

But the panel coating has no influence on that. It does have an influence on colour gamut (diffusing surfaces decrease the colour gamut by lowering saturation).

Accuracy is a function of colour management.

Cheers
Steffen.

Modular_
1st April 2008, 07:55 AM
I just have a query - I'm actually going to buy my macbook pro today and have no idea what to purchase...

My desk is up against a large window and hence the back of my laptop will be facing the sunlight. Just wandering if this will cause the glossy to glare ? Or even if i work with the laptop a little diagonally, will it glare even more ? (ie, im asking does it glare when only direct light facing the screen?)

Galumay
1st April 2008, 08:10 AM
My glossy is right beside a large window, it doesnt get the sun shining directly into it as it faces south but it gets plenty of tropical light pouring in and it is no issue at all with my 17"MBP Glossy.

In my experience it is only direct sunlight onto the screen that causes reflections - and there is not much difference between the matte and glossy in that situation - they are both pretty useless!!

snark
1st April 2008, 08:38 AM
A matte screen is not what I would consider anti-glare. Crudely speaking, it just smears the reflection out into a blur, instead of the specular (sharp) reflections you get from a glossy screen

If possible, go to a shop that has both, and ask if you can look at each one near a window, and see what the difference is. You could even use the store's lighting to test the reflective properties of both screens.

Modular_
1st April 2008, 04:37 PM
I went into the store thinking in my head i was going to get a glossy (from reading around, forums etc) and that actually changed within 2 seconds of seeing the matte. The glossy (admitably it was on a black macbook) i thought looked retarded. Everyone says the glossy is more aesthetically pleasing but i actually thought otherwise, it looked ugly with reflections and not a smooth even 'complexion' display. I was seeing reflections and shadows everywhere, and this was in a mac store that didnt even have many windows. The matte just looked consistent and alot nicer. I hate how glossy makes the screen look "3d" or raised when a reflection is showing on it

snark
1st April 2008, 04:55 PM
Well done for investigating and making an informed choice. :thumbup:

Kuma
1st April 2008, 04:56 PM
morn thats a cheap shot!

i have never seen myself in my MBP any more than i have in my matte PB screen.

having owned both i will not buy another mac with a matte screen, the glossy is just so much better IMO.

there is no wrong or right in this discussion, its simply a matter of subjective personal opinion - and often the anti-glossy brigade are people who have never used a glossy mac screen so it is really an ignorant opinion expressed in prejudice.



late to the party.. but here!! here!!

Lachie
1st April 2008, 06:20 PM
I have a glossy screen 24" alu imac and i find that there good for watching DVDs and vids that have been professionally edited. When working in FCE i find i need to hook up my CRT or TV for color correction. I believe there are adhesive screens you can get to remove the affects of the glossy screen???

insular
1st April 2008, 06:25 PM
Just ordered a MBP with matte screen.

And an iPod touch 8gb.

Should I start a new thread to brag more exclusively? It's not every day you blow close to 3g in one hit :)

~Coxy
1st April 2008, 07:39 PM
While I greatly prefer matte, if you're sitting with your back to the sun then it's time to draw the curtains no matter what type of screen that you have.

Just a window for light without the sun directly shining on you should be OK though.

schwatted
1st April 2008, 08:28 PM
I use a 24" gloss Alu all day with tons of lighting behind and around me, yet I haven't even seen my or any other reflection?? I suppose it depends on what you actually want to see?? have always owned matt screened macs but recently bought the 15" macbook pro glossy and am loving it whether I sit out on the balcony in full light or at night. As Galumay has always stated it is one's own choice, the stats are stats :confused: that really are hum bug unless your life depends on a millionth of a shade? MMMmm!! Actually felt good expending 2 cents worth!! lol:)