Slashdot Mirror

AR coating does exist for monitors, I think. You just need to be able to cut through the marketing speech and get the facts. This claims to use some kind of AR coating. Is it real or just marketing? I don't know! http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml

Uh-huh - manufacturers spend money to put a film on screens to make them look worse. Let me guess - you don't work for a company that makes computer displays, right? Ignorance is one thing, but trying to teach others when you don't know what you're talking about is not nice.

The film doesn't allow the light to scatter when it hits the LCD surface, which has all sorts of benefits, such as more vibrant color.

No. You are wrong.

If you were well informed, we could have a discussion on how there are other factors that make more of a difference than the coating on the screen (Anti-reflective (glossy) vs. Anti-glare (matte)). But to say that there are no advantages, and that "some idiot at Apple thought it looked cool) is blisteringly ignorant.

It's simple physics, and if you thought about what's involved in making a screen's coating anti-glare (matte) you'd realize why it *has* to distort the image.

You can read more about it here:

http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml#anti-glare

Educate yourself.

Oh and by the way, Sony (and probably others as well) was using Anti-reflective (glossy) screen coatings at least as long as Apple (circa 1998). I don't think this was not some kind of Apple invention. Mostly because making a screen matte is actually an extra step. That said, the Apple Cinema Displays are probably the finest displays that can be purchased for the price. It's no coincidence that most of them have AR coatings. Just because most people don't understand the tech and think that a $400 Westinghouse with a terrible TN panel is "just as good" as Apple's LED backlit IPS panel offerings doesn't make it so.

Color gamut is probably more important than anti-reflective vs. anti-glare ("glossy" vs. "matte"). But that's not to say the screen coating makes no difference.

It's simple physics. When you put a coating on display that is supposed to scatter light rather than reflect it, it's going to scatter light coming through it as well, rather than letting it pass through unmolested. It's a trade off, and the price you pay is diminished clarity, brightness and vividness of color.

http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml#anti-glare

It's because they are more vivid. And sharper. That's not hyperbole. The coating that reduces glare also distorts your image. You can't get something for nothing, it's a trade off.

It's easier just to copy/paste an earlier rant I posted than to type everything all over again:

I can't speak for print artists, because I don't know much about that. But the "glossy" and "matte" that everyone talks about are actually called anti-reflective and anti-glare coatings, respectively.

Basically anti-glare (matte) coatings scatter the light that is reflected from outside light sources. The problem is that it also scatters the light coming *through* the coating from your screen. So images are less sharp, and colors less accurate.

A good summary can be found here:

http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml#anti-glare

If my explanation is unclear, the diagrams there should make it a lot easier to understand.

In either case, I would never choose anti-glare (matte) over anti-reflective (glossy) unless I knew I would be using the screen in an environment where there would be a high degree of distracting glare. the clarity, brightness, and brilliant color is just so much nicer, unless I *need* to prevent reflections.

Would the glossy display be distracting on a notebook used outside? Yes, probably. But 95% of my work is done on a desktop in a room where glare is not a problem. To answer the OP's question, "Yes. I do."

I'm not shocked though. Most people don't notice these things. It's kind of sad, but this is the same reason it's hard to find a non-TN LCD display. Every other tech (IPS, MVA, PVA, etc) has viewing angles around 178 degrees. 8 bit color, etc. TN is stuck at 6 bit, and 170 degree (often 160) viewing angles. Not to mention terrible color reproduction, color "banding", where because the viewing angles are so low you can often find yourself in a situation where a portion of the screen is on angle, and the rest is off angle, so the colors don't match even when the color displayed is perfectly uniform!

Why do people prefer TN? They're slightly cheaper, and 99% of consumers are too dense to notice these flaws. Once you do, you can't un-notice them, and it's impossible to go back.

It's easier to frame it as a "Glossy vs. Matte" debate, but no one goes out to make a glossy screen. Rather, the high amount of reflections is a side effect of the LCD surface treatment that allows for better color, brighter whites, and darker blacks.

So really it should be "Good-looking-screen-but-with-reflections vs. Not-as-good-looking-without-as-many-reflections"

On any standard XGA and higher-res LCD display, there's a fair chance that at least one pixel has a problem of some sort. Each OEM has their own QA guidelines which they really don't want to share unless you push. This site http://www.screentekinc.com/lcd-quality-standards.shtml gives some idea of the thresholds.

I second the repair idea. So the LCD went bonkers ... rather than spending $1200 on a new machine, why not spend $100 - $300 on a replacement screen? YMMV, but for most Gateways, the screen seems to fall in that price range. Plenty of businesses in this niche to choose from. They sell screens for MPC laptops, as well.

http://www.screentekinc.com/notebook-screens.shtml

http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml

With matte screens, emitted light is more diffuse, a disadvantage (less color accuracy, potentially more long-term eyestrain). With glossy screens on the other hand, you have the disadvantage of specular reflections, which some people may find distracting. At any rate, the conventional wisdom that glossy screens are just a fancy way to sell computers to unwitting masses is uninformed. There are engineering tradeoffs both ways. I personally find the diffuse light transmission of matte screens more tiring than specular reflections, but it obviously depends on the person.

I have one and I'm not disappointed. Yes, the screen reflects like a mirror, and you could actually use it instead of a mirror in some situations when it is off. However, in most situations when it is on reflections are not a problem.

This may not be the most attractive option, but worth mentioning. There's a company out there called ScreenTek that will change your LCD from matte to high-gloss for $100. The "re-polarizing" process involves removing the old surface, and then installing a new one. They figure most people want high-gloss, but if you have it and want matte instead, they can use the same process and tools to change it out for you.

So if you do find a laptop you like for $1800 in glossy and for $2000 in matte, then I'd get the glossy one and have this outfit change it out for you, and you'll come out ahead.

This page only mentions going from matte to glossy, but they'll gladly do the reverse for you.

Again, it might not be the easiest option, but it is an option that's out there.

... go buy a replacement screen instead of sending in your entire notebook for repair ...

When the over 3 year old laptops we have kept break down they are sent to our corporate junkyard. We mix and match pieces when we can to salvage one a few out those that are broken.

When looking over the pile of broken down old portables, non-functional screens account for over 20%. 3 problems occur:
- failed inverters
- failed fluorecsent tubes
- cracked screens

As the laptops are essentially worthless in a corporate sense if we can't cannibalize the part from another old laptop we don't go to the expense of buying them but, if I had to, I would go here. Screentec has the most extensive list of replacement parts for laptop screens that I have found.

Wonderful diagrams, and a better explanation are here:

http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml

Last week my dad called me and said his laptop screen went out. I don't usually mess with hardware so I told him to take it to Best Buy and have them look at it.

He took it in - they said the LCD was bad and it would be about $600 to replace. He called me and I told him not to do it and I'd look into it.

I figured I could get a new LCD for less than that. I googled and came across http://www.screentekinc.com/

I called them and the salesman told me it was probably not the LCD and that I should check the inverter first. He told me one place to get parts was Bliss Computers

I didn't have the laptop on hand, didn't have part numbers, so I checked e-bay and found an inverter there for $40 (including shipping). Another LCD site had instructions on removing the bezel.

I took my time since I'd never done this before and so it took twice as long as it should have. In 10 minutes I had fixed it.

Lookie Lookie