Slashdot Mirror
Laptops Screens, Glare or Matte?
An anonymous reader writes "This weekend I spent half a day surfing the web looking for a new laptop.
I just want (to be able to switch to) 1650x1280, or at least ...x1024, and a *non*-Glossy Display . To my surprise I found out that many vendors leave me not that much choice: ...x800, and glossy, i.e., higher-reflective type screens seem to have become the promoted defaults. Should I give up on my non-glossy wishes, or should I start flaming vendors?" I still can't understand the glossy screens. They make my eyes hurt almost immediately in any sort of ambient light, and do nothing in low light. Glossy laptop screens are like TVs on the shelf in the store with their colors all whacked out to look brighter. Once you get them into the real world, you realize that the colors are just wrong.
The ThinkPad T61's still use a non-reflective screen, and are now available in wide screen models.
My newest laptop has a glossy screen for lack of a matte option, and while I don't hate it with a fiery passion, I do prefer the matte screen of my old computer. Unfortunately, Apple only offers matte options on MacBook Pros, and not MacBooks. =(
No doubt this is hugely a matter of personal preference, but after using a glossy screen for 3 years, my preference is definitely for glossy. True, one must get used to positioning the screen to avoid reflections, but this becomes automatic very quickly. The experience of a glossy screen is far easier on my eyes, and the higher contrast feels much more like reading on paper.
For the record, I'm officially over the hill, and have used glasses all my adult life.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I read all the bashing of glossy screens and even started to repeat the propaganda. But in reality, it doesn't matter. The glossy screens tend to have better contrast and be easier on my eyes, and glare isn't an issue in practice. You do tend to notice glare in a store, looking at a big row of laptops, but it's a total non-issue for me.
Glare-type displays have better colors unter some conditions (dark environment), but will often be pretty bad. Their primary advantage is that they are cheaper to manufacture.
For the resolution, don't get something below your standards. If the product you want is really not available, then refuse to buy.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I have a glossy laptop and a matte LCD. The problem with the matte screen is it can make things appear grainy.
The glossy screen has a much sharper image but the reflections are annoying.
That said, bad colour exists in both desktop LCD's and laptops. The only real deterrent for this is to spend a lot of money to get a colour accurate display.
The HP pro series, business lvl, has matte screens. That's what im using.
Beer.
Even flat panel displays for desktops are jumping on the glossy bandwagon. I suspect it's because glossy models sell better. People see them on the shelves, "oooooh, shiny!" and buy them without regard for actual useability.
I could be wrong, but I believe Thinkpads are still mostly, if not all, matte screns.
My Toshiba M70 is ridiculously glarey (if there is such a word). On some web pages I have to tilt the screen back and forth until I find an angle that I can read the text at, otherwise everything's way too light.
Now that I know I'll be avoiding any laptop with a screen that might be too shiny...
Summation 2
not much help to you, but I find the glossy screen on my MBP to be superior to it's non glossy counterpart. The only real problem I experience is fingermarks being tricky to simply rub off.
Available in non-glossy by order. Some Apple stores may even stock the non-glossy versions.
I'm a little ambivalent about the glossy vs matte issue, but I have a bigger issue with notebook screens: It's either very hard or relatively expensive to get a laptop with a 4:3 aspect ratio screen. Widescreens are good for two things: movies and (some) games. They're no good for web browsing or viewing documents. Anything less than 1920x1200 is too narrow to fit two windows comfortably side-by-side, and you sacrifice vertical resolution to get the widescreen.
Unfortunately, it seems that the manufacturers have decided that normal-aspect-ratio screens, along with docking connectors, Windows XP, and optical drive slots that can take a secondary battery, are a feature that only business users might need. Accordingly, those features are only available on the drastically-more-expensive business market laptops.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
Well, for what it is worth, the MacBook Pro line of Apple laptops have the free choice of glossy or matte displays. Not sure if that would be your cup of tea, but at least one vendor is giving the option.
Glossy screens look more attractive when sold in stores. I guess that's why so many manufacturers choose such screens over matte screens, simply because presentations look better. Furthermore, black looks better on glossy screens, which seems to be a huge selling-point with both TV sets and monitors nowadays.
Full Tilt
I bought a used big-screen last year. I quite liked it except for the glare.
After a while I found a local plastics shop that could sell me a large enough sheet of the anti-reflective stuff used in framing. And I mounted it to the front of the TV myself. That completely solved the problem.
You might be able to buy the laptop with all the other features you want, then go to your nearest framing shop and get their nice anti-glare "glass", and mount it to your display.
"We think people rightly feel that once they buy something, it stays bought," --Suw Charman, Open Rights Grp
I find a glossy display gives better blacks and dark colours,
That is the idea.
It's very easy to make a cheap LCD screen extremely bright - brighter than you would ever need (or could even tolerate). It is not easy to make a cheap LCD screen with a decent black level.
So these glossy screens act as a sort of neutral density filter. They lower the black level at the expense of some of the unusable white level on the other end of the spectrum.
But these filters are always being used to mask flaws (poor black level and contrast) in cheap screens. It is still obviously better to just buy a better screen capable of better black levels.
I have a laptop with a glossy screen and I hate it. I bought it because it was cheap. Next time, I'll spend a little more and buy a laptop with a decent screen that doesn't require tricks to get it to look good at the expense of glare.
At work, I have two non-coated screens and it's such a pleasure to work with them by comparison.
Sometimes I find it relaxing to use my laptop on the back deck, however, if it's really sunny, I have to struggle with the screen because pretty much all I can see is myself in the extremely glossy toshiba screen. I'm not sure if the matte screens are any better, but in reality laptops probably aren't designed for bright outside use. The glossy screens remind me of the tube tvs, where if there was a window in the room, you lost part of your screen to glare. Much the same here. On the bright side, sometimes you can use your screen to see who's peeking over your shoulder.
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
If you use a glossy screen, you will realize that it is superior in most cases.
With a matte screen, light from any vector to the user will create glare. WIth a Glossy screen, only light vector opposite to the user will create a reflection.
Glossy screens have much higher contrast and brightness, meaning you are much more likely to see them in poor lighting conditions, and at least you have the choice to orient your screen so you don't have reflections. With a matte screen, no matter what you do, you will have glare - eating into your already reduced contrast and brightness.
I bought my MacBook Pro about 7 months ago, and when I did, the clerk asked me which I wanted, saying they had every configuration in that line with either option (though the store was sold out of glossy in the 15' 2GB/2.8GHz model at the time of purchases, which was OK since I wanted non-glossy.)
;)) on the device. The clerk said that for word processing, internet, and design work that most folks prefer the non-glossy one as the color can be misleading. I don't know if that is true (or why/why not), but sounds belivable.
I never really thought about it, but they said that glossy is popular for folks watching a lot of movies or gaming (I know I'm going to get some replys for insinuating that one can game on a Mac...
When I have spec'd Dell or HP for work, I've found that usually you have to search for non-glossy ones, and it is usually a seperate model number, not a selectable line-item option on a machine. I usually had to select the box I wanted based on the machine size/style/monitor, then customize the internal specs like CPU, RAM, disk.
The Apple method (machine, then monitor) made more sense to me, but it isn't exactly a direct comparison to evaluate a retail and online experience.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Glossy is better for looking at scantily clad ladies. Makes them look like they do in them thar magazines!!!!! :)
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.
My laptop has one (I had to choose it as an option), and it gives much richer colors and blacker blacks, and I don't have any problem reading it in any light at all. I'm not sure what problem people have with glossy screens, but I go out of my way to get them. When I got a wide-screen HD TV, I got one with a glossy screen (and got a huge boost in contrast by doing so at no extra cost).
Maybe it takes some getting used to, and maybe there are some lighting situations that cause issues that I just never seem to run across, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
Just my two cents.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
I did an experiment a while back and used the exposure meter on my DSLR to measure the difference in contrast between a normal picture and a "black" on a glossy screen. I got a contrast ratio of 80:1
To put this on context, I was looking at LCD TVs claiming contrast ratios of well over 1000:1 - absolutely no way, in a normally lit room. Even 80:1 means that you don't get the full dynamic range of an 8-bit display and I blame a large part of this crappy contrast ratio on the reflections from the glossy screen.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
my flatmate put a glossy film on his Macbook Pro glossy screen. He did what? The glossy film is less glossy than the MBP and is a balance between matte and glossy.
As a grad student, almost all of my classmates have Macbook Pros. Several of the matte screen users have said they'd now regret the choice.... mostly for vibrant colors. I work next to a sunny window and rarely have a problem. I don't work outside often which is the only time I've had a problem.
Well, yes, but trying to find that is probably going to be harder than trying to find a screen that does true 24-bit or 32-bit color, instead of 8-bit or 16-bit with dithering.
Where do we start?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The surface isn't just ground, but also polarised. It helps reduce the diffusion of light passing through the matte coating, but doesn't eliminate it.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I've been told that the glossy screens are appealing to companies because they make for a more eye-catching presentation in stores. They tend to make colors appear more vibrant; I'm not sure why, and I guess most people are impressed by shiny things.
I personally don't like them. I have one of the current iMacs at work with the glass screen. I happen to be sitting in a spot where reflection and clare is minimal, but even then I can see reflections of things around me in the screen.
I have matte LCD screens at home which I much prefer. Obviously those have no issue with glare. And if I were to get a laptop no way in hell would I get one with a glossy screen. Given that they might be used anywhere it's going to be inevitable that there will be issues with glare.
I have both a Dell d830 and d620 which have non-reflective screens. The D830's native resolution is 1920x1200. I think you haven't been looking around enough, there are plenty of options. However, you typically have to look towards the business-class models for non-reflective (corporate cubical farm) models.
Get your digital camera and put it on auto-exposure. Position it so the image from your screen completely fills the camera's view (kinda difficult on a 16:9 screen, but do your best). Display what you reckon to be a "normally" bright image on the screen.
Now measure the exposure time from your camera's light-meter.
Turn the screen off, place the camera in the same position as before and check the readings from the camera's auto-exposure display.
When I did this, the difference between my normally bright, ambient light image from the display and the light reflected off the display when it was turned off gave me a contrast ratio of 80 to 1
This value doesn't even give you the full dynamic range from an 8-bit display (255 to 1), let alone the 1000+++ to 1 that LCD TV manufacturers claim. On my glossy screen I could see distinct reflections through the viewfinder and these are what gave the laughably bad contrast ratio. I'll never beleive manufacturers specifications again, and I'll never, never buy another glossy screen.
Try this yourself, and see what results you get!
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I work at a WISP, and do a lot of field service on wireless bridges, at tower sites and on customer rooftops. I find the glossy screens all but useless. I need to throw a jacket over my head and the screen to use it. Totally useless in sunlight of any type - and I know I am not alone in needing a laptop outdoors and on the road. Give me a matte screen any day!
It turns out that most laptop demos to major fortune 500 companies don't involve the laptop being on.
So stupid execs decide and shiny wins.
So I'm guessing a class action suit involving anyone who wears glasses is about 3 years off.
Was I the only one who rolled-eyes when, a few years back, 99% of store laptops went from matte to glossy overnight, as the manufacturers made a lame attempt to 'follow the market'?
I vaguely remember it being (2000/2001)ish when one or two glossy screens cropped up, but once one manufacturer decided to put 'style' over usability, well...the 'coolness' trend couln't be stopped
The majority of purchasers thought that 'if the manufacturers were making it then it must be usable', not realising that (many) manufacturer will happily build something with less usability if it means that for the 30 seconds or so that most people would look at a laptop in-store, they think 'cool' and then lay down the cash.
...And Apples "edible" OS-X icons didn't help either.
Tapping with two fingers on the touchpad is right-click on Mac notebooks.
I always disable tapping and scrolling on all my touchpads. I find it to be quite annoying.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I decided early on I wanted at 1680x1050 display on my new 15.4" laptop to resolution match my 22" 1680x1050 that I use for work. I looked at Dells and other big brands, but I ended up getting a Sager NP2092 with a 1680x1050 screen that they only offer in matte and I love it. With such high resolution on only a 15.4" screen it is just beautiful, "liquid" was the first word that popped into my mind when I seen it.
You can check it out here http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np2092-custom-laptop-built-compal-jfl92-p-2347.html.
Nevermore.
If that happens you have bigger problems than lighting conditions.
I only get matte. I don't want a mirror/print magnet.
More than that though, I want a transflective screen on a laptop. I have an XO (OLPC) now and it's great being able to read it easily outdoors. I'm amazed no one else has tried this (other than ridiculously expensive conversions I've seen.)
With a ThinkPad, you'll end up using the trackpoint 100% of the time you need to move the pointer. Yes, it's that good.
c++;
You can turn a glossy screen into matte by applying a $0.5 protective film.
You cannot turn a matte screen into a glossy screen without replacing the entire screen.
If laptop manufacturers start to ship matte protective films with their machines it'd be perfect. But it's not like I cannot go get one for less than $2.
16:9 is such a pooched standard.
Its wide enough that 4:3 content generally looks out of proportion when stretched, but its not wide enough to show the most common current 2.35:1 movies without letterboxing.
"Gee, nice wide screen. Why are movies still letterboxed?"
The grid of all those tiny little liquid crystal cells is where you need to focus to see the image clearly. In addition to that, you need some kind of cover over those cells to protect them. Thinner covers provide less protection than thicker covers. When the cover has a matte surface, a thicker cover increases the fuzziness caused by the matte surface. So a tradeoff is between fuzziness vs. physical protection. The glossy surface avoids the fuzziness and allows the eye to focus below the cover surface, right where the cells are. Glossy avoids that fuzziness vs. physical protection issue and allows a thicker cover to provide better protection.
Glossy also works better in higher ambient light levels, except for the few cases where the reflection angle is at its worst.
A laptop screen needs more physical protection than a desktop monitor screen. That favors choosing thicker glossy for the laptop when thin matte would otherwise be preferred for the desktop.
A laptop is easier to move to a less problematic light environment than a desktop. That favors matte for the desktop when glossy would otherwise be usable.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Please don't lump us all in with those drooling troglodytes. Some of us switched platforms for good reasons and are perfectly honest about the flaws inherent to our system. I've convinced many friends/colleagues to switch but I've probably dissuaded just as many because there was no real tangible benefit to their switching.
There's a lot of Mac hate out there too my friend. It's just that the neophytes who feel morally/socially superior because they have the same white laptop as every other person in the coffeeshop are much louder.
(Disclaimer: I am writing this on a MacBook at a coffeeshop)
P.S. If youget modded as flamebait it might have something to do with the "Mac fangirls" tone of your post.
You jest, no? It's the worst pointing device in the world and achieves nothing but getting in the way of the surrounding keys. Thankfully they can be removed. Each to their own, I guess.
In my experience, the difference between matte and glossy usually is linked to the display's resolution and color depth. I like higher-performance laptops, so this probably isn't the absolute rule, but...
I have a Dell XPS m1730, the resolution is WUXGA (1920x1200) for a 17" screen and based on the published specifications, it seems to definitely be a 24-bit color display. It's also glossy.
I have a Thinkpad Z61p, also WUXGA, but based on the specs, it's definitely only an 18-bit color display. It's a matte 15.4" screen.
The most cited reason I've seen for this difference is that the matte screens diffuse each pixel's output, which masks defects and also helps blend colors better despite the lower color depth. The tiny bit of diffusion can also help blur out the pixel pitch a little in lower resolution screens. When a display has high pixel density and 24-bit color depth, glossy screens do make for sharper images and blacker blacks, despite the annoying glare.
As for obnoxious color, most manufacturers and consumers seem to turn chrominance up too high and have the luminance out-of-whack too, regardless of the display type. The 24-bit screens tend to have a much higher contrast ratio than the 18-bit screens as well, which means the picture will look lousy if it's not adjusted. Turn the chrominance down. Turn the luminance down. Turn the contrast down. Your eyes will thank you for it. A blue gel (available at video production and some camera stores) is really nice to have for calibrating monitors and televisions, if you have a good test pattern you can output to the screen.