Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Laptops Screens, Glare or Matte?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the the-glare-it-burns-us dept.

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.

25 of 663 comments (clear)

  1. ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The ThinkPad T61's still use a non-reflective screen, and are now available in wide screen models.

    1. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by RedHelix · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just wipe it with some isopropyl alcohol, it'll tear the gloss right off. Disclaimer: Don't do this

    2. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Informative

      WXGA = Wide XGA

      But I very much prefer people say the numeric resolution these days. I'm not interested in keeping up with the acronyms.

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
    3. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      MacBook Pro. You can even run Windows on it. Doesn't come with Splinter Cell stickers or subwoofers. And they give you the option of glossy or matte.

      I mean, if you're willing to shell out the dough for a T61, you might as well get a MacBook Pro and at least have the option to run MacOS X.

      --
      My blog
    4. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by nmg196 · · Score: 5, Funny

      > I'm thinking about getting one of those 3-M privacy filters.

      I don't know... People spend a fortune buying expensive LCD screens with a 178 degree viewing angle, and then turn them into a $50 monitor by adding a privacy filter. It's much cheaper to simply stop looking at porn at work.

    5. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by Applekid · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's much cheaper to simply stop looking at porn at work. That's crazy talk.
      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    6. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just a little FYI, I have a bit of family working for Panasonic and other LCD/high def makers. The reason that widescreen is the new big thing, is so that they can keep market prices high while offering the same or VERY SLIGHTLY more service (technical features) than before. It has nothing to do with HD, or being "more beautiful", its so that 5 or 10 years from now they can reintroduce the square as a "premium" and control market prices with absolutely no quality or feature improvement. It's the same way with TVs and why you continually find TV's around the same price on an inch by inch basis instead of prices going down as they should be.

      The phrase for this should be plainly obvious: they're trying to scoop up the bottom line. The fact is, they have almost nothing to advertise on a monitor as a special feature, therefore "widescreen" has become the new special feature.

    7. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by Mr+Z · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, given that all my web browsing goes through a proxy that can tie the traffic back to my employee number, I think you can appreciate that that's not my concern. Surfing pr0n at work means losing my job, and so is a rather expensive proposition regardless of the display device. :-)

      Keep in mind, privacy filters slide out, so when I want a wide viewing angle, I can have one. I'm more concerned about airports, airplanes, coffee shops, etc. since there are actual professional reasons for why I really don't want to be shoulder-surfed by a person sitting across the aisle from me. Those also tend to be some of the worst lighting conditions, too, depending on whether the bozo across the way leaves his window open. I can at least control the lighting in my office most of the time.

      --
      Program Intellivision!
    8. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but at 6 bits per pixel, you may as well kill yourself.

    9. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by Idiomatick · · Score: 5, Informative

      Man someone suggests a mac gets modded up and a guy pointing out a flaw gets modded down. Of all the groups in /. Mac fangirls are the WORST at following the rules. There is no -1 disagree. I hate how things get slanted since maccies cant follow that.

      That said I find it hilarious that you compared it to the macbook pro. So I think you should really go compare them.
      http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=browse&node=home/shop_mac/family/macbook_pro
      http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/systemconfig.runtime.workflow:LoadRuntimeTree?sb=:00000025:00000311:&smid=1F106632CBC24D2CBD23DF19644D3694

      First thing you will notice is that the most expensive t61 starts at around 900$ cheaper than the cheapest macbook (so its not a viable alternative). Next when you customize the lenovo so that it has the same specs as the macbook you are still 700$ cheaper than the mac. And that comes with vista which you will otherwise have to pay for.
       
      So please PLEASE at least read the stats and do a quick comparison before you speak. A product being 50% more expensive for the same specs is an EMBARRASSMENT. Don't brag about it.
       
      This post will get modded flamebait by a horde of angry mac users. Hopefully the message reaches atleast a few people.

    10. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm in total agreement that Mac fans tend to be some of the biggest trolls and jerks around, but I'm not sure how you got your numbers. I followed the links you provided and found the following:

      Entry-level Macbook Pro, all standard options: $1999

      Lenovo with: T8300 CPU, Vista Ultimate (feature-wise, it really is the most comparable to the Macboook since the Macbook ships with iLife '08 included), 2x1 DDR2, 160gb drive (the only 200gb drive on the Lenovo includes encryption and is /way/ more expensive due to that, so I figured I'd leave it off, but this does skew the price a bit more in favor of the Lenovo than a totally true comparison), Integrated Bluetooth, everything else default. Total: $1,621.20 (after $261.80 savings it claims).

      So the actual price difference is closer to 400, or maybe even 300 given the hard drive difference and the fact and the macbook has an integrated webcam which runs another $72 on the lenovo.

      So while there is a price difference and you definitely are paying a premium for the apple, it's not nearly as bad as you suggest.

    11. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by MMInterface · · Score: 5, Informative

      He was comparing it to a Macbook pro so his facts are straight. After stating that he just referred to is as a Macbook which may have confused you. If you think a different comparison should be made thats fine.

      "That said I find it hilarious that you compared it to the macbook pro. So I think you should really go compare them. http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=browse&node=home/shop_mac/family/macbook_pro"

    12. Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens by ahabswhale · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry but that's simply not possible. Phosphors fade over time. It's not debatable because it's a fact. (Feel free to google it.) If you haven't noticed it, it's simply because it's happened over time but I guarantee you that if you bought a brand new copy of that exact same monitor, the difference would shock you. The only way what you're saying could be true is if you have a monitor from 1993 that you rarely use, otherwise, it's just not possible. A work monitor that's used for 8 hours a day will have dramatic color loss in 5 years.

      It's also a myth that CRTs simply have better color. The truth is that photographers and graphics artists had to use high-end CRTs to get accurate color representation (just like they have to do with LCDs). The typical CRT had poor color representation and even the high-end ones required frequent recalibration to maintain color accuracy due to the fading of the phosphors.

      So, I will admit that expensive, high-end CRTs (top 1% at best) have better color than LCDs, this really isn't true for the vast majority of the population. Most users, including /. users, don't even know how to color calibrate their monitors.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  2. Glossy is more like reading paper by davide+marney · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Glossy is more like reading paper by jyoull · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *nod*. I don't wear glasses, and was recently "forced" into a glossy screen because the rest of this laptop was exactly what I wanted. I perceive it as brighter and cleaner than the several non-glossy displays that preceded it. This surprised me as I thought I'd hate it. But on the balance i am not at all unhappy, after an adjustment period of maybe a week or two. For a while I had both laptops and the "old one" seemed dim and less sharp. I agree with posters who have written that reading dark text on white has a sense of "text on paper" on the glossy screen, while the matte screens look like computer displays.

      Hey, anyone remember 16-color EGA? :)

    2. Re:Glossy is more like reading paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, anyone remember 16-color EGA? :) I remember Hercules Monochrome, you insensitive clod!
  3. The problem with matte by Piata · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Glaring mis-design by DanQuixote · · Score: 5, Interesting


    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
  5. Re:Ooh, shiny by badasscat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. The better to see you with, my pretty... by The+Assistant · · Score: 5, Funny

    Glossy is better for looking at scantily clad ladies. Makes them look like they do in them thar magazines!!!!! :)

  7. There are tradeoffs to both types by wodgy7 · · Score: 5, Informative
    This page has some good diagrams explaining what happens to light in "matte" (anti-glare) versus "glossy" (anti-reflective) screens:

    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.

  8. Dell Latitudes by cyanics · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Try an experiment by petes_PoV · · Score: 5, Interesting
    > Glossy screens have much higher contrast and brightness

    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
  10. Practical reason to avoid glossy by techdavis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  11. Re:Agreed- glossy sucks by rwven · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think the thing is, vendors have started using more and more glossy screens because they hide a multitude of sins. You can use a craptacular LCD and have glossy coating on it and it looks halfway decent.

    Look at the latest iMacs as an example of this. Absolutely sub-par screen...and they coat it with glass so it hides how bad it is. It's something like a 400:1 contract ratio screen with many other vices.

    Not picking on apple here (i love macs), but it's just cheaper for companies in general to gloss coat a screen and sell you a lousy LCD.

    Obviously any serious graphic designers aren't going to stand for anything but a matte screen.