Slashdot Mirror
Users Want Matte LCDs While Glossy Screens Dominate
Barence writes "A survey of PC Pro readers suggests PC makers are out of touch when it comes to glossy vs matte screens. Almost three quarters of those surveyed said they preferred matte screens despite laptop makers moving almost exclusively to glossy screens. ... Why is the industry hell-bent on not giving customers what they want?"
The reason they don't give customer matte LCDs is because shiny screens look nicer on photographs and on showroom floors because they look perfect and pristine and oh-so-high-tech. The customer will go to the showroom (with their nice, bright, and diffuse lighting) or see the photos online and they'll think: "Wow, that's shiny, it must be new and sleek" and then whip out their credit cards.
When they take it home, they'll complain about the glare, but that doesn't matter to the manufacturers and retailers because they already had your money at that point and they know that you probably wouldn't go to the trouble of returning the laptop just because there's a bit of glare on the screen. Meanwhile, you're stuck with your crappy super-specular screen and you're going to go through any sort of mental gymnastics necessary to justify not returning it. And then, the next time you need a new computer, the same process will begin anew because we, as consumers, are idiots.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
1) PC Pro readers probably don't represent the general population.
2) There's always a difference between what people say they want, and what they actually end up buying when given the choice. They may actually want matte screens, but purchase based on different criteria such as "oh, shiney!" once they're actually on the spot.
3) I'm pretty sure device manufacturers are doing more robust consumer research than PC Pro.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Why in the world anyone would choose a 1920x1080 monitor over 1920x1200 is beyond me. I can't wait until the day those bastard TV "monitors" die.
One is that glossy is brighter than matte. Matte screens do reduce the transmission of light. That is a reason laptops hopped on the glossy thing to early, more transmission means less power usage. Well in terms of things in the showroom, people like brighter screens. It is just now humans work. You'll prefer the brighter (or louder in the case of sound) of two otherwise identical objects.
Also glossy is easier to do right. It costs a little more money to do a good matte screen. Do it poorly and it can look way too grainy and so on. No, it isn't a big price difference but it is there and for cheap displays, pennies count.
What I tell people is if you care, get a high end monitor. They are better in all kinds of other ways too (like using a better panel technology that gives better colour and viewing angles) and with the pretty much sole exception of Apple, they are all matte. A Dell U2311 or U2410 are good choices for quality but not super expensive. Personally, I really like NEC's PA series. Serious cash, but they look great.
I find that 600 grit carbide emery cloth works great to reduce the glare. -BOFH
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Glossy screens reflect ambient light back at the same angle at which it hits the screen, which means when there is light shining on them they're next to useless. However, when there isn't direct light, they allow for much deeper blacks and higher contrast.
Matte screens, on the other hand, scatter ambient light and reflect it back at all angles, thus diminishing the amount of light. So when there's a light shining on them, you can still see the image on-screen. But this also means that all ambient light is reflected back, no matter the direction of the light as it hits the screen, leading to much weaker blacks and less contrast.
While consumers love the non-reflective nature of matte screens, they prefer the higher contrast and darker black level of a glossy screen much more, and are typically willing to sacrifice occasional reflections for better picture quality.
I do note, however, that there is a kind of glass that's (almost) entirely non-reflective. Head down to your local picture framing place (Michaels, for certain, has it) and take a look. Quite why this glass/coating isn't in use on LCD screens right now, I have no idea.
However, there may be a new option on the horizon: Japanese scientists have manufactured a "screen" for projectors that only reflects light beamed on it from a certain angle. So if you have a projector on the floor pointing up, it'll reflect the projector's light out into the room, but not the light from the overhead fluorescent tubes.
I checked your comments -- both of them mention ladyboys. I challenge you to mention ladyboys in every comment you make from here on out -- It would be epic.
If you need help you could just use ladyboys instead of cars for your analogies.
Even IF your job is editing 1080p video, 1200 is superior because you get room at the top and bottom for a scrub bar, and additional controls, without intruding on the image.
Computer displays should have stayed 1920x1200, but it's a lot cheaper just to make tons of 1920x1080 panels and use the same panels in both TVs and computer displays. Economies of scale.
I love my old Dell 2407WFP. 1920x1200 all the way, damnit.