Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > Is Apple going to keep giving you the choice?

Is Apple going to keep giving you the choice?
Thread Tools
PowerPc = Pwnage
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 04:55 PM
 
Hi, a pretty straight-forward question. I plan to purchase a Macbook Pro sometime in the future, I mean like a year, maybe more. I just want to know if apple is going to keep giving you the choice of Matte or Glossy screens, it probably won't effect my decision on when to buy a laptop, I was just curious that, if they didn't, which choice would the most likley pick for the future.

Thanks.

"Oh! You smell good, what is that? Macintosh."-http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/03/03
     
Javizun
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 05:16 PM
 
Matte to me is far superior then glossy. Some people may not agree, but when you work
with photos and design, the more accurate color match you can obtain from a screen is always greater then exaggerated contrast etc.

I am hoping they still provide this option so that both professionals and end users can have their preferred display without being tied down to what apple believes is better.

so i personally think this option should be available still.
A.I.R (ART IS RESISTANCE)
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 05:19 PM
 
There's no way to tell. The current ratio of matte/glossy sales would be a good indicator, but Apple won't release those. If they do switch to just one option, I'd guess it will be glossy. But hopefully they'll keep the matte/glossy option and add even more choices w/r/t resolution.
     
RevEvs
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sitting in front of computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 05:55 PM
 
I think they will continue to keep both. Pro users will bitch and moan constantly if they lose matte.
I free'd my mind... now it won't come back.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 05:56 PM
 
I'd love to see those numbers!

My son's Dell Inspiron 1505 came with a glossy screen, and while it does look nice, it's prone to showing dust and other stuff (sneeze?) much more than my MBP's matte screen. Given the wide variety of opinions of the quality of the glossy screen, and the wider variety of advice for how to clean it, I want Apple (and others) to come out with a definitive set of instructions (NOT "recommendations") for cleaning all of their screens. With that out of the way, one big variable - how clean is that screen - goes away and we can get more objective about glossy vs. matte.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ecking01
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 06:09 PM
 
I like my glossy mbp, I don't find it misrepresenting colours to me and I use fcp all the time and my output looks fine.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 06:12 PM
 
The matte screen is absolutely imperative if you're a graphics pro. they cannot drop the option
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by ecking01 View Post
I like my glossy mbp, I don't find it misrepresenting colours to me and I use fcp all the time and my output looks fine.
do you realize that design and photo work also includes printing the work out? unless your printing out your movies and making flip books with them, your work will always show up RGB while design and photo work has to deal with both RGB and CMYK.
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
Blasphemy
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Circa 1225, from the Old French
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 08:14 PM
 
I like glossy but I don't work in print, photo, or video.
     
Burn
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 10:37 PM
 
I love my glossy screen MBP and I proof web and print design work everyday. Maybe I am old school, but not only do I not trust what a laptop LCD can do - for colour representation, but more importantly I know and understand CMYK and RGB colours by numbers and working with tools like Pantone, so matte or glossy does not make a difference to me. I work in video also and again, knowing how something is going to appear on the device it will be played on (HD display vs tv vs computer monitor (LCD or CRT) makes a big difference, so not ALL pro's rely on a laptop LCD for colour accuracy.

I think Apple will keep the option open for quite a while.. I wonder what the manufacturing cost dif's are between the two.
     
Burn
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 10:45 PM
 
Not to haul this argument out of the garbage again, but I don't understand where a laptop display became the benchmark for color accuracy. It's off when compared to full time desktop diaplays, LCD and CRT. I guess some people only do work on their laptop.

Bottom line PowerPc = Pwnage, go check out the displays yourself at a store if you can. Bring a DVD or visit a bunch of sites you frequent.. give it the full test drive if you are able to.

B.
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 09:34 AM
 
Alot of PC laptops on the market are Glossy and that is why i think that Apple made the move there.
I am not a fanboy of one or the other.
I can tell you my honest opinion based on my Laptop exp.
Powerbook G4 - Matte
MacBook Pro Core Duo - Matte
MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo - Glossy
To me there is a huge difference with the glossy.
The glossy to me looks sharper darker and better with photos and videos and such.
I very rarely see a glare that i cannot more slightly to get rid of.
These are just some thoughts.
     
PowerPc = Pwnage  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 11:09 AM
 
I know that it is mostly a matter of opinion, but I do prefer matte, the color accuracy, among other things, and that glare is annoying, too. Having experienced glossy with a pc before, I can notice the glare no matter how small it is, and it can be distracting.

"Oh! You smell good, what is that? Macintosh."-http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/03/03
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 07:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by RevEvs View Post
I think they will continue to keep both. Pro users will bitch and moan constantly if they lose matte.
eh they'll forget about it a month after it's gone :-]


Originally Posted by Javizun View Post
Matte to me is far superior then glossy. Some people may not agree, but when you work with photos and design, the more accurate color match you can obtain from a screen is always greater then exaggerated contrast etc.
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
The matte screen is absolutely imperative if you're a graphics pro. they cannot drop the option
Originally Posted by PowerPc = Pwnage View Post
I know that it is mostly a matter of opinion, but I do prefer matte, the color accuracy, among other things,...
Where is this coming from??? How could a matte screen possibly give people the impression that it's more accurate with colors? You "pros" are weird.

P.S. I've owned a glossy screen for a month now and haven't seen one 'glare' yet.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
bloodline
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Not far from a shop that sells Logic Pro
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 10:03 AM
 
I use my MBP in studio and stage environments, glossy screens suffer badly from the glare of LED's and stage lighting... also I noticed that the Matte screen has a larger viewing angle, vital for when the MBP has to be loacated in an awkward to see place...
2.8 Ghz Unibody MacBook Pro 15" - 4GB Ram - Logic Pro 8.0
2.33 Ghz C2D MacBook Pro 15" - 3GB Ram - Logic Pro 7.2
1.5 Ghz G4 PowerBook 12" - 1.25GB Ram
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Where is this coming from??? How could a matte screen possibly give people the impression that it's more accurate with colors? You "pros" are weird.
If it's a simple fact that the glossy screens enhance contrast and make colors more vibrant, then that's a simple fact.

There is no discussion about that.

And it's something you want if you're out to enjoy your photographs and DVDs, but not if it's your living to deal with exactly those nuances.
     
Burn
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
If it's a simple fact that the glossy screens enhance contrast and make colors more vibrant, then that's a simple fact.

There is no discussion about that.
Yes, there is. What are you referring to as a baseline? The glossy screens enhance contrast and make colours more vibrant from what baseline? The verbiage you cite is marketing speak off Apple's website. Do they enhance the colours from what you are used to with a matte screen? I dont ever see the answer mentioned, but coming from the CRT era, where LCD's were always known for providing something of a 'washed out' image, EPECIALLY on a laptop - the glossy screens work great for me and is extremely close to the CRT I plug it into and use as a dual monitor setup every day. My older Ti (matte screen) was DEFINITELY washed out compared to my CRT.

Are you using the colour accuracy of a laptop LCD to gauge this opinion? or have you actually mated a colour calibration unit to multiple displays to make this determination?
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 03:38 PM
 
are you actually comparing your tibook lcd to that of a mbp matte lcd?

you could use glossy to do pro design and photo work, you could use matte to work on video stuff. its not one or the other, but i have to believe that glare and saturated colors are not what a photog and a designer want when theyre working on a project.
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
Burn
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 05:47 PM
 
Yup, compared all of the above. I don't want to argue this with ya guys, because it's super subjective and I don't want it to turn ugly.. my eyes prefer the glossy, I don't have glare or reflections in my work and home environments and I'm not trying to say that I disagree with what anyone else experiences.. just discussion is all The discussions I am hearing sound to be around the glossy screen being of higher contrast and more vibrant colours, but compared to what? What is more blue than blue? or more red than red? It all depends on what the baseline is.. it's like comparing colours printed off an inkjet vs laser vs offset... you can compare laser vs laser or offset vs offset... but it takes work to match a Pantone book..

All of the design professionals I know could work off a 10 year graphite apple display if required, or even an older bondi blue which would be even more fatigued.. the understanding of colour eclipses what is being shown on a laptop lcd display for many professionals.
     
strangemoon
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Weston CT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Burn View Post
Yes, there is. What are you referring to as a baseline? The glossy screens enhance contrast and make colours more vibrant from what baseline? The verbiage you cite is marketing speak off Apple's website. Do they enhance the colours from what you are used to with a matte screen? I dont ever see the answer mentioned, but coming from the CRT era, where LCD's were always known for providing something of a 'washed out' image, EPECIALLY on a laptop - the glossy screens work great for me and is extremely close to the CRT I plug it into and use as a dual monitor setup every day. My older Ti (matte screen) was DEFINITELY washed out compared to my CRT.

Are you using the colour accuracy of a laptop LCD to gauge this opinion? or have you actually mated a colour calibration unit to multiple displays to make this determination?
You are certainly correct that the matter of a baseline is extremely important to this discussion.

Also, is it not the case that the non-glare surface of the matte screen is created by the inclusion of a light diffusing layer? If so, would that not mean that the glossy screen would be more accurate due to the absence of this layer?

Just curious.
     
mitchcohen
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 06:41 PM
 
In a controlled environment I think glossy looks nicer. But laptops are used in many environments, often uncontrollable (sitting on a lap, airports, hotel lobbies...).

My opinion is they could make glossy versions of the iMac and Cinema Displays if they wanted (although my preference is to stick with matte). For laptops, I'm for matte all the way. Just the reflectivity factor.

Remember early CRTs with the high-gloss finish? One of the great uses for LCD was to remove that reflection...

(Happy owner of a matte MBP)
     
tribaltattoos
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 07:05 PM
 
first, i'm not an expert about any of what follows by any stretch, although i believe it's pretty close to the truth.

i think a decent analogy to use here when defending the matte screen for color accuracy would be to compare it to using studio monitor speakers when creating music in a professional recording environment. my (fairly limited) understanding is that studio monitors are designed to keep the sound "flat", that is, to not add extra warmth to the sound that is output. this is apparently "more accurate". from what i've come to understand from the posts i've read, the glossy screen is creating contrast that may be affecting what the user sees on the screen, but perhaps differs from printed output. in the terms of the analogy above, this would be akin to hooking up hi-fi speakers in a recording studio. it might sound great, but the sound is no longer unadulterated.

i wish i had a better understanding of both music recording and display technology, and if this is inaccurate, i'll happily stand corrected.

j
( Last edited by tribaltattoos; Dec 12, 2006 at 08:19 PM. )
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 07:15 PM
 
Your analogy is good.

IMO there are enough folks with different preferences and enough sales that Apple will continue to offer both choices. I am a pro and I did choose a 17" matte C2D MBP but the glossy is good too. I could live with either.

-Allen Wicks
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 09:54 PM
 
People who 'prefer matte' at this point are mostly people who have never used glossy and have just seen some 'glare' at the Apple store or on some PC. They remind me of Windows users who 'don't like Apple' but have no experience with it.

People who 'perfer glossy' at this point are mostly people who have just opted for the new kind of screen and think they like it better, but may only be trying to justify what they just spent thousands of dollars on. (I'm one of these).

The only people who's opinion I'd even trust at all at this point are people who've just bought two new MBPs with one of each type of screen, or someone who's just got a glossy and wishes they'd got a matte instead. All I hear at this point are people who love their new glossy and the old grumps who don't trust them new fangled contraptions, both of which led me to get mine glossy, but who really aren't all that good of sources because they're too busy trying to prove themselves right about everything they 'know for sure'. The good news is that, at least on the 17 inchers, they both look GREAT!

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
eminton
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2006, 01:11 AM
 
my matte finish on my Powerbook gets crappier from dust and LCD screen cleaner. when i purchase a MBP, i will be going glossy
     
pyrite
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2006, 02:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
People who 'prefer matte' at this point are mostly people who have never used glossy and have just seen some 'glare' at the Apple store or on some PC. They remind me of Windows users who 'don't like Apple' but have no experience with it.

People who 'perfer glossy' at this point are mostly people who have just opted for the new kind of screen and think they like it better, but may only be trying to justify what they just spent thousands of dollars on. (I'm one of these).

The only people who's opinion I'd even trust at all at this point are people who've just bought two new MBPs with one of each type of screen, or someone who's just got a glossy and wishes they'd got a matte instead. All I hear at this point are people who love their new glossy and the old grumps who don't trust them new fangled contraptions, both of which led me to get mine glossy, but who really aren't all that good of sources because they're too busy trying to prove themselves right about everything they 'know for sure'. The good news is that, at least on the 17 inchers, they both look GREAT!
so every pro who has seen glossy and prefers matte because of glossy's oversaturated colors is.. wrong? or just old fashioned? the studio monitor analogy nailed it.. i'm a recording musician, and the last thing i want is 'mega-bass' and shiny-sounding tweeters to fancy up my recording beyond that which it actually is.. surely the same goes for graphics
Hear and download my debut EP 'Ice Pictures' for free here
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2006, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Burn View Post
The discussions I am hearing sound to be around the glossy screen being of higher contrast and more vibrant colours, but compared to what?
Reality.

There is nothing subjective about accurate color reproduction. It either is, or it's useless for pro work except for comparative purposes or extremely rough work.

tribaltattoos' studio speaker analogy nailed it, and every single graphics pro I've had in the store has confirmed this in person.

A pro can work with a certain setup, if he knows and can accurately gauge its limitations, but given the (free) option, he'd be a right idiot not to opt for accuracy.
     
bigmike
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2006, 09:20 AM
 
Maybe apple should give its buyer an option drop the built-in isight option. Afterall, it might be a problem for those working in very strick corporate environment.

But personally, I am happy with matte. It's "feels" more expensive. (more costly to make), I read earlier from this forum.
we are all part of a masterplan.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2006, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Reality.

There is nothing subjective about accurate color reproduction. It either is, or it's useless for pro work except for comparative purposes or extremely rough work.....

I'm guessing you've never done any "pro work" either on or off a computer screen. Nothing is more subjective than color reproduction and there is no way a glossy screen can actually exaggerate colors or make them innacurate.... it just keeps the frosty coating of a matte screen from washing out the blacks and dark colors. In my opinion that just makes them MORE accurate.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2006, 07:55 PM
 
You're right; I'm an audio guy.

I sell these machines to people who DO make their living deciding over those fine nuances, though, and actually listen to what THEY say.

And no, oversaturated colors are NOT "MORE accurate", no matter what your opinion may be. They're oversaturated. And it's patently ridiculous to claim that a glossy screen cannot "actually exaggerate colors or make them innacurate [sic]...."

After all, a ****ing photo paper can change the colors of your printout, and using Ektachrome or Velvia film will exaggerate certain colors and enhance contrast, too, as will ever-so-slight variations in development or exposure. (Incidentally, the Velvia effect is *quite* similar to what happens with the glossy displays, according to the photographers I've talked to.)

And I'm sorry, but your four-year-old tiBook LCD screen is NOT a valid comparison to ANY current Apple offering, by any stretch of the imagination.

Are you sure YOU've ever done any "pro work" on or off a computer screen?
     
freediverdude
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2006, 08:28 PM
 
Well! Analogika, aren't YOU being HUFFY!
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2006, 09:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by freediverdude View Post
Well! Analogika, aren't YOU being HUFFY!
Maybe he's huffy, but he's right. While lot to lot variation in color film is negligible, two slightly different color stocks (even the same stock with a different ISO) WILL produce slightly different colors with identical processing. That's why the pros buy BULK rolls of film and load their own cassettes, and TAKE A COLOR CHART PICTURE BEFORE THEY DO ANYTHING ELSE. That color chart is "gospel" for how the film reproduces colors.

I recall picking up a used 17" CRT monitor once and noticing that the image on it looked odd. It had two things going on: it had been used by a smoker (so it had a sheen of nicotine crap all over it) AND it had an "anti glare" aftermarket screen coating on it. I'm not sure if that was applied when it was brand new or after it had been smoked on for a while. But the colors were not only dim, but yellow as well. A quarter bottle of alcohol and half a bag of cotton balls didn't dent the nicotine, so I returned it, but MAN that was nasty! Screen coverings CAN alter the color rendition.

Unless you use a very good color calibration system (and I don't know if there's a decent one for this kind of screen), you CANNOT trust the colors your display shows you to be correct. If you are like me and don't do image manipulation, that's not a problem, but if you're a pro, it's crucial. The matte coating does not seem to alter the color at all, but the glossy screens I've seen next to matte screens (with everything default-at the store) did look oversaturated with the same image... Not cool for a pro.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2006, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
... no, oversaturated colors are NOT "MORE accurate", no matter what your opinion may be. They're oversaturated. And it's patently ridiculous to claim that a glossy screen cannot "actually exaggerate colors or make them innacurate [sic]...."
It's not ridiculous at all to discuss color accuracy and whether colors are or are NOT over-saturated and the word "patently" doesn't close the issue. Why would you even say that? Pros spend careers discussing color accuracy and the few you've talked to don't end all discussion especially since you obviously ignore the ones that disagree. How could a shiny coating distort color anyway? It makes no sense. I don't even think that "saturation" applies to LCD screens. Have you ever noticed that LCD's don't even have any sort of control for that? Ask some pros about that one please. If glossy screens really were "over-saturated" wouldn't someone just write a utility in 5 minutes to add a saturation slider to the Displays control panel to fix it? Or would the blacks still be too black and the whites too white?



Originally Posted by analogika View Post
After all, a ****ing photo paper can change the colors of your printout, and using Ektachrome or Velvia film will exaggerate certain colors and enhance contrast, too, as will ever-so-slight variations in development or exposure. (Incidentally, the Velvia effect is *quite* similar to what happens with the glossy displays, according to the photographers I've talked to.)
Yes a dozen things can affect color and every setting on every computer and every screen and every ink on every paper and every lighting situation in every room will make it look different. That's why I say it's subjective. You assuring that all the pros agree that matte is accurate and glossy isn't is what's ridiculous. The only thing that all the pros have ever agreed about is that digital would never replace film.



Originally Posted by analogika View Post
And I'm sorry, but your four-year-old tiBook LCD screen is NOT a valid comparison to ANY current Apple offering, by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm almost tempted to scroll up and try to figure out what I might have said that you'd be able to misinterpret so grossly, or even why that would be relevant, but after what you led off with about me saying "over-saturated colors are MORE accurate" I figure why bother, you're practically making stuff up to argue against. I'm actually sitting here right now comparing it to my professional photographer roommate's 24" iMac with the same photo and the iMac actually looks more saturated but possibly just because it's much brighter. They both look great though and there's no 'objective' way to tell which is "more accurate". How would you do that?



Originally Posted by analogika View Post
You're right; I'm an audio guy. I sell these machines to people who DO make their living deciding over those fine nuances, though, and actually listen to what THEY say. Are you sure YOU've ever done any "pro work" on or off a computer screen?
Yes, for many years, and I cringe to think of all the "pros" out there that think the glossy looks great until a guy that "sells these machines to people that make their livings deciding over fine nuances" told them that it's over-saturated, and that they might actually listen.


Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Maybe he's huffy, but he's right. ....Unless you use a very good color calibration system (and I don't know if there's a decent one for this kind of screen), you CANNOT trust the colors your display shows you to be correct. If you are like me and don't do image manipulation, that's not a problem, but if you're a pro, it's crucial. The matte coating does not seem to alter the color at all, but the glossy screens I've seen next to matte screens (with everything default-at the store) did look oversaturated with the same image... Not cool for a pro.
Wait, first you say that you can't trust the colors on a screen at all, and then you say that at the store matte screens are accurate but glossy are over-saturated. What are you even comparing it to at the store? Your memory of real objects in the world? Your memory of your computer at home? A printout? Like I said I see the opposite here. You are not saying anything but your opinions and then declaring that you're right! You two are driving me crazy... I've got to stop reading this thread! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
pyrite
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2006, 01:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
...there is no way a glossy screen can actually exaggerate colors or make them innacurate.... it just keeps the frosty coating of a matte screen from washing out the blacks and dark colors. In my opinion that just makes them MORE accurate.
my god man.. the reason people are getting huffy with you is because you're not making any sense! your statement "there is no way a glossy screen can actually exaggerate colors or make them innacurate" is blatantly incorrect.. the gloss coat 'enhances' or 'amplifies' (oversaturates) colors while light is passing through it, giving a more dynamic contrast, darker-looking darks and brighter colors. it looks great, but it DOES exaggerate them, that's the whole point. and thats why pros won't touch them.
you seem to think the glossy screen is just removing the 'fuzzy crap' that a matte applies, unfortunately that fuzzy crap is a figment of your overactive imagination. matte is, like it or loathe it, the most accurate finish available
Hear and download my debut EP 'Ice Pictures' for free here
     
hldan
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2006, 01:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
The matte screen is absolutely imperative if you're a graphics pro. they cannot drop the option

Well if this is so then what do graphics pros do with the latest Windows laptops? They are all glossy.
iMac 24" 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Extreme
500GB HDD
4GB Ram
Proud new Owner!
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2006, 02:28 AM
 
really...EVERY windows pc made from now on will only have a glossy screen?

wow..this is news to me.
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
mrmister
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2006, 02:46 AM
 
mrtew is on some kind of religious crusade, probably related to feeling good about his purchase.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2006, 05:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrmister View Post
mrtew is on some kind of religious crusade, probably related to feeling good about his purchase.
It's comments like this one I don't understand.

People, please, give it a rest . Why can't you have different opinions and not get all personal about it. I don't know if he's right or wrong, but he's not insulting anyone, is he?

If he's so religious about it, then you might as well stop trying to convince him. OTOH if you're so sure he's an idiot and you're so sure you're right, why get all worked up about it? If you know you're right, just relax.
•
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2006, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by pyrite View Post
my god man.. the reason people are getting huffy with you is because you're not making any sense! your statement "there is no way a glossy screen can actually exaggerate colors or make them inaccurate" is blatantly incorrect.. the gloss coat 'enhances' or 'amplifies' (over-saturates) colors while light is passing through it, giving a more dynamic contrast, darker-looking darks and brighter colors. it looks great, but it DOES exaggerate them, that's the whole point. and thats why pros won't touch them.
you seem to think the glossy screen is just removing the 'fuzzy crap' that a matte applies, unfortunately that fuzzy crap is a figment of your overactive imagination. matte is, like it or loathe it, the most accurate finish available
Actually I'm not on any religious crusade for screens at all you dingdongs. I just bought a new 17" glossy and my roommate just bought a 24" imac and we both think both screens look great and are always looking at each-other's screen wondering if it looks better than our own. Neither of us can decide whether glossy or matte looks better and we live with both and see both every day. If I bought a new computer today I'd practically have to flip a coin to decide which to get and he says the same thing. They're almost identical looking actually except in bright rooms where you lose the darkest darks in a matte screen. And yes we're both 'pros' even though I feel like an idiot using that word and I think any other real pro probably does too so don't say pros won't touch them anymore.

I've explained that the gloss coat enhances and amplifies colors and contrast by making the blacks look blacker (99% rather than 95%) thru the mechanism of reducing the diffraction of the light in the room into the screen coating. That makes total sense if you stop and think about it, so calling it blatantly incorrect and making up some theory about how it magically adds saturation though it's exaggerative coating is what's reminiscent of religious grumpiness. I've mentioned that the colors are even more saturated looking on his iMac so I guess my magic coating is wearing off already unless my theory that saturation and contrast are CRT concepts that don't even really apply to LCDs is correct, and they are just a product of how black your coating gets the blacks in contrast to how bright your backlight gets the whites and colors. Does your LCD or computer have a contrast or saturation setting anywhere?

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
mrmister
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2006, 10:12 AM
 
"People, please, give it a rest . Why can't you have different opinions and not get all personal about it."

My statement isn't terribly personal; I'm expressing my belief that his repetitive obstinancy has more to do with his purchase than anything else.

"If he's so religious about it, then you might as well stop trying to convince him."

I'm not trying to convince him of anything--you've confused me with someone else. In fact, I think that there isn't all that much more to say about the matter, unless someone magically shows up with new and compelling information.
     
Burn
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2006, 11:09 AM
 
I did mention that I wanted to keep it all 'discussion' too - x'ing out your cursing means nothing more to me than an example that you can't keep a rational discussion going with decent dialogue. The only thing that needs dropping is the bashing. This can be discussed without clobbering someone with "YOUR" experience. I am not wanting experience, that IS subjective. I want fact.. how many "pro's" you sold a laptop to is irrelevant to the issue. That was their personal choice and we do not know what their rationale is, other than possibly not wanting to stray from what they are used to, which is fine! Us creative pro's usually wait the longest of any group for any OS update or change in technology before updating. We make our living using this gear and anything that may interupt that - MUST be avoided until it is proven and reliable.

If it was my experience that was being questioned - I have been working in graphic design profesionally (as in, making an awesome living doing it) for over 10 years now. I work at an internationally award winning studio and I hold the highest designation that our national governing body of designers can provide. Not trying to be defensive, I feel like I got called out.

I google'd the topic and came across this technical nugget;
PixelBright LCDs

For some reason my point/question keeps getting distorted. But one main reason laptop displays originally came with matte screens was due to their increased screen angles and likelyhood of reflecting overhead light (among several issues). They were underpowered, underlit and compared to CRT displays, just not up to snuff (until the past 1 or 2 years). Lately laptop lcd screens have been getting better - but my point is valid. LCD's are still in an evolutionary phase and in terms of visual quality, can still linger behind in accuracy/response speed... other certain aspects - unless you are shelling out a lot of $$ for a real high end display.

If the glossy lcd's are being touted as "more vivid, higher contrast" I want to know in relation to what. This is marketing speak and to me does not equate to a problem. If someone's eyes prefer the look of a matte screen, that's cool.. I'm not bashing anyone's choice. To me this could sound like a solution to what many experience with the technology used in the past. (ie: lcd's representing colours/contrast poorly or backlighting being weak...)

I've asked around some circles for someone to do a colourometer test, we'll see if anything comes from that... I'll post if I find anything.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2006, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
all you dingdongs.
That just made my day.
     
strangemoon
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Weston CT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2006, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by pyrite View Post
my god man.. the reason people are getting huffy with you is because you're not making any sense! your statement "there is no way a glossy screen can actually exaggerate colors or make them innacurate" is blatantly incorrect.. the gloss coat 'enhances' or 'amplifies' (oversaturates) colors while light is passing through it, giving a more dynamic contrast, darker-looking darks and brighter colors. it looks great, but it DOES exaggerate them, that's the whole point. and thats why pros won't touch them.
you seem to think the glossy screen is just removing the 'fuzzy crap' that a matte applies, unfortunately that fuzzy crap is a figment of your overactive imagination. matte is, like it or loathe it, the most accurate finish available
From my perspective, this post hits the core issue.

Is this statement correct? Does the 'fuzzy crap' exist?

It is certainly true that a given finish has the potential to impact the accuracy of color reproduction just as certain listening setups can impact reproduced sound by emphasizing certain frequencies.

I was under the impression, however, that the matte finish worked by slightly diffusing emitted light. If that is true, then would it not be the case that the glossy finish is more accurate rather than less?

Is it possible for the glossy finish to oversaturate? Anyone know how the two finishes actually work?
     
wulf
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2006, 07:28 PM
 
Without trying to trade punches (it's late and I don't have the energy), I feel it's worth adding a couple of points:

The glossy screens have a much tighter (smaller) angle of view for optimum colour reproduction than the matte screens. Sometimes I can see colour shifts just by nodding my head a little. I have a MacBook and I love it, love the screen. I would not trust it an inch for any kind of colour repro.

If you've ever calibrated a screen for print work (not that they ever really match, but anyway) you know that the white point is set really low (D65, or even D50 for the old-school), making the screen look pretty dingy. You wouldn't want to watch your DVDs on it. The point is that the lower contrast is considered better for previewing the gamut of print colour (in conjunction with the right gamma and other settings, of course). So it's not unreasonable to say that a high-contrast display could be considered generally "less accurate" in that respect.

Although the colour gamut for video is very different than that for CMYK, there is also a disparity in contrast between computer displays and video/TV displays. It's not really possible to "calibrate" a computer display for video. That doesn't stop video looking great on the computer; I love watching movies on my MacBook. But when I'm working in Final Cut, I wouldn't ever use the MacBook screen for colour-correction - or any other computer screen - unless I had a proper reference monitor attached to see the result.

For what it's worth I used to do print design (including prepping colour photography for CMYK) and now I'm a video editor for TV and corporate work, mainly using Final Cut Pro. None of which makes me any kind of an expert in colour reproduction whatsoever, you understand. Just another opinion…
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:32 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,