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.

ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[csimicah (592121)]

2nding the T61. We have trouble finding high-end laptops that don't come with subwoofers and Splinter Cell stickers; our new T61 fits the bill exactly and has a matte 1920x1200 screen.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[Cecil (37810)]

I think those are technically T61p's. I just got a fully-loaded T61p with the 15.4" 1920x1200 widescreen a week ago and it is wonderful. I'm loving it so far.

So I third the T61 recommendation.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

MacBook Pro [apple.com]. 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.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[Idiomatick (976696)]

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.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[by Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[chiph (523845)]

I went from a Thinkpad p-series to a Mac Book Pro, and am very happy. Mainly because of the performance increase of switching from a heavily-patched 5 year old OS to a new 64-bit Unix-based OS.

But also, the hardware-software integration is much tighter, even when loading 64-bit Vista on it via Bootcamp. It's been said before: If you want a fast Windows machine, buy a Mac, and they're right.

The one downside is that you just can't beat the keyboards on the Thinkpad line -- while the MBP has a good one, there's no comparison with the classic IBM/Lenovo keyboard.

Chip H.

Mac users =! Douchebags (well, not all of us)

[InadequateCamel (515839)]

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.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[MMInterface (1039102)]

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 [apple.com]"

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[penguinstorm (575341)]

In any case, antivirus is free for personal use if you use AVG. If not for personal use, it's probably covered by some non-retail price site licence.

Re:obligitory post

[kinabrew (1053930)]

Tapping with two fingers on the touchpad is right-click on Mac notebooks.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[RedHelix (882676)]

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

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[truthsearch (249536)]

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.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[Ruger (237212)]

Lenovo has a ton of info about their screens in their "Help me decides"...like these tidbits:

SXGA: Super eXtended Graphics Array
Resolution: 1280x1024
SXGA+: Super eXtended Graphics Array Plus
Resolution: 1400x1050
UltraLight XGA TFT: Ultra Thin Screen w/ Standard Extended Graphics Array
Resolution: 1600x1200
UltraView + EasyTouch XGA TFT: Widescreen Touch Screen w/ Standard Extended Graphics Array
Resolution: 1600x1200
WSXGA+: Widescreen Super eXtended Graphics Array Plus
Resolution: 1680x1050
WUXGA: Wide Ultra eXtended Graphics Array
Resolution: 1920x1200
WVA: Wide view angle
WXGA: Widescreen XGA
Resolution: 1280x720,1280x800, 1280x768
WXGA+: Widescreen Extended Graphics Array Plus Rsolution: 1440x900

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[Smauler (915644)]

That's a cool link - I just learnt that my brand new spangly 1920 * 1200 screen shares the same aspect ratio with good old CGA at 320 * 200. I can simultaneously run 36 CGA screens on my system - that's something I really need to figure out how to do, just as soon as I get my third armpit.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[eck011219 (851729)]

I had to switch away from CRTs because of eyestrain. The first laptop I had almost immediately stopped the eyestrain problems I'd been having, and going back to the CRT later when I was transferring files brought them back immediately.

I have a glossy laptop screen now and love it. I haven't noticed any of the "blown out" color people are talking about. The only issue I have is that I have a window behind me, and for a couple hours a day the sun is in the right spot to cause some reflection in the corner of my screen.

Mostly I just ignore it -- it makes me feel like an ambassador from Slashdot to the outside, sun-drenched world. We takes our self-importance where we can gets it, right?

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[uncoveror (570620)]

Glossy screens are among the worst things ever to happen to computing. I can't see what is on them, only reflections of every window, lamp and anything remotely shiny behind me. I have a Lenovo 3000 N100 laptop with one of those damn things, and wish I could find an anti-glare filter to put over it. There are not words strong enough to express how I hate glossy screens that would be acceptable in mixed company. Everything that springs to mind is obscene. Whoever came up with these things should be drawn and quartered.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[nmg196 (184961)]

> 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.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[Applekid (993327)]

It's much cheaper to simply stop looking at porn at work.

That's crazy talk.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[Mr Z (6791)]

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.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[MBGMorden (803437)]

This is Madness!!!

Madness? THIS. IS. SLASHDOT!!!!

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[ahabswhale (1189519)]

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.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[poetmatt (793785)]

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.

Agreed- glossy sucks

[Brandee07 (964634)]

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. =(

Re:Agreed- glossy sucks

[rwven (663186)]

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.

Glossy is more like reading paper

[davide marney (231845)]

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.

Re:Glossy is more like reading paper

[jyoull (512280)]

*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? :)

Re:Glossy is more like reading paper

[by Anonymous Coward]

Hey, anyone remember 16-color EGA? :)

I remember Hercules Monochrome, you insensitive clod!

Re:Glossy is more like reading paper

[Guysmiley777 (880063)]

"forced" into a glossy screen because the rest of this laptop was exactly what I wanted

Problem solved:
Matte Spray Paint [acehardwareoutlet.com]

Not really. But I wonder...

Re:Glossy is more like reading paper

[markov_chain (202465)]

Another big usage people are missing (no doubt because it doesn't occur to them/they don't get the opportunity) is working outdoors. It's amazing how thoroughly sunlight *destroys* any visibility on non-reflective screens; it's as if the screen wasn't turned on! Meanwhile, the glossy ones at least retain some visibility.

Re:Glossy is more like reading paper

[SpryGuy (206254)]

I'm not sure that glossy/matte has anything to do with viewing angle. Individual displays have differences in viewing angles, but the same display with different finishes wouldn't.

Mercifully I don't have to work in a cube environment with over-head flourescent lighting or anything, so the glossy screens look just fine to me. I also don't have huge bright windows at my back either. I guess those lighting issues would cause glossy screens to be somewhat annoying, but I just never seem to run into the situation where it's a problem.

And all my glossy screens (laptop, desktop, HD TV) have incredible and wide viewing angles.

Not an issue

[Junks Jerzey (54586)]

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.

The problem with matte

[Piata (927858)]

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.

Bigger issue than glare

[LehiNephi (695428)]

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.

Re:Bigger issue than glare

[dfghjk (711126)]

"...and you sacrifice vertical resolution to get the widescreen."

No you don't. A widescreen is created by taking a normal screen and adding width to it. A 4:3 version of that 1920x1200 screen you refer to is 1600x1200. There's no loss in vertical resolution at all.

If you are comparing diagonal screen size then that's a different matter, but it's your failure to understand what's going on that's the problem. Widescreens do not inherently sacrifice vertical resolution.

Re:Bigger issue than glare

[nmg196 (184961)]

> A widescreen is created by taking a normal screen and adding width to it.
> A 4:3 version of that 1920x1200 screen you refer to is 1600x1200.

No no NO! - Look at the prices. At any given price point, you get LESS screen area for your money with widescreen monitors:

Instead of 1280x960, you typically only get 1280x800 on a similarly priced wide-screen. Your screen is about the same width but you've lost an inch or two of vertical space! On laptops, this is even worse because it means you get black plastic strips where you would previously have had ACTUAL screen area. If they're going to be black bars when playing movies, I would far rather they were virtual black bars that were ONLY there when viewing movies, rather than physical plastic bars caused by the fact that they've shrunk the screen vertically to make the laptop look more modern! The Dell XPS series is a good example of this. A 4:3 screen would have fitted perfectly, but instead I've got two one inch black strips glued on where my screen should be.

Glaring mis-design

[DanQuixote (945427)]

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.

Matte = glare from all angles

[taharvey (625577)]

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.

Try an experiment

[petes_PoV (912422)]

> 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!

Re:Try an experiment

[hankwang (413283)]

Get your digital camera

I have a website where you can upload your screen images and have it calculate with higher accuracy what the contrast ratio is: lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast_ratio [lagom.nl]. I tried this myself with dozens of screens (in a dark environment), and nearly all recent laptop screens have a contrast ratio of around 1:100 - 1:150 in a dark environment, a bit dependent on the viewing angle. Glossy or matte doesn't matter. I didn't check the effect of ambient light on the contrast ratio.

This value doesn't even give you the full dynamic range from an 8-bit display (255 to 1),

It doesn't work like that; the standard sRGB brightness-versus-pixel value response curve of a standard computer monitor means that officially, the brightness ratio between 1 and 255 "should" be more like 3000:1.

let alone the 1000+++ to 1 that LCD TV manufacturers claim.

I don't have much experience with LCD TVs, but if they are based on the same LCD panels as monitors (likely the case up to 24 inch), you won't get much better than about 800:1, unless the TV dims the backlight during dark scenes.

The better to see you with, my pretty...

[The Assistant (1162547)]

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

There are tradeoffs to both types

[wodgy7 (850851)]

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 [screentekinc.com]

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.

Sorry, I love the glossy screens

[SpryGuy (206254)]

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.

Dell Latitudes

[cyanics (168644)]

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.

Practical reason to avoid glossy

[techdavis (939834)]

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!

Re:Ooh, shiny

[badasscat (563442)]

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.

How can one find such a thing?

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

It is still obviously better to just buy a better screen capable of better black levels.

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?

Re:How can one find such a thing?

[TheLink (130905)]

Haven't you heard? There's this new fangled advanced "CRT" tech that's available in some places already:

24 bit colour
Good colour gamut
Extremely good black levels
Good contrast ratios.
Really fast grey to grey transition times
Extremely low input lag (some say zero, but there's no such thing right?)
Cheaper than LCD at the lower resolutions (imagine that!).

Cons:
Higher power consumption.
Heavy.

But hey I'm, sure they'll fix the cons real soon now right? They've already solved the burn-in problems in the earlier models. ;)

Re:Glossy looks better - but lousy contrast ratios

[petes_PoV (912422)]

> Furthermore, black looks better on glossy screens I've heard this before (and not just on this topic). However I just can't bring myself to beleive it. For example, given that most people use their screens in normal ambient light (OK some gamers/video enthusiasts may turn the lights out, but most people don't - it's ones like ME I interested in). That means you always have reflections bouncing around. When you have a totally black screen, all you see are the reflections, not the "blackness".

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.