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

[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

[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:obligitory post

[kinabrew (1053930)]

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

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!