Laptops Screens, Glare or Matte? 663
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.
Agreed- glossy sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
Toshiba M70 (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that I know I'll be avoiding any laptop with a screen that might be too shiny...
I like glossy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not an issue (Score:2, Interesting)
I cannot disagree more. The only time the additional glare of the glossy screen will not affect you is if you only use your laptop where there's no light, e.g., in your mom's basement. In fact, ANY time there is ANY light source brighter than the panel at your back, you will have glare. The problem is most serious on LCD displays because they have a limited viewing angle which often coincides with the glare.
Glaring mis-design (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.
Re:Ooh, shiny (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Matte = glare from all angles (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Glossy is more like reading paper (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Add-on Non Glare Laptop Filter (Score:1, Interesting)
It worked well for me, but you need to be careful when inserting it. It took me a few tries to get it to fit right since I didn't want to cut it too much. I scuffed some of the edges.
Re:Glossy looks better - but lousy contrast ratios (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Glossy film on glossy screen (Score:2, Interesting)
As a grad student, almost all of my classmates have Macbook Pros. Several of the matte screen users have said they'd now regret the choice.... mostly for vibrant colors. I work next to a sunny window and rarely have a problem. I don't work outside often which is the only time I've had a problem.
Matte is better. (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally don't like them. I have one of the current iMacs at work with the glass screen. I happen to be sitting in a spot where reflection and clare is minimal, but even then I can see reflections of things around me in the screen.
I have matte LCD screens at home which I much prefer. Obviously those have no issue with glare. And if I were to get a laptop no way in hell would I get one with a glossy screen. Given that they might be used anywhere it's going to be inevitable that there will be issues with glare.
Try an experiment (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Glossy is more like reading paper (Score:5, Interesting)
Practical reason to avoid glossy (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry Sucker!!!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
So stupid execs decide and shiny wins.
So I'm guessing a class action suit involving anyone who wears glasses is about 3 years off.
'glossy' is/was 'futuristic'... (Score:2, Interesting)
I vaguely remember it being (2000/2001)ish when one or two glossy screens cropped up, but once one manufacturer decided to put 'style' over usability, well...the 'coolness' trend couln't be stopped
The majority of purchasers thought that 'if the manufacturers were making it then it must be usable', not realising that (many) manufacturer will happily build something with less usability if it means that for the 30 seconds or so that most people would look at a laptop in-store, they think 'cool' and then lay down the cash.
...And Apples "edible" OS-X icons didn't help either.
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (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.
Re:Agreed- glossy sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:obligitory post (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Glossy is more like reading paper (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Glossy is more like reading paper (Score:4, Interesting)
I really like smooth screens with an anti-glare surface. I see them on camera lenses and some of the better CRTs. Something like it is available as an optional coating on eyeglasses. It's a series of very thin coatings that's about the wavelength of the light, and it gradually steps up the index of refraction so light is more likely to pass through than be reflected. What very little reflection that remains might have a deep green, blue or purple color to it, if you can see it, because only the brightest lights reflect noticeably, even then, only marginally.
I have not seen this sort of treatment on LCDs until I bought a camcorder last week, the flip-out panel has a treatment that looks like this. So I'm hopeful that the treatment is applied to computer screens soon.
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:4, Interesting)
T8300
Vista Ultimate
2GB RAM
250GB Drive
Intel Pro 3945ABG
Bluetooth
Lenovo Webcam
A $350 difference... but you lose aesthetics (or gain business looks, depending on your POV), lose the integrated webcam, lose multi-touch, lose optical audio in/out, Firewire connectivity, lose MagSafe, and lose DVI out. (Note: I can't find information on the ThinkPad that suggests it has DVI or optical audio).
Have I missed anything?
I prefer glossy screens. For a simple reason. (Score:4, Interesting)
You cannot turn a matte screen into a glossy screen without replacing the entire screen.
If laptop manufacturers start to ship matte protective films with their machines it'd be perfect. But it's not like I cannot go get one for less than $2.
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:2, Interesting)
I actually used to work there (it's really not as fun as folks like to make it out. Looking at porn = work, porn overload sets in, not to mention exposure to stuff you NEVER want to see.) Interesting to have to ask people about their tolerance for porn in the interview process. And then kick a jackass out who couldn't comprehend teh difference between looking at porn for the job and having porn for his desktop background.
Posting anonomously for reasons that may not be immediately clear to you :)
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Why glossy is more common on laptop than desktop (Score:3, Interesting)
The grid of all those tiny little liquid crystal cells is where you need to focus to see the image clearly. In addition to that, you need some kind of cover over those cells to protect them. Thinner covers provide less protection than thicker covers. When the cover has a matte surface, a thicker cover increases the fuzziness caused by the matte surface. So a tradeoff is between fuzziness vs. physical protection. The glossy surface avoids the fuzziness and allows the eye to focus below the cover surface, right where the cells are. Glossy avoids that fuzziness vs. physical protection issue and allows a thicker cover to provide better protection.
Glossy also works better in higher ambient light levels, except for the few cases where the reflection angle is at its worst.
A laptop screen needs more physical protection than a desktop monitor screen. That favors choosing thicker glossy for the laptop when thin matte would otherwise be preferred for the desktop.
A laptop is easier to move to a less problematic light environment than a desktop. That favors matte for the desktop when glossy would otherwise be usable.
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I've had my T61 for a couples months now, and I can say that the two computers are not equal at all. The first thing I noticed was the screen; it's horrible. If you compare a matt Macbook Pro screen (or even a Powerbook G4 aluminum!), there's simply no comparison. The black level on the T61 is miserable, the horizontal viewing angle is pretty bad, but the vertical viewing angle is probably the worst. It's not a matter of "can I look at the screen from 3 feet above my desk". It's more of "the top of the screen looks blue and the bottom looks green". It bugs my eyes, especially when there's black text on a white screen and the top text looks gray and washed out while they bottom text looks black.
Then there's the fact that the sound on my T61 doesn't work after waking from suspend 25% of the time, the 15" T61 laptop is bigger than the 15" Macbook Pro in size (and possibly in weight too, haven't checked), and the speakers aren't as loud or as clear. And to top it off, the thinkpad came with about 10-15 unnecessary extra programs bundled from Lenovo that turned my "fast" laptop into a wreck. Took me a while to remove enough programs to drop the boot time under 4 minutes. Miserable.
I have been in the habit in the past few years of recommending all my friends get Apples or IBM's (now Lenovo). I've repaired enough laptops to see what happens with other manufacturers, and I've seen a lot of crappy products. However, after this experience I can't wholeheartedly recommend Lenovo anymore. I'd still prefer them over other manufacturer's like dell that simply do not want to support their broken products (too many personal experiences where people are told that Dell wont fix their broken hardware). However, after finally getting to spend a bit of time with a Lenovo, I'd have to say that the two machines are not at all in the same league in regards to overall quality. If I'd known all the little details about the newer thinkpads that are not on the spec sheet (bad lcd, speakers, bugs, etc), I probably would not have chosen a Lenovo. I still think regard them highly for durability. But I now have lost my respect for the quality of their devices.
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:5, Interesting)
Color depth and resolution (Score:2, Interesting)
In my experience, the difference between matte and glossy usually is linked to the display's resolution and color depth. I like higher-performance laptops, so this probably isn't the absolute rule, but...
I have a Dell XPS m1730, the resolution is WUXGA (1920x1200) for a 17" screen and based on the published specifications, it seems to definitely be a 24-bit color display. It's also glossy.
I have a Thinkpad Z61p, also WUXGA, but based on the specs, it's definitely only an 18-bit color display. It's a matte 15.4" screen.
The most cited reason I've seen for this difference is that the matte screens diffuse each pixel's output, which masks defects and also helps blend colors better despite the lower color depth. The tiny bit of diffusion can also help blur out the pixel pitch a little in lower resolution screens. When a display has high pixel density and 24-bit color depth, glossy screens do make for sharper images and blacker blacks, despite the annoying glare.
As for obnoxious color, most manufacturers and consumers seem to turn chrominance up too high and have the luminance out-of-whack too, regardless of the display type. The 24-bit screens tend to have a much higher contrast ratio than the 18-bit screens as well, which means the picture will look lousy if it's not adjusted. Turn the chrominance down. Turn the luminance down. Turn the contrast down. Your eyes will thank you for it. A blue gel (available at video production and some camera stores) is really nice to have for calibrating monitors and televisions, if you have a good test pattern you can output to the screen.