Thumbs up to anti-glare glass. The technology has been available for years, but Apple stubbornly stuck with ordinary glass or traditional fuzzy matte.
The "properly lit room" crowd clearly don't understand that many people have little or no control over their environment. I work in an office tower. My desk is cube-like, it's attached to 5 others and cannot be moved, rotated, etc. The entire wall behind me is glass. If I climb on my desk to disable the fluorescent light above my head the building maintenance people will "fix" it.
Thumbs down to thinner because it forces Apple to use lower power components. Not that I want an iMac I can heat my house with in winter, but a desktop computer should be able to use the most powerful components on the market. We're already stuck with mobile graphics, will the next generation be limited to mobile CPUs too?
The two terms have unfortunately been conflated. There are anti-glare processes that apply very thin layers of material to reduce the reflectivity of a surface without adding any texture. Just take a look at a camera lens, most of them have an anti reflective surface but are not matte textured. You should be able to tell at least by the fact that the reflections aren't the same color as the incident light.
If people remember those coatings used to be rather delicate. Today there are very durable solutions. As to the use of these coatings on Apples LCD screens I think it is matter of being able to coat large panels economically and with good quality. Apple might see the cost of the glass double but I'm not sure that is a big issue.
Quote:
I hope it's off base. I don't think the world needs more matte screens.
Yeah especially if HiDPI screens come. Such screens would be useless with a matte material over them.
Quote:
It may not be the exact same process, or exact same materials, but the effects were similar. All the 21" CRTs I had used, and several smaller ones had that kind of a coating. Heck, my 50" plasma TV screen has such a coating.
Well like I said it will be interesting to see what if anything Apple implements here. They actually have many options.
If people remember those coatings used to be rather delicate.
Depends, when was this? I didn't have any problems with these coatings, I've been using displays coating as far back as maybe 12 years ago. I do use washing solutions designed for anti reflective coatings though, and I make it a habit to not touch the screens.
It is a potential rumor about an Apple product, nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
That it is a division of Foxconn just adds to the feeling that it is trumped up info to raise the stock value of Foxconn. After all they just took a PR hit with the whole labor thing. Claiming they are about to embark on something awesome and new would carry the implication that Apple has no long term concerns about the partnership etc.
wouldn't be the first time digitimes was part of such a stunt
There are black helicopters hovering over your house right now.
One interesting side benefit of a matte screen was that it blurred the screen ever-so-slightly making the pixels less obvious. If Apple is planning on converting the MBPs to Retina displays then most anti-glare solutions would be counter to better resolution,
Probably the biggest mistake I've ever made, computer hardware wise, was buying my 2008 MBP with a matte screen. The screens just make viewing fine detail very tedious and eventually it leads to eye strain.
I was wondering if that would have an effect on pixels about 1/4 the current size.
I'm constantly frustrated by the matte screen on my MBP. I very much prefer my iPads to that screen, even with my older eyes the screens are much crisper and detail is easier to decern. Matte screens really mean muddy screens and further they really don't help much with reflections.
In any event this could very well be a very positive development if true. It could mean that every customer would be happy. Sharp screens with low reflections.
One interesting side benefit of a matte screen was that it blurred the screen ever-so-slightly making the pixels less obvious. If Apple is planning on converting the MBPs to Retina displays then most anti-glare solutions would be counter to better resolution,
That's not so much of a benefit to matte. Typically better delineation or smaller pixels will make viewing easier. If the contrast is too high or the brightness is glaring, that will fatigue your eyes.
Depends, when was this? I didn't have any problems with these coatings.
There are multiple approaches here and frankly some systems lead to layers of coatings. Most of the recent offerings though are not a problem. What I was referring to is coatings available verily early in the development of these systems. Some where very delicate. If you ever go into a used camera store you will see many Very old uncoated lenses In good shape, often the older coated lenses are well showing their age.
The problem here is that many companies have developed different processes over the years to surface treat optics, some more durable than others. Some suitable for different wavelengths than others. By enlarge though modern coatings are far more durable than the old stuff.
A vacuum coating operation was once in the same building as the one I worked in. It is a very interesting processes, huge machines are used to coat very small lenses. While I never worked there I did get a few glimpses of the coating chambers and a little insight into the business. It is very much a science as interesting as semiconductor making. A science it is, as sometimes these layers are only atoms thick on the glass.
Oh, you mean it won't be glossy? All those matte people will be so conflicted now ... Is anti glare to be considered matte ... I doubt it!
It's not merely an issue between glossy and matte, there are trade offs between both (sharpness vs. reflectivity). Apple could have opted for a semi gloss screen (i.e. dropping the glass) as in the air which would have been just fine for most people, but instead they opted for the worst option of an untreated glass on top of the display (and not fused to the screen as in the iphone) creating a second refraction surface and tons of mirror like glare.
Educate yourself about screen coating tech before spewing uninformed sarcasm about a vast number of people who have real usability problems with the glare on the imac and they are not out to get neither apple nor you, but have instead been asking for a feature that will enable them to work without prematurely having to wear prescription glasses from their eyes having to constantly readjust against the glare:
The two terms have unfortunately been conflated. There are anti-glare processes that apply very thin layers of material to reduce the reflectivity of a surface without adding any texture. Just take a look at a camera lens, most of them have an anti reflective surface but are not matte textured. You should be able to tell at least by the fact that the reflections aren't the same color as the incident light.
I hope it's off base. I don't think the world needs more matte screens.
That's an informed opinion. The world doesn't need any more matte screens (despite my sig which has run its course) because apparently the technology now exists to the point of being mass produced where the trade offs between glossy or matte won't be something we will have to suffer through. For me the best type of coating at the moment is semi gloss, like a (good quality one) from the airs, or some recent coatings from samsung, and in pva monitor panels, but none of them are there yet. Having said all that apple's choice of sticking an untreated layer of glass on top of semi gloss screens as in the imacs and macbooks has very rightly been heavily critised as a purely aesthetic choice creating serious usability problems what with the added glare from the glass. There was never a usability benefit from the extra glass (semi gloss would have had less glare) and there was always a very serious reflection problem created because of it. How apple managed to spin that the extra glass was indeed offering something in terms of screen quality is beyond me and is in the realm of the reality distortion filed; untreated reflective mirror like glass never offered anything really and it detracted so much in terms of glare from using the macs.
Oh, you mean it won't be glossy? All those matte people will be so conflicted now ... Is anti glare to be considered matte ... I doubt it!
On the keyboard ... I wonder if we will one day have virtual key boards from Apple, as in the keyboard will just be a screen like an elongated iPad. It would have the huge advantage of running any language and be context aware for apps with the ability to control this when running. It seems like the logical evolution to me. Why make mechanical keyboards in this day and age?
Almost no one is that nitpicky. I keep my work area like a cave, and even then the current glossy displays would reflect from their own light alone. A non-textured anti reflective screen treatment would be great. The one I'm looking at right now is an old NEC 2190. The coating isn't highly reflective, but you do see some diffused reflections if light hits it. It's not really an issue though. On the imac under typical office lighting, the reflections are strong enough to obscure finer details.
Overall screen treatments are an area that could use some improvement.
We're spoiled at this point no doubt, but if its not also retina-ish I would be let down. But it might be another year at least before such panels in this size are feasible for mass production, its like CPUs, its easier to get working models which are smaller, hence starting with the iPhone then iPad, then presumably MBA.
Almost no one is that nitpicky. I keep my work area like a cave, and even then the current glossy displays would reflect from their own light alone. A non-textured anti reflective screen treatment would be great. The one I'm looking at right now is an old NEC 2190. The coating isn't highly reflective, but you do see some diffused reflections if light hits it. It's not really an issue though.
It's a typically light pva/mva coating, the best so far compromise in terms of graininess and reflections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Doesn't matte/anti glare affect sharp, accurate colour reproduction?
Which is why it isn't used on current Macs.
It's a trade off.
Well apple could have just used a semi gloss screen, as is indeed the imac's screen under the glass, since extra glass doesn't ADD anything in terms of colour reproduction, and many colour/photography professionals claim it detracts due to the glare it creates. In apple's case the glass is there solely because glass and aluminum look expensive and vintage, not because glass offers any advantage in terms of colour reproduction or sharpness over a light semi gloss coating.
Since they are sticking to glass the best option to me would be very low reflectivity glass fused to the screen underneath as with the current iphone.
I also wish at some point they rethought the imacs ergonomics, g3 was so advanced in terms of these, and from g4 onwards, as striking as the imac looked as an all in one with the computer internals behind the screen, ergonomics have suffered. Surely Ive and his team can come up with a design that's both elegant and allows for optimal ergonomic use (if they can't, who cans?). Computer displays are supposed to be height adjustable so people don't strain and fatigue their eyes and necks. Unfortunately I don't think we 'll be seeing an imac with g3 ergonomics any time soon...unless apple surprise us. What a welcome surprise that would be.
Because you can't touch type on a touch screen keyboard. I type ninety words per minute, and most professionals who use a keyboard for a significant amount of typing have similar requirements. While Apple might make a touch screen keyboard, I don't see this ever...EVER...being the de facto keyboard standard for productivity. To touch type (type without looking), one must rest his fingers on the keyboard and be able to feel the keys...just like a pianist. If you you replaced a piano with a touchscreen, a pianist would be unable to play because he would lose his place. Nor can your eyes move from key to key as fast as you can type. As nice as touchscreens are, there are some solutions that are, simply, better. I think any typist and pianist would agree...a mechanical keyboard is technologically more advanced, in terms of function and utility, than a touchscreen. Occasionally I hear someone brag about how fast he can type on a touchscreen...and then I watch him and laugh. It simply isn't comparable.
I remember the Blackberry v iPhone discussion regarding real keyboards ... Don't you? Add tactile feedback and ten years from now want to bet on the likelihood of a virtual keyboard as the standard from Apple?
Comments
The "properly lit room" crowd clearly don't understand that many people have little or no control over their environment. I work in an office tower. My desk is cube-like, it's attached to 5 others and cannot be moved, rotated, etc. The entire wall behind me is glass. If I climb on my desk to disable the fluorescent light above my head the building maintenance people will "fix" it.
Thumbs down to thinner because it forces Apple to use lower power components. Not that I want an iMac I can heat my house with in winter, but a desktop computer should be able to use the most powerful components on the market. We're already stuck with mobile graphics, will the next generation be limited to mobile CPUs too?
The two terms have unfortunately been conflated. There are anti-glare processes that apply very thin layers of material to reduce the reflectivity of a surface without adding any texture. Just take a look at a camera lens, most of them have an anti reflective surface but are not matte textured. You should be able to tell at least by the fact that the reflections aren't the same color as the incident light.
If people remember those coatings used to be rather delicate. Today there are very durable solutions. As to the use of these coatings on Apples LCD screens I think it is matter of being able to coat large panels economically and with good quality. Apple might see the cost of the glass double but I'm not sure that is a big issue.
I hope it's off base. I don't think the world needs more matte screens.
Yeah especially if HiDPI screens come. Such screens would be useless with a matte material over them.
It may not be the exact same process, or exact same materials, but the effects were similar. All the 21" CRTs I had used, and several smaller ones had that kind of a coating. Heck, my 50" plasma TV screen has such a coating.
Well like I said it will be interesting to see what if anything Apple implements here. They actually have many options.
If people remember those coatings used to be rather delicate.
Depends, when was this? I didn't have any problems with these coatings, I've been using displays coating as far back as maybe 12 years ago. I do use washing solutions designed for anti reflective coatings though, and I make it a habit to not touch the screens.
Yeah especially if HiDPI screens come. Such screens would be useless with a matte material over them.
I was wondering if that would have an effect on pixels about 1/4 the current size.
That it is a division of Foxconn just adds to the feeling that it is trumped up info to raise the stock value of Foxconn. After all they just took a PR hit with the whole labor thing. Claiming they are about to embark on something awesome and new would carry the implication that Apple has no long term concerns about the partnership etc.
wouldn't be the first time digitimes was part of such a stunt
There are black helicopters hovering over your house right now.
That said HDTV manufacturers seem intent on making their products wafer thin for no reason too.
I just hope the the next iMac has USB 3 at last.
One interesting side benefit of a matte screen was that it blurred the screen ever-so-slightly making the pixels less obvious. If Apple is planning on converting the MBPs to Retina displays then most anti-glare solutions would be counter to better resolution,
Probably the biggest mistake I've ever made, computer hardware wise, was buying my 2008 MBP with a matte screen. The screens just make viewing fine detail very tedious and eventually it leads to eye strain.
I was wondering if that would have an effect on pixels about 1/4 the current size.
I'm constantly frustrated by the matte screen on my MBP. I very much prefer my iPads to that screen, even with my older eyes the screens are much crisper and detail is easier to decern. Matte screens really mean muddy screens and further they really don't help much with reflections.
In any event this could very well be a very positive development if true. It could mean that every customer would be happy. Sharp screens with low reflections.
One interesting side benefit of a matte screen was that it blurred the screen ever-so-slightly making the pixels less obvious. If Apple is planning on converting the MBPs to Retina displays then most anti-glare solutions would be counter to better resolution,
That's not so much of a benefit to matte. Typically better delineation or smaller pixels will make viewing easier. If the contrast is too high or the brightness is glaring, that will fatigue your eyes.
...
...It could mean that every customer would be happy...
^This
Depends, when was this? I didn't have any problems with these coatings.
There are multiple approaches here and frankly some systems lead to layers of coatings. Most of the recent offerings though are not a problem. What I was referring to is coatings available verily early in the development of these systems. Some where very delicate. If you ever go into a used camera store you will see many Very old uncoated lenses In good shape, often the older coated lenses are well showing their age.
The problem here is that many companies have developed different processes over the years to surface treat optics, some more durable than others. Some suitable for different wavelengths than others. By enlarge though modern coatings are far more durable than the old stuff.
A vacuum coating operation was once in the same building as the one I worked in. It is a very interesting processes, huge machines are used to coat very small lenses. While I never worked there I did get a few glimpses of the coating chambers and a little insight into the business. It is very much a science as interesting as semiconductor making. A science it is, as sometimes these layers are only atoms thick on the glass.
Oh, you mean it won't be glossy? All those matte people will be so conflicted now ... Is anti glare to be considered matte ... I doubt it!
It's not merely an issue between glossy and matte, there are trade offs between both (sharpness vs. reflectivity). Apple could have opted for a semi gloss screen (i.e. dropping the glass) as in the air which would have been just fine for most people, but instead they opted for the worst option of an untreated glass on top of the display (and not fused to the screen as in the iphone) creating a second refraction surface and tons of mirror like glare.
Educate yourself about screen coating tech before spewing uninformed sarcasm about a vast number of people who have real usability problems with the glare on the imac and they are not out to get neither apple nor you, but have instead been asking for a feature that will enable them to work without prematurely having to wear prescription glasses from their eyes having to constantly readjust against the glare:
http://www.pcmonitors.org/articles/m...lossy-monitors
The two terms have unfortunately been conflated. There are anti-glare processes that apply very thin layers of material to reduce the reflectivity of a surface without adding any texture. Just take a look at a camera lens, most of them have an anti reflective surface but are not matte textured. You should be able to tell at least by the fact that the reflections aren't the same color as the incident light.
I hope it's off base. I don't think the world needs more matte screens.
That's an informed opinion. The world doesn't need any more matte screens (despite my sig which has run its course) because apparently the technology now exists to the point of being mass produced where the trade offs between glossy or matte won't be something we will have to suffer through. For me the best type of coating at the moment is semi gloss, like a (good quality one) from the airs, or some recent coatings from samsung, and in pva monitor panels, but none of them are there yet. Having said all that apple's choice of sticking an untreated layer of glass on top of semi gloss screens as in the imacs and macbooks has very rightly been heavily critised as a purely aesthetic choice creating serious usability problems what with the added glare from the glass. There was never a usability benefit from the extra glass (semi gloss would have had less glare) and there was always a very serious reflection problem created because of it. How apple managed to spin that the extra glass was indeed offering something in terms of screen quality is beyond me and is in the realm of the reality distortion filed; untreated reflective mirror like glass never offered anything really and it detracted so much in terms of glare from using the macs.
Oh, you mean it won't be glossy? All those matte people will be so conflicted now ... Is anti glare to be considered matte ... I doubt it!
On the keyboard ... I wonder if we will one day have virtual key boards from Apple, as in the keyboard will just be a screen like an elongated iPad. It would have the huge advantage of running any language and be context aware for apps with the ability to control this when running. It seems like the logical evolution to me. Why make mechanical keyboards in this day and age?
Almost no one is that nitpicky. I keep my work area like a cave, and even then the current glossy displays would reflect from their own light alone. A non-textured anti reflective screen treatment would be great. The one I'm looking at right now is an old NEC 2190. The coating isn't highly reflective, but you do see some diffused reflections if light hits it. It's not really an issue though. On the imac under typical office lighting, the reflections are strong enough to obscure finer details.
Overall screen treatments are an area that could use some improvement.
Which is why it isn't used on current Macs.
It's a trade off.
Almost no one is that nitpicky. I keep my work area like a cave, and even then the current glossy displays would reflect from their own light alone. A non-textured anti reflective screen treatment would be great. The one I'm looking at right now is an old NEC 2190. The coating isn't highly reflective, but you do see some diffused reflections if light hits it. It's not really an issue though.
It's a typically light pva/mva coating, the best so far compromise in terms of graininess and reflections.
Doesn't matte/anti glare affect sharp, accurate colour reproduction?
Which is why it isn't used on current Macs.
It's a trade off.
Well apple could have just used a semi gloss screen, as is indeed the imac's screen under the glass, since extra glass doesn't ADD anything in terms of colour reproduction, and many colour/photography professionals claim it detracts due to the glare it creates. In apple's case the glass is there solely because glass and aluminum look expensive and vintage, not because glass offers any advantage in terms of colour reproduction or sharpness over a light semi gloss coating.
Since they are sticking to glass the best option to me would be very low reflectivity glass fused to the screen underneath as with the current iphone.
I also wish at some point they rethought the imacs ergonomics, g3 was so advanced in terms of these, and from g4 onwards, as striking as the imac looked as an all in one with the computer internals behind the screen, ergonomics have suffered. Surely Ive and his team can come up with a design that's both elegant and allows for optimal ergonomic use (if they can't, who cans?). Computer displays are supposed to be height adjustable so people don't strain and fatigue their eyes and necks. Unfortunately I don't think we 'll be seeing an imac with g3 ergonomics any time soon...unless apple surprise us. What a welcome surprise that would be.
Because you can't touch type on a touch screen keyboard. I type ninety words per minute, and most professionals who use a keyboard for a significant amount of typing have similar requirements. While Apple might make a touch screen keyboard, I don't see this ever...EVER...being the de facto keyboard standard for productivity. To touch type (type without looking), one must rest his fingers on the keyboard and be able to feel the keys...just like a pianist. If you you replaced a piano with a touchscreen, a pianist would be unable to play because he would lose his place. Nor can your eyes move from key to key as fast as you can type. As nice as touchscreens are, there are some solutions that are, simply, better. I think any typist and pianist would agree...a mechanical keyboard is technologically more advanced, in terms of function and utility, than a touchscreen. Occasionally I hear someone brag about how fast he can type on a touchscreen...and then I watch him and laugh. It simply isn't comparable.
I remember the Blackberry v iPhone discussion regarding real keyboards ... Don't you? Add tactile feedback and ten years from now want to bet on the likelihood of a virtual keyboard as the standard from Apple?