I have heard of that brawny beast, Jeep. But it was told to me that it was a mule, a stalwart beast, unafraid to go where no man, ensconced on his poor ass, had gone before.
Apparently the glass can be taken off, making the screen matte again.
We know the glass comes off using suction cups designed for glass handling.
A third party could come out with a matte glass screen for the iMac, but there are reasons why that would not be a good idea.
First of all, it would be expensive. It would have to be tempered glass, masked, and with either metal parts glued to the glass, or magnets, whichever goes where.
Secondly, if the glass does break when removing the original one, ot installing the new one, and damages the computer, who pays?
The third is the most important. When a matte glass is placed in front of a display, it can lead to fuzziness. Not quite what the purpose was.
You could leave the glass off as you suggest. The machine would look funky though.
We know the glass comes off using suction cups designed for glass handling.
A third party could come out with a matte glass screen for the iMac, but there are reasons why that would not be a good idea.
First of all, it would be expensive. It would have to be tempered glass, masked, and with either metal parts glued to the glass, or magnets, whichever goes where.
Secondly, if the glass does break when removing the original one, ot installing the new one, and damages the computer, who pays?
The third is the most important. When a matte glass is placed in front of a display, it can lead to fuzziness. Not quite what the purpose was.
You could leave the glass off as you suggest. The machine would look funky though.
Personally, I'm not really bothered by the risk, and I don't think it's a significant risk. I know Apple likely won't repair the unit if the swap fails. That's probably the case for every kind of upgrade.
Matte is the worst antiglare treatment one can use. There are other alternatives.
Personally, I'm not really bothered by the risk, and I don't think it's a significant risk. I know Apple likely won't repair the unit if the swap fails. That's probably the case for every kind of upgrade.
This is different than upgrading your HDD. If you break the computer by having corner of the glass smacking into the LCD, what are you going to tell them?
You can always put the original HDD back.
Quote:
Matte is the worst antiglare treatment one can use. There are other alternatives.
I shouldn't have said "matte". Any anti-glare treatment will cause blur.
I mounted several of my photo's using anti-glare glass, and they lose quite a lot.
The problem here is that the glass is separate from the LCD. The distance between them prevents anti-glare from working properly. The further away from the screen behind it, it is, the blurrier will be the image.
This is different than upgrading your HDD. If you break the computer by having corner of the glass smacking into the LCD, what are you going to tell them?
Obviously they won't replace it for free. It's possible to get replacement panels without having to pay Apple to do so. I'm sure it comes up from time to time, accidents do happen.
I have a neighbor that replaced his notebook's LCD that way, he got the part number from the panel and bought and installed its replacement.
Quote:
I shouldn't have said "matte". Any anti-glare treatment will cause blur.
I mounted several of my photo's using anti-glare glass, and they lose quite a lot.
The problem here is that the glass is separate from the LCD. The distance between them prevents anti-glare from working properly. The further away from the screen behind it, it is, the blurrier will be the image.
Most cameras, camcorders, binoculars and such use certain types antiglare treatments on their optics, and they don't have blurring problems, and those things can resolve features much finer than is necessary for an LCD. I even have a few CRTs that feature such treatments on their surfaces and they are very nice, even in bright rooms. The clarity is much better than shiny glass or textured glass, because it reduces glare vs. smooth glass and has no diffusion that textured glass has.
Obviously they won't replace it for free. It's possible to get replacement panels without having to pay Apple to do so. I'm sure it comes up from time to time, accidents do happen.
I have a neighbor that replaced his notebook's LCD that way, he got the part number from the panel and bought and installed its replacement.
Most cameras, camcorders, binoculars and such use certain types antiglare treatments on their optics, and they don't have blurring problems, and those things can resolve features much finer than is necessary for an LCD. I even have a few CRTs that feature such treatments on their surfaces and they are very nice, even in bright rooms. The clarity is much better than shiny glass or textured glass, because it reduces glare vs. smooth glass and has no diffusion that textured glass has.
I'm not arguing that. But, this won't be a piece of fine optics. I just bought a clear protective filter for my Canon 24-105 F4L lens. It is 77mm. I bought a good one. It cost $130.
A glare treatment for monitors is different. Most glare treatments are on the surface of the monitor itself, not on a separate piece in front.
I had a NEC Multisync 21" monitor. The screen was glossy as it was for all hi end color correction monitors years ago. But, I bought their anti-glare panel that slipped over a groove around the outside edge. The glare was reduced all right, as was the detail.
I believe thats the reason why Apple hasn't supplied an anti-glare glass. You will lose something. It might not be much, but it will be something.
I had a NEC Multisync 21" monitor. The screen was glossy as it was for all hi end color correction monitors years ago. But, I bought their anti-glare panel that slipped over a groove around the outside edge. The glare was reduced all right, as was the detail.
I believe thats the reason why Apple hasn't supplied an anti-glare glass. You will lose something. It might not be much, but it will be something.
If that's so, then Apple would be avoiding it due to a horribly bad example.
My IBM P202, Compaq P1220 and Sony G520, all 21" CRTs, have a surface treatment very similar to those optics on the glass surface. I have a 17" Viewsonic on another floor that has the same thing. I don't think they are pro grade gear, but I love their clarity. It's not a lame add-on frame or panel and it does not reduce clarity, add grain or fuzziness, unlike the treatment that's often done to LCDs.
If that's so, then Apple would be avoiding it due to a horribly bad example.
My IBM P202, Compaq P1220 and Sony G520, all 21" CRTs, have a surface treatment very similar to those optics on the glass surface. I have a 17" Viewsonic on another floor that has the same thing. I don't think they are pro grade gear, but I love their clarity. It's not a lame add-on frame or panel and it does not reduce clarity, add grain or fuzziness, unlike the treatment that's often done to LCDs.
That's the point I'm trying to make. When the surface of the monitor is coated, or de-glossed, it can be fine. But when there is noticable airspace between the monitor and the anti-glar glass, there is a bit of a problem. It's the three surfaces and the distance that does it.
That's the point I'm trying to make. When the surface of the monitor is coated, or de-glossed, it can be fine. But when there is noticable airspace between the monitor and the anti-glar glass, there is a bit of a problem. It's the three surfaces and the distance that does it.
But the treatments I am trying to communicate really don't distort like you say. It really does look like perfectly smooth, clear glass that doesn't reflect, it's definitely not a hazy treatment at all. It really looks almost exactly like the treatment used for expensive optics, but the monitors weren't necessarily that expensive. Unfortunately, there's no way for me to demonstrate these examples for you to get the idea. The Viewsonic's outer surface is actually a second plate in front of a tube, though still integrated into the case that most wouldn't notice, and it still looks clearer than the treatments you describe, and better than untreated surfaces.
But the treatments I am trying to communicate really don't distort like you say. It really does look like perfectly smooth, clear glass that doesn't reflect, it's definitely not a hazy treatment at all. It really looks almost exactly like the treatment used for expensive optics, but the monitors weren't necessarily that expensive. Unfortunately, there's no way for me to demonstrate these examples for you to get the idea. The Viewsonic's outer surface is actually a second plate in front of a tube, though still integrated into the case that most wouldn't notice, and it still looks clearer than the treatments you describe, and better than untreated surfaces.
Jeff. I've said this over and over again. It's not the treatment per se. It's the fact that it would be on a glass that is not part of the monitor's surface, but is a separate part. It's that separate part that causes the problem. If they etched the LCD surface, it wouldn't be a problem. same thing if they coated it.
I don't know of any Viewsonic that has a separate plate in front of it. Which model is that?
If the glass breaks, Apple pays. If it damages the computer while breaking, better watch your wallet.
If the glass is removed from the computer, you pay. You would pay anyway, because it would obviously be your fault for hitting the computer hard enough to break a piece of tempered glass. That doesn't go under the terms of "normal use".
If you hit the glass while it was on the computer hard enough to break it, you would likely break the computer as well.
If the glass is removed from the computer, you pay. You would pay anyway, because it would obviously be your fault for hitting the computer hard enough to break a piece of tempered glass. That doesn't go under the terms of "normal use".
If you hit the glass while it was on the computer hard enough to break it, you would likely break the computer as well.
Jeff. I've said this over and over again. It's not the treatment per se. It's the fact that it would be on a glass that is not part of the monitor's surface, but is a separate part. It's that separate part that causes the problem. If they etched the LCD surface, it wouldn't be a problem. same thing if they coated it.
It's not a conventional etched surface. I know that you either don't believe me or don't think it's possible, but what you describe isn't the case. I'm not blind either, if it hazed the surface even the slightest, I can tell. It doesn't change the texture, it's probably one of the kind of coatings that are about a quarter the wavelength of light, or a Rayleigh's film which uses a very thin coating that's the geometric mean of the refractive index of the two surrounding mediums.
Quote:
I don't know of any Viewsonic that has a separate plate in front of it. Which model is that?
I don't know the model, I'll have to look. Edit: Viewsonic E70f. I saw one of Apple's most recent CRTs today that has the exact same treatment, it looked like a flat plate in front of the tube, and the surface is a good optical grade AR surface. One wouldn't normally notice the plate, one would have to look very carefully.
We know the glass comes off using suction cups designed for glass handling.
A third party could come out with a matte glass screen for the iMac, but there are reasons why that would not be a good idea.
First of all, it would be expensive. It would have to be tempered glass, masked, and with either metal parts glued to the glass, or magnets, whichever goes where.
Secondly, if the glass does break when removing the original one, ot installing the new one, and damages the computer, who pays?
The third is the most important. When a matte glass is placed in front of a display, it can lead to fuzziness. Not quite what the purpose was.
You could leave the glass off as you suggest. The machine would look funky though.
True, I personally wouldn't do it anyways, just putting it out there.
OK. And to return to the subject, I don't see why anyone would like to remove or replace the glass cover from the iMac display. I have seen one in much-less-than-ideal conditions and I was surprised by how little distracting the glare was. Probably the brightness and sharpness of the display help in this. But I reckon that it may be a problem for image professionals. But then how many of those would go for an iMac?
Seeing myself when there's dark content on the screen keeps me from buying the current model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
But the treatments I am trying to communicate really don't distort like you say. It really does look like perfectly smooth, clear glass that doesn't reflect, it's definitely not a hazy treatment at all.
Comments
I've a donkey named Jeep.
I have heard of that brawny beast, Jeep. But it was told to me that it was a mule, a stalwart beast, unafraid to go where no man, ensconced on his poor ass, had gone before.
Apparently the glass can be taken off, making the screen matte again.
We know the glass comes off using suction cups designed for glass handling.
A third party could come out with a matte glass screen for the iMac, but there are reasons why that would not be a good idea.
First of all, it would be expensive. It would have to be tempered glass, masked, and with either metal parts glued to the glass, or magnets, whichever goes where.
Secondly, if the glass does break when removing the original one, ot installing the new one, and damages the computer, who pays?
The third is the most important. When a matte glass is placed in front of a display, it can lead to fuzziness. Not quite what the purpose was.
You could leave the glass off as you suggest. The machine would look funky though.
We know the glass comes off using suction cups designed for glass handling.
A third party could come out with a matte glass screen for the iMac, but there are reasons why that would not be a good idea.
First of all, it would be expensive. It would have to be tempered glass, masked, and with either metal parts glued to the glass, or magnets, whichever goes where.
Secondly, if the glass does break when removing the original one, ot installing the new one, and damages the computer, who pays?
The third is the most important. When a matte glass is placed in front of a display, it can lead to fuzziness. Not quite what the purpose was.
You could leave the glass off as you suggest. The machine would look funky though.
Personally, I'm not really bothered by the risk, and I don't think it's a significant risk. I know Apple likely won't repair the unit if the swap fails. That's probably the case for every kind of upgrade.
Matte is the worst antiglare treatment one can use. There are other alternatives.
Personally, I'm not really bothered by the risk, and I don't think it's a significant risk. I know Apple likely won't repair the unit if the swap fails. That's probably the case for every kind of upgrade.
This is different than upgrading your HDD. If you break the computer by having corner of the glass smacking into the LCD, what are you going to tell them?
You can always put the original HDD back.
Matte is the worst antiglare treatment one can use. There are other alternatives.
I shouldn't have said "matte". Any anti-glare treatment will cause blur.
I mounted several of my photo's using anti-glare glass, and they lose quite a lot.
The problem here is that the glass is separate from the LCD. The distance between them prevents anti-glare from working properly. The further away from the screen behind it, it is, the blurrier will be the image.
This is different than upgrading your HDD. If you break the computer by having corner of the glass smacking into the LCD, what are you going to tell them?
Obviously they won't replace it for free. It's possible to get replacement panels without having to pay Apple to do so. I'm sure it comes up from time to time, accidents do happen.
I have a neighbor that replaced his notebook's LCD that way, he got the part number from the panel and bought and installed its replacement.
I shouldn't have said "matte". Any anti-glare treatment will cause blur.
I mounted several of my photo's using anti-glare glass, and they lose quite a lot.
The problem here is that the glass is separate from the LCD. The distance between them prevents anti-glare from working properly. The further away from the screen behind it, it is, the blurrier will be the image.
Most cameras, camcorders, binoculars and such use certain types antiglare treatments on their optics, and they don't have blurring problems, and those things can resolve features much finer than is necessary for an LCD. I even have a few CRTs that feature such treatments on their surfaces and they are very nice, even in bright rooms. The clarity is much better than shiny glass or textured glass, because it reduces glare vs. smooth glass and has no diffusion that textured glass has.
Obviously they won't replace it for free. It's possible to get replacement panels without having to pay Apple to do so. I'm sure it comes up from time to time, accidents do happen.
I have a neighbor that replaced his notebook's LCD that way, he got the part number from the panel and bought and installed its replacement.
Most cameras, camcorders, binoculars and such use certain types antiglare treatments on their optics, and they don't have blurring problems, and those things can resolve features much finer than is necessary for an LCD. I even have a few CRTs that feature such treatments on their surfaces and they are very nice, even in bright rooms. The clarity is much better than shiny glass or textured glass, because it reduces glare vs. smooth glass and has no diffusion that textured glass has.
I'm not arguing that. But, this won't be a piece of fine optics. I just bought a clear protective filter for my Canon 24-105 F4L lens. It is 77mm. I bought a good one. It cost $130.
A glare treatment for monitors is different. Most glare treatments are on the surface of the monitor itself, not on a separate piece in front.
I had a NEC Multisync 21" monitor. The screen was glossy as it was for all hi end color correction monitors years ago. But, I bought their anti-glare panel that slipped over a groove around the outside edge. The glare was reduced all right, as was the detail.
I believe thats the reason why Apple hasn't supplied an anti-glare glass. You will lose something. It might not be much, but it will be something.
I had a NEC Multisync 21" monitor. The screen was glossy as it was for all hi end color correction monitors years ago. But, I bought their anti-glare panel that slipped over a groove around the outside edge. The glare was reduced all right, as was the detail.
I believe thats the reason why Apple hasn't supplied an anti-glare glass. You will lose something. It might not be much, but it will be something.
If that's so, then Apple would be avoiding it due to a horribly bad example.
My IBM P202, Compaq P1220 and Sony G520, all 21" CRTs, have a surface treatment very similar to those optics on the glass surface. I have a 17" Viewsonic on another floor that has the same thing. I don't think they are pro grade gear, but I love their clarity. It's not a lame add-on frame or panel and it does not reduce clarity, add grain or fuzziness, unlike the treatment that's often done to LCDs.
If that's so, then Apple would be avoiding it due to a horribly bad example.
My IBM P202, Compaq P1220 and Sony G520, all 21" CRTs, have a surface treatment very similar to those optics on the glass surface. I have a 17" Viewsonic on another floor that has the same thing. I don't think they are pro grade gear, but I love their clarity. It's not a lame add-on frame or panel and it does not reduce clarity, add grain or fuzziness, unlike the treatment that's often done to LCDs.
That's the point I'm trying to make. When the surface of the monitor is coated, or de-glossed, it can be fine. But when there is noticable airspace between the monitor and the anti-glar glass, there is a bit of a problem. It's the three surfaces and the distance that does it.
That's the point I'm trying to make. When the surface of the monitor is coated, or de-glossed, it can be fine. But when there is noticable airspace between the monitor and the anti-glar glass, there is a bit of a problem. It's the three surfaces and the distance that does it.
But the treatments I am trying to communicate really don't distort like you say. It really does look like perfectly smooth, clear glass that doesn't reflect, it's definitely not a hazy treatment at all. It really looks almost exactly like the treatment used for expensive optics, but the monitors weren't necessarily that expensive. Unfortunately, there's no way for me to demonstrate these examples for you to get the idea. The Viewsonic's outer surface is actually a second plate in front of a tube, though still integrated into the case that most wouldn't notice, and it still looks clearer than the treatments you describe, and better than untreated surfaces.
But the treatments I am trying to communicate really don't distort like you say. It really does look like perfectly smooth, clear glass that doesn't reflect, it's definitely not a hazy treatment at all. It really looks almost exactly like the treatment used for expensive optics, but the monitors weren't necessarily that expensive. Unfortunately, there's no way for me to demonstrate these examples for you to get the idea. The Viewsonic's outer surface is actually a second plate in front of a tube, though still integrated into the case that most wouldn't notice, and it still looks clearer than the treatments you describe, and better than untreated surfaces.
Jeff. I've said this over and over again. It's not the treatment per se. It's the fact that it would be on a glass that is not part of the monitor's surface, but is a separate part. It's that separate part that causes the problem. If they etched the LCD surface, it wouldn't be a problem. same thing if they coated it.
I don't know of any Viewsonic that has a separate plate in front of it. Which model is that?
Secondly, if the glass does break when removing the original one, ot installing the new one, and damages the computer, who pays?
If the glass breaks, Apple pays.
If the glass breaks, Apple pays.
If the glass is removed from the computer, you pay. You would pay anyway, because it would obviously be your fault for hitting the computer hard enough to break a piece of tempered glass. That doesn't go under the terms of "normal use".
If you hit the glass while it was on the computer hard enough to break it, you would likely break the computer as well.
If the glass is removed from the computer, you pay. You would pay anyway, because it would obviously be your fault for hitting the computer hard enough to break a piece of tempered glass. That doesn't go under the terms of "normal use".
If you hit the glass while it was on the computer hard enough to break it, you would likely break the computer as well.
You did not get the wink, but never mind.
You did not get the wink, but never mind.
I did. But you know how I like to pontificate.
Jeff. I've said this over and over again. It's not the treatment per se. It's the fact that it would be on a glass that is not part of the monitor's surface, but is a separate part. It's that separate part that causes the problem. If they etched the LCD surface, it wouldn't be a problem. same thing if they coated it.
It's not a conventional etched surface. I know that you either don't believe me or don't think it's possible, but what you describe isn't the case. I'm not blind either, if it hazed the surface even the slightest, I can tell. It doesn't change the texture, it's probably one of the kind of coatings that are about a quarter the wavelength of light, or a Rayleigh's film which uses a very thin coating that's the geometric mean of the refractive index of the two surrounding mediums.
I don't know of any Viewsonic that has a separate plate in front of it. Which model is that?
I don't know the model, I'll have to look. Edit: Viewsonic E70f. I saw one of Apple's most recent CRTs today that has the exact same treatment, it looked like a flat plate in front of the tube, and the surface is a good optical grade AR surface. One wouldn't normally notice the plate, one would have to look very carefully.
We know the glass comes off using suction cups designed for glass handling.
A third party could come out with a matte glass screen for the iMac, but there are reasons why that would not be a good idea.
First of all, it would be expensive. It would have to be tempered glass, masked, and with either metal parts glued to the glass, or magnets, whichever goes where.
Secondly, if the glass does break when removing the original one, ot installing the new one, and damages the computer, who pays?
The third is the most important. When a matte glass is placed in front of a display, it can lead to fuzziness. Not quite what the purpose was.
You could leave the glass off as you suggest. The machine would look funky though.
True, I personally wouldn't do it anyways, just putting it out there.
I did. But you know how I like to pontificate.
But the treatments I am trying to communicate really don't distort like you say. It really does look like perfectly smooth, clear glass that doesn't reflect, it's definitely not a hazy treatment at all.
You probably mean this type of glass:
http://www.us.schott.com/architectur..._text=conturan
I don't see a technical or optical problem in using such glass in an iMac. It's as if the glass isn't there. You look at the tft panel without glare.
It's expensive but I would happily buy up to 100 USD more for such an option.
The manufacturing process may also less enviroment friendly.
Seeing myself when there's dark content on the screen keeps me from buying the current model.
You probably mean this type of glass:
http://www.us.schott.com/architectur..._text=conturan
I don't see a technical or optical problem in using such glass in an iMac. It's as if the glass isn't there. You look at the tft panel without glare.
It's expensive but I would happily buy up to 100 USD more for such an option.
The manufacturing process may also less enviroment friendly.
The problem is that really good anti-glare glass IS very expensive.
Apple has stated that they already use an anti-reflective finish on the glass. It isn't very effective.