Well, your comment is a great explanation why Apple made this glossy choice - because they want to please consumers, save cash and don't care anymore about pros
Please do not compare Samsung and Viewsonic (though there is a good LED Viewsonic model now) to new iMac screens. It's a comparison between a very bad and a suitable for home models.
Your understanding of glossy vs. matter advantage is ... not correct, say it softly.
Glossy screen deliver oversaturated, unrealistic colors which may look great to you, and it is a disaster when you intend to produce an image, which will look good on the paper and other computers.
Previous iMac and Apple Cinema monitors were used by thousands (millions?) of photo and design pros and sem-pros. Color accuracy on old Cinema was not the best in the world, yet very good. Now it's over.
I disagree with you. And Samsung makes a couple of the best RGB LED backlit color critical monitors around.
The iMac monitor is actually pretty good.
And you've never heard of turning the saturation down?
put it over a photo and you can see thru a bit, now raise that paper above the photo about 1/8 inch or so and you will find that the clarity becomes even worse. this is why those anti-glare films are not a solution, besides being just another expense on top of an already expensive machine]
The same thing it true for the matte surface.
Quote:
So like I said, sure the matte screen may be a bit less contrasty, or not as dark or rich, but it is alot closer to what will be printed on almost every paper [except the really high end. hard to find glossy stuff]
Again, not true.
If you are one of the people here who doesn't understand what must be done to do proper color work, and soft proofing, and are relying on a matte surface from an uncorrected monitor, and knows nothing about PS's corrections for this purpose for the monitor, then I guess I am begining to understand the comments preferring matte.
Other than the fact that laptop monitors aren't near being good enough for real color work yet, doing color work under random lighting conditions will never allow you to produce high quality output.
Sure, Apple could have included it?for another $99.
What do you think, it should be free just because you don't want to pay for it?
I don't expect them to throw in things for free, but I find $99 for an adapter seems beyond ridiculous. I can buy 50ft of shielded HDMI 1.3 cable that is gold plated with ferrite cores for about the same price. Are you going to tell me it costs as much money to produce a mini-displayport to Dual link DVI cable with about a foot or two of cable as it does to make a 50ft HDMI cable? Furthermore, why does it cost $99 for the miniDP to dual-link, but only $29 for the miniDP to single link cable? Given the picture shows slightly more cable on the dual version of the cable, but beyond adding a few additional pins the production costs are virtually identical. Apple is really making an absolute killing profit wise for the adapter.
So that's why at Photokina here in Germany last month (the largest convention devoted to pro photogs), the entire software and hardware areas were outfitted with either Barco's with anti-glare and blinds, or Eizo's, also ALL matte. A few sprinklings of ACDs were also seen. Hardly any other display maker (certainly NOT Acer, Dell, or even ViewSonic!).
Positive note for APPL was that it was about 95% Macs everywhere...including HP's huge stand showing off there printers. Also, in most instances where iMacs or MBP's were seen, they were invariably also attached to a Second display of the makes I mentioned above.
False SATURATION and blacks is the problem with glossy screens for pro and print work. Period. Great though for watching movies and consumers, considering that almost all printers out of the box over-saturate the prints, which subjectively will match the screen for those users. However in a pro-calibrated workflow, you will definately have problems fine tuning the BW and Sat.
Yes, glossy screens went when the high end BARCO CRT models faded from the scene.
For one thing that petition has currently zero signatures, and for another, what's your point? That close to 200 people from fanboy forums alone are all wrong about their professional or physical requirement for a matte screen?
Y'know, some of us don't sit and jack-off over our Macs, we actually use them for business.
The mentality of people posting comments such as this are becoming unnerving.
Matte screens had no glare issues, these mirror finish displays have huge glare issues which are acknowledged by everyone, yet you and offer a work around to a problem that was introduced. You tell us the glare is no problem but you tell us in the same line that you always just move the display to avoid the glare. So which is it? Why do you bother moving if the glare is not a problem? Do you people not consider closing the blinds in a room when the TV has reflections and glare on obstructing the picture? Why do they make home theatre rooms without windows?
You people are making zero sense.
Ill have a matte display to begin with then I won't have problems with reflections and thus I wont have to reconfigure my work area to avoid them. talk about having your headz up your a$$'s
It seems you have problem reading. I didn't say glossy screens are better or worst and I didn't say that you have to reconfigure your work area. What I said is that when I have glare problems I reposition the display at 90 degrees and the problem is gone. So, Stop making sh*t up.
aesthetically, after seeing the unboxing photos, i like this new mbp even more now. it is a beautiful piece of industrial design.
i like the iMac-esque black surround for the monitor, with glass to the edge of the lid. it gives the impression that the screen extends to the edge of the lid, rather than being encased in a silver frame. the glass and glossy screen is a non-issue for me, or rather perhaps even a positive - i've had several clients comment on the "beautiful" screen of the glossy iMac that i work on.
whilst i do dabble with Color, i don't do critical colour grading and wouldn't expect a laptop screen to be able to do it. calibrate your screen as best possible and be aware of the limitations of your set-up. or buy a $20k grading monitor.
i like the black keys - both their contrast against the aluminium body and tying in to the black screen surround - even if they are a throwback of sorts to the TiBook, which i don't see as a negative. and the iMac/mba-style keyboard is much better to use than the old pro-keyboards. visually, i found the silver keyboard on the old mbp to be it's weakest point.
ports - i would prefer to have a fw400 port on there, but can adapt. either an 800-400 adapter, or i have also seen a pcmcia card with one usb2 and one fw400 port. eSATA would have been nice, though can also pcmcia it.
blue ray - not fussed at this point in time, without support in ProApps.
actually the deal-breaker on the 15" for me is the screen resolution. i would have liked it to be able to go up to 1680x1050 as at home i most likely won't be hooking up to an external monitor. i'll wait to see what the 17" is like before i purchase...
aesthetically, after seeing the unboxing photos, i like this new mbp even more now. it is a beautiful piece of industrial design.
i like the iMac-esque black surround for the monitor, with glass to the edge of the lid. it gives the impression that the screen extends to the edge of the lid, rather than being encased in a silver frame. the glass and glossy screen is a non-issue for me, or rather perhaps even a positive - i've had several clients comment on the "beautiful" screen of the glossy iMac that i work on.
whilst i do dabble with Color, i don't do critical colour grading and wouldn't expect a laptop screen to be able to do it. calibrate your screen as best possible and be aware of the limitations of your set-up. or buy a $20k grading monitor.
i like the black keys - both their contrast against the aluminium body and tying in to the black screen surround - even if they are a throwback of sorts to the TiBook, which i don't see as a negative. and the iMac/mba-style keyboard is much better to use than the old pro-keyboards. visually, i found the silver keyboard on the old mbp to be it's weakest point.
ports - i would prefer to have a fw400 port on there, but can adapt. either an 800-400 adapter, or i have also seen a pcmcia card with one usb2 and one fw400 port. eSATA would have been nice, though can also pcmcia it.
blue ray - not fussed at this point in time, without support in ProApps.
actually the deal-breaker on the 15" for me is the screen resolution. i would have liked it to be able to go up to 1680x1050 as at home i most likely won't be hooking up to an external monitor. i'll wait to see what the 17" is like before i purchase...
The MacBook Pro don't use PCMCIA, it use ExpressCard/34 slot but there is firewire 400 just as the oldest standard.
Yes, glossy screens went when the high end BARCO CRT models faded from the scene.
But there is no such thing as false saturation.
It's either saturated, or not.
Yes there is false saturation... or possibly I should have said the false "vividness" of the colors. A glossy screen boosts the saturation and colors "on screen". However, the "vividness" i.e. saturation of what you see on the monitor, is NOT what your prints will look like... or should look like if using a calibrated printing/proofing system to ISO standards. Needless to say, you do NOT calibrate your proofing machine to match your display, it's the other way around.
BTW: I just got back from a client who has just updated 10 workstations too 24" iMacs. Half of the designers love 'em... half don't. The half that doesn't because they are too close to windows, lighting - both direct and indirect (coming from glassed conference rooms etc.). Even the ones that love 'em though, also have to admit that when concepting with someone else (like me today), the person outside of center is at a definite disadvantage. Blacks and contrast of images was dead wrong from about 20-35 degrees off-center... plus, the glare was definitely distracting. We went to a 23" ACD, and needless to say, no problems, even though this person's workstation is directly to the side of a bank of windows. A lot of sun here on the Rhine today
As far as I'm concerned... gloss is a no-go IF you can avoid it... since there is no need FOR it in a professional creative environment. I again will hope that APPL makes matte an option for the 15" MBP's in January, as they will with the upcoming 17".
Yes there is false saturation... or possibly I should have said the false "vividness" of the colors. A glossy screen boosts the saturation and colors "on screen".
People repeat this, but I am still skeptical. With the matte screen, what you get is incident light diffusing over the entire screen, raising black to be grayer, reducing the contrast that the user sees. The brighter the incident light, the more the contrast is washed out. I don't see how this cutting out this diffused incident light adds a false saturation, in other words, I don't see a similarly adequate explanation of how this supposed glossy false saturation works.
BTW: I just got back from a client who has just updated 10 workstations too 24" iMacs. Half of the designers love 'em... half don't. The half that doesn't because they are too close to windows, lighting - both direct and indirect (coming from glassed conference rooms etc.). Even the ones that love 'em though, also have to admit that when concepting with someone else (like me today), the person outside of center is at a definite disadvantage. Blacks and contrast of images was dead wrong from about 20-35 degrees off-center... plus, the glare was definitely distracting. We went to a 23" ACD, and needless to say, no problems, even though this person's workstation is directly to the side of a bank of windows. A lot of sun here on the Rhine today
As far as I'm concerned... gloss is a no-go IF you can avoid it... since there is no need FOR it in a professional creative environment. I again will hope that APPL makes matte an option for the 15" MBP's in January, as they will with the upcoming 17".
I played around with the new MacBook Pro and the 17-inch MacBook Pro in an Apple Store and had the same experience: the glare put me off, especially when there was a lot of black on the screen, like a dark photo. And all the time I looked right into the reflection of the ceiling lights! The 17-inch matte screen looked perfect from any angle.
I went home and ordered a brand new old model 15-inch MacBook Pro. Sorry, no glossy screen for me. I'll wait what Apple has in store for me in 4 years time...
so you have absolutely never had issues with visibility on a matte screen? interesting.
Not really. Possibly when the sun was really bright and directly on the screen, I would tip my screen a bit but that was extremely rare. I can't even do this with glossy because on a bright day, I see everything reflected no matter where the screen points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Because they require extreme accuracy in every characteristic. It's just interesting that they would also be glossy. Medical personnel aren't interested in trends, they just want the best quality image they can get.
Hospitals are normally well closed off from outside light and the interior lights are well diffused. Not the rooms with patient beds but the examination rooms where they look at all the X-Rays etc.
They also aren't looking for color accuracy generally but data read-outs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Editing. It's not a nightmare.
I just don't understand why a few people say this here.
It's because you might dismiss something as a screen reflection not realising it's in shot or vice versa. When you composite elements together in green screening it's hard enough looking at hair strands to check your mask is ok without a hundred semi-transparent background objects floating everywhere on top.
Diffused light does not interfere with the shapes on screen. At worst, it only affects the overall contrast/brightness which you can compensate if you really feel the need. Usually you don't ever have to do anything after the display is calibrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If you can't do that, it's a lost cause anyway, because in bad lighting, your matt screen will not give you what you would get in good lighting anyway.
That's not the point, the point is that when you can't control your lighting (which with a laptop is quite often), matte is and always will be superior to glossy so Apple shouldn't have removed the option.
In controlled lighting: glossy = matte because there is no diffusion
In bad lighting: matte >>>>> glossy because matte doesn't reflect anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I don't see how this cutting out this diffused incident light adds a false saturation, in other words, I don't see a similarly adequate explanation of how this supposed glossy false saturation works.
It could be that LCD panels have been designed to overcome the diffusion and removing the diffusing layer leaves over-saturated images. Whatever it is, the panels are designed in a way that over-saturates images. I actually like more saturated images as it makes them more vibrant and interesting to look at. Without the reflections, I'd probably be ok with the glossy screens.
It could be that LCD panels have been designed to overcome the diffusion and removing the diffusing layer leaves over-saturated images. Whatever it is, the panels are designed in a way that over-saturates images. I actually like more saturated images as it makes them more vibrant and interesting to look at. Without the reflections, I'd probably be ok with the glossy screens.
Maybe, but it seems that Apple should be able to set up a different color profile that accounts for the differences in the screen.
For people considering using an overlay to diffuse light, here is an interesting video that shows one being applied to a glossy screen. You can see the improvement that diffused light has - it's much easier to ignore large fuzzy shapes than high contrast shapes.
(if you don't want to sit through it all, skip to 7:30 where he peels the overlay off the screen and you can see the difference).
You can also see how ineffective the overlays are because they don't really diffuse enough. They basically reflect the same objects but make them fuzzy.
Here is a video of a matte screen with some bright lights:
Having a bright direct light like that makes it difficult to use the screen no matter what screen you have, few would argue against that. But as the display is moved around, especially rotated, you can clearly see that there are no objects in the screen that would distract you while you worked with the laptop.
You cannot for example see the person moving the laptop, the camera nor the room behind them. The black colors also look very deep even though judging from the viewing angle it is likely a cheap panel.
Here's another video of the new laptop unboxing. Look when they place the MBP in front of the matte screen. Look at the blacks in the matte screen at the back vs the glossy:
I'm typing this on a new 13" Macbook in an Apple store.
I was looking forward to buying an MBP but I'm not gonna bother. I'll maybe get a 12" PB off ebay and trick it out the best I can til something with a screen I can look at comes along.
The screen on this thing is TERRIBLE. As it happens I'm a TV exec who uses laptops for editing and graphics work frequently. I wouldn't even use this for sending emails. Even at max lux all the colours look dark and greyed out, and I really don't wanna have to look at people walking around behind me or my own hands typing while I work.
The gloss screen factor is a real shame because in every other way (except the new power key, which looks too small and cheap compared to the previous style) both the MBP and new MB are beautiful. The new trackpad is extremely easy to use. I love the new graphics chip. I'm just not prepared to risk migraines using this thing.
Classic shot to the foot Steve.
I would note that the 17" MacBook Pro is still available in matte. Perhaps they figure that anyone doing "serious" work needing the best possible screen is going to be buying that one, anyway. But I agree that not even having the _option_ of matte is ridiculous.
That said, I disagree that the screen is terrible. I didn't find the colors to be dark -- the brightness must have been turned down. The one I saw was very bright, just glossy which obviously is not popular (I don't like it either).
Kind of doesn't make me feel as bad about keeping my current MBP.
Yes there is false saturation... or possibly I should have said the false "vividness" of the colors. A glossy screen boosts the saturation and colors "on screen". However, the "vividness" i.e. saturation of what you see on the monitor, is NOT what your prints will look like... or should look like if using a calibrated printing/proofing system to ISO standards. Needless to say, you do NOT calibrate your proofing machine to match your display, it's the other way around.
BTW: I just got back from a client who has just updated 10 workstations too 24" iMacs. Half of the designers love 'em... half don't. The half that doesn't because they are too close to windows, lighting - both direct and indirect (coming from glassed conference rooms etc.). Even the ones that love 'em though, also have to admit that when concepting with someone else (like me today), the person outside of center is at a definite disadvantage. Blacks and contrast of images was dead wrong from about 20-35 degrees off-center... plus, the glare was definitely distracting. We went to a 23" ACD, and needless to say, no problems, even though this person's workstation is directly to the side of a bank of windows. A lot of sun here on the Rhine today
As far as I'm concerned... gloss is a no-go IF you can avoid it... since there is no need FOR it in a professional creative environment. I again will hope that APPL makes matte an option for the 15" MBP's in January, as they will with the upcoming 17".
Glossy screens don't boost saturation, matte screens cut it down.
I'st the difference between looking through a clean window, and one with a fine haze over it.
Besides, as I've said, you can cut the saturation down if you need to. It's better than having to boost it up. This is what happens when you calibrate your monitor, which you do, of course.
Comments
Someone's set up a petition on the gloss issue:-
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/m...pro/index.html
Can't hurt to lobby for the option a lot of us need - whether the fanboys think we need it or not.
oh yeah?
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/whining/
Well, your comment is a great explanation why Apple made this glossy choice - because they want to please consumers, save cash and don't care anymore about pros
Please do not compare Samsung and Viewsonic (though there is a good LED Viewsonic model now) to new iMac screens. It's a comparison between a very bad and a suitable for home models.
Your understanding of glossy vs. matter advantage is ... not correct, say it softly.
Glossy screen deliver oversaturated, unrealistic colors which may look great to you, and it is a disaster when you intend to produce an image, which will look good on the paper and other computers.
Previous iMac and Apple Cinema monitors were used by thousands (millions?) of photo and design pros and sem-pros. Color accuracy on old Cinema was not the best in the world, yet very good. Now it's over.
I disagree with you. And Samsung makes a couple of the best RGB LED backlit color critical monitors around.
The iMac monitor is actually pretty good.
And you've never heard of turning the saturation down?
put it over a photo and you can see thru a bit, now raise that paper above the photo about 1/8 inch or so and you will find that the clarity becomes even worse. this is why those anti-glare films are not a solution, besides being just another expense on top of an already expensive machine]
The same thing it true for the matte surface.
So like I said, sure the matte screen may be a bit less contrasty, or not as dark or rich, but it is alot closer to what will be printed on almost every paper [except the really high end. hard to find glossy stuff]
Again, not true.
If you are one of the people here who doesn't understand what must be done to do proper color work, and soft proofing, and are relying on a matte surface from an uncorrected monitor, and knows nothing about PS's corrections for this purpose for the monitor, then I guess I am begining to understand the comments preferring matte.
Other than the fact that laptop monitors aren't near being good enough for real color work yet, doing color work under random lighting conditions will never allow you to produce high quality output.
From what I remember they used parallel 2 and SCSI ports.
The last Apple machine that used parallel was the pre Mac "E".
All Macs have had serial and SCSI, until Apple eliminated SCSI.
Sure, Apple could have included it?for another $99.
What do you think, it should be free just because you don't want to pay for it?
I don't expect them to throw in things for free, but I find $99 for an adapter seems beyond ridiculous. I can buy 50ft of shielded HDMI 1.3 cable that is gold plated with ferrite cores for about the same price. Are you going to tell me it costs as much money to produce a mini-displayport to Dual link DVI cable with about a foot or two of cable as it does to make a 50ft HDMI cable? Furthermore, why does it cost $99 for the miniDP to dual-link, but only $29 for the miniDP to single link cable? Given the picture shows slightly more cable on the dual version of the cable, but beyond adding a few additional pins the production costs are virtually identical. Apple is really making an absolute killing profit wise for the adapter.
So that's why at Photokina here in Germany last month (the largest convention devoted to pro photogs), the entire software and hardware areas were outfitted with either Barco's with anti-glare and blinds, or Eizo's, also ALL matte. A few sprinklings of ACDs were also seen. Hardly any other display maker (certainly NOT Acer, Dell, or even ViewSonic!).
Positive note for APPL was that it was about 95% Macs everywhere...including HP's huge stand showing off there printers. Also, in most instances where iMacs or MBP's were seen, they were invariably also attached to a Second display of the makes I mentioned above.
False SATURATION and blacks is the problem with glossy screens for pro and print work. Period. Great though for watching movies and consumers, considering that almost all printers out of the box over-saturate the prints, which subjectively will match the screen for those users. However in a pro-calibrated workflow, you will definately have problems fine tuning the BW and Sat.
Yes, glossy screens went when the high end BARCO CRT models faded from the scene.
But there is no such thing as false saturation.
It's either saturated, or not.
oh yeah?
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/whining/
For one thing that petition has currently zero signatures, and for another, what's your point? That close to 200 people from fanboy forums alone are all wrong about their professional or physical requirement for a matte screen?
Y'know, some of us don't sit and jack-off over our Macs, we actually use them for business.
Shiny wipe-down surfaces alone won't cut it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVus5_aeJvE&NR=1
Glossy screen defenders have been watching too much Star Trek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVus5_aeJvE&NR=1
Classic!
The mentality of people posting comments such as this are becoming unnerving.
Matte screens had no glare issues, these mirror finish displays have huge glare issues which are acknowledged by everyone, yet you and offer a work around to a problem that was introduced. You tell us the glare is no problem but you tell us in the same line that you always just move the display to avoid the glare. So which is it? Why do you bother moving if the glare is not a problem? Do you people not consider closing the blinds in a room when the TV has reflections and glare on obstructing the picture? Why do they make home theatre rooms without windows?
You people are making zero sense.
Ill have a matte display to begin with then I won't have problems with reflections and thus I wont have to reconfigure my work area to avoid them. talk about having your headz up your a$$'s
It seems you have problem reading. I didn't say glossy screens are better or worst and I didn't say that you have to reconfigure your work area. What I said is that when I have glare problems I reposition the display at 90 degrees and the problem is gone. So, Stop making sh*t up.
i like the iMac-esque black surround for the monitor, with glass to the edge of the lid. it gives the impression that the screen extends to the edge of the lid, rather than being encased in a silver frame. the glass and glossy screen is a non-issue for me, or rather perhaps even a positive - i've had several clients comment on the "beautiful" screen of the glossy iMac that i work on.
whilst i do dabble with Color, i don't do critical colour grading and wouldn't expect a laptop screen to be able to do it. calibrate your screen as best possible and be aware of the limitations of your set-up. or buy a $20k grading monitor.
i like the black keys - both their contrast against the aluminium body and tying in to the black screen surround - even if they are a throwback of sorts to the TiBook, which i don't see as a negative. and the iMac/mba-style keyboard is much better to use than the old pro-keyboards. visually, i found the silver keyboard on the old mbp to be it's weakest point.
ports - i would prefer to have a fw400 port on there, but can adapt. either an 800-400 adapter, or i have also seen a pcmcia card with one usb2 and one fw400 port. eSATA would have been nice, though can also pcmcia it.
blue ray - not fussed at this point in time, without support in ProApps.
actually the deal-breaker on the 15" for me is the screen resolution. i would have liked it to be able to go up to 1680x1050 as at home i most likely won't be hooking up to an external monitor. i'll wait to see what the 17" is like before i purchase...
aesthetically, after seeing the unboxing photos, i like this new mbp even more now. it is a beautiful piece of industrial design.
i like the iMac-esque black surround for the monitor, with glass to the edge of the lid. it gives the impression that the screen extends to the edge of the lid, rather than being encased in a silver frame. the glass and glossy screen is a non-issue for me, or rather perhaps even a positive - i've had several clients comment on the "beautiful" screen of the glossy iMac that i work on.
whilst i do dabble with Color, i don't do critical colour grading and wouldn't expect a laptop screen to be able to do it. calibrate your screen as best possible and be aware of the limitations of your set-up. or buy a $20k grading monitor.
i like the black keys - both their contrast against the aluminium body and tying in to the black screen surround - even if they are a throwback of sorts to the TiBook, which i don't see as a negative. and the iMac/mba-style keyboard is much better to use than the old pro-keyboards. visually, i found the silver keyboard on the old mbp to be it's weakest point.
ports - i would prefer to have a fw400 port on there, but can adapt. either an 800-400 adapter, or i have also seen a pcmcia card with one usb2 and one fw400 port. eSATA would have been nice, though can also pcmcia it.
blue ray - not fussed at this point in time, without support in ProApps.
actually the deal-breaker on the 15" for me is the screen resolution. i would have liked it to be able to go up to 1680x1050 as at home i most likely won't be hooking up to an external monitor. i'll wait to see what the 17" is like before i purchase...
The MacBook Pro don't use PCMCIA, it use ExpressCard/34 slot but there is firewire 400 just as the oldest standard.
Yes, glossy screens went when the high end BARCO CRT models faded from the scene.
But there is no such thing as false saturation.
It's either saturated, or not.
Yes there is false saturation... or possibly I should have said the false "vividness" of the colors. A glossy screen boosts the saturation and colors "on screen". However, the "vividness" i.e. saturation of what you see on the monitor, is NOT what your prints will look like... or should look like if using a calibrated printing/proofing system to ISO standards. Needless to say, you do NOT calibrate your proofing machine to match your display, it's the other way around.
BTW: I just got back from a client who has just updated 10 workstations too 24" iMacs. Half of the designers love 'em... half don't. The half that doesn't because they are too close to windows, lighting - both direct and indirect (coming from glassed conference rooms etc.). Even the ones that love 'em though, also have to admit that when concepting with someone else (like me today), the person outside of center is at a definite disadvantage. Blacks and contrast of images was dead wrong from about 20-35 degrees off-center... plus, the glare was definitely distracting. We went to a 23" ACD, and needless to say, no problems, even though this person's workstation is directly to the side of a bank of windows. A lot of sun here on the Rhine today
As far as I'm concerned... gloss is a no-go IF you can avoid it... since there is no need FOR it in a professional creative environment. I again will hope that APPL makes matte an option for the 15" MBP's in January, as they will with the upcoming 17".
Yes there is false saturation... or possibly I should have said the false "vividness" of the colors. A glossy screen boosts the saturation and colors "on screen".
People repeat this, but I am still skeptical. With the matte screen, what you get is incident light diffusing over the entire screen, raising black to be grayer, reducing the contrast that the user sees. The brighter the incident light, the more the contrast is washed out. I don't see how this cutting out this diffused incident light adds a false saturation, in other words, I don't see a similarly adequate explanation of how this supposed glossy false saturation works.
BTW: I just got back from a client who has just updated 10 workstations too 24" iMacs. Half of the designers love 'em... half don't. The half that doesn't because they are too close to windows, lighting - both direct and indirect (coming from glassed conference rooms etc.). Even the ones that love 'em though, also have to admit that when concepting with someone else (like me today), the person outside of center is at a definite disadvantage. Blacks and contrast of images was dead wrong from about 20-35 degrees off-center... plus, the glare was definitely distracting. We went to a 23" ACD, and needless to say, no problems, even though this person's workstation is directly to the side of a bank of windows. A lot of sun here on the Rhine today
As far as I'm concerned... gloss is a no-go IF you can avoid it... since there is no need FOR it in a professional creative environment. I again will hope that APPL makes matte an option for the 15" MBP's in January, as they will with the upcoming 17".
I played around with the new MacBook Pro and the 17-inch MacBook Pro in an Apple Store and had the same experience: the glare put me off, especially when there was a lot of black on the screen, like a dark photo. And all the time I looked right into the reflection of the ceiling lights! The 17-inch matte screen looked perfect from any angle.
I went home and ordered a brand new old model 15-inch MacBook Pro. Sorry, no glossy screen for me. I'll wait what Apple has in store for me in 4 years time...
so you have absolutely never had issues with visibility on a matte screen? interesting.
Not really. Possibly when the sun was really bright and directly on the screen, I would tip my screen a bit but that was extremely rare. I can't even do this with glossy because on a bright day, I see everything reflected no matter where the screen points.
Because they require extreme accuracy in every characteristic. It's just interesting that they would also be glossy. Medical personnel aren't interested in trends, they just want the best quality image they can get.
Hospitals are normally well closed off from outside light and the interior lights are well diffused. Not the rooms with patient beds but the examination rooms where they look at all the X-Rays etc.
They also aren't looking for color accuracy generally but data read-outs.
Editing. It's not a nightmare.
I just don't understand why a few people say this here.
It's because you might dismiss something as a screen reflection not realising it's in shot or vice versa. When you composite elements together in green screening it's hard enough looking at hair strands to check your mask is ok without a hundred semi-transparent background objects floating everywhere on top.
Diffused light does not interfere with the shapes on screen. At worst, it only affects the overall contrast/brightness which you can compensate if you really feel the need. Usually you don't ever have to do anything after the display is calibrated.
If you can't do that, it's a lost cause anyway, because in bad lighting, your matt screen will not give you what you would get in good lighting anyway.
That's not the point, the point is that when you can't control your lighting (which with a laptop is quite often), matte is and always will be superior to glossy so Apple shouldn't have removed the option.
In controlled lighting: glossy = matte because there is no diffusion
In bad lighting: matte >>>>> glossy because matte doesn't reflect anything.
I don't see how this cutting out this diffused incident light adds a false saturation, in other words, I don't see a similarly adequate explanation of how this supposed glossy false saturation works.
It could be that LCD panels have been designed to overcome the diffusion and removing the diffusing layer leaves over-saturated images. Whatever it is, the panels are designed in a way that over-saturates images. I actually like more saturated images as it makes them more vibrant and interesting to look at. Without the reflections, I'd probably be ok with the glossy screens.
It could be that LCD panels have been designed to overcome the diffusion and removing the diffusing layer leaves over-saturated images. Whatever it is, the panels are designed in a way that over-saturates images. I actually like more saturated images as it makes them more vibrant and interesting to look at. Without the reflections, I'd probably be ok with the glossy screens.
Maybe, but it seems that Apple should be able to set up a different color profile that accounts for the differences in the screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LtX1D3T1cQ
(if you don't want to sit through it all, skip to 7:30 where he peels the overlay off the screen and you can see the difference).
You can also see how ineffective the overlays are because they don't really diffuse enough. They basically reflect the same objects but make them fuzzy.
Here is a video of a matte screen with some bright lights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJFxhSP1QOY
Having a bright direct light like that makes it difficult to use the screen no matter what screen you have, few would argue against that. But as the display is moved around, especially rotated, you can clearly see that there are no objects in the screen that would distract you while you worked with the laptop.
You cannot for example see the person moving the laptop, the camera nor the room behind them. The black colors also look very deep even though judging from the viewing angle it is likely a cheap panel.
Here's another video of the new laptop unboxing. Look when they place the MBP in front of the matte screen. Look at the blacks in the matte screen at the back vs the glossy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOYQKKgTIo
and here's an outdoors clip of the glossy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxft68r01fA
I'm typing this on a new 13" Macbook in an Apple store.
I was looking forward to buying an MBP but I'm not gonna bother. I'll maybe get a 12" PB off ebay and trick it out the best I can til something with a screen I can look at comes along.
The screen on this thing is TERRIBLE. As it happens I'm a TV exec who uses laptops for editing and graphics work frequently. I wouldn't even use this for sending emails. Even at max lux all the colours look dark and greyed out, and I really don't wanna have to look at people walking around behind me or my own hands typing while I work.
The gloss screen factor is a real shame because in every other way (except the new power key, which looks too small and cheap compared to the previous style) both the MBP and new MB are beautiful. The new trackpad is extremely easy to use. I love the new graphics chip. I'm just not prepared to risk migraines using this thing.
Classic shot to the foot Steve.
I would note that the 17" MacBook Pro is still available in matte. Perhaps they figure that anyone doing "serious" work needing the best possible screen is going to be buying that one, anyway. But I agree that not even having the _option_ of matte is ridiculous.
That said, I disagree that the screen is terrible. I didn't find the colors to be dark -- the brightness must have been turned down. The one I saw was very bright, just glossy which obviously is not popular (I don't like it either).
Kind of doesn't make me feel as bad about keeping my current MBP.
Yes there is false saturation... or possibly I should have said the false "vividness" of the colors. A glossy screen boosts the saturation and colors "on screen". However, the "vividness" i.e. saturation of what you see on the monitor, is NOT what your prints will look like... or should look like if using a calibrated printing/proofing system to ISO standards. Needless to say, you do NOT calibrate your proofing machine to match your display, it's the other way around.
BTW: I just got back from a client who has just updated 10 workstations too 24" iMacs. Half of the designers love 'em... half don't. The half that doesn't because they are too close to windows, lighting - both direct and indirect (coming from glassed conference rooms etc.). Even the ones that love 'em though, also have to admit that when concepting with someone else (like me today), the person outside of center is at a definite disadvantage. Blacks and contrast of images was dead wrong from about 20-35 degrees off-center... plus, the glare was definitely distracting. We went to a 23" ACD, and needless to say, no problems, even though this person's workstation is directly to the side of a bank of windows. A lot of sun here on the Rhine today
As far as I'm concerned... gloss is a no-go IF you can avoid it... since there is no need FOR it in a professional creative environment. I again will hope that APPL makes matte an option for the 15" MBP's in January, as they will with the upcoming 17".
Glossy screens don't boost saturation, matte screens cut it down.
I'st the difference between looking through a clean window, and one with a fine haze over it.
Besides, as I've said, you can cut the saturation down if you need to. It's better than having to boost it up. This is what happens when you calibrate your monitor, which you do, of course.