A quote from the Mac Book Pro page at apple.com in July 2006:
>>>
Finishing coat
MacBook Pro offers an antiglare coated widescreen display that’s perfect for color-minded professionals. For a more immersive viewing experience, you can configure MacBook Pro with a glossy finish. This gives everything you see a richer, more saturated feel.
>>>
"Antiglare.... perfect for color-minded professionals." Sounds like all designers, videographers and photographers to me... instead we get the "saturated feel" by default. Thanks Apple. We can always plug in one of your new screens instead, oh hang on. What have they done to that too. Yes. Turned it into a mirror. Very professional.
Sounds like Apple are basically saying that color-minded professionals are now no longer part of their target market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If you look at Apple's icons on the computer, and particularly on the iPhone/itouch, you'll see that they love that reflected look. I seems as though that's what they've done here.
They didn't do it here though:
or here:
but of course, these are photographed at the wrong angle, they haven't adjusted for their environment, they don't have blinders etc, etc.
Here's someone who tried to get rid of the glare using an antiglare overlay:
where the graphics people for Ars had their say. The first says what we generally accept. In controlled lighting, glossy can certainly be better. The second commenter highlights the real issue:
"I think that you can get a glossy screen that has deep blacks, accurate color and a wide gamut, so the problem really is just the glare. It's distracting and for someone like me, who's constantly retouching images and scouring images for dust (next to a window, no less). A glossy screen would make my work a nightmare of squinting and head-bobbing.
I do use an external monitor, but I need to work on the road, and sitting in a café during the day with one of the new machines would be really annoying. Apple should sell one of the new MacBooks with a handy black drape.
In other words, you can take my last-gen matte MacBook Pro from my cold, dead, hands!" [Wow, tell us how you really feel, Dave. --ed.]"
"Of course, the glare of the glass screen is a MAJOR issue for us, and will be pretty much forever. There's just no way we'll be able to love it, so our eyes will be peeled for after-market add-ons to cut that down a bit."
fwiw, i popped into the apple re-seller at the university near by about an hour ago. no issues with reflections on the screen of the mbp under the bright store lighting. the keyboard was nice! much prefer it to the older model's kb. build quality and feel was great. would like to have spent more than 5 mins playing with it, i wish they'd install pro-apps on some in-store machines as well...
FWIW, Apple is using the cheaper 2.53GHz Penryn CPU at the higher TDP of 35W instead of the slightly more expensive chip at 25W. Since the 2.4GHz CPU is 25W and they list the same battery time for both I figured they would have sprung for the more expensive chip, but CPU-z confirms that they did not.
where the graphics people for Ars had their say. The first says what we generally accept. In controlled lighting, glossy can certainly be better. The second commenter highlights the real issue:
"I think that you can get a glossy screen that has deep blacks, accurate color and a wide gamut, so the problem really is just the glare. It's distracting and for someone like me, who's constantly retouching images and scouring images for dust (next to a window, no less). A glossy screen would make my work a nightmare of squinting and head-bobbing.
I do use an external monitor, but I need to work on the road, and sitting in a café during the day with one of the new machines would be really annoying. Apple should sell one of the new MacBooks with a handy black drape.
In other words, you can take my last-gen matte MacBook Pro from my cold, dead, hands!" [Wow, tell us how you really feel, Dave. --ed.]"
"Of course, the glare of the glass screen is a MAJOR issue for us, and will be pretty much forever. There's just no way we'll be able to love it, so our eyes will be peeled for after-market add-ons to cut that down a bit."
You will also note ( I read the article last night) that the second guy, before mentioning his problems said:
Quote:
Apple should sell one of the new MacBooks with a handy black drape.
The second part is a bit facetious, but the point is that he knows the problem can be taken care of.
Again though, the point that several of us have been trying to make is that reflections CAN be handled. If you simply must work in a terrible environment, then just realize that a matte screen may seem to be good, but it really isn't, for SOME purposes.
You didn't bother to post one of the most important parts of Aurich's statements though you did post the one that agrees with you, so not everyone will go to Ars and read it, as you know, it gives a distorted view of the situation.
Aurich, does do work in high end color, while from what we know of Dave over the years he does not.
And as Aurich says:
Quote:
In a properly light-controlled environment (without which there is zero point in talking about professional work)
I don't know of ANY professional environment where color is important that doesn't hew to what he, and several of us here have been saying.
but the point is that he knows the problem can be taken care of.
There is no portable way of taking care of it. I guess there could be a market for a line of Burkhas for the Macbook itself where there would be a slot left for you to look in through but how do you get to the keyboard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
a matte screen may seem to be good, but it really isn't, for SOME purposes.
But it's not like I'm being tricked by the matte screen into thinking that I'm able to get work done on it and not on a glossy with distracting glare. That's just what happens. I have no distractions at all on my current displays but on a glossy, I continually see people moving behind me and lights bouncing off things as well as a faint image of my face pasted near the bottom of the screen permanently. This guy knows what I'm talking about:
As handsome as I am, I refuse to work like that. I also have a habit of practicing facial expressions when I look at a reflection (yeah I'm not alone here) and as fun as it would be doing this at work, it's not the most productive of things. Women must absolutely love these displays though. Checking make-up and emailing at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You didn't bother to post one of the most important parts of Aurich's statements though you did post the one that agrees with you, so not everyone will go to Ars and read it, as you know, it gives a distorted view of the situation.
The reason being that he's taking the same viewpoint you are, which is not the real issue. The issue most people have is glare. You keep talking about professional color work. Color work relates mostly to the quality of the actual panel displaying the images.
It almost sounds like the second guy there looked at what the first guy said and responded because he acknowledges as do I that the panel can be setup to display colors correctly. But this is no good if you have a transparent reflection overlay on top of it.
Macbooks are consumer portable machines, hardly anyone expects their display quality to rival high end IPS displays anyway. They do however expect to be able to focus on the elements on screen rather than reflected objects. Some people can do this, others can't. I can't.
I also can't look at those jumbled 3D pictures you get and make something out of it by relaxing your eyes - I've never managed it. I can't even do the stereoscopic ones. Imagine that someone decided that if the majority can decipher these images then all books and all TVs should be made this way. You don't think people would have a right to complain? If I work a certain way for years and someone comes along and says, well no actually you have to do things our way now, that's just not going to happen. Not through stubbornness to learn how to adapt, it's just not a better way to work. There are clear usability issues that need to be resolved first and there are no solutions on offer.
There is no portable way of taking care of it. I guess there could be a market for a line of Burkhas for the Macbook itself where there would be a slot left for you to look in through but how do you get to the keyboard?
I've seen blinders for portables. It's possible.
Quote:
But it's not like I'm being tricked by the matte screen into thinking that I'm able to get work done on it and not on a glossy with distracting glare. That's just what happens. I have no distractions at all on my current displays but on a glossy, I continually see people moving behind me and lights bouncing off things as well as a faint image of my face pasted near the bottom of the screen permanently. This guy knows what I'm talking about:
I don't know what you do, so I can't say if what you lose with matte matters or not. If you work with text, then matte is great.
Quote:
As handsome as I am, I refuse to work like that. I also have a habit of practicing facial expressions when I look at a reflection (yeah I'm not alone here) and as fun as it would be doing this at work, it's not the most productive of things. Women must absolutely love these displays though. Checking make-up and emailing at the same time.
Uh, yeah.
Quote:
The reason being that he's taking the same viewpoint you are, which is not the real issue. The issue most people have is glare. You keep talking about professional color work. Color work relates mostly to the quality of the actual panel displaying the images.
It's the real issue to us. Darn'd right it is. Quality of the display is what I've been talking about all this time.
This argument could end real quick if you just grant that for what I, and some others have been stating, is likely correct for our work, and we'll leave you guys alone with yours.
Quote:
It almost sounds like the second guy there looked at what the first guy said and responded because he acknowledges as do I that the panel can be setup to display colors correctly. But this is no good if you have a transparent reflection overlay on top of it.
Yeah, that's why we ALL talk about proper lighting being needed—for our work. Maybe not yours.
Quote:
Macbooks are consumer portable machines, hardly anyone expects their display quality to rival high end IPS displays anyway. They do however expect to be able to focus on the elements on screen rather than reflected objects. Some people can do this, others can't. I can't.
I also can't look at those jumbled 3D pictures you get and make something out of it by relaxing your eyes - I've never managed it. I can't even do the stereoscopic ones. Imagine that someone decided that if the majority can decipher these images then all books and all TVs should be made this way. You don't think people would have a right to complain? If I work a certain way for years and someone comes along and says, well no actually you have to do things our way now, that's just not going to happen. Not through stubbornness to learn how to adapt, it's just not a better way to work. There are clear usability issues that need to be resolved first and there are no solutions on offer.
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.
I just love how you ignored the entire content and my follow up post just 2 posts below that went like this:
High contrast ratios allow you to see every detail.
High gloss screens create high contrast ratio "reflections".
Your eye always looks to what has the most contrast and/or looks out of place.
and then my next follow up like this:
I guess to add a note or counterpoint to my statement:
"gloss is good for 'viewing'...but matte is better for working"
gloss would be the best in a completely darkroom, black painted walls, wearing black clothes etc. [lab conditions]
and if only really high-end printing techniques and papers are used for output.
[no one pays for those high end materials/techniques these days though.]
and most offices that have in-house designers are not structured with a dedicated space for them anymore. meaning that I, and many others out there like me, are in somewhat of a cubicle or similar space, where localized lighting is not within our control.
sigh.
so as you can see I Know that REAL color correction requires a controlled environment, and a real monitor.
so keep your superiority complex from flingin insults about technical skills out of relpies aimed at me.
my statements are all geared to the "DISTRACTION" factor that reflection and glares cause.
and we all know that ya cant use your laptop monitor to color correct so why do you argue in favor of the clear glass on a laptop?
you should at least be able to use it in any environment with as little distraction as possible.
high contrast level of glare/reflection = high distraction level
I just love how you ignored the entire content and my follow up post just 2 posts below that went like this:
High contrast ratios allow you to see every detail.
High gloss screens create high contrast ratio "reflections".
Your eye always looks to what has the most contrast and/or looks out of place.
and then my next follow up like this:
I guess to add a note or counterpoint to my statement:
"gloss is good for 'viewing'...but matte is better for working"
gloss would be the best in a completely darkroom, black painted walls, wearing black clothes etc. [lab conditions]
and if only really high-end printing techniques and papers are used for output.
[no one pays for those high end materials/techniques these days though.]
and most offices that have in-house designers are not structured with a dedicated space for them anymore. meaning that I, and many others out there like me, are in somewhat of a cubicle or similar space, where localized lighting is not within our control.
sigh.
so as you can see I Know that REAL color correction requires a controlled environment, and a real monitor.
so keep your superiority complex from flingin insults about technical skills out of relpies aimed at me.
my statements are all geared to the "DISTRACTION" factor that reflection and glares cause.
and we all know that ya cant use your laptop monitor to color correct so why do you argue in favor of the clear glass on a laptop?
you should at least be able to use it in any environment with as little distraction as possible.
high contrast level of glare/reflection = high distraction level
I'm not going to respond to every comment here. Some think I respond too much already.
You posts would be better if you learned how to write though. So if you're going to insult me, turn to yourself first please.
I saw no point in responding to you, because you didn't say anything different for me to respond to, and I was talking to others, and giving the same responses I would have given you. If you had said something new, then I would have responded. How many others responded to you?
I'm not going to respond to every comment here. Some think I respond too much already.
You posts would be better if you learned how to write though. So if you're going to insult me, turn to yourself first please.
I saw no point in responding to you, because you didn't say anything different for me to respond to, and I was talking to others, and giving the same responses I would have given you. If you had said something new, then I would have responded. How many others responded to you?
sigh...
YOU attacked MY technical skills and made assumptions as to my knowledge in a personal manner.
I asked you not to insult me, with an admitedly defense flair statement...geesh.
[that statement seems to hold true though, since your follow up was a knock about grammar, sentence structure, and the usage of slang]
So you add insult about trivial nonsense not pertinent to anything on this site.
Technically appropriate grammar and linguistics don't matter on a web-forum.
this aint published work for crying out loud.
These are simply conversations and discussions.
your responses make me not want to visit this site.
"I saw no point in responding to you..." "how many others responded to you..."
Do you talk down to everyone this way?
well that's it for me...you are not worth any more of my time. I will not attempt to speak to you anymore.
[that was me talking down to you, just in case you couldn't tell through my horrible writing skills]
YOU attacked MY technical skills and made assumptions as to my knowledge in a personal manner.
I asked you not to insult me, with an admitedly defense flair statement...geesh.
[that statement seems to hold true though, since your follow up was a knock about grammar, sentence structure, and the usage of slang]
I respond to what I read. Not to what the author has in his mind.
Quote:
So you add insult about trivial nonsense not pertinent to anything on this site.
Technically appropriate grammar and linguistics don't matter on a web-forum.
this aint published work for crying out loud.
These are simply conversations and discussions.
Trivial to you perhaps. But here we do not engage in writing that has to be deciphered. Ask Mr. H, and a few others, if you think I was tough! We try to be clear. If a poster doesn't seem to care about that, then it's hard to take what they say seriously. This IS published work, by the way, even if you're not being paid for it. We have over 50,000 members, and you don't know how many of them, as well as others are reading it.
We also object to IM slang.
Quote:
your responses make me not want to visit this site.
"I saw no point in responding to you..." "how many others responded to you..."
Do you talk down to everyone this way?
Only to those who seem to warrent it. You may have noticed that most of us can disagree in long running postings without getting out of sorts. We don't take it personally.
But a few do.
Quote:
well that's it for me...you are not worth any more of my time. I will not attempt to speak to you anymore.
[that was me talking down to you, just in case you couldn't tell through my horrible writing skills]
Thats fine. I was thinking the same thing, but at least you said it so that it made sense.
It's the real issue to us. Darn'd right it is. Quality of the display is what I've been talking about all this time.
This argument could end real quick if you just grant that for what I, and some others have been stating, is likely correct for our work, and we'll leave you guys alone with yours.
And yet you also say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Fact is, no one can do critical editing on a laptop in less than very good surrounding conditions. Better yet, you shouldn't do critical color work with a laptop at all. I don't know any pro who does.
So you know of no pro who uses a laptop for color correction/editing and yet the quality of the display regarding color is the big issue here?
The bottom line is that you prefer glossy. That's great, some don't and we want the option of having what we consider to be a better display (uniform color, no distractions). The issue with glossy is glare and it can be seen by everyone but not accepted by everyone.
Look at the video I posted. That guy's room has fairly average lighting and the reflection is extremely bad. You can surely see that and this issue is not present on a matte screen. Therefore a matte screen is a better all-round screen, especially for a laptop where being able to adapt to varying lighting is far more important than high end editing, which as you say nobody does on a laptop anyway.
Summary:
1. is glossy better in controlled conditions? Maybe
2. is matte better in varying conditions? Yes, no reflections
3. do people use laptops for accurate color correction? No
4. so which is better design for a laptop should there be only one, matte or glossy? Matte
If we had been talking about the Cinema displays, fair enough go nuts with those and put them in all sorts of well configured lighting and talk about the benefits of glossy but people would have a choice of buying one or not and still be able to use a Mac. Right now, you cannot buy a new Mac laptop without having to accept a glossy screen.
The choice is simply use glossy or buy a PC, use an AIO or buy a PC and Apple needs to stop laying it on the line like this because they are carving out a bad reputation of having high prices and no choice.
So you know of no pro who uses a laptop for color correction/editing and yet the quality of the display regarding color is the big issue here?
Not critical color correction. Do I always have to bring that up?
I have never met a pro who did critical color on a laptop. We had quite a few clients in our lab over the years. They either did the critical parts of their work in their studio, with an external monitor, or a desktop with a monitor for that purpose, or brought it to us.
There are things you can do, surely. These newer displays, starting with the last LED backlit models were a great improvement in the color, contrast department, but these should do better, possibility enough for real color work beyond the general first level overall work of getting white points set, so that other work can be started, making selects, etc.
We'll have to see what the tests of the monitors themselves say. But the glossy face make it a better chance that the color gamut and other characteristics will be better.
Quote:
The bottom line is that you prefer glossy. That's great, some don't and we want the option of having what we consider to be a better display (uniform color, no distractions). The issue with glossy is glare and it can be seen by everyone but not accepted by everyone.
For this work, yes. That's what I've been saying. As you prefer matte for your work.
Quote:
Look at the video I posted. That guy's room has fairly average lighting and the reflection is extremely bad. You can surely see that and this issue is not present on a matte screen. Therefore a matte screen is a better all-round screen, especially for a laptop where being able to adapt to varying lighting is far more important than high end editing, which as you say nobody does on a laptop anyway.
Summary:
1. is glossy better in controlled conditions? Maybe
2. is matte better in varying conditions? Yes, no reflections
3. do people use laptops for accurate color correction? No
4. so which is better design for a laptop should there be only one, matte or glossy? Matte
If we had been talking about the Cinema displays, fair enough go nuts with those and put them in all sorts of well configured lighting and talk about the benefits of glossy but people would have a choice of buying one or not and still be able to use a Mac. Right now, you cannot buy a new Mac laptop without having to accept a glossy screen.
The choice is simply use glossy or buy a PC, use an AIO or buy a PC and Apple needs to stop laying it on the line like this because they are carving out a bad reputation of having high prices and no choice.
Marvin, we're just going in circles here.
You repeat what you've been saying, and I repeat what I've been saying.
Truthfully, I think we've about spoken enough on the subject.
I've been wondering about the dual graphics in the new MBP. Personally, I'd prefer to buy a MBP with a single graphics chip in it (with the more powerful one in it). I wonder how much less the cost of a MBP would be without the lower powered graphics chip?
My other thought is if these new MBPs will be able to use both graphics chips at the same time in a future OS release. Does anybody know if these new MBPs are designed to do this in with a future OS?
My other thought is if these new MBPs will be able to use both graphics chips at the same time in a future OS release. Does anybody know if these new MBPs are designed to do this in with a future OS?
Snow Leopard's OpenCL will hopefully make this possible.
Wow, so it looks like I was right that there was an anti-reflective treatment on the old glossy screen. It's just that it was a smooth anti-reflective treatment rather than a texture. This new one has neither.
I am sitting next to a MacBook Air. After examining the display for awhile and how it's constructed, there's no reason couldn't add a matte option on the new MacBook Pro while retaining the overall design aesthetic. The matte coating could be applied behind the black border, in the same fashion as the display (albeit glossy) is applied on the Air. I suppose the black border can be anodized black aluminum instead of silver like it is on the Air.
If I had to guess, Apple will offer a matte version at or shortly after MacWorld when they roll out the 17-inch version of the MacBook Pro.
Comments
A quote from the Mac Book Pro page at apple.com in July 2006:
>>>
Finishing coat
MacBook Pro offers an antiglare coated widescreen display that’s perfect for color-minded professionals. For a more immersive viewing experience, you can configure MacBook Pro with a glossy finish. This gives everything you see a richer, more saturated feel.
>>>
"Antiglare.... perfect for color-minded professionals." Sounds like all designers, videographers and photographers to me... instead we get the "saturated feel" by default. Thanks Apple. We can always plug in one of your new screens instead, oh hang on. What have they done to that too. Yes. Turned it into a mirror. Very professional.
Sounds like Apple are basically saying that color-minded professionals are now no longer part of their target market.
If you look at Apple's icons on the computer, and particularly on the iPhone/itouch, you'll see that they love that reflected look. I seems as though that's what they've done here.
They didn't do it here though:
or here:
but of course, these are photographed at the wrong angle, they haven't adjusted for their environment, they don't have blinders etc, etc.
Here's someone who tried to get rid of the glare using an antiglare overlay:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...18#post6461918
I should add the first image is from this site:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...o-review.ars/3
where the graphics people for Ars had their say. The first says what we generally accept. In controlled lighting, glossy can certainly be better. The second commenter highlights the real issue:
"I think that you can get a glossy screen that has deep blacks, accurate color and a wide gamut, so the problem really is just the glare. It's distracting and for someone like me, who's constantly retouching images and scouring images for dust (next to a window, no less). A glossy screen would make my work a nightmare of squinting and head-bobbing.
I do use an external monitor, but I need to work on the road, and sitting in a café during the day with one of the new machines would be really annoying. Apple should sell one of the new MacBooks with a handy black drape.
In other words, you can take my last-gen matte MacBook Pro from my cold, dead, hands!" [Wow, tell us how you really feel, Dave. --ed.]"
The other image if from Engadget here:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/14/a...hiny-hands-on/
where they say:
"Of course, the glare of the glass screen is a MAJOR issue for us, and will be pretty much forever. There's just no way we'll be able to love it, so our eyes will be peeled for after-market add-ons to cut that down a bit."
rofl. that's not a real image, it's 3d and PS. the reflection is for artistic effect.
i'm not saying it's not an issue for some ppl, but that's not a good example to use.
Duh!
It gives a good impression of the kind of reflections that you'll have to contend with in the real world...
It gives a good impression of the kind of reflections that you'll have to contend with in the real world...
it doesn't give a good impression of the GLOSSY 24" iMac that i am looking at at this very instant in time, however.
again, it's not a very good example to use.
Sounds like Apple are basically saying that color-minded professionals are now no longer part of their target market.
They didn't do it here though:
or here:
but of course, these are photographed at the wrong angle, they haven't adjusted for their environment, they don't have blinders etc, etc.
Quite true!
Here's someone who tried to get rid of the glare using an antiglare overlay:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...18#post6461918
I should add the first image is from this site:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...o-review.ars/3
where the graphics people for Ars had their say. The first says what we generally accept. In controlled lighting, glossy can certainly be better. The second commenter highlights the real issue:
"I think that you can get a glossy screen that has deep blacks, accurate color and a wide gamut, so the problem really is just the glare. It's distracting and for someone like me, who's constantly retouching images and scouring images for dust (next to a window, no less). A glossy screen would make my work a nightmare of squinting and head-bobbing.
I do use an external monitor, but I need to work on the road, and sitting in a café during the day with one of the new machines would be really annoying. Apple should sell one of the new MacBooks with a handy black drape.
In other words, you can take my last-gen matte MacBook Pro from my cold, dead, hands!" [Wow, tell us how you really feel, Dave. --ed.]"
The other image if from Engadget here:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/14/a...hiny-hands-on/
where they say:
"Of course, the glare of the glass screen is a MAJOR issue for us, and will be pretty much forever. There's just no way we'll be able to love it, so our eyes will be peeled for after-market add-ons to cut that down a bit."
You will also note ( I read the article last night) that the second guy, before mentioning his problems said:
Apple should sell one of the new MacBooks with a handy black drape.
The second part is a bit facetious, but the point is that he knows the problem can be taken care of.
Again though, the point that several of us have been trying to make is that reflections CAN be handled. If you simply must work in a terrible environment, then just realize that a matte screen may seem to be good, but it really isn't, for SOME purposes.
You didn't bother to post one of the most important parts of Aurich's statements though you did post the one that agrees with you, so not everyone will go to Ars and read it, as you know, it gives a distorted view of the situation.
Aurich, does do work in high end color, while from what we know of Dave over the years he does not.
And as Aurich says:
In a properly light-controlled environment (without which there is zero point in talking about professional work)
I don't know of ANY professional environment where color is important that doesn't hew to what he, and several of us here have been saying.
but the point is that he knows the problem can be taken care of.
There is no portable way of taking care of it. I guess there could be a market for a line of Burkhas for the Macbook itself where there would be a slot left for you to look in through but how do you get to the keyboard?
a matte screen may seem to be good, but it really isn't, for SOME purposes.
But it's not like I'm being tricked by the matte screen into thinking that I'm able to get work done on it and not on a glossy with distracting glare. That's just what happens. I have no distractions at all on my current displays but on a glossy, I continually see people moving behind me and lights bouncing off things as well as a faint image of my face pasted near the bottom of the screen permanently. This guy knows what I'm talking about:
http://www.pionersoft.dk/mini-ssd/Si...ren_Vedel.html
As handsome as I am, I refuse to work like that. I also have a habit of practicing facial expressions when I look at a reflection (yeah I'm not alone here) and as fun as it would be doing this at work, it's not the most productive of things. Women must absolutely love these displays though. Checking make-up and emailing at the same time.
You didn't bother to post one of the most important parts of Aurich's statements though you did post the one that agrees with you, so not everyone will go to Ars and read it, as you know, it gives a distorted view of the situation.
The reason being that he's taking the same viewpoint you are, which is not the real issue. The issue most people have is glare. You keep talking about professional color work. Color work relates mostly to the quality of the actual panel displaying the images.
It almost sounds like the second guy there looked at what the first guy said and responded because he acknowledges as do I that the panel can be setup to display colors correctly. But this is no good if you have a transparent reflection overlay on top of it.
Macbooks are consumer portable machines, hardly anyone expects their display quality to rival high end IPS displays anyway. They do however expect to be able to focus on the elements on screen rather than reflected objects. Some people can do this, others can't. I can't.
I also can't look at those jumbled 3D pictures you get and make something out of it by relaxing your eyes - I've never managed it. I can't even do the stereoscopic ones. Imagine that someone decided that if the majority can decipher these images then all books and all TVs should be made this way. You don't think people would have a right to complain? If I work a certain way for years and someone comes along and says, well no actually you have to do things our way now, that's just not going to happen. Not through stubbornness to learn how to adapt, it's just not a better way to work. There are clear usability issues that need to be resolved first and there are no solutions on offer.
There is no portable way of taking care of it. I guess there could be a market for a line of Burkhas for the Macbook itself where there would be a slot left for you to look in through but how do you get to the keyboard?
I've seen blinders for portables. It's possible.
But it's not like I'm being tricked by the matte screen into thinking that I'm able to get work done on it and not on a glossy with distracting glare. That's just what happens. I have no distractions at all on my current displays but on a glossy, I continually see people moving behind me and lights bouncing off things as well as a faint image of my face pasted near the bottom of the screen permanently. This guy knows what I'm talking about:
http://www.pionersoft.dk/mini-ssd/Si...ren_Vedel.html
I don't know what you do, so I can't say if what you lose with matte matters or not. If you work with text, then matte is great.
As handsome as I am, I refuse to work like that. I also have a habit of practicing facial expressions when I look at a reflection (yeah I'm not alone here) and as fun as it would be doing this at work, it's not the most productive of things. Women must absolutely love these displays though. Checking make-up and emailing at the same time.
Uh, yeah.
The reason being that he's taking the same viewpoint you are, which is not the real issue. The issue most people have is glare. You keep talking about professional color work. Color work relates mostly to the quality of the actual panel displaying the images.
It's the real issue to us. Darn'd right it is. Quality of the display is what I've been talking about all this time.
This argument could end real quick if you just grant that for what I, and some others have been stating, is likely correct for our work, and we'll leave you guys alone with yours.
It almost sounds like the second guy there looked at what the first guy said and responded because he acknowledges as do I that the panel can be setup to display colors correctly. But this is no good if you have a transparent reflection overlay on top of it.
Yeah, that's why we ALL talk about proper lighting being needed—for our work. Maybe not yours.
Macbooks are consumer portable machines, hardly anyone expects their display quality to rival high end IPS displays anyway. They do however expect to be able to focus on the elements on screen rather than reflected objects. Some people can do this, others can't. I can't.
I also can't look at those jumbled 3D pictures you get and make something out of it by relaxing your eyes - I've never managed it. I can't even do the stereoscopic ones. Imagine that someone decided that if the majority can decipher these images then all books and all TVs should be made this way. You don't think people would have a right to complain? If I work a certain way for years and someone comes along and says, well no actually you have to do things our way now, that's just not going to happen. Not through stubbornness to learn how to adapt, it's just not a better way to work. There are clear usability issues that need to be resolved first and there are no solutions on offer.
I'll give you that.
The same thing it true for the matte surface.
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.
I just love how you ignored the entire content and my follow up post just 2 posts below that went like this:
High contrast ratios allow you to see every detail.
High gloss screens create high contrast ratio "reflections".
Your eye always looks to what has the most contrast and/or looks out of place.
and then my next follow up like this:
I guess to add a note or counterpoint to my statement:
"gloss is good for 'viewing'...but matte is better for working"
gloss would be the best in a completely darkroom, black painted walls, wearing black clothes etc. [lab conditions]
and if only really high-end printing techniques and papers are used for output.
[no one pays for those high end materials/techniques these days though.]
and most offices that have in-house designers are not structured with a dedicated space for them anymore. meaning that I, and many others out there like me, are in somewhat of a cubicle or similar space, where localized lighting is not within our control.
sigh.
so as you can see I Know that REAL color correction requires a controlled environment, and a real monitor.
so keep your superiority complex from flingin insults about technical skills out of relpies aimed at me.
my statements are all geared to the "DISTRACTION" factor that reflection and glares cause.
and we all know that ya cant use your laptop monitor to color correct so why do you argue in favor of the clear glass on a laptop?
you should at least be able to use it in any environment with as little distraction as possible.
high contrast level of glare/reflection = high distraction level
low level [or diffused] glare/reflection = low distraction level
I just love how you ignored the entire content and my follow up post just 2 posts below that went like this:
High contrast ratios allow you to see every detail.
High gloss screens create high contrast ratio "reflections".
Your eye always looks to what has the most contrast and/or looks out of place.
and then my next follow up like this:
I guess to add a note or counterpoint to my statement:
"gloss is good for 'viewing'...but matte is better for working"
gloss would be the best in a completely darkroom, black painted walls, wearing black clothes etc. [lab conditions]
and if only really high-end printing techniques and papers are used for output.
[no one pays for those high end materials/techniques these days though.]
and most offices that have in-house designers are not structured with a dedicated space for them anymore. meaning that I, and many others out there like me, are in somewhat of a cubicle or similar space, where localized lighting is not within our control.
sigh.
so as you can see I Know that REAL color correction requires a controlled environment, and a real monitor.
so keep your superiority complex from flingin insults about technical skills out of relpies aimed at me.
my statements are all geared to the "DISTRACTION" factor that reflection and glares cause.
and we all know that ya cant use your laptop monitor to color correct so why do you argue in favor of the clear glass on a laptop?
you should at least be able to use it in any environment with as little distraction as possible.
high contrast level of glare/reflection = high distraction level
low level [or diffused] glare/reflection = low distraction level
I'm not going to respond to every comment here. Some think I respond too much already.
You posts would be better if you learned how to write though. So if you're going to insult me, turn to yourself first please.
I saw no point in responding to you, because you didn't say anything different for me to respond to, and I was talking to others, and giving the same responses I would have given you. If you had said something new, then I would have responded. How many others responded to you?
I'm not going to respond to every comment here. Some think I respond too much already.
You posts would be better if you learned how to write though. So if you're going to insult me, turn to yourself first please.
I saw no point in responding to you, because you didn't say anything different for me to respond to, and I was talking to others, and giving the same responses I would have given you. If you had said something new, then I would have responded. How many others responded to you?
sigh...
YOU attacked MY technical skills and made assumptions as to my knowledge in a personal manner.
I asked you not to insult me, with an admitedly defense flair statement...geesh.
[that statement seems to hold true though, since your follow up was a knock about grammar, sentence structure, and the usage of slang]
So you add insult about trivial nonsense not pertinent to anything on this site.
Technically appropriate grammar and linguistics don't matter on a web-forum.
this aint published work for crying out loud.
These are simply conversations and discussions.
your responses make me not want to visit this site.
"I saw no point in responding to you..." "how many others responded to you..."
Do you talk down to everyone this way?
well that's it for me...you are not worth any more of my time. I will not attempt to speak to you anymore.
[that was me talking down to you, just in case you couldn't tell through my horrible writing skills]
sigh...
YOU attacked MY technical skills and made assumptions as to my knowledge in a personal manner.
I asked you not to insult me, with an admitedly defense flair statement...geesh.
[that statement seems to hold true though, since your follow up was a knock about grammar, sentence structure, and the usage of slang]
I respond to what I read. Not to what the author has in his mind.
So you add insult about trivial nonsense not pertinent to anything on this site.
Technically appropriate grammar and linguistics don't matter on a web-forum.
this aint published work for crying out loud.
These are simply conversations and discussions.
Trivial to you perhaps. But here we do not engage in writing that has to be deciphered. Ask Mr. H, and a few others, if you think I was tough! We try to be clear. If a poster doesn't seem to care about that, then it's hard to take what they say seriously. This IS published work, by the way, even if you're not being paid for it. We have over 50,000 members, and you don't know how many of them, as well as others are reading it.
We also object to IM slang.
your responses make me not want to visit this site.
"I saw no point in responding to you..." "how many others responded to you..."
Do you talk down to everyone this way?
Only to those who seem to warrent it. You may have noticed that most of us can disagree in long running postings without getting out of sorts. We don't take it personally.
But a few do.
well that's it for me...you are not worth any more of my time. I will not attempt to speak to you anymore.
[that was me talking down to you, just in case you couldn't tell through my horrible writing skills]
Thats fine. I was thinking the same thing, but at least you said it so that it made sense.
It's the real issue to us. Darn'd right it is. Quality of the display is what I've been talking about all this time.
This argument could end real quick if you just grant that for what I, and some others have been stating, is likely correct for our work, and we'll leave you guys alone with yours.
And yet you also say:
Fact is, no one can do critical editing on a laptop in less than very good surrounding conditions. Better yet, you shouldn't do critical color work with a laptop at all. I don't know any pro who does.
So you know of no pro who uses a laptop for color correction/editing and yet the quality of the display regarding color is the big issue here?
The bottom line is that you prefer glossy. That's great, some don't and we want the option of having what we consider to be a better display (uniform color, no distractions). The issue with glossy is glare and it can be seen by everyone but not accepted by everyone.
Look at the video I posted. That guy's room has fairly average lighting and the reflection is extremely bad. You can surely see that and this issue is not present on a matte screen. Therefore a matte screen is a better all-round screen, especially for a laptop where being able to adapt to varying lighting is far more important than high end editing, which as you say nobody does on a laptop anyway.
Summary:
1. is glossy better in controlled conditions? Maybe
2. is matte better in varying conditions? Yes, no reflections
3. do people use laptops for accurate color correction? No
4. so which is better design for a laptop should there be only one, matte or glossy? Matte
If we had been talking about the Cinema displays, fair enough go nuts with those and put them in all sorts of well configured lighting and talk about the benefits of glossy but people would have a choice of buying one or not and still be able to use a Mac. Right now, you cannot buy a new Mac laptop without having to accept a glossy screen.
The choice is simply use glossy or buy a PC, use an AIO or buy a PC and Apple needs to stop laying it on the line like this because they are carving out a bad reputation of having high prices and no choice.
And yet y
So you know of no pro who uses a laptop for color correction/editing and yet the quality of the display regarding color is the big issue here?
Not critical color correction. Do I always have to bring that up?
I have never met a pro who did critical color on a laptop. We had quite a few clients in our lab over the years. They either did the critical parts of their work in their studio, with an external monitor, or a desktop with a monitor for that purpose, or brought it to us.
There are things you can do, surely. These newer displays, starting with the last LED backlit models were a great improvement in the color, contrast department, but these should do better, possibility enough for real color work beyond the general first level overall work of getting white points set, so that other work can be started, making selects, etc.
We'll have to see what the tests of the monitors themselves say. But the glossy face make it a better chance that the color gamut and other characteristics will be better.
The bottom line is that you prefer glossy. That's great, some don't and we want the option of having what we consider to be a better display (uniform color, no distractions). The issue with glossy is glare and it can be seen by everyone but not accepted by everyone.
For this work, yes. That's what I've been saying. As you prefer matte for your work.
Look at the video I posted. That guy's room has fairly average lighting and the reflection is extremely bad. You can surely see that and this issue is not present on a matte screen. Therefore a matte screen is a better all-round screen, especially for a laptop where being able to adapt to varying lighting is far more important than high end editing, which as you say nobody does on a laptop anyway.
Summary:
1. is glossy better in controlled conditions? Maybe
2. is matte better in varying conditions? Yes, no reflections
3. do people use laptops for accurate color correction? No
4. so which is better design for a laptop should there be only one, matte or glossy? Matte
If we had been talking about the Cinema displays, fair enough go nuts with those and put them in all sorts of well configured lighting and talk about the benefits of glossy but people would have a choice of buying one or not and still be able to use a Mac. Right now, you cannot buy a new Mac laptop without having to accept a glossy screen.
The choice is simply use glossy or buy a PC, use an AIO or buy a PC and Apple needs to stop laying it on the line like this because they are carving out a bad reputation of having high prices and no choice.
Marvin, we're just going in circles here.
You repeat what you've been saying, and I repeat what I've been saying.
Truthfully, I think we've about spoken enough on the subject.
My other thought is if these new MBPs will be able to use both graphics chips at the same time in a future OS release. Does anybody know if these new MBPs are designed to do this in with a future OS?
My other thought is if these new MBPs will be able to use both graphics chips at the same time in a future OS release. Does anybody know if these new MBPs are designed to do this in with a future OS?
Snow Leopard's OpenCL will hopefully make this possible.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3435&p=5
Finally some proper comparison shots of matte and glossy mac screens! I certainly wouldn't want to be using the new MacBook outdoors!
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3435&p=5
Wow, so it looks like I was right that there was an anti-reflective treatment on the old glossy screen. It's just that it was a smooth anti-reflective treatment rather than a texture. This new one has neither.
Finally some proper comparison shots of matte and glossy mac screens! I certainly wouldn't want to be using the new MacBook outdoors!
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3435&p=5
Of course it will look like that right in the open street. You probably will need some shades to use the computer over those conditions hehehehe.
Matter is best of course but I don't think that even a 0.05% of users/owners will ever use their laptops over that lightning condition.
If I had to guess, Apple will offer a matte version at or shortly after MacWorld when they roll out the 17-inch version of the MacBook Pro.