Did someone help you, or did an answer or User Tip resolve your issue? Upvote by selecting the upvote arrow. Your feedback helps others! Learn more about when to upvote >
Did someone help you, or did an answer or User Tip resolve your issue? Upvote by selecting the upvote arrow. Your feedback helps others! Learn more about when to upvote >
Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply
ask a new question.
Trying to decide between glossy/matte MBP.
Would like to hear a well informed explanation of the glossy screen issues for print and web graphics creation.
I too did a bit of research regarding glossy or non-glossy screen when I was buying my MacBook Pro. From what I gather, non-glossy screen actually displays more accurate/realistic colour. This is important for those needing to have accurate depiction of colour between LCD monitor and printer. However, with the glossy screen, the colours are more vibrant and contrasts stronger, so better for watching movies and DVDs. These are no my opinion but the opinions I gathered from my research.
I decided to go for the non-glossy screen because I rarely watch DVDs on my computer and I prefer to have accurate depiction of colour.
Thanks. I am getting a pretty good idea of the downsides to a glossy screen from a graphic design standpoint.
Still, I wonder if there are also some hidden benefits. I read somewhere about increased clarity and the 'distortion' caused by the matte surface treatment.
Trying to decide between glossy/matte MBP.
Would like to hear a well informed explanation of the
glossy screen issues for print and web graphics
creation.
The screen resolution will be the same so it simply comes down to your own personal preference. I like the non-gloss screen myself, less glare.
the matte screen is not color accurate either, so in both instances you would need to proof it on a CRT or maybe a good quality LCD for proofing anyways.
There are two issues with glossy and LCD on MBP/MB.
First the color shift. What you see as vibrant and higher contrast image also induces color shift slightly. The other issue is lack of contrast adjustment (beside Universal Access) to fine tune the screen.
That said, color shift may not bother many people, especially if they do not have the screen calibrated. In other words, may not notice because it is subtle enough. Also, color management is more than just display device anyway...
As for web graphics, if you stay in sRBG color space and lean towards bit contrasty than just right on glossy, I'm sure it would be fine. My recommendation is to get the glossy and a non-glossy external monitor as a second screen. Calibrate both for color and set the Gamma to 2.2, temperature to 6.5k (PC standard, instead of 1.8 Mac standard). Since the majority of the world is on PC, setting the right Gamma is quite important for the web.
If you do not want to get an external monitor, then I'm inclined to recommend non-glossy screen...
I compared the glossy and non-glossy side by side in the Apple Store a few days ago and here are my thoughts:
1. The colors are definitely more vibrant with the glossy screen. I opened the iTunes Music Store on both computers and could see the difference right away.
2. The glossy screen reflects, a lot. You have to adjust the angle of the screen to avoid seeing the reflection.
My conclusion: get the glossy screen if you are going to be able to control the lighting where you will be using it. Since I am going to be using my MBP in an office-like environment where I have no control over the lighting I am going with the non-glossy screen.
Thanks Gonda, I have found this information the most useful so far. Yes, contrast adjustment would have given the best of both worlds in a way.
That said, color shift may not bother many people,
especially if they do not have the screen calibrated.
The color shift would definitely bother me, it can make a big difference when say, picking colors for web page backgrounds. Is there a shift in hue or simply more saturation?
If you do not want to get an external monitor, then
I'm inclined to recommend non-glossy screen...
I already have a 30" cinema display that is hooked up to a G5 tower and calibrated for dtp- I do not anticipate hooking up the MPB to it much although the fact that it can drive that monitor is a wonderful bonus.
Someone has seen the light. I'm sorry, but it's been some time since someone recomended an eternal display compared to Apple's laptop display for professional use glossy and non glossy is the way for now.
No one in the world uses a laptop display as the final solution.
Thank you all, I returned the MBP with the glossy screen and got the matte. Had to pay $50 restocking fee but it was worth it to not be kicking myself at some point. I noticed too that the screen illumination doesnt fall off towards the edges as much with the matte. I'm happy with my decision.
Glossy screen or Matte screen, they're both LCD monitors, and it's common knowledge they have unfaithful color and inadequate representation of 0 to 20%-ish luminosity ranges. I'd just plug my laptop into a calibrated CRT for when I do any work that needs accurate color, and get a glossy screen to show it off to people the rest of the time.
I've used both and the glossy screen is eye-wateringly mouth-droppingly luscious. In particular the glossy screen renders DVDs with an almost brutal accuracy, exposing the artifacts in that same luminosity range of a high-bitrate MPEG-2 stream. This suggests it's probably better than you think.
I wouldn't use any LCD screen at all though for sensitive work. This is just due to the fact that you'd have to hold your head at precisely the right angle to get any consistent idea of the colors on the screen anyway.
After using the matte screen on the road (trip to India) for a while, I am glad I opted for matte. I was aware of many lighting situations when a glossy screen would have been a real problem. The matte screen on the mbp is fabulous- as bright as my Apple 30".
I purchased my MBP before the glossy screen was an option.
At first, I was kicking myself (which I did a lot this year...first, when they bumped the low end to 2 GHz, then when they bumped it to 2.16 and again when they bumped to those sweet 64 bit duo 2 chips). But then I got a chance to use a glossy screened macbook, and I'm glad I didn't have the choice.
The glossy screen makes blacks feel more dark, but at the same time tends to blend pixels a bit. This makes the overall image look nicer, but makes discrete pixels harder to see unless they're really distinct. Trouble for fine graphics work and I find it makes reading non-AA text, such as that in Terminal or Eclipse, more of a headache.
The glossy screen also seems to distort colors more across the screen...e.g. from a given vantage point to the left of normal a shade of green looks different on the left side of the screen than the same shade will on the right. I had to do a lot of tilting, sort of like an etch-a-sketch, to figure out what was really going on. The matte screen doesn't seem to do this.
Finally, the glossy screen seemed to make the inevitable fingerprints a lot more visible. Frankly, his laptop was no different from mine but it looked a lot scummier because of the glossy coat.
I will say this: if you don't do fine-art graphics work on your macbook, ******* is that glossy screen nice for editing snapshots, watching movies and playing games. Playing WoW, the glossy screen was almost like an fps-free FS anti-aliasing mode.
With the glossy vs matte issue, when you're indoors at most, maybe the colors appear more vibrant (vivid some might say) on the glossy but it doesn’t mean they’re more accurate, than they appear on a matte screen.
Some would go as far as to argue that if they appear vivid they are even inaccurate...
On some levels I could agree, to a certain extent, but not enough to demand a matte screen.
For some reason I refuse to believe either is better than the other from a graphic artist's standpoint.
I’ve spoken to a couple photographers who prefer a glossy because they say you get a better feel of what the physical outcome will be, or somthing like that.
The way I look at this, when you’re indoors a matte screen is fine because it “absorbs” overhead lighting. You don't see the reflections.
(And if you don't like the way the colors appear, your probably in a poorly lit room, and you shouldn’t be working there anyway if your that intense about color accuracy.)
If you’re outdoors a matte screen is a pain for sure, and a glossy screen would be better.
I hardly ever work on my projects outside, so I went with matte.
Not to say that the glossy has terrible reflections though, not at all. Apple has some of the best glossy screens on the market.
(screens on the new lenovos and viaos are pretty sweet)
With the screens, it seems that’s its suited more for the environment you work in, the kind light you’re working under: indoor or outdoor.
And taste or personal preference of how you like to view whatever you’re looking at.
ie photos, HD movies.
I dunno, that’s what I think. I wouldn’t say one is better than the other.
I was going to buy the glossy screen and the apple sales rep stopped me. He suggested that if I am using the machine for authoring videos, DVD's or using Adobe products, I am better off with the Matte screen which is what i ordered.
He said the color will be more accurate in the final productions and DVD's produced from the Matte version (aluding that this would not be true or there would be color shift if authoring on the glossy screen).
