Sign In
Register
Help
griffman, thanks kindly for the review. It's directly relevant to purchase decisions I am making right now. This is what I like from MacWorld — detailed information about Macs and Mac stuff.
lin2log, don't give in to hate.
Review: Power Support MacBook Pro Anti-Glare Film
MultiQuote
#16
awesomebase 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 16-April 06
Posted 06 February 2009 - 09:48 AM
For lin2log and other glossy-screen lovers,
I don't quite understand your logic; you claim that you've seen both screens side-by-side yet you didn't notice the glare on the glossy screen? I don't even consider myself a photography/film pro, but even I clearly see how annoying the glossy screens are when it comes to reflections. You don't even need direct light... just ambient light is enough to produce an enormous amount of reflection.
Every manufacturer is producing glossy screens now because you can get more "oomph" from your colors with less power; that's all. It is why, until the last year or two, people loved the Sony PAS cameras -- they greatly exagerrated the colors. It is more appealing, yes, but that isn't the point for people that actually work with photography. The point is how accurate is the picture on the screen compared with the output (whether that is in print, on other screens, on CD/DVD - type media, on the web, etc. etc.). For printers, this is especially important.
And having an LED-backlight on your lcd screen has nothing to do with the glossy/matte issue. That only provides you better contrast ratios since the light is more easily focused where it needs to be (with less bleeding in dark areas). You can still have an LED-backlight on your "matte" lcd screen.
And as far as "whining" goes, well, having an issue with a change to the computer's configuration isn't whining. It is a legitimate issue that many people have. I hate glossy screens; their annoying. Most people won't understand that until they've actually worked with photographs or in an environment where they need to print or publish images. The whole point and appeal of Macs has been that they catered to the creative professionals; over the last few years it is becoming more and more evident that they are catering to the masses instead (no problem with that; they're a business and need to grow). But I don't see a viable case for why they wouldn't provide the option for a matte screen when they offered that as standard issue since they came out with their laptops over a decade ago. There is no legitimate reason for it. For people that are used to working in that environment, it is a deliberate slap in the face from Apple.
Glossy screens have their appeal; and probably a lot of people are impressed with them, but it doesn't need to be the only option. I too hate seeing all the reflections on the screen when I'm working. Everytime I go into an Apple store and see them, it bugs me that I can see everything but what I want to focus on. That is super, super annoying. If the majority of people like that, so be it, no problems or worries, but at least the option for matte displays should be there. In that absence, an alternative like this is at least a step in the right direction for those of us left in the dust on this... I would hope Apple would come out with it on their own, but it doesn't look like that is coming anytime soon...
I don't quite understand your logic; you claim that you've seen both screens side-by-side yet you didn't notice the glare on the glossy screen? I don't even consider myself a photography/film pro, but even I clearly see how annoying the glossy screens are when it comes to reflections. You don't even need direct light... just ambient light is enough to produce an enormous amount of reflection.
Every manufacturer is producing glossy screens now because you can get more "oomph" from your colors with less power; that's all. It is why, until the last year or two, people loved the Sony PAS cameras -- they greatly exagerrated the colors. It is more appealing, yes, but that isn't the point for people that actually work with photography. The point is how accurate is the picture on the screen compared with the output (whether that is in print, on other screens, on CD/DVD - type media, on the web, etc. etc.). For printers, this is especially important.
And having an LED-backlight on your lcd screen has nothing to do with the glossy/matte issue. That only provides you better contrast ratios since the light is more easily focused where it needs to be (with less bleeding in dark areas). You can still have an LED-backlight on your "matte" lcd screen.
And as far as "whining" goes, well, having an issue with a change to the computer's configuration isn't whining. It is a legitimate issue that many people have. I hate glossy screens; their annoying. Most people won't understand that until they've actually worked with photographs or in an environment where they need to print or publish images. The whole point and appeal of Macs has been that they catered to the creative professionals; over the last few years it is becoming more and more evident that they are catering to the masses instead (no problem with that; they're a business and need to grow). But I don't see a viable case for why they wouldn't provide the option for a matte screen when they offered that as standard issue since they came out with their laptops over a decade ago. There is no legitimate reason for it. For people that are used to working in that environment, it is a deliberate slap in the face from Apple.
Glossy screens have their appeal; and probably a lot of people are impressed with them, but it doesn't need to be the only option. I too hate seeing all the reflections on the screen when I'm working. Everytime I go into an Apple store and see them, it bugs me that I can see everything but what I want to focus on. That is super, super annoying. If the majority of people like that, so be it, no problems or worries, but at least the option for matte displays should be there. In that absence, an alternative like this is at least a step in the right direction for those of us left in the dust on this... I would hope Apple would come out with it on their own, but it doesn't look like that is coming anytime soon...
#17
Motivated
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 27
- Joined: 07-January 09
Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:07 AM
I am really glad MacWorld has been covering (pun intended) this issue. This latest article has me seriously thinking about changing the configuration of my unibody 17" MBP on order from matte (anti-glare) to glossy.
I have visited the Apple store a few times and placed existing 17" MBPs next to each other to see the difference in glossy and matte. Note that the existing MBPs now have 1920x1280 LED displays - probably very similar to what will ship on the unibody MBPs. Personally, I think the glossy screen looks way better displaying shades of black than the matte screen. The glossy screen displays absolutely beautiful images, it really is stunning to look at. For whitish images, like skiing, etc. the difference between matte and glossy is really hard to tell, and matte may actually be better. Look at the image of the river in these articles and you can clearly see more detail in the shadows of the glossy screen, but maybe more detail in the white water with the matte screen.
The reflections on the glossy screen in the Apple store can be distracting, but the vividness and brightness of the display does mask that somewhat. I am somewhat susceptible to focusing on the image of the reflection, then refocusing on the screen. I can certainly see how changing your focus would be distracting. I work on cockpit displays and we take great pains to elliminate the eye strain and delay this causes.
Because I do not have lots of experience with laptops or matte vs. glossy screens this is my thought process: I can buy a solution to convert a glossy screen to matte (or antiglare), but I cannot buy a solution to convert matte to glossy. Since I am not 100% certain I want the matte, I am considering going with glossy. I do wish Apple published more information about the anti-glare screen because a big factor is assuming that the film and the new anti-glare option are equivalent. Then again I can also assume that future aftermarket films will be better than the one reviewed here.
I have visited the Apple store a few times and placed existing 17" MBPs next to each other to see the difference in glossy and matte. Note that the existing MBPs now have 1920x1280 LED displays - probably very similar to what will ship on the unibody MBPs. Personally, I think the glossy screen looks way better displaying shades of black than the matte screen. The glossy screen displays absolutely beautiful images, it really is stunning to look at. For whitish images, like skiing, etc. the difference between matte and glossy is really hard to tell, and matte may actually be better. Look at the image of the river in these articles and you can clearly see more detail in the shadows of the glossy screen, but maybe more detail in the white water with the matte screen.
The reflections on the glossy screen in the Apple store can be distracting, but the vividness and brightness of the display does mask that somewhat. I am somewhat susceptible to focusing on the image of the reflection, then refocusing on the screen. I can certainly see how changing your focus would be distracting. I work on cockpit displays and we take great pains to elliminate the eye strain and delay this causes.
Because I do not have lots of experience with laptops or matte vs. glossy screens this is my thought process: I can buy a solution to convert a glossy screen to matte (or antiglare), but I cannot buy a solution to convert matte to glossy. Since I am not 100% certain I want the matte, I am considering going with glossy. I do wish Apple published more information about the anti-glare screen because a big factor is assuming that the film and the new anti-glare option are equivalent. Then again I can also assume that future aftermarket films will be better than the one reviewed here.
#18
RiversideGuy
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 05-September 06
Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:16 AM
I very much see a pattern here. Based on my feeling that most buyers WOULD go for a 50 buck matte option... but even if it's 40% who want one, guess what? Apple makes MORE money. Say 400 out of 1,000 go for it... that is essentially a 20 dollar premium for every machine sold. Just another way to extract more money from it's customers without raising an actual price.
BTW, I'd also bet you that the current, glass and glossy screens cost MORE than a matte screen, and you can take it to the bank that is already reflected in the price.
BTW, I'd also bet you that the current, glass and glossy screens cost MORE than a matte screen, and you can take it to the bank that is already reflected in the price.
#19
Adammiller
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 83
- Joined: 24-February 08
Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:22 AM
Actually, most digital professionals are embrasing glossy screens.
You can't start talking about the screen not being accurate with its output device. If your printing your photos and you want to make sure its accurate, you need to be color calibrating your screen and running printing profiles anyways. This doesn't have anything to do with glossy/matte. If your going to get that picky, you need to be editing in a neutral grey room with one light somewhere behind the monitor... no colors around to effect your eyes.
You also can't use outputting to screens on CD/DVD, Web, etc as a point to use or not use a glossy screen because guess what? You could spend all day carefully editing pictures on a color calibrated screen in perfect conditions and 99% of the screens that the media will be viewed on WON'T be part of that perfetly calibrated system that you just used.
For example, if your a pro photographer and you decide to make a DVD and a Web site to promote yourself. You want to have accurate colors on both mediums so you edit on a nice calibrated system. The site might look great on your machine and the DVD might look great on your personal computer but do you think the hundrends if not thousands of viewers of the DVD and Site have also calibrated their screens? Some pros calibrate and some don't. Most who do, are printing thier own photos and really see the results. When most who don't, are most likely sending photos out to be printed or not printing and realise that theres no point in calibrating for photos that will be view across hundreds of different screens that are the complete oposite of calibrated.
For this reason, a very small percentage of pros are likely to be effected or upset about the screens.
I know it sucks to be stuck with somethign that doesn't work for you and as I mentioned before, I think its strange to not offer both. Its great that Macworld is telling us the options and letting us know what worked for them but the reality is, a HUGE percentage if MBP and MB users will never read an article on Macworld, will never even think twice about any glair that they are seeing, will never complain about it, will love their laptops and will buy another one at some point. If apple doesn't keep focusing on that HUGE percentage, it won't be long before we don't have any screens to love or hate... glossy or matte.
You can't start talking about the screen not being accurate with its output device. If your printing your photos and you want to make sure its accurate, you need to be color calibrating your screen and running printing profiles anyways. This doesn't have anything to do with glossy/matte. If your going to get that picky, you need to be editing in a neutral grey room with one light somewhere behind the monitor... no colors around to effect your eyes.
You also can't use outputting to screens on CD/DVD, Web, etc as a point to use or not use a glossy screen because guess what? You could spend all day carefully editing pictures on a color calibrated screen in perfect conditions and 99% of the screens that the media will be viewed on WON'T be part of that perfetly calibrated system that you just used.
For example, if your a pro photographer and you decide to make a DVD and a Web site to promote yourself. You want to have accurate colors on both mediums so you edit on a nice calibrated system. The site might look great on your machine and the DVD might look great on your personal computer but do you think the hundrends if not thousands of viewers of the DVD and Site have also calibrated their screens? Some pros calibrate and some don't. Most who do, are printing thier own photos and really see the results. When most who don't, are most likely sending photos out to be printed or not printing and realise that theres no point in calibrating for photos that will be view across hundreds of different screens that are the complete oposite of calibrated.
For this reason, a very small percentage of pros are likely to be effected or upset about the screens.
I know it sucks to be stuck with somethign that doesn't work for you and as I mentioned before, I think its strange to not offer both. Its great that Macworld is telling us the options and letting us know what worked for them but the reality is, a HUGE percentage if MBP and MB users will never read an article on Macworld, will never even think twice about any glair that they are seeing, will never complain about it, will love their laptops and will buy another one at some point. If apple doesn't keep focusing on that HUGE percentage, it won't be long before we don't have any screens to love or hate... glossy or matte.
#20
griffman
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 8,604
- Joined: 09-January 01
Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:34 AM
I agree with most nearly everything you said, but I will point out that on a poll we posted on macosxhints.com, fully 30% of respondents (nearly 2,000 people) indicated they would not buy a glossy-screened Mac laptop. The results aren't scientific, of course, but I think they show there's clearly more than a small minority willing to vote with their checkbooks.
I'm firmly in that camp, too, unless I elect to get a Tech Restore machine. (While I really liked the PowerSupport film, the reality is that I just personally prefer an actual matte display; too many years of using them, I guess. The fact that the machine is lighter is like an added bonus :).)
Given it'd cost Apple next to nothing to offer both options -- and they'd actually make more selling matte screens -- I don't understand the limitation. Make it special order, so you don't have to stock them. Charge extra for them; we'll pay for the option. It's a win-win with very few downsides. (If TechRestore can engineer a solution within a few months of the MBP's release, clearly this is an engineering challenge that wouldn't cost Apple much time or money to solve.)
-rob.
I'm firmly in that camp, too, unless I elect to get a Tech Restore machine. (While I really liked the PowerSupport film, the reality is that I just personally prefer an actual matte display; too many years of using them, I guess. The fact that the machine is lighter is like an added bonus :).)
Given it'd cost Apple next to nothing to offer both options -- and they'd actually make more selling matte screens -- I don't understand the limitation. Make it special order, so you don't have to stock them. Charge extra for them; we'll pay for the option. It's a win-win with very few downsides. (If TechRestore can engineer a solution within a few months of the MBP's release, clearly this is an engineering challenge that wouldn't cost Apple much time or money to solve.)
-rob.
#21
lin2log
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 179
- Joined: 12-January 06
Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:36 AM
griffman said:
What I really don't understand is all the anger directed at those of us who prefer matte displays:
Huh? Anger? lol... hardly.
I just am highly annoyed with the persistant "glossy is evil!" pundits - with which I in fact don't mean nor did I mean you - that have been around since the first glossy iMac - which were of course already yelling WAY before anyone actually even had one on their desk - that quite obviously have never even SEEN one let alone USED one, even by their own account! Best displayed by the first poster whom I quoted. Not you.
If you have a problem with glossy for whatever reasons - physiological even, as you assume - after actually USING or at least SEEING one, fine! All the power to ya. Then you're not the one I'm "angry" at. ;-)
In fact, as far as I'm concerned, you actually made the point FOR the glossy for people who don't have the focal point problem you spoke of... at least I for one don't see any owners of glossy unibodies (or otherwise) here complaining about just that. Quite the opposite.
But I'm sure they'll magically appear now that I've said that... :-D
Worst of all is actually the whining "why won't Apple offer the option??!", which is just so embarrassingly pointless when you look at what they are charging for the 17" matte. If they did the same for the 15", the exact same pundit trolls would be here whining over THAT (the price). It's just getting soooo ooooold.
Ya hate it? Get it and do it yourself for LESS, just as you've kindly showed us...
#22
alansky
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 838
- Joined: 14-July 04
Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:40 AM
Excellent article, but no mention was made of the fact that anti-glare films theoretically reduce sharpness. In your tests, did you happen to notice whether everything was slightly fuzzier with the film applied?
#23
griffman
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 8,604
- Joined: 09-January 01
Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:45 AM
In theory, they do reduce sharpness. In practice, my eyes (aging, but still 20-20) weren't bothered by any obvious instances of fuziness. The film-covered display is certainly no "fuzzier" than my matte-screen MacBook Pro. It's hard to judge, I know, but if it had been notably fuzzy, I would have seen it and commented on it. So if there's fuzziness, it fell below my personal bothersome threshold.
-rob.
-rob.
#24
alansky
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 838
- Joined: 14-July 04
Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:45 AM
Since we're talking about color rendition on laptop screens, it should be noted that all laptops have a fatal flaw when it comes to color correction: The screen angle affects the way the image looks and there is virtually no way to keep the screen angle constant except to never close the lid.
#25
tech_head
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 70
- Joined: 19-January 05
Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:52 AM
There is a company "Photodon" that sells a good anti glare cover for half of what is mentioned in the article.
I don't work for them but I buy their products.
I have once of their protectors on my MB 15.4 and love it.
http://www.photodon.com/c/APL.html
I don't work for them but I buy their products.
I have once of their protectors on my MB 15.4 and love it.
http://www.photodon.com/c/APL.html
#26
lin2log
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 179
- Joined: 12-January 06
Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:55 AM
lwdesign said:
Tolerance is a wonderful thing. It keeps people from killing each other.... and what not else he liked hearing himself say....
Oooooh... so deep. So meaningful. :-))))))
Quote
Some like the new glossy screens from Apple and some don't (me included).
Uh-huh. And you of course own one and/or used one. We know.
Quote
It's your right to disagree with my opinion,
First true words.
Quote
but not to chastise me or call into question my mental health for thinking so.
Huh?? Wha?? LOL... YOU? Who exactly are YOU and when exactly did I do that? Or are you related to Carnack? ... you're freakin' me out...
Quote
Please allow others the freedom to think what they want.
Well gee... you ask so nicely... how could I resist? Okay... granted this once, oh design one.
It's the reason people left the old world to come to America: freedom of thought.
LOL... yeah. And we see how great THAT worked! :-)))))
You quite obviously are taking matters - and even more so yourself - WAY too seriously... whoa. Chill.
:-D
#28
lin2log
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 179
- Joined: 12-January 06
Posted 06 February 2009 - 11:15 AM
awesomebase said:
And having an LED-backlight on your lcd screen has nothing to do with the glossy/matte issue. That only provides you better contrast ratios since the light is more easily focused where it needs to be (with less bleeding in dark areas). You can still have an LED-backlight on your "matte" lcd screen.
Thanks for not getting the point.
Ever stand in front of a window when it was brighter INSIDE than OUTSIDE? Then the other way around. Tell me, when did you see a reflection, when didn't you? What were you focused on?
Think about it.
Quote
Most people won't understand that until they've actually worked with photographs or in an environment where they need to print or publish images.
Sorry, but anyone actually doing any serious work in that direction (I'm a colorist btw) makes damn sure he doesn't have any other light - let alone sunlight - within the vicinity, no matter what type of screen you're sitting at. At best a BACKlight. So that argument doesn't really cut it for me. Since otherwise you're just doing the average everyday stuff, for which a very rough guesstamation is more than enough.
Quote
Glossy screens have their appeal; and probably a lot of people are impressed with them, but it doesn't need to be the only option.
They're not, as you can see by this report! In fact I think it's pretty safe to say, that IF Apple offered it themselves, then you'd be paying MORE - and the rants would enflame anew!, hooray!- , so hey... works perfectly for everyone! :-P
