Originally Posted by tgm1024
I disagree, but Chron and I have had a friendly disagreement over this for some time now.
The very worst of all possible worlds is a highly reflective panel where the reflections are readily formed and can easily be focused on. If there's an object that can be focused on, you will more likely than not be struggling to not focus on it.
Well I do agree that an uncoated glossy panel is the worst thing ever.
It's once anti-reflective coatings get involved that it is not such a simple comparison.
I am not accusing anyone in particular of this, but it does almost feel like the people complaining about the lack of matte panels are thinking that displays are the same they were 5-10 years ago back when "glossy" meant they just removed the matte finish or placed a pane of glass in front of the screen, instead of replacing it with an anti-reflective coating. (though there are still cheap panels which are like this)
Or that matte panels on a notebook which are <15" in size and the position is easily adjusted, are going to behave the same as a matte panel which is >50" in size and fixed in place on your wall.
And where the choice was between glossy/matte, not semi-matte (worst of both worlds) or an AR-coated panel.
Originally Posted by tgm1024
As a software engineer, I was very dismayed when every notebook PC of any worth switched over from matte to high gloss. They became a nightmare to work on, and if I had a white shirt on I could forget about getting anything done in a lit room. By contrast (no pun), my Ispiron 6000 heavily matted screen (I don't know how else to qualify "matte") was dramatically easier to work on.
Trying to read text, where contrast does not matter (printed paper is something like 10:1) is a separate issue though.
Text is very small relative to the size of the display, and even a small reflection can cover it and become a distraction.
But having compared like-for-like under the same conditions, I will take the new AR-coated MacBook Pro displays over any of the old matte displays - though the old glossy displays were the absolute worst, where they just stuck a pane of glass in front of a glossy LCD. (Why!?)
The matte panels were so dim and low contrast in bright light that you simply couldn't read the screen, even if there were no defined "reflections" on the display because they were perfectly diffused.
As an engineer, I can perhaps imagine that you may be used to white-on-black text though, which is one situation where a matte panel may be preferable for text.
But that's still going to be incredibly dim to view in a bright environment, while black-on-white text lets you turn up the backlight to at least try and fight against the ambient light level.
However in the typical home environment, and at the sizes of modern displays, it's a different story with televisions.
You can get away with a matte panel if the display is small, you can freely adjust its position, and your priority is being able to read text over all else.
I have a matte screen protector affixed to my phone (in part because glossy ones just feel awful to use) but would not consider a matte television where mine is currently located.
Though there are reflections on the TV at certain times of day, having those reflections diffused over the surface would make it unusable
- and I know that because there used to be a true matte panel in its place - while the AR coating means that I can still see what is "underneath" the dulled reflection.
As I have said many times, I also want to see a wider release of displays with this moth-eye coating, because it looks as though it should be superior to traditional AR coatings.
But I don't think the reason that matte panels went away - at least on televisions - was simply because the were "not popular enough".
It's no coincidence that they started to disappear once LCDs started to get much larger than ~32" and started to compete with plasmas on size. (not that there were no
panels up to say 50" with a true matte coating, but those quickly disappeared)