4 ms·

"Is a matte screen the better option compared to the 8K monitor’s glossy finish? <...> Surprisingly, I found that I don’t like the matte screen better! It’s h

"Is a matte screen the better option compared to the 8K monitor’s glossy finish? <...> Surprisingly, I found that I don’t like the matte screen better! It’s hard to describe, but somehow the picture seems more “dull”, or less bright (independent of the actual brightness of the monitor), or more toned down. The colors don’t pop as much." A useful post. Whilst I've not yet had the luxury of owning a 6k or 8k monitor his comment about matte and glossy screens is very useful (also I'm more likely to trust his opinion than many others because his discerning experience is backed by the fact that he's actually using an 8k monitor—and that takes money and commitment). Over the years I've made many comparisons between matte and glossy screens and I have to agree with him for the same reasons. Despite being more susceptible to reflections, glossy screens always seem brighter and somehow sharper than matte ones of the same resolution and brightness. I've never investigated the reason in depth but I suspect the matte finish disperses the light from the screen and the net visual effect is a 'rounding' of transients resulting in lower contrast somewhat like offset printing which never looks as sharp as letterpress (where the ink dries thicker and looks blacker at the edges of the imprinting, this increases visual contrast even though the resolution may not be much different).

microtonal 3y ago
I agree. I thought I generally prefer matte for office displays. But even since purchasing a Studio Display, matte display just look dull. Also the Studio Display seems to avoid reflections by auto adjusting the brightness when the room is well-lighted.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  Yeah, that makes sense. In an office one's more likely to be doing say word-processing in a highly-lit environment where detail and contrast aren't that important. I normally do photo editing in subdued low-light conditions where gloss is not an issue. Edit: Incidentally, I'm typing this on my Lenovo ThinkPad which has matte screen but I'm using an external monitor with a glossy screen which I prefer (to be fair, it's also slightly larger). No, it wasn't a mistake at purchase time, it was given to me. :-)
- jwells89 3y ago
  Also helping reflections on the Studio Display is its antiglare coating which is unusually good for a glossy display, at least when looking at it head-on. It’s one of the parts of the monitor where Apple went the extra mile. Previous Apple displays have been decent in this category too, though. The 5k 27” iMac’s coating was also pretty good and what they use on MacBook Pro 14/16” is only a little worse than what’s on the Studio Display.
bernawil 3y ago
Matte never made sense at all. I have no idea how matte ever made it into PC monitors. I mean, before lcd screens all screen surfaces where smooth glass. Then came LCD in plastic. Did the early LCD tech necessitate that the outside layer be not as smooth for some reason? Maybe it was just a coincidence that was later cargo-culted? Anyway, there's a reason macbooks, and almost every TV uses a glossy surface. Their main supposed advantage, that they mitigate glare, is just false. With a glossy screen you get a small point of reflection. Matte attenuates it just a tiny bit, but never enough so that is not bothersome. You can usually tilt/angle your screen to fight glare, but matte makes it harder because the glaring spot is bigger/more diffuse. Also, higher brightness is one of the things that fight glare the most and matte reduce it a lot! Mobile phones, the devices we carry outside the most and should be most susceptible to glare issues never ever come with matte screens! How is matte even still a thing?
- hollerith 3y ago
  I prefer matte monitors although it is not that important to me. >You can usually tilt/angle your screen to fight glare, but matte makes it harder because the glaring spot is bigger/more diffuse. I would need to be able to switch quickly between a matte monitor and a glossy one to be sure, but IIRC the main advantage of matte is a many-fold reduction in how often I have to swivel my attention to the issue of glare. In other words, it is the need to "tilt/angle the screen" that is the main cost of glossy for me because I cannot do that without taking some of my attention away from the task at hand. In contrast, if I am already constantly holding the screen in my hand a la a smartphone then I can adjust the angle with very little conscious attention, so IIUC I have no preference for matte screens on smartphones, which if my preferences are common, would explain the absence of matte screens in smartphones.
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  > Their main supposed advantage, that they mitigate glare, is just false. It is very true, contrary to what you claim. The glare on my old trusty Dell U2413 matte display is next to non-existent compared to Apple M1 Air that is hooked to it.
  - 3y ago
trabant00 3y ago
I always buy glossy TVs and matted monitors. The TV is only used for movies and I close all the blinds for the full cinematic experience. But I don't want to work in a dark office, it does not feel good and I don't think it's healthy either. Sure, glossy looks a lot better and the reason is simple: opacity. The anti reflection treatment is not 100% transparent. But glossy is unusable in a healthily lighted room.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  "But glossy is unusable in a healthily lighted room." As I said elsewwhere, I don't think matte is a problem in well-lit office environments as the usual office apps usually don't warrant the extra contrast and sharpness. That said, I used to run an IT operation and the matter arose quite often. What was telling is that some people simply didn't care about glare, they either moved their heads or just tilted the monitor a little whereas others found glare intolerable. I suppose that's why both types are available. BTW, I'm one of those who doesn't find glare a problem, for some reason I 'tune' it out (I do the same with audio, I can listen to the radio through atrocious noise and static that drives others crazy).
Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
I prefer matte screens by far. Sure, they don't look as shiny, and that's the point! It allows for a more exact color representation with less eye strain, especially in brightly lit conditions. No lamps glare, sunlight doesn't bother you as much, etc.

microtonal 3y ago

I agree. I thought I generally prefer matte for office displays. But even since purchasing a Studio Display, matte display just look dull. Also the Studio Display seems to avoid reflections by auto adjusting the brightness when the room is well-lighted.

hilbert42 3y ago
Yeah, that makes sense. In an office one's more likely to be doing say word-processing in a highly-lit environment where detail and contrast aren't that important. I normally do photo editing in subdued low-light conditions where gloss is not an issue. Edit: Incidentally, I'm typing this on my Lenovo ThinkPad which has matte screen but I'm using an external monitor with a glossy screen which I prefer (to be fair, it's also slightly larger). No, it wasn't a mistake at purchase time, it was given to me. :-)
jwells89 3y ago
Also helping reflections on the Studio Display is its antiglare coating which is unusually good for a glossy display, at least when looking at it head-on. It’s one of the parts of the monitor where Apple went the extra mile. Previous Apple displays have been decent in this category too, though. The 5k 27” iMac’s coating was also pretty good and what they use on MacBook Pro 14/16” is only a little worse than what’s on the Studio Display.

bernawil 3y ago

Matte never made sense at all. I have no idea how matte ever made it into PC monitors. I mean, before lcd screens all screen surfaces where smooth glass. Then came LCD in plastic. Did the early LCD tech necessitate that the outside layer be not as smooth for some reason? Maybe it was just a coincidence that was later cargo-culted? Anyway, there's a reason macbooks, and almost every TV uses a glossy surface. Their main supposed advantage, that they mitigate glare, is just false. With a glossy screen you get a small point of reflection. Matte attenuates it just a tiny bit, but never enough so that is not bothersome. You can usually tilt/angle your screen to fight glare, but matte makes it harder because the glaring spot is bigger/more diffuse. Also, higher brightness is one of the things that fight glare the most and matte reduce it a lot! Mobile phones, the devices we carry outside the most and should be most susceptible to glare issues never ever come with matte screens! How is matte even still a thing?

hollerith 3y ago
I prefer matte monitors although it is not that important to me. >You can usually tilt/angle your screen to fight glare, but matte makes it harder because the glaring spot is bigger/more diffuse. I would need to be able to switch quickly between a matte monitor and a glossy one to be sure, but IIRC the main advantage of matte is a many-fold reduction in how often I have to swivel my attention to the issue of glare. In other words, it is the need to "tilt/angle the screen" that is the main cost of glossy for me because I cannot do that without taking some of my attention away from the task at hand. In contrast, if I am already constantly holding the screen in my hand a la a smartphone then I can adjust the angle with very little conscious attention, so IIUC I have no preference for matte screens on smartphones, which if my preferences are common, would explain the absence of matte screens in smartphones.
Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
> Their main supposed advantage, that they mitigate glare, is just false. It is very true, contrary to what you claim. The glare on my old trusty Dell U2413 matte display is next to non-existent compared to Apple M1 Air that is hooked to it.
- 3y ago

trabant00 3y ago

I always buy glossy TVs and matted monitors. The TV is only used for movies and I close all the blinds for the full cinematic experience. But I don't want to work in a dark office, it does not feel good and I don't think it's healthy either. Sure, glossy looks a lot better and the reason is simple: opacity. The anti reflection treatment is not 100% transparent. But glossy is unusable in a healthily lighted room.

hilbert42 3y ago
"But glossy is unusable in a healthily lighted room." As I said elsewwhere, I don't think matte is a problem in well-lit office environments as the usual office apps usually don't warrant the extra contrast and sharpness. That said, I used to run an IT operation and the matter arose quite often. What was telling is that some people simply didn't care about glare, they either moved their heads or just tilted the monitor a little whereas others found glare intolerable. I suppose that's why both types are available. BTW, I'm one of those who doesn't find glare a problem, for some reason I 'tune' it out (I do the same with audio, I can listen to the radio through atrocious noise and static that drives others crazy).

Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago

I prefer matte screens by far. Sure, they don't look as shiny, and that's the point! It allows for a more exact color representation with less eye strain, especially in brightly lit conditions. No lamps glare, sunlight doesn't bother you as much, etc.