5 ms·

Is a glossy or matte LCD screen better for long coding sessions?

35 points by Charles__L 14y ago

arrrg 14y ago
It’s just opinions. There isn’t any answer there. (I’m not even sure there is one. The difference may be too small to be able to say that in general, one or the other is better. Maybe it’s really down to opinion.)
- alexanderh 14y ago
  Matte is hands down superior in almost all situations except games and movies. People who own computers that don't give them the option often formulate excuses or justifications, but I dont think anyone with extensive experience with both would ever choose glossy. Matte wins hands down with everyone i know.
  - lotsofpulp 14y ago
    Agree, looking at a matte screen is much easier on my eyes than any glossy screen has been. Everything looks smoother, the colors softer, and zero glare.
  - manaskarekar 14y ago
    Agreed on all counts, in addition, I think matte allows you to lower the screen brightness way lower than glossy. You have to maintain a certain brightness to overcome the reflections on a glossy screen, and I feel brightness is one of the biggest factors in causing eye strain.
  - arrrg 14y ago
    That’s your opinion and helps no one decide.
- dchichkov 14y ago
  I'm not in any way an expert, but ergonomics of a workplace is not just opinions. [It is actually important. Poor workplace ergonomics can cause adverse health effects. And I'd guess, that a glare-type screens is a joke in the eyes of an ergonomics export.]
jamesmcn 14y ago
Whatever idiosyncratic stuff you do that helps you get into the zone for a long coding session is perfectly fine. Shortly after landing my first job out of college, I picked up Orbital's first two albums and listened to them nonstop with a bit of Autechre and Aphex Twin while coding. After I left that job, I misplaced the Orbital albums, but kept listening to Autechre and Aphex Twin while doing other stuff. Last week I picked up Orbital 1 and 2 again, and put them on while coding. BAM right into the zone. Probably won't work for you, but it works for me.
DanBC 14y ago
If you can control the lighting conditions then glossy is probably better. If you have less control of lighting, or of position of the screen, or etc then matte is probably better. This is assuming both glossy and matte monitor are equal for everything else.
jamesmcn 14y ago
If anyone reading this is interested in throwing caution to the wind and doing a hardware startup: I'd love a 24" eInk display or two, connected via USB. Ideally usable in either portrait or landscape orientation. Sure, the refresh rate would be super slow, but I'd use it for documentation and other reference material while actually coding on my macbook or one of my external LCD displays.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- switz 14y ago
  I've always wanted an e-ink display for development. Would be so cool.
  - aaronblohowiak 14y ago
    http://tinyapps.org/docs/e-ink-monitor.html http://tinyapps.org/docs/e-ink-monitor.html
- cskau 14y ago
  I was watching a bunch of YouTube reviews of some of the current generation of ereaders. And what struck me the most is how good the refresh rate was on some of these devices. In the some of videos they show how even pinch zooming and panning around is possible, which I think is really impressive. Surely it's not the rate of an LCD but I bet it would be near usable for coding. I guess what I would miss the most is color syntax highlighting. I'm curious, since you mention USB, if you've done any calculations on USB vs Eink bandwidth? Would USB2.0 have enough to keep up with 24" worth of "pixels" even at Eink's relative low refresh rate? Or would USB3.0?
  - shrughes 14y ago
    Let's say it's 24" at twice the resolution of 1920x1200 or four times the pixels, with 8 bit grayscale (because this is a fancy e-ink display, after all). USB 3.0 can do 5 Gbps which means 67 Hz would be an upper bound.
skrebbel 14y ago
Isn't the healthy answer "either, and frequent breaks"? You should never look at a single focal point too long at a stretch, no matter its shininess.
spodek 14y ago
Did everybody get so busy that they forgot how to find things out for themselves? Try both. Figure out what variables you have to control for and control for them. If you can't tell, it probably doesn't matter. Obviously some people prefer one or the other. If glossy gives you headaches and matte doesn't, does it matter how many people prefer glossy? So why ask them when you can get the data yourself? If you think the difference affects your health and performance, isn't it worth the experiment? If it doesn't, why bother asking?
- roryokane 14y ago
  Asking is cheaper than performing the experiment. The asker probably can’t afford buying one matte and one glossy monitor just to try them out. They also might not know anybody else with the other kind of monitor to compare with. That is especially likely if they’re buying a laptop with a built-in display – it’s unlikely that they’ll know two people with that model of laptop, with the same size of display, but one display matte and the other glossy.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    If glossy gives you headaches and matte doesn't, does it matter how many people prefer glossy? -- Some experiments are non-reversible Damage to your eyes, for example. This is one area that asking for peer comps should not be crtiticised as just being lazy. Pay it forward, and all that. IMHO.
ScottBurson 14y ago
I've noticed that at least some of the MacBook Air screens -- and the Retina MBP screen? -- are glossy, but with an anti-reflection coating. I've been wondering for some time why Apple hasn't been using using AR coatings on their glossy screens. These coatings used to be standard on high-end CRT monitors. Anyway, I'm glad to see Apple coming around on this. Interesting, too, that they don't seem to be talking about it at all. Maybe they're worried that advertising some of their screens as AR-coated will draw attention to the fact that others, such as their 27" Thunderbolt monitor, are not. (I tried to use one of those for a few days, and gave up; the reflections were driving me nuts.)
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  I came here to say this. The glossy MBP 13" screen has driven me nuts, I did the whole online petition dance, and it turns out the MBA 13" isn't half as bad. Dropping the glossy black bezel helps, too. The only thing better would be a matte, black bezel (to hide the camera hole).
  - stock_toaster 14y ago
    It will be curious to see how significant the glare on the supposed retina MBP 13" turns out to be.
tomlu 14y ago
I've recently had the pleasure of purchasing the 30" matte Dell U3011 IPS and the 27" semi-glossy Samsung S27B970 PLS. There are pros and cons to both. The anti-glare coating on the Dell makes black text on white background look absolutely rubbish, fuzzy and hard to read. You can sort of get used to it, but every time you switch back from using the semi-glossy Macbook it looks terrible. Black themes don't suffer from these problems nearly as much. With the Samsung, colours look much more vibrant and text is sharper. Reflections are very much an issue, especially with black themes. In very bright conditions with visible light sources the screen becomes almost unusable. Overall, if I could control my lighting, I would go with semi-glossy. Otherwise I would suffer the Dell's anti-glare. I find that both fuzzy text and reflections lead to eye strain and headaches. If they could tone down the anti-glare strength (but still leave some AG coating) I would probably go for that in all circumstances. On an unrelated note, I do prefer the 30" pixel pitch (.25 mm) to the 27" (.23 mm). At the given viewing distance the .25mm pixel pitch more closely matches my Macbook's, meaning you can use the same font sizes for both.
ojbyrne 14y ago
The mention of "wide screen" in the second most voted comment reminded me of my biggest pet peeves for monitors in 2012 - the disappearance of 16:10 monitors.
- shrughes 14y ago
  If it makes you feel better, larger 16:9 monitors are much less expensive than 16:10 monitors were previously.
- lifeformed 14y ago
  Get a big 16:9 one, and use a wide, vertical taskbar. It'll cut you down to 16:10 and you get the joys of using a wide, vertical taskbar: http://snag.gy/0pZP1.jpg http://snag.gy/0pZP1.jpg
petercooper 14y ago
I think the general quality of the screen is far more important than glossy or matte. It's like asking if a 2 liter engine is better than a 4 liter one. In what chassis? At what weight? The latest Apple displays I'm using that are glossy easily trump my 30" Cinema Display in terms of being pleasant to read. They might be better in matte but the underlying display quality and technology has proven to be far more important than the coating.
JVIDEL 14y ago
I have both and well, glossy blows: not only it reflects nearly everything around it more than a CRT would but its also a dirt magnet. Too bad these days a lot of laptops, specially mid to highend models come with glossy screens. Unless you're working in a cave you'll get reflections all the time.
ixacto 14y ago
matte, all the way. You can get a refurb 30" LCD + MBP for the price of a retina MBP...
billirvine 14y ago
> Is a glossy or matte LCD screen better for long coding sessions? Better for you than screen choice: standing desk - you will code better and faster Better for you than screen choice: inject 2 minutes of getting up and walking around every 15-20 minutes of your "long coding" session - you will code better and faster Better for you than screen choice: start your long coding session after 30 minutes of moderate exercise (walk or bike ride) - you will code better and faster -- after the above is in play -- It probably won't matter which one you choose.
gilgoomesh 14y ago
One point against matte screens that you need to consider... Matte screen coatings eliminate reflections by diffusing them over the entire field of view. As the total brightness of your room increases, matte screens diffuse all of it evenly, eliminating reflections but also losing contrast ratio. As the total ambient light increases, your screen's contrast ratio can drop from 800:1 to 50:1 (or worse). Any contrast ratio lower than about 300:1 can cause eye strain. End result: with a typical screen of about 200cd/m^2 a matte coating is totally unusable if your room is brighter than about 1000 lux but falls below 300:1 contrast around 450 lux (typical office lux is between 350 and 500). In summary... you need to know your environment. Matte screens work great in dark rooms with lots of spot lights to cause reflections. Glossy screens work great in bright ambient conditions with even lighting. Semi matte works well if you need a balance.
- thrownaway2424 14y ago
  Is that typical? The monitor I'm using right now maxes out at 370 nits, not 200.
- alok-g 14y ago
  Is there any data in support for < 300:1 contrast ratio causing eye strain? Kindles have a contrast ratio of about 10:1 [1]. As I know, prints have contrast ratio in 10:1 to 15:1 range. [1] http://www.best-ereaders.com/2010/09/02/eink-pearl-vs-eink-vizplex/ http://www.best-ereaders.com/2010/09/02/eink-pearl-vs-eink-v...
  - gilgoomesh 14y ago
    No, I don't have data. I'm running off memory from when I worked at a printing and display company (8 years ago so memory could be faulty). The point is actually related to the way your eye adjusts to ambient brightness levels. It's not about the contrast on its own but about the contrast, the number of brightness levels of the display and the brightness level with respect to the ambient conditions. The rule of thumb was that less than 300:1 starts to cause eye strain on an 8 bits per channel (256 levels) gamma power curve (non-linear) device when the device had a limited maximum brightness output (for LCDs at the time that was 200cd/m^2) and the room was bright (for an office). Kindles are 4 bits per channel (16 levels) linear and their contrast ratio isn't a complete lie (unlike most LCD makers contrast ratios who report only the absolute best case). But that's not the biggest reason why they're different. Kindles don't emit light, they reflect it (not including the Kindle White and Fire). This means that they maintain their brightness level with respect to the environment much better. Of course, Kindles start to suffer at low light (for similar reasons -- they lose their apparent contrast level).

35 points by Charles__L 14y ago

arrrg 14y ago

It’s just opinions. There isn’t any answer there. (I’m not even sure there is one. The difference may be too small to be able to say that in general, one or the other is better. Maybe it’s really down to opinion.)

alexanderh 14y ago
Matte is hands down superior in almost all situations except games and movies. People who own computers that don't give them the option often formulate excuses or justifications, but I dont think anyone with extensive experience with both would ever choose glossy. Matte wins hands down with everyone i know.
- lotsofpulp 14y ago
  Agree, looking at a matte screen is much easier on my eyes than any glossy screen has been. Everything looks smoother, the colors softer, and zero glare.
- manaskarekar 14y ago
  Agreed on all counts, in addition, I think matte allows you to lower the screen brightness way lower than glossy. You have to maintain a certain brightness to overcome the reflections on a glossy screen, and I feel brightness is one of the biggest factors in causing eye strain.
- arrrg 14y ago
  That’s your opinion and helps no one decide.
dchichkov 14y ago
I'm not in any way an expert, but ergonomics of a workplace is not just opinions. [It is actually important. Poor workplace ergonomics can cause adverse health effects. And I'd guess, that a glare-type screens is a joke in the eyes of an ergonomics export.]

jamesmcn 14y ago

Whatever idiosyncratic stuff you do that helps you get into the zone for a long coding session is perfectly fine. Shortly after landing my first job out of college, I picked up Orbital's first two albums and listened to them nonstop with a bit of Autechre and Aphex Twin while coding. After I left that job, I misplaced the Orbital albums, but kept listening to Autechre and Aphex Twin while doing other stuff. Last week I picked up Orbital 1 and 2 again, and put them on while coding. BAM right into the zone. Probably won't work for you, but it works for me.

DanBC 14y ago

If you can control the lighting conditions then glossy is probably better. If you have less control of lighting, or of position of the screen, or etc then matte is probably better. This is assuming both glossy and matte monitor are equal for everything else.

jamesmcn 14y ago

If anyone reading this is interested in throwing caution to the wind and doing a hardware startup: I'd love a 24" eInk display or two, connected via USB. Ideally usable in either portrait or landscape orientation. Sure, the refresh rate would be super slow, but I'd use it for documentation and other reference material while actually coding on my macbook or one of my external LCD displays.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
switz 14y ago
I've always wanted an e-ink display for development. Would be so cool.
- aaronblohowiak 14y ago
  http://tinyapps.org/docs/e-ink-monitor.html http://tinyapps.org/docs/e-ink-monitor.html
cskau 14y ago
I was watching a bunch of YouTube reviews of some of the current generation of ereaders. And what struck me the most is how good the refresh rate was on some of these devices. In the some of videos they show how even pinch zooming and panning around is possible, which I think is really impressive. Surely it's not the rate of an LCD but I bet it would be near usable for coding. I guess what I would miss the most is color syntax highlighting. I'm curious, since you mention USB, if you've done any calculations on USB vs Eink bandwidth? Would USB2.0 have enough to keep up with 24" worth of "pixels" even at Eink's relative low refresh rate? Or would USB3.0?
- shrughes 14y ago
  Let's say it's 24" at twice the resolution of 1920x1200 or four times the pixels, with 8 bit grayscale (because this is a fancy e-ink display, after all). USB 3.0 can do 5 Gbps which means 67 Hz would be an upper bound.

skrebbel 14y ago

Isn't the healthy answer "either, and frequent breaks"? You should never look at a single focal point too long at a stretch, no matter its shininess.

spodek 14y ago

Did everybody get so busy that they forgot how to find things out for themselves? Try both. Figure out what variables you have to control for and control for them. If you can't tell, it probably doesn't matter. Obviously some people prefer one or the other. If glossy gives you headaches and matte doesn't, does it matter how many people prefer glossy? So why ask them when you can get the data yourself? If you think the difference affects your health and performance, isn't it worth the experiment? If it doesn't, why bother asking?

roryokane 14y ago
Asking is cheaper than performing the experiment. The asker probably can’t afford buying one matte and one glossy monitor just to try them out. They also might not know anybody else with the other kind of monitor to compare with. That is especially likely if they’re buying a laptop with a built-in display – it’s unlikely that they’ll know two people with that model of laptop, with the same size of display, but one display matte and the other glossy.
- 001sky 14y ago
  If glossy gives you headaches and matte doesn't, does it matter how many people prefer glossy? -- Some experiments are non-reversible Damage to your eyes, for example. This is one area that asking for peer comps should not be crtiticised as just being lazy. Pay it forward, and all that. IMHO.

ScottBurson 14y ago

I've noticed that at least some of the MacBook Air screens -- and the Retina MBP screen? -- are glossy, but with an anti-reflection coating. I've been wondering for some time why Apple hasn't been using using AR coatings on their glossy screens. These coatings used to be standard on high-end CRT monitors. Anyway, I'm glad to see Apple coming around on this. Interesting, too, that they don't seem to be talking about it at all. Maybe they're worried that advertising some of their screens as AR-coated will draw attention to the fact that others, such as their 27" Thunderbolt monitor, are not. (I tried to use one of those for a few days, and gave up; the reflections were driving me nuts.)

gurkendoktor 14y ago
I came here to say this. The glossy MBP 13" screen has driven me nuts, I did the whole online petition dance, and it turns out the MBA 13" isn't half as bad. Dropping the glossy black bezel helps, too. The only thing better would be a matte, black bezel (to hide the camera hole).
- stock_toaster 14y ago
  It will be curious to see how significant the glare on the supposed retina MBP 13" turns out to be.

tomlu 14y ago

I've recently had the pleasure of purchasing the 30" matte Dell U3011 IPS and the 27" semi-glossy Samsung S27B970 PLS. There are pros and cons to both. The anti-glare coating on the Dell makes black text on white background look absolutely rubbish, fuzzy and hard to read. You can sort of get used to it, but every time you switch back from using the semi-glossy Macbook it looks terrible. Black themes don't suffer from these problems nearly as much. With the Samsung, colours look much more vibrant and text is sharper. Reflections are very much an issue, especially with black themes. In very bright conditions with visible light sources the screen becomes almost unusable. Overall, if I could control my lighting, I would go with semi-glossy. Otherwise I would suffer the Dell's anti-glare. I find that both fuzzy text and reflections lead to eye strain and headaches. If they could tone down the anti-glare strength (but still leave some AG coating) I would probably go for that in all circumstances. On an unrelated note, I do prefer the 30" pixel pitch (.25 mm) to the 27" (.23 mm). At the given viewing distance the .25mm pixel pitch more closely matches my Macbook's, meaning you can use the same font sizes for both.

ojbyrne 14y ago

The mention of "wide screen" in the second most voted comment reminded me of my biggest pet peeves for monitors in 2012 - the disappearance of 16:10 monitors.

shrughes 14y ago
If it makes you feel better, larger 16:9 monitors are much less expensive than 16:10 monitors were previously.
lifeformed 14y ago
Get a big 16:9 one, and use a wide, vertical taskbar. It'll cut you down to 16:10 and you get the joys of using a wide, vertical taskbar: http://snag.gy/0pZP1.jpg http://snag.gy/0pZP1.jpg

petercooper 14y ago

I think the general quality of the screen is far more important than glossy or matte. It's like asking if a 2 liter engine is better than a 4 liter one. In what chassis? At what weight? The latest Apple displays I'm using that are glossy easily trump my 30" Cinema Display in terms of being pleasant to read. They might be better in matte but the underlying display quality and technology has proven to be far more important than the coating.

JVIDEL 14y ago

I have both and well, glossy blows: not only it reflects nearly everything around it more than a CRT would but its also a dirt magnet. Too bad these days a lot of laptops, specially mid to highend models come with glossy screens. Unless you're working in a cave you'll get reflections all the time.

ixacto 14y ago

matte, all the way. You can get a refurb 30" LCD + MBP for the price of a retina MBP...

billirvine 14y ago

> Is a glossy or matte LCD screen better for long coding sessions? Better for you than screen choice: standing desk - you will code better and faster Better for you than screen choice: inject 2 minutes of getting up and walking around every 15-20 minutes of your "long coding" session - you will code better and faster Better for you than screen choice: start your long coding session after 30 minutes of moderate exercise (walk or bike ride) - you will code better and faster -- after the above is in play -- It probably won't matter which one you choose.

gilgoomesh 14y ago

One point against matte screens that you need to consider... Matte screen coatings eliminate reflections by diffusing them over the entire field of view. As the total brightness of your room increases, matte screens diffuse all of it evenly, eliminating reflections but also losing contrast ratio. As the total ambient light increases, your screen's contrast ratio can drop from 800:1 to 50:1 (or worse). Any contrast ratio lower than about 300:1 can cause eye strain. End result: with a typical screen of about 200cd/m^2 a matte coating is totally unusable if your room is brighter than about 1000 lux but falls below 300:1 contrast around 450 lux (typical office lux is between 350 and 500). In summary... you need to know your environment. Matte screens work great in dark rooms with lots of spot lights to cause reflections. Glossy screens work great in bright ambient conditions with even lighting. Semi matte works well if you need a balance.

thrownaway2424 14y ago
Is that typical? The monitor I'm using right now maxes out at 370 nits, not 200.
alok-g 14y ago
Is there any data in support for < 300:1 contrast ratio causing eye strain? Kindles have a contrast ratio of about 10:1 [1]. As I know, prints have contrast ratio in 10:1 to 15:1 range. [1] http://www.best-ereaders.com/2010/09/02/eink-pearl-vs-eink-vizplex/ http://www.best-ereaders.com/2010/09/02/eink-pearl-vs-eink-v...
- gilgoomesh 14y ago
  No, I don't have data. I'm running off memory from when I worked at a printing and display company (8 years ago so memory could be faulty). The point is actually related to the way your eye adjusts to ambient brightness levels. It's not about the contrast on its own but about the contrast, the number of brightness levels of the display and the brightness level with respect to the ambient conditions. The rule of thumb was that less than 300:1 starts to cause eye strain on an 8 bits per channel (256 levels) gamma power curve (non-linear) device when the device had a limited maximum brightness output (for LCDs at the time that was 200cd/m^2) and the room was bright (for an office). Kindles are 4 bits per channel (16 levels) linear and their contrast ratio isn't a complete lie (unlike most LCD makers contrast ratios who report only the absolute best case). But that's not the biggest reason why they're different. Kindles don't emit light, they reflect it (not including the Kindle White and Fire). This means that they maintain their brightness level with respect to the environment much better. Of course, Kindles start to suffer at low light (for similar reasons -- they lose their apparent contrast level).