3 ms·

What's with the recent trend of putting matte coatings on the most "premium" devices? This TV does it, the Steam Deck's done it, and it almost always looks ter

by klausa 5mo ago

What's with the recent trend of putting matte coatings on the most "premium" devices? This TV does it, the Steam Deck's done it, and it almost always looks terrible (the nano-etching on recent MBPs is _fine_; but still makes the text noticeably fuzzier). The market for top-end TVs is the people who _really_ care about image quality, why would you jeopardize that with a coating that makes it _worse_? I'm fine with this being an option for those who want it, but associating "top-end" with matte is bizarre to me. I regularly regret buying the OG 512 GB Steam Deck because the matte coating on it is just so bad.

bayindirh 5mo ago
Two reasons: Wider viewing angles and light reflection rejection. Not every TV is used by two people in a room devoid of lighting. Friends will come over, other things will be watched. Some people are very bothered when the ceiling lighting or sunlight from the window "alters" the image. Enthusiasts are an interesting bunch. Some features loved by others are grave flaws for others. One can't make everyone happy, so matte screens are an acceptable compromise for it, AFAIK. My old Bravia is matte-ish without "Viewing angle extending layer", which reduces contrast apparently. I'm happy with what I have. It shows moving images, syncs with sound, and is big enough.
- klausa 5mo ago
  > Not every TV is used by two people in a room devoid of lighting. Friends will come over, other things will be watched. Some people are very bothered when the ceiling lighting or sunlight from the window "alters" the image. > Enthusiasts are an interesting bunch. Some features loved by others are grave flaws for others. One can't make everyone happy, so matte screens are an acceptable compromise for it, AFAIK. You know what, fair enough. I don't mind these; but I do _hate_ the blurriness that the matte coatings introduce. Now, I wouldn't call my wife a TV tech enthusiast, but I do know that she's bothered by the reflections occasionally when I don't mind, and I know with her eyesight she straight up physically cannot notice the extra blurriness that the coatings bring.
  - drcongo 5mo ago
    Once the screen is 10ft away I doubt any human alive could perceive a sharpness difference from a nano texture.
    - klausa 5mo ago
      I’d now be actually curious to do a Pepsi-style challenge to test this on myself. I give myself a ~low 40% chance of being able to tell within a minute when watching a TV show/movie _without subtitles_, maybe 60%ish with subtitles, and maybe low 80% if I was playing a game with any amount of text rendered on the screen.
      - jorvi 5mo ago
        You don't really need to do a challenge: https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-televis... If you own a 50" 2160p ("4K") TV and are sitting more than 1.8m / 6ft away, you're already at the edge of being able to perceive any resolution increase over 1080p. For a 65" TV, its about 2.5m / 8ft. So no, at typical viewing distance you are very unlikely to notice a sharpness decrease. Tangentially related, but this is also why the 4K chase on this console generation is so stupid. The vast, vast majority of people will be viewing their TV way beyond the recommended viewing distance, and thus will only be resolving to 1080p with their eyes. We should be chasing better-looking effects and 120 FPS.
        klausa 5mo ago
        I’m at 65” and less than 2m away, and I absolutely can tell when text is not rendered at native resolution, which is why I’m also confident I’d be able to notice the matte coating too. (I am also probably like three standard deviations _more annoyed_ by the blurriness than an average person, I’m more than willing to believe that an average person wouldn’t be able to tell, or at least wouldn’t be bothered by it anywhere close to the degree that I am.)
        5mo ago
izacus 5mo ago
I explicitly bought a high-end matte TV (Samsungs S95D) because of the coating - I like having light in my living room which means a lot of reflections from windows and other lights. Matte coating pretty much solved all my issues with glare and reflections and I don't have to sit in darkness while watching things anymore, it's great. The tradeoffs are negligible and appear in situations where other TVs would be unwatchable. It's been a bigger QoL upgrade than actually switching to OLED.
- klausa 5mo ago
  Is it fully matte, like on a desktop monitor, or is it some "reflection reduction" semi-gloss/semi-matter whatever magical coating?
  - izacus 5mo ago
    I can't really say - there is an obvious film on it. The light/reflections turn into a very diffuse, barely visible lighter spot.
- thom 5mo ago
  Yeah we have one of these in our kitchen diner and it's excellent.
kawsper 5mo ago
I just don’t want to be reminded how I look like while using these devices, it’s really distracting to me. If I wanted to know what I look like, I use a mirror.
hgoel 5mo ago
I haven't had any problems with the Deck's matte coating, but if it really bothers you, you can replace the screen, they're $40, and the Deck was designed to be repairable.
zamadatix 5mo ago
Because matte vs glossy is a separate discussion from cheap vs premium. The former is about marching the expected viewing conditions and the latter is about how advanced it tries to be about doing so. If you want the most optimal possible viewing experience you need to combine multiple aspects like that, not just buy a premium device.
- klausa 5mo ago
  > Because matte vs glossy is a separate discussion from cheap vs premium. My whole complaint is that it increasingly isn’t! If I wanted a “premium” variant of Steam Deck, I had no choice to opt out of matte coating. If I want the best TV panel possible from Sony, it only comes with the matte coating. I’m fine with the option for matte being there for folks who like this! I just want to be able to opt-out of it, if I still want the “best” among other axes.
  - jorvi 5mo ago
    This echoes the tug-of-war customers are having over controller (and Steam Deck) size haha. People with big hands think the Steam Deck and PS5 controller are perfect and the Switch and PS4 controller suck. People with small hands feel the exact opposite. The option is either clever engineering or choice. Apple chose the engineering route with their nanotexture screen coatings. Microsoft has done it with the XSX controller, which has clever cut-outs so people with small hands (kids) can hold it in a different but still-comfortable way. Hopefully TV OEMS figure out a way to ape Apple.
  - zamadatix 5mo ago
    About half the time in the last few years Sony's flagship OLED and Mini LED options have been glossy. When they haven't, they've been semi-glossy. Short of every model being duplicated, 50% of the time is all one can hope for.
numpad0 5mo ago
That's the wrong way around. Matte is better for performance but gloss attract consumers so Apple puts "Pro" and glossy front in the same product. Actual pro displays are always matte, a bit like how actual pro cameras always have non-clicking shutter buttons but reviewers point that out as a con.
Melatonic 5mo ago
I don't think "matte" needs to be blurry ? Proper screen should be neither super glossy or super matte. From what I remember screens designed for color correction and whatnot are usually a sort of in between. Could also be that at the TV size the outer screen itself is glass (which is naturally "glossy" but also much clearer and lower abbe value than any plastic) so a coating to reduce reflections might be ideal. I doubt they're talking about the kind of crappy "matte" screen you might associate with an old ass Thinkpad laptop or something.

by klausa 5mo ago

bayindirh 5mo ago

Two reasons: Wider viewing angles and light reflection rejection. Not every TV is used by two people in a room devoid of lighting. Friends will come over, other things will be watched. Some people are very bothered when the ceiling lighting or sunlight from the window "alters" the image. Enthusiasts are an interesting bunch. Some features loved by others are grave flaws for others. One can't make everyone happy, so matte screens are an acceptable compromise for it, AFAIK. My old Bravia is matte-ish without "Viewing angle extending layer", which reduces contrast apparently. I'm happy with what I have. It shows moving images, syncs with sound, and is big enough.

klausa 5mo ago
> Not every TV is used by two people in a room devoid of lighting. Friends will come over, other things will be watched. Some people are very bothered when the ceiling lighting or sunlight from the window "alters" the image. > Enthusiasts are an interesting bunch. Some features loved by others are grave flaws for others. One can't make everyone happy, so matte screens are an acceptable compromise for it, AFAIK. You know what, fair enough. I don't mind these; but I do _hate_ the blurriness that the matte coatings introduce. Now, I wouldn't call my wife a TV tech enthusiast, but I do know that she's bothered by the reflections occasionally when I don't mind, and I know with her eyesight she straight up physically cannot notice the extra blurriness that the coatings bring.
- drcongo 5mo ago
  Once the screen is 10ft away I doubt any human alive could perceive a sharpness difference from a nano texture.
  - klausa 5mo ago
    I’d now be actually curious to do a Pepsi-style challenge to test this on myself. I give myself a ~low 40% chance of being able to tell within a minute when watching a TV show/movie _without subtitles_, maybe 60%ish with subtitles, and maybe low 80% if I was playing a game with any amount of text rendered on the screen.
    - jorvi 5mo ago
      You don't really need to do a challenge: https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-televis... If you own a 50" 2160p ("4K") TV and are sitting more than 1.8m / 6ft away, you're already at the edge of being able to perceive any resolution increase over 1080p. For a 65" TV, its about 2.5m / 8ft. So no, at typical viewing distance you are very unlikely to notice a sharpness decrease. Tangentially related, but this is also why the 4K chase on this console generation is so stupid. The vast, vast majority of people will be viewing their TV way beyond the recommended viewing distance, and thus will only be resolving to 1080p with their eyes. We should be chasing better-looking effects and 120 FPS.
      - klausa 5mo ago
        I’m at 65” and less than 2m away, and I absolutely can tell when text is not rendered at native resolution, which is why I’m also confident I’d be able to notice the matte coating too. (I am also probably like three standard deviations _more annoyed_ by the blurriness than an average person, I’m more than willing to believe that an average person wouldn’t be able to tell, or at least wouldn’t be bothered by it anywhere close to the degree that I am.)
        5mo ago

izacus 5mo ago

I explicitly bought a high-end matte TV (Samsungs S95D) because of the coating - I like having light in my living room which means a lot of reflections from windows and other lights. Matte coating pretty much solved all my issues with glare and reflections and I don't have to sit in darkness while watching things anymore, it's great. The tradeoffs are negligible and appear in situations where other TVs would be unwatchable. It's been a bigger QoL upgrade than actually switching to OLED.

klausa 5mo ago
Is it fully matte, like on a desktop monitor, or is it some "reflection reduction" semi-gloss/semi-matter whatever magical coating?
- izacus 5mo ago
  I can't really say - there is an obvious film on it. The light/reflections turn into a very diffuse, barely visible lighter spot.
thom 5mo ago
Yeah we have one of these in our kitchen diner and it's excellent.

kawsper 5mo ago

I just don’t want to be reminded how I look like while using these devices, it’s really distracting to me. If I wanted to know what I look like, I use a mirror.

hgoel 5mo ago

I haven't had any problems with the Deck's matte coating, but if it really bothers you, you can replace the screen, they're $40, and the Deck was designed to be repairable.

zamadatix 5mo ago

Because matte vs glossy is a separate discussion from cheap vs premium. The former is about marching the expected viewing conditions and the latter is about how advanced it tries to be about doing so. If you want the most optimal possible viewing experience you need to combine multiple aspects like that, not just buy a premium device.

klausa 5mo ago
> Because matte vs glossy is a separate discussion from cheap vs premium. My whole complaint is that it increasingly isn’t! If I wanted a “premium” variant of Steam Deck, I had no choice to opt out of matte coating. If I want the best TV panel possible from Sony, it only comes with the matte coating. I’m fine with the option for matte being there for folks who like this! I just want to be able to opt-out of it, if I still want the “best” among other axes.
- jorvi 5mo ago
  This echoes the tug-of-war customers are having over controller (and Steam Deck) size haha. People with big hands think the Steam Deck and PS5 controller are perfect and the Switch and PS4 controller suck. People with small hands feel the exact opposite. The option is either clever engineering or choice. Apple chose the engineering route with their nanotexture screen coatings. Microsoft has done it with the XSX controller, which has clever cut-outs so people with small hands (kids) can hold it in a different but still-comfortable way. Hopefully TV OEMS figure out a way to ape Apple.
- zamadatix 5mo ago
  About half the time in the last few years Sony's flagship OLED and Mini LED options have been glossy. When they haven't, they've been semi-glossy. Short of every model being duplicated, 50% of the time is all one can hope for.

numpad0 5mo ago

That's the wrong way around. Matte is better for performance but gloss attract consumers so Apple puts "Pro" and glossy front in the same product. Actual pro displays are always matte, a bit like how actual pro cameras always have non-clicking shutter buttons but reviewers point that out as a con.

Melatonic 5mo ago

I don't think "matte" needs to be blurry ? Proper screen should be neither super glossy or super matte. From what I remember screens designed for color correction and whatnot are usually a sort of in between. Could also be that at the TV size the outer screen itself is glass (which is naturally "glossy" but also much clearer and lower abbe value than any plastic) so a coating to reduce reflections might be ideal. I doubt they're talking about the kind of crappy "matte" screen you might associate with an old ass Thinkpad laptop or something.