Any REAL video editor or graphic designer would NEVER count on their notebook display for color accuracy, that's just suicide.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
About these glossy screens on the Macbook Pro..
- Thread starter mode
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Phenomenon said:
Especially a glossy one!
But seriously, the argument that "well laptop LCDs are bad, so you should make them worse by getting glossy" isn't very good.
gloss said:
It's common sense, first of all, and secondly I'm sure wouldn't take you more than five minutes on Google to discover. I'm not going to find you information that you are too lazy to get. If you want to believe that shiny glossy pretty screens are actually better, then nothing I can show you will change your mind. Even though, I'm fairly confident I have more experience than you in this area, it's your decision whether to take what I say (and a huge majority of graphics professionals) or to continue to believe what you want.
EDIT: See this poll thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/201210/
A "huge majority of graphics professionals"? I think your under the impression that these glossy screens are exactly like past glossy screens on PC, but thats just not true. I've seen those and they are nothing like the macbook glossy screens. They haven't been out long enough for the "majority of graphics professionals" to form an educated opinion on the matter. It sounds to me that your spewing made up statistics to prove your point.
dpaanlka said:
craigatkinson said:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/201210/
It sounds more like you refuse to acknowledge the truth; that Apple finally gave in to all the newbies who see a glossy screen and think "oooh, ahhh, pretty!!"
And glare is glare, no matter how you cut it. Yes, I've seen them in person, and they're as disgusting as all the other glossy screens I've ever seen. I hope the ACDs dont go glossy too - no serious professional would buy a glossy screen for any sort of important work.
Why in the world would I refuse to acknowledge the fact that glossy screens have a glare problem if I believed they did? I own a computer with a glossy screen and have no problems with it. I'm not saying others don't have a problem in different ennvironments. But it must be a limited amoung of environments because I've NEVER had the problem. I also took issue with your statistics that seemed pulled out of thin air. In the future, after enough time has past, a maroity of graphics professionals may very well conclude that matte is better than glossy. Enough time has not past yet for such a majority opinion to be made.
dpaanlka said:
Petrol for the fire anyone?
You can't print a movie.
Therefore, surely the colour "accuracy" of a glossy screen versus matte is more subjective? It would depend on what the viewer of the "pro" movie or picture was viewing it on. Surely it's equally stupid to create a picture or movie on a matte screen that will be later seen on glossy screens?
It seems to me that this argument should not go any further than whether people are willing to sacrifice glare reduction for better contrast.
Anything more is personal opinion.
You can't print a movie.
Therefore, surely the colour "accuracy" of a glossy screen versus matte is more subjective? It would depend on what the viewer of the "pro" movie or picture was viewing it on. Surely it's equally stupid to create a picture or movie on a matte screen that will be later seen on glossy screens?
It seems to me that this argument should not go any further than whether people are willing to sacrifice glare reduction for better contrast.
Anything more is personal opinion.
craigatkinson said:
Yes, "a huge majority of graphics professions." That's what we call a blanket statement. You're not supposed to know any information more specific than that. He also won't help you search for information that you're too lazy to search for, but he'll certainly do a search of equal difficulty at MacRumours to find various meaningless threads that side with his opinion.
Either way, you need to calibrate your screen, glossy or matte. If you can calibrate your screen properly, then it doesn't really matter which screen finish you choose, because the colours would all end up "correct." Of course, whatever you do will never end up looking "correct" anyway, because you have no control of how these images will look like on someone elses screen (ie: a CRT, a crappy rev A or B 12" PowerBook screen, or a brand new top of the line Dell or Apple LCD (properly calibrated)).
With photo editing, you can't control how a photo will appear on someone elses screen either, but it's more important because printeries will print to some specific standard that you're also following. That's not necessarily the same with video. With video, what you watch a movie on (ie: CRT, LCD, Plasma, cinema projector, home projector, etc) matters a lot, and their contrast and brightness levels all vary greatly. You can't control that, and neither can any video store. This makes it different from photography.
But dpaanlka is a *cough*professional, so of course we shouldn't question what he "knows" to be true.
EDIT TO ADD: Darn, Erasmus beat me to one of my points --- a good point, at that.
God...this thread is being beaten to death. If you like glossy screens...great...If you don't....good. But those "huge majoraties of graphics professionals" out there (all one of you) should stop belittling everyone on this thread. If you truly are a professional, drop your case and hold on to your belief that you are superior to everyone else and you don't have to produce evidence when it is being asked for. Then you can end up in a hollow little mansion with only your matte screen to keep you sane!
freestyleguy128 said:
Sigh... you guys really love that phrase blanket statements. Who else are you going to believe besides somebody that actually does this as a job? Most of the people who write articles denouncing glossy screens are doing so from experience. Oh wait, I'm just making blanket statements, I must know nothing of what I speak, and your judgement on the subject must be far better.
Don't you realize that artificially making the colors richer than they actually are itself is what is causing the color inaccuracy debate? Thats the whole point! Colors are not supposed to be that rich! Why is that hard to understand? Why do you need articles proving this? If you don't agree, fine! Why do all these people keep asking then? Buy your glossy screen, and enjoy the perception of having better colors on DVDs and in iPhoto! Just don't expect it to be extremely accurate in Quark or Photoshop. I mean, it's not that bad, but it doesn't cut it if you need hardcore accuracy. That's all there is to it.
If you can stand the glare and reflection, then good for you! By all means by a glossy screen. Just understand that there are many people who do not want artificially rich colors and high contrast, and who cannot stand the reflections!
So far these glossy threads seem to be following this pattern:
Poster 1: What do you all think of the glossy screens.
Poster 2: I hate them they're so reflective and the colors are wrong.
Poster 1: The reflection is fine for me, you need to start looking at your display straight on. What do you mean the colors are wrong? They're sooo rich!
Poster 2: That's impossible in many situations. And the colors are wrong for reasons x,y,z...
Poster 1: Show me articles proving it!
Poster 2: (Shakes head) oh forget it...
EDIT: I don't know if I would even trust a calibrator on a glossy screen.
poppe said:
Well, you've heard both sides bash it out here, and there are lots of other threads on it. Make your own decision then! Surely, you must have enough opinions now to judge for yourself?
If you want glossy and you believe you can be most productive with a glossy screen, then get that. If you believe you would be most productive on a matte screen, then get that instead.Do us all a favor and DON'T GET IT. I have had a glossy screen on my HP laptop (no longer have because of this) since glossy first came out, 2 years? I used it all around school, in the library, in my room, at home, in the car.
ALL AROUND, it blows, sucks, is aweful, very very bad.
again this is my opinion. I dont even like it when there is no glare. I am not buying a macbook because of this. The only thing it does is CRANK UP THE SATURATION, and because of that, gives you 100% glare.
I think its just a marketing scheme to make people think, oohhhh, these macbooks have a lot of features like an upgraded screen.
ALL AROUND, it blows, sucks, is aweful, very very bad.
again this is my opinion. I dont even like it when there is no glare. I am not buying a macbook because of this. The only thing it does is CRANK UP THE SATURATION, and because of that, gives you 100% glare.
I think its just a marketing scheme to make people think, oohhhh, these macbooks have a lot of features like an upgraded screen.
Do you own either?
But anyway, for the OP, go to a Apple store or a reseller and take a looksy for yourself. I have glossy and will never go back to matted.dpaanlka said:Well, you've heard both sides bash it out here, and there are lots of other threads on it. Make your own decision then! Surely, you must have enough opinions now to judge for yourself?
yes the best idea is to go to an apple store and compare the 2 screens. people will say one thing or another, but in the end, it comes down to personal preference. I was also torn between glossy and matte, and in the end went with glossy. I am 100% satisfied... I am sitting next to a window with sunshine pouring in and I can see the screen perfectly. Glare is not an issue whatsoever- I simply dont see glare at the angles I have my screen at. but again, it comes down to personal preference
I have got both MacBook Pro with matt screen, and a black MacBook with glossy screen. And I like them both. One sits at home, another (the Black) goes with me to work.
I have done some photo editing on the MacBook, but I find it easier on the MacBook Pro's matt and larger screen.
I have done some photo editing on the MacBook, but I find it easier on the MacBook Pro's matt and larger screen.
Children, please!
Nah, thanks for your valuable input, everybody. I think I might head over to the Apple store nearby and check the MacBook Pros out a little more. I'll be sure to get a good look at the displays and draw a conclusion from there, but its sounding like I may just stick with matte. The display on my current iMac hasn't let me down yet, and I like what I'm seeing so far, so I think I'm gonna stay on the road I'm on right now.
Nah, thanks for your valuable input, everybody. I think I might head over to the Apple store nearby and check the MacBook Pros out a little more. I'll be sure to get a good look at the displays and draw a conclusion from there, but its sounding like I may just stick with matte. The display on my current iMac hasn't let me down yet, and I like what I'm seeing so far, so I think I'm gonna stay on the road I'm on right now.
also note that apple's glossy screen is much better than other glossies I have seen. I have seen one friend's dell and another's hp... both glossy screens have MUCH more glare than my glossy MBP screen.... fyi
dpaanlka said:
Most people don't need hardcore colour accuracy, but if you did, you'd calibrate your screen. Again, it really shouldn't matter whether your screen is matte or glossy if it's calibrated properly.
I just had my screen calibrated with a Greta MacBeth, and the colours look fantastic. The glossy screen still allows the screen to be way too bright at full brightness, which is good in a way.
This is the only comment of value...
That's it, boys and girls HALEYVAN is right !
In the end it's your individual decision, right? It's what YOU like or need...
When I decide on my 17" core duo 64, with an 800Mhz frontside bus, 4+ GB Ram, of course in anodized strawberry-reddd, and four-wheel drive
Honestly the discussion is pointless, as long as you are given a choice by the MAKER
We are all in big POOP, when Steven decides to use a holographic "screen" ha.
CIAO
haleyvan said:
That's it, boys and girls
HALEYVAN is right ! In the end it's your individual decision, right? It's what YOU like or need...
When I decide on my 17" core duo 64, with an 800Mhz frontside bus, 4+ GB Ram, of course in anodized strawberry-reddd, and four-wheel drive
Honestly the discussion is pointless, as long as you are given a choice by the MAKER
We are all in big POOP, when Steven decides to use a holographic "screen" ha.
CIAO
Yes. The panels (the ones everyone is calling "glossy") preserve a more consistent color spectrum across a wider viewing angle than the matte panels in use on other notebooks. No notebook panel is designed to the standards of a demanding graphics professional, and either type can be calibrated to the same degree of accuracy using mid-level tools. Extremely high-end calibration tools are meant for extremely high-end monitors. Notebooks cannot offer that level of quality because of space, weight, and power constraints and the extremely close proximity of the backlight tubes.dpaanlka said:
The fact that the angle, lighting, and backlighting levels are all variable means that unless you're going to use your notebook in a stationary position and never move it, there's no point trying to get perfect reproduction. Set a color profile on your production machine with the expensive high-fidelity display...and then use it on all your portables. Trust that the colors are correct and don't make drastic changes on the road that you can't test.
Given that the glossy panels are brighter and richer than what you might call "natural" or "correct," it actually improves my ability to tweak colors. If there's not enough distinction on the MagicBright panel, there definitely won't be on the $3000 workstation display that is perfectly calibrated. Likewise, it's suicide to try to do any sort of subtle coloration on a notebook--I've always had to adjust it when returning to the production machine whether I used my (matte) PowerBook or my (glossy) Dell...but I only do graphics work as a side hobby now, not a full time job.