iPad Pro For anyone wondering about whether the Nano texture display is for them…

[rkuo]

Re: not making the whole screen matte, the rational reportedly had to do with the sensors and cameras - they can’t be covered, so there would have been a lot of odd gaps and holes in the bezel to allow them to function. Apple felt it was better aesthetically to just leave the whole bezel ‘clean’.

I feel like if they just left the camera island glossy and etched the rest of the edges no one would have cared.

 

[ghostwind]

You are all MISSING the point here. The Nano removes glare. You can see top glossy display loads of reflections hard to see. Bottom nano - no reflections. Sure there is some diffuse light but that means you can see clearly.

The Nano display is for those that want to see the iPad and use it outside or in areas where the lighting isn’t great. That simple.

Yep. The tiny "blur" compared to the glossy is so, so minor to me. So is the tiny difference in black levels. What's important for me, as a photographer and videographer, is minimal glare, which is why one would get the nano. Unless I'm in front of my reference monitor in my grading suite, editing and coloring, I'm going to be in places where the lighting isn't great with my iPad. Why would I want ANY glare? I've had mine (13") since last Wednesday, and everywhere I've taken it (to show clients my work, review stuff, etc.) it's been fantastic. I've been waiting for this for a long time. A few clients also asked about it - they were also impressed how it looked. It's really a no-brainer to me, and the only reason I upgraded from the older version.

 

[NauticalDan]

If it was easier to wipe fingerprints away from the nano-texture glass, then it’s difficult to explain why that’s the one factor they differentiated on when deciding to include a special cleaning cloth.

It’s the easiest thing to test, go rub an oily fingerprint on a nanotexture display and try to wipe it wipe it off. If that works for well for anyone, I’d say go with the nano-texture glass. For me the trade offs (minus the fingerprints trade off) would make that my display of choice given how the minima loss of image quality.

 

[Jackbequickly]

If it was easier to wipe fingerprints away from the nano-texture glass, then it’s difficult to explain why that’s the one factor they differentiated on when deciding to include a special cleaning cloth.

It’s the easiest thing to test, go rub an oily fingerprint on a nanotexture display and try to wipe it wipe it off. If that works for well for anyone, I’d say go with the nano-texture glass. For me the trade offs (minus the fingerprints trade off) would make that my display of choice given how the minima loss of image quality.

‘It was the “special cleaning cloth included” that helped me make my choice for plain glass. Made me think it need a special cloth because screen is delicate. From what everyone says it is not delicate. Time will tell.

 

[schneeland]

The nano texture option is realistically only for a small percentage of customers.

I'm an ancient ThinkPad user/fan (using them since before IBM made them generally available to the public) and love matte screens. When Apple made matte screens an option for the Macbook Pro, I always spent the extra to get it. The Samsung monitor attached to my M2 Mac Mini is matte. My iPads all have matte screen protectors (image quality is fine).

But I'm in the very small minority.

I think if we are talking about laptop screens or regular monitors, there are more people like you - if there was a nano texture option for the current MacBooks, I would immediately take it.
But this thread was a good reminder that tablets are a bit different. Looking at my current iPads, regular cleaning is necessary. So something that requires special handling for cleaning is probably not a good option.

 

[klasma]

I feel like if they just left the camera island glossy and etched the rest of the edges no one would have cared.

That’s what they did on the Studio Display with nano texture. The iPad also has an ambient light sensor on the short side though. OTOH, maybe the ALS could still work well behind the nano texture.

 

[motorazr]

I agre with this wholeheartedly. A lot of this is going to depend on people’s vision too- we all perceive things slightly differently. For me, the “rainbowy effect on white backgrounds“ was very noticeable unfortunately, enough to be distracting. I’m not an illustrator or a phot-editor, a read a lot, and type a lot, and it really got in the way of enjoying that experience the for me. However, when in dark mode, it was much better. I just don’t want to use every app in dark mode all the time.

I think the nano texture is something most people definitely need to see and try out in person before making a decision.

If it hasn’t been said yet—

The rainbow effect is literally diffusion of light.

Think and LED without any cover to diffuse — the pin-prick precise lightning of the pixel is being diffused across a wider area in the nano-texture glass.

When I saw the studio display with it, I was caught off guard by how soft and fuzzy it felt. Ageed with OP that it almost seemed like it needed to be cleaned off at all times.

less related, why did matte displays of the past appear sharper? Was it from the much larger pixels and the grain matching? The high-res display on the 15” 2010/11 had a matte that was crisp. I only can guess IF this is the reason, than the nano texture is still not able to be properly paired to the pixel size to appear in the same way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[motorazr]

I think if we are talking about laptop screens or regular monitors, there are more people like you - if there was a nano texture option for the current MacBooks, I would immediately take it.
But this thread was a good reminder that tablets are a bit different. Looking at my current iPads, regular cleaning is necessary. So something that requires special handling for cleaning is probably not a good option.

Have you seen the nano texture studio display?

Asking as a genuine curiosity that you’d still prefer this option on a MacBook. I also long for a matte display but the nano texture doesn’t seem right to me.

 

[sracer]

I think if we are talking about laptop screens or regular monitors, there are more people like you - if there was a nano texture option for the current MacBooks, I would immediately take it.
But this thread was a good reminder that tablets are a bit different. Looking at my current iPads, regular cleaning is necessary. So something that requires special handling for cleaning is probably not a good option.

with regard to nano texture on tablets, that might be a bit different for others, but as I said, I have matte protectors on all of my tablets. There is no special handling or cleaning required. If the nano texture needs to be baby’ed, then that would be different from all of my other experiences… including the matte screen on my touchscreen ThinkPad.

But that wouldn’t surprise me since Apple devices seem to be more delicate by comparison.

 

[rui no onna]

‘It was the “special cleaning cloth included” that helped me make my choice for plain glass. Made me think it need a special cloth because screen is delicate. From what everyone says it is not delicate. Time will tell.

T-shirts don’t remove oil stains on my Kindle and Steam Deck with etched displays.

So far though, all the microfiber cloths I’ve tried have worked fine.

 

[rkuo]

Yep. The tiny "blur" compared to the glossy is so, so minor to me. So is the tiny difference in black levels. What's important for me, as a photographer and videographer, is minimal glare, which is why one would get the nano. Unless I'm in front of my reference monitor in my grading suite, editing and coloring, I'm going to be in places where the lighting isn't great with my iPad. Why would I want ANY glare? I've had mine (13") since last Wednesday, and everywhere I've taken it (to show clients my work, review stuff, etc.) it's been fantastic. I've been waiting for this for a long time. A few clients also asked about it - they were also impressed how it looked. It's really a no-brainer to me, and the only reason I upgraded from the older version.

I don't know if you've looked at these displays in person but the increase in black levels is not tiny. IMO it's quite significant in a normally lit room.

 

[Soccerrick10]

Yep. The tiny "blur" compared to the glossy is so, so minor to me. So is the tiny difference in black levels. What's important for me, as a photographer and videographer, is minimal glare, which is why one would get the nano.

As a black and white photographer, all we have in the arsenal are gradations of black to white. So my priority is to find the best display that retains the most dynamic range. Compared to the 13” standard display, the nano textured display is close but not quite as good FOR MY NEEDS.

The standard display was a near perfect match to my printer output.

 

[Tonewheelz]

I use my 3rd gen iPad Pro 11” (M1) to do all my photo editing an have been wanting to upgrade to the 13”. Hoping to get some input here from those who have experience with the nano texture vs non OLED iPad Pros.

Yes, I understand that there is reduced sharpness/contrast/saturation when compared to the OLED standard glass, but what about the non-OLED models?

My questions:


1. Is the contrast/saturation/sharpness so reduced on the nano texture, that edited photos will come out too saturated and contrast on other screens?

2. Any photographers who can chime in with thoughts on nano vs standard M4 models when it comes to editing photos? Similarly to mixing music, you want a flat response, not something bass heavy or V shaped. So, looking really for what will give the most accurate reproduction.

The idea of matted screen for diffusing light seems like a nice perk, but not at the expense of compromising accurate color reproduction or contrast when editing photos.

 

[H_D]

I’m a photographer that works almost 100% in black and white. When the 12.9” mini-led came out. I switched my photo editing to the ipad Pro.

I was very excited to see how the new OLED display would compare. So I headed to the Apple Store with my 12.9” and a high resolution print of one of my files. At the store I was able to compare my items with 13” standard and nano textured displays.

It is amazing how good all 4 looked viewing the same file, side by side. The differences are very subtle, but present. I’ve decided I’m going to upgrade to the 13” with standard screen. It is better than the mini-led in micro-contrast and depth. The nano lost in the micro-contrast and details just weren’t as crisp. The nano texture screen looks like it loses a little dynamic range. It was very similar to the 12.9”.

Admittedly, my use case is very specific. But, the breathtaking detail seen in my print was almost identical with the 13” standard screen. From a proofing point alone, this will save me time and money in paper and ink. So, I’m very excited about this update.

If only these displays would offer hardware calibration like the Eizos do.

 

[henrikhelmers]

He said there was a subset of people, mainly designers and illustrators, who knew they wanted the matte display due to its benefits when working with photos and drawings. They were delighted with it because they had been asking for it for a long time.

And there you have it. Unless you are part of that subset, the nano texture glass is not for you.

 

[Wind30]

I feel like if they just left the camera island glossy and etched the rest of the edges no one would have cared.

Exactly… I think the glare at the borders is very distracting…

 

[Yoms]

Isn't there some sort of screen protector that you can add and remove easily with anti-reflective coating?

I've seen something similar, i.e. removable, for drawing in order to improve the drawing experience on the iPad.

 

[stocklen]

I dont get why people just dont put a 'paperlike' screen protector on if they want this effect - at least you can choose and remove it if you dont need it or like it.

 

[schneeland]

Have you seen the nano texture studio display?

Asking as a genuine curiosity that you’d still prefer this option on a MacBook. I also long for a matte display but the nano texture doesn’t seem right to me.

Only in pictures and videos, not in person. So it could be that I would agree with you. For the most part, I really just wish there was a matte option for the screens again.

 

[teohyc]

I dont get why people just dont put a 'paperlike' screen protector on if they want this effect - at least you can choose and remove it if you dont need it or like it.

Because diffused reflections of bright light sources, e.g. sky, will be blindingly bright. As someone who uses the iPad outdoors often, I stopped using matte screen protectors and went with glossy display even though I'm not too fond of reflections. The good thing is Apple's anti-reflective coating is quite effective so reflections aren't too bothersome.

Apple nano-texture's diffused reflections looks less bright from what I can see through other people's photos and videos.

But I will have to get one to test it myself while outdoors. That's the extreme test.

 

[DMG35]

1. Apple doesn't give you a cloth because the Nano display collects more fingerprints. They provide a cloth because they are specific about what to wipe it with so you don't damage it.
- I personally think the fingerprints are MUCH less noticeable on the Nano display.

2. The glare reductions are awesome. I find it funny that people are "Well its only good if you are in a place with lighting overhead." Oh, you mean everywhere you go? The iPad is a portable device and not having the constant glare of the glossy screens is awesome. Yeah if I only used the iPad in my bedroom or on the couch where I can control the lighting then who cares. But out and about using it when you have no say in how a room is lit its great!

I love the Nano screen and there is no way I'd go back to glossy. Bottom line is, some people will like it, some won't. Some people want glossy, some don't . In the end you have a choice, which is always good.

 

[Zwhaler]

I just got back from visiting my local Apple Store. For background, I picked up my 11 inch M4 iPad Pro with a regular display on launch date. However, after watching various videos and hearing about the nano-texture display, I wanted to check it out further for myself, to see if it would be of use to me. I spent 45 minutes using the nano display. For anybody wondering about whether this display is for them, here are my observations:

• The most noticeable thing when using the nano display is how text appears. It is not that the text is necessary less sharp or blurry, but the text doesn’t pop as much, and any dark text on a white background looks degraded. The nano texture display gives the white screen a kind of hazy, shimmering appearance. It was incredibly distracting. The best way I can describe it was that I constantly felt like I wanted to clean the screen. This issue goes away in Dark Mode - i.e with white text on a dark background. So this will be less of an issue if you’re willing to use Dark Mode all the time.
• There is noticeably less contrast with the nano texture display, as others have pointed out. The benefits of the new OLED screen are entirely negated IMO. You only need to put the two iPad M4s side-by-side to see the difference between these displays in terms of contrast and blacks. The level of blacks on the nano-display is almost like looking at a regular LCD panel (think of an iPad Air or a MacBook Air)
• The screen feels different under your fingers. It does feel smoother.
• Photographs look stunning on the nano texture display. Absolutely stunning. Whilst they pop more on the regular glossy screen, photos (and drawings) on the nano display have the appearance of printed photographs.
• Obviously glare is much reduced (this is the main selling point).
• Fingerprints show far more on the nano display. They can leave a noticeable grey smudge, particularly when there is a white background.

A member of staff at the Apple Store told me that they had a lot of returns of the nano texture display - he said that many customers had bought the nano texture display and then returned it for the standard display. He said there was a subset of people, mainly designers and illustrators, who knew they wanted the matte display due to its benefits when working with photos and drawings. They were delighted with it because they had been asking for it for a long time.

Ultimately of course, so much of this is going to have to do with people’s perception (and their eyesight). The degradation in reading quality (for me) was stark. In my work I need to read a lot of text and write a lot of text, and I don’t always want to be doing this in dark mode. I also enjoy the deep inky blacks of the glossy OLED panel. For this reason the trade-offs are not worth it. To me the nano texture display is clearly for professionals who need to specific use case. Remember you have to pay to get the 1TB model and then an extra 100 to get the nano texture display. If there was a nano-texture option for the 256 GB model, I would not get it due to the trade-off in display quality. Even if the nano display was $100 cheaper than the regular display, I would not get it.

As always YMMV. Hope this helps some of you 👍🏼

Thanks for sharing. It's cool that Apple brought this option to the iPad even if only a small subset of users actually will benefit from it.

 

[aevan]

I feel like if they just left the camera island glossy and etched the rest of the edges no one would have cared.

Leaving the whole bezel glossy is a better looking solution. I don’t know why it bothers anyone.

 

[Analog Kid]

I wish my 13" nano would just freaking arrive. I really appreciate people trying so hard to explain their experience, but I'm realizing I'm not going to know until I see it for myself, where I intend to use it. Going to the Apple Store won't help, because I don't live or work in an Apple store. Too many variables, too many personal preferences... I've been using my ASD nano-texture as a reference, which I really like, but it's sounding more and more like it's not quite the same. Just gotta wait, I guess.

 

[Bartlomiej]

I have the glossy version and today I'm going to return it for the nano texture. Here's why:

The screen for me on the nano looks more like an e ink screen, it looks more realitistic.
The drop in contrast doesnt bother me so much, I have a OLED TV for watching movies.
The advantage of having less glare for a device that you can carry anywhere is a biggie for me.