I actually think it's much better than the ASD nano texture. The difficulty with matte treatments is they have to be as close to the actual display pixels as possible to not diffuse the pixel structure too much. The pixels are about as close to the surface of the screen as they can be on the iPad, while the Studio Display ... well, not quite so much. Anyway, you'll see soon.
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.
iPad Pro For anyone wondering about whether the Nano texture display is for them…
- Thread starter Macintosh101
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t know if this helps. But, when I was choosing which ASD, I chose the non-nano textured screen because of the impact on image accuracy for my black and white photography. In choosing a new iPad, I found the same effect.
HOWEVER, I think the effect is much less on the iPad from the nano-textured screen compared to the ASD. So, if you like it on the ASD, I can’t imagine you objecting to the iPad screen.
The pencil is the main thing giving me pause about exchanging for it, actually.
By most accounts there’s actually less tactile texture on that screen than the regular one. In the showroom, there was definitely much much less drag for my finger on the nano screen than regular and, though I didn’t think to try it, I understand the pencil works the same.
I’m a hooking left hander (ie my palm drags on the surface when I write or draw) so being so slippery for my hand sounds great. But not so much for the pencil.
I don’t think you’d want to put a paperlike protector over it either. I’d be scared even a magnetic one might damage the surface, and I doubt having two matte layers would look great—so what you get, you get.
But it looks so damned good for reading…
Literally nobody missed the point. Removing glare is the strength everybody is emphasizing.
What we don't know is what the exact compromises are in this iteration of nano texture. It's a new chemical process unlike the laser process of previous nano-textured displays.
Thank you everyone for sharing their experiences. I've noticed most (if not all) of the reviews I've seen from artists/photographers/videographers are saying great things about the Nano. Users who are mostly consuming media through their iPads aren't always in favor of it. As a full time photographer/designer the Nano Texture is a no brainer for me. Just waiting for June.
Shouldn’t be any compromise honestly I expected more from Apple then losing brightness or color just to reduce glare
Even Apple can't change the laws of physics.
Great post, thanks very much. Confirms my decision to stick with standard for now (especially given durability concerns). I know a few artists who have decided to not risk it on a $2000 device, and are still delighted with their new M4's.
Now all we need is something to take advantage of the power in it!
Now all we need is something to take advantage of the power in it!
How can there not be compromises? Matte always reduces sharpness, color and brightness. That’s why people generally prefer glass. LG has a new matte coating that is much better than usual but it’s not meant to hold up to infinite touching and the nib of an Apple Pencil. Even Wacom’s best pen tablet goes no further than 400 nits and certainly has worse color and sharpness than had it been glass.
Can someone explain to be how the nanostructure surface survive a pencil tip and likely some accidental contacts with nails but needs a special cloth for cleaning? Sounds like money grab to me. Perhaps people are too scared to "test" other cloths and cleaning methods on a device costing $2000
By the way, great option with a nano structured glass because it increases the capabilities of iPad in difficult light conditions.
By the way, great option with a nano structured glass because it increases the capabilities of iPad in difficult light conditions.
- “It’s much better for drawing”
- “It’s the same for drawing”
- “It’s actually worse for drawing”
I’ve heard all three from various artists I follow and people on this forum.
So, my conclusion is… I have no idea 🙂
Thank you!
As I imagine is typical with many "pro" users I felt I needed to max out the specs on the iPad and I'm glad I waited a little for feedback from the wider user community. Nano texture is definitely not for me.
Yes - I do use my iPad to edit and view photos. But I do so with my grubby hands.
My main uses (by time spent) are:
- reading and reviewing academic papers / reports / whitepapers
- communication
My Pro use is:
- (hopefully) to move much of my music workflow over to Logic Pro for iPad (with the exception of the Sound Toys plugin suite, everything I use is now available for iPad now that I've stopped using Native Instruments plugins in favour of my physical hardware synths and outboard effects). Were it not for this use case, I probably wouldn't bother with the pro - and even then I would imagine that an Air could almost do the job given that it's now as powerful as my MacBook.
- editing photos while travelling
The convenience of an iPad is so high it comes everywhere. From reading in bed, to reading recipes in the kitchen.
The nano texture is for Pro illustrators and photo editors working in their office environments. They can keep the device clean.
An aside: One thing that really frustrates me about YouTube (and other internet reviews) of these sorts of devices is that they're almost entirely from the point of view of a "content creator" whose content consists of reviews of devices. This is not normal use - even amongst content creators for YouTube. This completely skews the review away from realistic use. Worse, it can mean that product managers for the devices start to prioritise features for for the purpose of looking good in a review, rather than producing features that everyone needs.
I think if you are going to use Final Cut Pro for iPad 2 with Live Multicam, you should have 1TB, or better still 2TB. Then you get the 16GB of memory you need and the 4 P cores that help a lot. Then you decide whether you want nano or not, if you can live with the reflection. Not the other way round. Does that make sense?
I don’t use my iPad out in the sun and spend the majority of the time docked in my Magic keyboard, however I usually like to tap the screen, overall at the end of the day, a 200$ difference for nano display is swaying me to the glossy display at this rate.
It still blows my mind how the wait times have increased, or apple wasn’t expecting that much demand for iPads pro. For example, glossy display can ship out next week but nano is creeping up until July now
People can engrave stuff in regular glossy iPads too if they use something hard enough.
Can someone explain to be how the nanostructure surface survive a pencil tip and likely some accidental contacts with nails but needs a special cloth for cleaning? Sounds like money grab to me. Perhaps people are too scared to "test" other cloths and cleaning methods on a device costing $2000
By the way, great option with a nano structured glass because it increases the capabilities of iPad in difficult light conditions.
Apple's main concern is "please don't spray this with Windex and use a paper towel to clean it".
That said the Apple cloth doesn't leave fibers behind the way most microfiber cloths do, which is why it's especially recommended for the nano screens.
How many thousands of iPads are out there with the nano screen? If the Apple Pencil scratched them up, there would be outrage. I have a nano screen and an Apple Pencil and there is no way that happens.