Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Hands-On With the iPad Pro's Nano-Texture Glass - Is It Worth the Upgrade?

I am curious about the durability of the matte screen when I sneeze on it or after rub my oily fingers all over it. I use microfiber cloth to clean my iPad Pro screen often, but it does not seem like the nano texture is intended for constant cleaning. I use a Magic Keyboard, I'd probably want a special cleaning cloth that is the full size of the screen, to cushion it from laying against the keyboard.
 
I have both nano and regular. I interchange quite frequently depending on battery, and tbh, if you arent looking for it, you wont notice. The only thing I do notice is less reflections on the nano texture.
 
I swear the people claiming you can get the same effect from a mediocre piece of plastic screen protector are clearly not the intended audience. I have floor to ceiling west facing bay windows overlooking the water. Blocking the sun is not an option and i don’t work in a fully dark environment. The nano texture is remarkable for getting work done wherever i need to in the apartment or outside without having to futz with lighting sources and screen angles
 
  • Like
Reactions: SierraVista and geoelectric
thmsnt said:
How do you fit that on an airplane tray table???
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I never travel by plane. But I do travel almost daily by train and the 11 inch is a bit more convenient to use in that situation. so I imagine it is easier on my Airplane tray table as well
 
H_D said:
Oh, and I used Paperlike for a while, this is NOTHING like that. The foil-solutions are terrible low-tech stuff compared to the nano texture.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It‘s fine to say that glare isn‘t a problem for you or that you don‘t need 1 TB of storage and thus the nano is too expensive. But people claiming that a conventional matte screen protector has the same effect are either completely unfamiliar with the nano texture or just disingenuous. Because it is not nearly the same.

IMG_3649.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Eric_Drum, SierraVista, H_D and 3 others
the future said:
Exactly. It‘s fine to say that glare isn‘t a problem for you or that you don‘t need 1 TB of storage and thus the nano is too expensive. But people claiming that a conventional matte screen protector has the same effect are either completely unfamiliar with the nano texture or just disingenuous. Because it is not nearly the same.

View attachment 2393000
Click to expand...
To follow up on this, I have a 13” non nano and an 11” nano. I have a magnetic matte screen protector that I rarely use for the 13” and guess what? I can fully see my bay windows in the screen of the 13”, matte protector or not, whereas the nano display is diffuse but I cannot make the shape of the window out at all.


again, if I worked or lived in a totally controlled cave? Awesome. That’s where I use the 13” (essentially as an at home iPad) whereas the 11” comes everywhere with me.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: the future and alecgold
the future said:
Exactly. It‘s fine to say that glare isn‘t a problem for you or that you don‘t need 1 TB of storage and thus the nano is too expensive. But people claiming that a conventional matte screen protector has the same effect are either completely unfamiliar with the nano texture or just disingenuous. Because it is not nearly the same.

View attachment 2393000
Click to expand...
I still don’t regret getting the non-matte, but this is a huge difference in that picture. Is it as big a difference irl too?

Edit: I just don’t like the shine bezel, but that is taste, not a functional problem.
 
alecgold said:
I still don’t regret getting the non-matte, but this is a huge difference in that picture. Is it as big a difference irl too?

Edit: I just don’t like the shine bezel, but that is taste, not a functional problem.
Click to expand...

To be fair, not all matte screen protectors are equal, so there might be some that are a little closer (but still clearly inferior) wrt the light diffusion. But I have certainly never seen a protector that so minimally, I would even say basically imperceptibly impacts sharpness and contrast as the nano texture.

Another thing to consider is that any screen protector is another layer of material that is between your eyes and the content. The nano texture does not add that kind of layer, but instead removes an optical layer between the content and your eyes – the glare. Content looks like it is printed/painted directly on the glass. Which is absolutely awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: musicpenguy and geoelectric
I got a Spigen glass screen protector (Spigen PaperTouch Tempered Glass Screen Protector [GlasTR EZ Fit PaperTouch]).
Same idea *FOR ME*. Cuts down on glare. Feels like writing on paper.
And it was $22.99.
 
Last edited:
I will not be getting the nano texture on my next iPad Pro. As an artist, glare has never really been an issue on my iPad Pros. Color accuracy is much more important to me. I’ve been waiting years for an OLED iPad with vibrant colors & true blacks. Why sacrifice that just to reduce glare? Definitely not worth it to me. Plus I travel a lot, and the extra special care one has to use to clean the nano texture just sounds like a headache. Hard pass.
 
Regarding color accuracy: no Apple display is color calibrated for print. There’s a couple of Eizo displays that show true ECI RGB / ISO Coated CMYK, but most Apple Displays show colors too bright and intensive even in CMYK emulation. As for digital imaging and video… as all displays and their settings differ wildly, having color tinges, things like night shift, set to lowest or highest brightness and so on, the idea of safe colors has vanished, imo. I had a client who did (inkjet-printed) proofs of web colors (thus rgb to cmyk, which of course never worked) but apart from that we have to live with colors being different per individual setting just as they were before because, well, the printers ****ed it up.

I think movies were not meant to be seen the way we do now, coming directly from a light emitting source. They were supposed to be projections to a wall. TV changed that and brought over saturated low-resolution visuals that were a far cry from the more muted and grainy look of cinema. And the hyper-detailed, fast-screenrate, explosively colorful displays nowadays bring their own aesthetics, e.g. the LED-saturated flair of anything Netflix.

Thus nano texture is not sacrificing color accuracy, which does not exist anymore in the sense we understood it before 2005 or so. It is just another different screen to have in mind when you think about how your work will be consumed by the recipients. As for illustration and comic work, it does look a bit more natural, not quite as but a step closer to paper. The fact that blacks have a hint of refraction and there is an (almost invisible) texture to the surface add to the illusion of not holding a piece of glass but matte printing paper. Real paper would be even less reflective and digital media so far hasn’t been able to capture that feeling, but this (especially for a consumption device) is a step up. In a roundabout way it brings digital media back to the benefits of analogue surfaces and human-scaled technologies, m-king this perhaps the most natural feeling iPad ever. I really now wish they’d just give us a Mini Pro with nano etched display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: musicpenguy
H_D said:
Regarding color accuracy: no Apple display is color calibrated for print. There’s a couple of Eizo displays that show true ECI RGB / ISO Coated CMYK, but most Apple Displays show colors too bright and intensive even in CMYK emulation. As for digital imaging and video… as all displays and their settings differ wildly, having color tinges, things like night shift, set to lowest or highest brightness and so on, the idea of safe colors has vanished, imo. I had a client who did (inkjet-printed) proofs of web colors (thus rgb to cmyk, which of course never worked) but apart from that we have to live with colors being different per individual setting just as they were before because, well, the printers ****ed it up.

I think movies were not meant to be seen the way we do now, coming directly from a light emitting source. They were supposed to be projections to a wall. TV changed that and brought over saturated low-resolution visuals that were a far cry from the more muted and grainy look of cinema. And the hyper-detailed, fast-screenrate, explosively colorful displays nowadays bring their own aesthetics, e.g. the LED-saturated flair of anything Netflix.

Thus nano texture is not sacrificing color accuracy, which does not exist anymore in the sense we understood it before 2005 or so. It is just another different screen to have in mind when you think about how your work will be consumed by the recipients. As for illustration and comic work, it does look a bit more natural, not quite as but a step closer to paper. The fact that blacks have a hint of refraction and there is an (almost invisible) texture to the surface add to the illusion of not holding a piece of glass but matte printing paper. Real paper would be even less reflective and digital media so far hasn’t been able to capture that feeling, but this (especially for a consumption device) is a step up. In a roundabout way it brings digital media back to the benefits of analogue surfaces and human-scaled technologies, m-king this perhaps the most natural feeling iPad ever. I really now wish they’d just give us a Mini Pro with nano etched display.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more before reading anything the thought that came to mind when seeing in person at home was wow this looks painted on the display and in a really awesome way that has so far adapted to every environment remarkably well - when I upgrade my big iPad in 18 months to 3 years I’ll go nano there as well as my 11”
 
Analog Kid said:
Nano-texture was meant as an anti-glare treatment not so much as a pencil texture. Given how much attention has been given to the pencil feel with and without nano-texture, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple starts looking at ways to improve it.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Nano-texture suggests pencil/finger touch interactivity. If it was just about glare I think Apple would've stuck with "matte glass."

Analog Kid said:
I wish I could blame the glass surface for my horrific artistry, but I don't think there's anything I could apply to the screen to help.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. Tons of practice. That's my secret!
 
Matte glass would sound cheaper - nano texture sounds more expensive and is more honest about the technology at work to achieve the end result of diffusing that light
 
csfossett said:
I disagree. Nano-texture suggests pencil/finger touch interactivity. If it was just about glare I think Apple would've stuck with "matte glass."
Click to expand...
Apple_Robert said:
I think it was offered to address both subjects.
Click to expand...
I really don't think so. Nano-texture was first introduced in the Studio Display, which is not a touch/pencil interface. There's speculation that it's done differently on iPad but I haven't seen anything more than speculation which based on the "OMG, don't touch it!" approach to the Studio Display. After threatening amputation to anyone reaching toward my nano Studio Display, I hope there's a difference but I don't see any evidence of one.

None of the Apple marketing around nano-texture says anything about how it feels. It's all about controlling the display and glare.

If Apple intended it to be a better pencil surface, I'd have hoped they would have done better than they did. Maybe all the attention to it after the release of the nano-texture will encourage Apple to improve it further in a future update.

csfossett said:
Sure there is. Tons of practice. That's my secret!
Click to expand...

I appreciate the confidence, but... Maybe the lack of success discourages me from practicing more, which isn't helping, but I also think I just lack the basic aptitude. I'm always impressed by people who can draw and paint-- how wonderful it must feel to have an idea and simply bring it into being.
 
Analog Kid said:
I really don't think so. Nano-texture was first introduced in the Studio Display, which is not a touch/pencil interface. There's speculation that it's done differently on iPad but I haven't seen anything more than speculation which based on the "OMG, don't touch it!" approach to the Studio Display. After threatening amputation to anyone reaching toward my nano Studio Display, I hope there's a difference but I don't see any evidence of one.

None of the Apple marketing around nano-texture says anything about how it feels. It's all about controlling the display and glare.

If Apple intended it to be a better pencil surface, I'd have hoped they would have done better than they did. Maybe all the attention to it after the release of the nano-texture will encourage Apple to improve it further in a future update.



I appreciate the confidence, but... Maybe the lack of success discourages me from practicing more, which isn't helping, but I also think I just lack the basic aptitude. I'm always impressed by people who can draw and paint-- how wonderful it must feel to have an idea and simply bring it into being.
Click to expand...
Apple confirmed to the press that the iPad nano texture is a chemical treatment and the Studio Display is a physical etching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid
I love the nano texture on the iPad Pro 13. I can't even tell it's there except that now I see less reflections, which normally drive me nuts. I'm upgrading from a iPad Pro 1st or 2nd gen and the screen is so much brighter that even with the nano-texture it looks super bright.
 
MacRumors said:


The M4 iPad Pro models that Apple released earlier this year have a display upgrade option that allows you to purchase nano-texture display glass, which is supposed to cut down on glare.


We've already reviewed the iPad Pro, but we thought we'd revisit the nano-texture glass upgrade to see if it's worth the purchase price.

First introduced with the Pro Display XDR, nano-texture glass is etched at a nanometer scale, which is meant to preserve image quality while scattering ambient light to cut down on glare. It is the most matte display type that Apple makes, and Apple claims that it is useful for high-end, color-managed workflows or demanding ambient lighting environments.

The iPad Pro is the first iPad with nano-texture as an option, and it's previously been reserved for the Studio Display and Pro Display XDR. Nano-texture is a premium feature, so it costs an additional $100 over the standard glass. It's also only available on 1TB or 2TB iPad Pro models, so you do need to shell out at least $1,600 to get it on the 1TB 11-inch iPad Pro.

Nano-texture on the larger iPad Pro will cost at least $1,999, which is the price of the 1TB model plus an extra $100 for the glass upgrade. It is an upgrade targeted at pro users and those with specific needs, and not everyone is going to want to opt for the matte design. The grippier texture of the nano-glass does feel better for writing on with an Apple Pencil, but if that's a factor for you, you're better off checking out something like Astropad's Rock Paper Pencil.

While nano-texture does a good job cutting down on glare, it does impact the contrast and crispness of the display, so it is serving a specific purpose for select workflows where mitigating light is important.

As with the nano-texture versions of Apple's displays, the nano-texture iPad Pro requires some special care. Apple recommends only cleaning it with the polishing cloth that's included in the box as other cleaning cloths can cause damage.

Given the caveats and the high price tag, the nano-texture display isn't for everyone, but it is a good option for those who know they need extra help addressing glare.

Article Link: Hands-On With the iPad Pro's Nano-Texture Glass - Is It Worth the Upgrade?
Click to expand...
Why did Apple chose to keep the black border shiny?
 
OJK said:
Why did Apple chose to keep the black border shiny?
Click to expand...
The sensor array is there and couldn’t be covered (would also look weird to do everything except the sensors - I sorta appreciate the glossy frame showing the difference in that environment what the nano is doing for me
 
  • Like
Reactions: OJK
jhwalker said:
I have the same use case, but chose the add-on Astropad screen "protector" instead. Would have had to spend several hundred dollars more to get the nano-texture glass (i.e., upgrade storage + screen option), and the effect is the same.
Click to expand...
FWIW, she tried various anti-glare screen protectors, and they were both darker and less effective. Not sure if she tried that specific brand. YMMV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back