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

Nano-texture display

Neil J. Squillante said:
From display expert Ross Young, this may further support why the nano display on the MacBook Pro looks better to me than the one on the Studio Display:

Big Apple display news, they have adopted quantum dots for the first time. The latest MacBook Pro's (M4) use a quantum dot (QD) film rather than a red KSF phosphor film.

In the past, Apple went with the KSF solution due to better efficiency and lack of cadmium (Cd), but the latest Cd-free QD films are very efficient, feature as good or better color gamut and better motion performance.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857208745014776215

Edit: MacRumors covered this in more depth.
Click to expand...
Great for Glossy.
 
tim1000 said:
Why aren't the nano textures stocked in the store? Not sure why any one would pick glossy except for the $150 upcharge.
Click to expand...
They do sell nano texture configurations in the store, my store had two of them. You wont see them on the website you need to ask for them in store. But they dont sell the base m4 pro model in it, it was like a 3300 dollar specced 14 inch, and a 1900 dollar specced base M4 chip
 
VisceralRealist said:
No Apple Stores around here have a 16" with Nano either. It seems to be universal.

And yeah, not that I think there's a conspiracy, but is there some reason they don't want to show us a 16" with Nano? Because that's the model I'd be getting. I don't like that I can't see it in person first.
Click to expand...
But I mean ultimately what is the concern? Buy the laptop, and return it if you dont like it. You get extended holiday returns right now too.
 
jabbr said:
Kinda weird how Ross is talking about improved motion performance, I haven't read anyone noticing that.

better efficiency might be part of the reason why Apple is allowing the panel to crank up to 1000 nits in outdoor environments now
Click to expand...
Ive noticed the motion performance is better than on my 14" MacBook Pro
 
Iron Curtains said:
They do sell nano texture configurations in the store, my store had two of them. You wont see them on the website you need to ask for them in store. But they dont sell the base m4 pro model in it, it was like a 3300 dollar specced 14 inch, and a 1900 dollar specced base M4 chip
Click to expand...
What are the specs for the $3300 model?
 
tim1000 said:
What are the specs for the $3300 model?
Click to expand...
I honestly am not sure because I didn’t even have him click into it to look at it I’m not in the market for a 14 inch that expensive

But for anyone trying to see what their store has just go to the store and have them search for the M4 MacBook Pro and then in the filter section there’s a nano texture display option and then it’ll come up with whatever configurations they have
 
Why not use the matte magnetic screencover from Kensignton? Easy to take off when needed, and works very well with the anti-glare when needed.
 
I finally saw the nano in person today. The only disappointment was how white and lighter shades of grey have a visible rainbow grain effect. The contrast and sharpness is very close to the glossy.

The rainbow grain is much worse on the iMac and M4 iPad nano screens; those have a pronounced dirty look that pretty much cancels out the high pixel density.

I feel pretty torn on the MBP, but would probably stick with the glossy.

I also thought space black looked pretty bad, almost like a plastic Dell vibe. Silver for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AeroSatan, NickYanakiev and adrianlondon
VisceralRealist said:
No Apple Stores around here have a 16" with Nano either. It seems to be universal.

And yeah, not that I think there's a conspiracy, but is there some reason they don't want to show us a 16" with Nano? Because that's the model I'd be getting. I don't like that I can't see it in person first.
Click to expand...
I bet it's because the 14" sells much better, and that the average buyer of the 14" is most likely to use their laptop as a laptop (16" users being more desktop replacement users). Apple never markets or sells certain things by accident, while they might not know by individual which thing is used in which way or at what time or which place, they know for certain if 16" macbooks spend a majority of their time at home hooked up to a monitor.
 
hajime said:
Same problem. They don't have 16" with Nano on display in both stores I visited.
Click to expand...
Same Perth Apple City store only 14" had it which sucks, I want to see it on the 16" lol

But then again I'd rarely lug the 16" outside daily, as I have a work computer. probably once a fortnight or two.
so i guess thats why it's 'marketed' on the 14" more often than... i think
 
jabbr said:
The only disappointment was how white and lighter shades of grey have a visible rainbow grain effect. The contrast and sharpness is very close to the glossy.

The rainbow grain is much worse on the iMac and M4 iPad nano screens; those have a pronounced dirty look that pretty much cancels out the high pixel density.

I feel pretty torn on the MBP, but would probably stick with the glossy.

I also thought space black looked pretty bad, almost like a plastic Dell vibe. Silver for me.
Click to expand...
I didn’t notice any of that. But I wasn’t looking for it. My main concern was is this worth an additional $150. And for me the jury is still out. Space black looked fine to me. Although silver is the O.G. !!
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnifiedMelody and adrianlondon
jabbr said:
I finally saw the nano in person today. The only disappointment was how white and lighter shades of grey have a visible rainbow grain effect. The contrast and sharpness is very close to the glossy.

The rainbow grain is much worse on the iMac and M4 iPad nano screens; those have a pronounced dirty look that pretty much cancels out the high pixel density.

I feel pretty torn on the MBP, but would probably stick with the glossy.

I also thought space black looked pretty bad, almost like a plastic Dell vibe. Silver for me.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is the Apple Store lighting. I haven’t seen any rainbow on my iPad.
 
glindon said:
I bet it's because the 14" sells much better, and that the average buyer of the 14" is most likely to use their laptop as a laptop (16" users being more desktop replacement users). Apple never markets or sells certain things by accident, while they might not know by individual which thing is used in which way or at what time or which place, they know for certain if 16" macbooks spend a majority of their time at home hooked up to a monitor.
Click to expand...
As an owner of various sizes and setups I would argue differently. I had the 16” as a desktop replacement with no monitors so I wanted it to be the biggest display I could get. Now that I have external monitors I don’t need the 16” size since it’s in clamshell mode and when I do need it to be portable the 14” form factor is the best.
 
Can anyone with a Nano-Display report how the MacBook behaves with those little finger imprints on the display itself?

I earlier MacBook you do get those imprints all the time. Same with nano texture?
 
davewolfs said:
I respectfully disagree with many of the comments here.

Contrasts is reduced.
Sharpness is reduced.
White backgrounds appear to have a speckle or dirtiness to them which is annoying with text.

My LG monitors matte finish appears to be superior. I don’t like it.
Click to expand...

Respectfully; have you used both? As in 14” both with and without nano texture. Not prior matte display or matte on something else.

Because to me at least in space black the display is still great and way less annoying in less than 100 percent perfect lighting conditions
 
davewolfs said:
I respectfully disagree with many of the comments here.

Contrasts is reduced.
Sharpness is reduced.
White backgrounds appear to have a speckle or dirtiness to them which is annoying with text.
Click to expand...

Super high contrast glossy screens are bad for people working with colour, film grading, print, graphics design. It's a low end consumer feature. If you want this unrealistic level of contrast you can carry on purchasing the glossy reflective option instead of the professional option.

Sharpness cannot be reduced. It's retina resolution. At viewing distance retina is sharp on all of Apple's nano displays, even if you use those displays with Windows or Linux.

White backgrounds usually have that effect on matte displays, nano or not. Paper has that effect too. An artist's canvas has that effect. Shooting on celluloid has that effect in film grain. Welcome to reality. Super clean whites look ugly, empty, bland and rarely exists in the mediums we consume on paper or in cinema.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reinem85, jb333, Macintosh IIcx and 1 other person
jabbr said:
I finally saw the nano in person today. The only disappointment was how white and lighter shades of grey have a visible rainbow grain effect. The contrast and sharpness is very close to the glossy.

The rainbow grain is much worse on the iMac and M4 iPad nano screens; those have a pronounced dirty look that pretty much cancels out the high pixel density.

I feel pretty torn on the MBP, but would probably stick with the glossy.

I also thought space black looked pretty bad, almost like a plastic Dell vibe. Silver for me.
Click to expand...
I agree about the iMac, but I have a M4 iPad Pro nano texture, and that screen is superb, even better in some respects than the nano texture I have on the new MBP. However I'm aware that a lot of this is down to individual perception / 'eye of the beholder'.
 
Apple_Robert said:
Maybe it is the Apple Store lighting. I haven’t seen any rainbow on my iPad.
Click to expand...
Yup agree with this. the Apple Store lighting does the nano texture no favours. In day-to-day use the iPad Pro with nano texture has been a revelation for me.
 
Compared both nano texture and standard on the new MBPs in depth and side by side.

Besides the expected grain the nano texture is visibly less sharp at normal viewing distance. One pixels light is visibly scattered through the diffusion layer, although less intense then on the studio / 6k xdr displays.

If one prioritises sharpness (for programming, ux design, text based work) over less reflections, the standard screen is the better option. If you want less reflections and a more natural canvas (offline media, cinema) the nano texture is the way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickYanakiev and adrianlondon
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