Nano-texture display

[Macintosh IIcx]

People who do color critical work know this, but in case you wonder why matte screens is the industry standard/ preferred choice in photo and video editing, think about this: Imaging you are wearing a bright red colored shirt and doing color critical editing on a photo with red hues – your red shirt would be reflected onto the subject you see on the screen and now you no longer know what color you are truely looking at (it is a mix of the source and your shirt).

Now, this example is exaggerated as a matte display would also will be somewhat affected and if you are doing color critical work, you would ensure that the colors (and light) of the enviroment would be as neutral as possible.

This is not to say that coor editing on glossy screens doesn't have their place, if your target devices are mainly glorry screens, that could be the best match (WYSIWYG).

Once upon a time, matte displays was the only acceptable thing in photo editing because they more closely mirror the print media (paper), but now photos are probably more looked at on scrrens than print.

 

[tim1000]

I have not noticed a difference in text clarity on nano texture. Anyone else notice less clarity with smaller text?

 

[AdmiralKirk]

I went to the Apple Store today to compare both myself.

The first point I’d make is that the iPad pro’s nano display is in NO WAY comparable to the MacBook Pro’s. It’s clear that the nano on the iPad Pro being on top of a OLED display makes some difference somewhere, because that screen was beyond gorgeous and infinitely better than any glossy screen I’ve ever seen.

The MacBook Pro in comparison has nano on top of a mini LED display or whatever the exact term is, and it gives a noticeably different result to the iPad Pro.

That said, the nano display was bright and there were no reflections whatsoever from it and it was perfectly usable in bright light. The glossy next to it in the Apple Store was like a mirror under those million spotlights and it was noticeably more unusable in those conditions.

That said, I compared them side by side with the same image and text on screen. It was then the differences were apparent.

The glossy display seemed brighter, even though it wasn’t.

The glossy display had noticeably sharper text

The glossy display had much more vibrant colours and the image just looked better on the glossy compared to the nano. The nano seemed more washed out and just ever so slightly out of focus in comparison to the glossy.

In reality most people won’t have a nano and a glossy side by side to focus on the deficiencies of the nano, so I think most people will be perfectly happy with the nano option if they got it, and not notice any deficiencies in it during day to day use, and they will have the benefit of no reflection in bright light.

Those that get the glossy will have to deal with the mirror effect in bright direct light, but if that isn’t a problem because they use it indoors or not in an overly bright space with multiple light sources etc.. then they will be getting crisper text and better more accurate images than if they got the nano.

So for me whether you should get the nano or not depends entirely on whether you need the nano coating to make your laptop usable outside or in environments with bright lights and lots of light sources etc…

Since I’m using mine indoors pretty much all the time without light issues saving the £150 and sticking with glossy is a no brainer.

WHEN the MacBook Pro switches to OLED however nano is going to be the most perfect screen ever created and glossy I think will finally die for the pro series.

Hope this helps.

 

[glindon]

I have not notice a difference in text clarity on nano texture. Anyone else notice less clarity with smaller text?

I think it's been blown out of proportion for sure. I have two studio displays, one nano and the other glossy, and the difference is so minute at normal viewing distance. You do see a kind of "grain" on white backgrounds with text, but it almost makes it more paper-like. Writing this on my 16" nano, and the text looks very sharp. The below is taken with my iPhone 16 Pro, and the artifacting is more jpg compression than it looks in person.

 

[dpny]

People who do color critical work know this, but in case you wonder why matte screens is the industry standard/ preferred choice in photo and video editing, think about this: Imaging you are wearing a bright red colored shirt and doing color critical editing on a photo with red hues – your red shirt would be reflected onto the subject you see on the screen and now you no longer know what color you are truely looking at (it is a mix of the source and your shirt).

I can't talk about video editing, but in my experience in the photo/print retouching world, that's not at all true. Much more important than a glossy or matte screen is 1) proper lighting in your office 2) properly measured ambient light which lets you 3) properly calibrate your monitor(s). I'm typing this on my non-nanotexture M4 MBP and the screen is not an issue at all as the light in my office is 1) indirect (behind my monitors and pointed at the ceiling), 2) properly measured, and 3) everything here is kept calibrated so my color is consistent across all my screens.

Whether or not the screen is matte or glossy doesn't matter so long as those three things are done. And it's the same when I've worked onsite: indirect lighting and calibration is the most important thing.

 

[UnifiedMelody]

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. !!

yea i cannot justify the space black. seen too many of my friends f up the ports by jamming the usb-c/TB connector wrong way lol and the marks are showing there.
also the fingerprint situation; way less noticable on silver despite being a "Standard/OG color" = less ocd/worrying and more doing

silver it is for me

 

[UnifiedMelody]

I think it's been blown out of proportion for sure. I have two studio displays, one nano and the other glossy, and the difference is so minute at normal viewing distance. You do see a kind of "grain" on white backgrounds with text, but it almost makes it more paper-like. Writing this on my 16" nano, and the text looks very sharp. The below is taken with my iPhone 16 Pro, and the artifacting is more jpg compression than it looks in person.View attachment 2452186

I mean one would have to look that stupidly close to notice the difference haha. People are overblowing this too much imho
16" and 254ppi is very good [3456 by 2234pixels], the MBP screen beats my 27" screen in terms of pixels [2560x1440p]

heck even my 27" and 108ppi screen looks sharp from... 60cm viewing distance from my desk.
and my 27" is matte over 7 years+, still looks sharp on a sub-par smaller ppi screen.

Verdict: nano texture is fine, i felt it was m arketed more on 14" in the apple stores since those laptops are BROUGHT OUT MORE often than say the 16" which initially confused me but then as soon as i put it into real life perspective i got why.

 

[glindon]

I mean one would have to look that stupidly close to notice the difference haha. People are overblowing this too much imho
16" and 254ppi is very good [3456 by 2234pixels], the MBP screen beats my 27" screen in terms of pixels [2560x1440p]

heck even my 27" and 108ppi screen looks sharp from... 60cm viewing distance from my desk.
and my 27" is matte over 7 years+, still looks sharp on a sub-par smaller ppi screen.

Verdict: nano texture is fine, i felt it was m arketed more on 14" in the apple stores since those laptops are BROUGHT OUT MORE often than say the 16" which initially confused me but then as soon as i put it into real life perspective i got why.

Honestly, it pisses me off how much people made a big deal out of it, and so, when I bought my iPad, I went with glossy. I also skipped it on my first studio display, then on a lark, I bought a second studio display with nano because the glare was so annoying compared to my aging LG 5k from 2016. Now I'm seriously considering getting rid of the brand new iPad just to get the nano version, sigh. The glossy studio display I can't justify replacing though, lol, it's just off to the side for finder windows, music, etc., or for fleeting moments when I want to cry (the glare helps).

 

[UnifiedMelody]

Honestly, it pisses me off how much people made a big deal out of it, and so, when I bought my iPad, I went with glossy. I also skipped it on my first studio display, then on a lark, I bought a second studio display with nano because the glare was so annoying compared to my aging LG 5k from 2016. Now I'm seriously considering getting rid of the brand new iPad just to get the nano version, sigh. The glossy studio display I can't justify replacing though, lol, it's just off to the side for finder windows, music, etc., or for fleeting moments when I want to cry (the glare helps).

Personal Opinion;
I wasn't a huge fan of iPad's nano because you had to get 1TB or 2TB to get it... like for me I was dead set on iPad Pro 11", but I'd most likely survive fine on 256GB as I don't store everything on it. I just put stuff there temporarily for viewing and then remove after.

Now I was a huge fan of MBP's nano because you can put it on even the 'cheapest' MBP. without having to up spec to a godlike storage tier. And it looked much better than the iPad's one because the only part which didnt get nano is the notch area [camera, illumination sensor etc].

I'd say if the light source of your main room is high [like mine, 3-4m above head] then a glossy display is more than fine. Even testing my friends "Glossy" M4 Pro 14" base model... i cant see the glare because... the light is 3-4m above my head [and its bright as ****]

Where i saw a lot of the "complaints about glare" is video reviewers on youtube who has a dedicated ring light like 50cm-1m above the table they're on... lol no wonder.

that would be my two cents in response lol haha i'm happy with disagreements when pointed out

 

[AdmiralKirk]

Honestly, it pisses me off how much people made a big deal out of it, and so, when I bought my iPad, I went with glossy. I also skipped it on my first studio display, then on a lark, I bought a second studio display with nano because the glare was so annoying compared to my aging LG 5k from 2016. Now I'm seriously considering getting rid of the brand new iPad just to get the nano version, sigh. The glossy studio display I can't justify replacing though, lol, it's just off to the side for finder windows, music, etc., or for fleeting moments when I want to cry (the glare helps).

The iPad Pro nano is completely different to the MacBook Pro nano, likely because of the underlying OLED that the MacBook Pro doesn’t have yet. Once the MacBook Pro goes OLED there will be no reason to get glossy ever again.

 

[jb333]

I prefer read from nano

why do you prefer reading from nano?

 

[jb333]

Next time I would need Macbook Air I will def go with nanotexture. Modern 10 bit displays destroy my eyes, can’t use my M1 for longer than 20 minutesplease explain more why your eyes get destroyed and why you cant use for more than 20 minutes

 

[jb333]

Next time I would need Macbook Air I will def go with nanotexture. Modern 10 bit displays destroy my eyes, can’t use my M1 for longer than 20 minutes

Please explain more about what leads you to say modern 10 bit destroys your eyes and why you cant use your m1 for longer than 20 minutes.

 

[davewolfs]

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.

Glossy looks WAY better.

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

Spent about an hour at the store with it. It was a hard no.

 

[davewolfs]

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.

Well that’s great but my eyes like the gloss better. I also think my LG matte monitors look better too. Nano texture seemed nano dirty.

 

[davewolfs]

I think it's been blown out of proportion for sure. I have two studio displays, one nano and the other glossy, and the difference is so minute at normal viewing distance. You do see a kind of "grain" on white backgrounds with text, but it almost makes it more paper-like. Writing this on my 16" nano, and the text looks very sharp. The below is taken with my iPhone 16 Pro, and the artifacting is more jpg compression than it looks in person.View attachment 2452186

This is a bad example because in the actual nano display you see pink speckles that look dirty over the text. You do not see that on the glossy display.

 

[glindon]

Personal Opinion;
I wasn't a huge fan of iPad's nano because you had to get 1TB or 2TB to get it... like for me I was dead set on iPad Pro 11", but I'd most likely survive fine on 256GB as I don't store everything on it. I just put stuff there temporarily for viewing and then remove after.

Now I was a huge fan of MBP's nano because you can put it on even the 'cheapest' MBP. without having to up spec to a godlike storage tier. And it looked much better than the iPad's one because the only part which didnt get nano is the notch area [camera, illumination sensor etc].

I'd say if the light source of your main room is high [like mine, 3-4m above head] then a glossy display is more than fine. Even testing my friends "Glossy" M4 Pro 14" base model... i cant see the glare because... the light is 3-4m above my head [and its bright as ****]

Where i saw a lot of the "complaints about glare" is video reviewers on youtube who has a dedicated ring light like 50cm-1m above the table they're on... lol no wonder.

that would be my two cents in response lol haha i'm happy with disagreements when pointed out

This is a bad example because in the actual nano display you see pink speckles that look dirty over the text. You do not see that on the glossy display.

I personally can't see pink speckles, but I damn sure can see the glare and my reflection on my 2nd glossy studio display.

 

[novagamer]

Nano looks great to me, very easy on the eyes even indoors with low light especially in light mode.

Reflections look ridiculous after spending a while with it, I think Apple finally got it right and I’ll probably get every Apple display with it going forward.

I have no need to upgrade my iPad but the nano texture is a compelling reason after spending a few days with it on the MBP. I’m noticing reflections that I didn’t before even without direct lighting and using it at night… it’s shockingly good when they’re just gone.

I wonder if the iPhone Ultra will have it as a differentiator…

 

[PO2345]

Nano or no Nano texture is literally the biggest thing I'm thinking about before I upgrade.

Not enough data out to show how Nano is after consistent use, but seems like the majority love the feature so far. I can't make up my mind.

 

[nostradumbass]

The glossy display had noticeably sharper text

Sharpness is defined by pixel density, which is the same no matter what coating is applied to the glass.

The glossy display had much more vibrant colours

The colour measurements are identical. 100% P3 and about 89% AdobeRGB.

The differences your eyes are seeing is because reflective glass makes blacks look blacker and whites look whiter, which is terrible for creatives who work with colour. They need to be able to estimate what colours will look like on a cinema screen or print.

and the image just looked better on the glossy compared to the nano.

Clearly not a creative pro. So buy the consumer level display.

WHEN the MacBook Pro switches to OLED however nano is going to be the most perfect screen ever created and glossy I think will finally die for the pro series.

OLED will make almost no difference. The new displays use quantum dot.

 

[nostradumbass]

Glossy looks WAY better.

Replying to a creative pro with a non-pro opinion makes no difference. You want a reflective glossy display then go for it. Don't impose your non-pro opinion on others.

 

[throAU]

Nano or no Nano texture is literally the biggest thing I'm thinking about before I upgrade.

Not enough data out to show how Nano is after consistent use, but seems like the majority love the feature so far. I can't make up my mind.

The way I rationalised it is thus:

• Glare for me, at my office desk is a real problem. I have a window right next to me and the blinds aren't very good. I also use the device in a variety of lighting conditions, on the road, etc. Sure, you can tilt the display but its not ideal
• The anti reflective coating on my 2015 peeled off. It didn't peel off my 2021 14" yet, but we shall see when the GF gets it
• The nano texture isn't a coating, it is physical etching into the glass thus should not peel off. To wear it off would require something that is capable of scratching glass.

If you have used Matte monitors before, it's better than most of those. I'd suggest seeing it in person and/or considering whether or not reflections are bad for you in the working conditions you use your Mac in.

In the real world, in ideal conditions both display still look great. The Nano screen is still going to look better than any lesser laptop display on the market. Personally I don't see any significant degradation in display quality vs. the 2021 14" Pro sitting next to it - but I DO notice a massive difference in the lack of reflections.

 

[shadowboi]

Please explain more about what leads you to say modern 10 bit destroys your eyes and why you cant use your m1 for longer than 20 minutes.

My guess is that those displays are not actual 10 bit but 8bit + FRC, i.e. with two virtual color bits that are achieved thru very high frequency flickering.

I had long had issues with my iPhone 11 Pro and thought it was because of OLED display and PWM flickering. But then I realized I have same sorts of issues with my LCD Macbook. I digged in for more info and found that dithering (tech used to emulate 10 bits) can trigger eye strain and headaches.

Also after screen replacement on 11 Pro I no longer felt any issues, considering new display was also OLED and original one I either had defective screen since the start (it just blacked out and died for no obvious reason) or Apple fine tuned something in recent updates and disabled dithering for non-HDR content. Oh, btw. I cannot watch any HDR videos! Either on YouTube or those shot with iPhone. Same with AI generated photos (specifically with OpenAI generator that Apple also uses for image playground), thats probably the worst out of that, each time I look at those I feel like my mind is exploding.

As for the macbook, maybe it is not dithering at all but small 13 inch display since I had never used laptops less than 15.6 inches before purchasing macbook, maybe screen is too small for me. I had made few tunings to it (true tone, white point/white balance, played with display profiles) and it seems now I can use it for slightly longer, but only at 80-100% brightness mostly when in bright environments and 25-30% when in full dark room. Also in Firefox issue seems to be gone, I had made few tunings in about:config too, just forgot which ones.

It seems like those issues are going to continue until Apple starts making devices with real 10 bit matrix. It probably won’t happen until 2030 as the technology is now much more expensive than cheap and fake 8 bit + frc

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

I can't talk about video editing, but in my experience in the photo/print retouching world, that's not at all true. Much more important than a glossy or matte screen is 1) proper lighting in your office 2) properly measured ambient light which lets you 3) properly calibrate your monitor(s). I'm typing this on my non-nanotexture M4 MBP and the screen is not an issue at all as the light in my office is 1) indirect (behind my monitors and pointed at the ceiling), 2) properly measured, and 3) everything here is kept calibrated so my color is consistent across all my screens.

Whether or not the screen is matte or glossy doesn't matter so long as those three things are done. And it's the same when I've worked onsite: indirect lighting and calibration is the most important thing.

We’re not in any disagreement here, really. If you have full control over the light in your environment, you can pretty much minimize reflections to the point where the glossy screen will look glorious and provide great base for color critical editing.

The only thing to maybe be aware of is that the glossy screen will increase perceived contrast and saturation, so what has been edited to look great on that might look a bit more dull on a non glossy screen.
(I’m using a MacBook Pro M1 Max with glossy screen and an Eizo display with matte finish so I can check on both.)

 

[nostradumbass]

My guess is that those displays are not actual 10 bit but 8bit + FRC, i.e. with two virtual color bits that are achieved thru very high frequency flickering.

Do a HDR test or test P3 images, for example at webkit org's own page

Examples of various wide-gamut images

That's when you know what gamut and gamma your display is capable of. Everything else is just pointless internet debates.