I HIGHLY doubt there is no difference in reflections. That just isn't true at this point. It simply comes down to people who don't mind them vs who do. I'm part of the latter.
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.
Nano-texture iMac is awesome
- Thread starter bigcat
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I HIGHLY doubt there is no difference in reflections. That just isn't true at this point. It simply comes down to people who don't mind them vs who do. I'm part of the latter.
yeah, I saw the pics in that thread. The glossy still looks like a mirror to me. Given my use case, I think I’d be happier with the nano textured. As I mentioned, the text looks great enough for me.
As someone who's never had a monitor ostensibly as glossy as the iMac screen — the sole exception being a cheap Chromebook that I literally had to buy gloss-reduction film for — I'm not sure which decision is worse: Rolling the dice with the standard screen and finding it to be a virtual mirror, or dropping the price of two extra cores or a lot of extra memory for something that just ends up being odd as best or unusable at worst.
Never have I wanted there to be an open Apple store more in my life. It's literally impossible to know which to choose without seeing it. Actually, fronting for both versions and returning one isn't a bad idea.
How many people strongly loving/hating the nano glass are eyeglass wearers?
Never have I wanted there to be an open Apple store more in my life. It's literally impossible to know which to choose without seeing it. Actually, fronting for both versions and returning one isn't a bad idea.
How many people strongly loving/hating the nano glass are eyeglass wearers?
I feel the same way 100%. I’m pretty risk-averse, so I’d prefer to have a screen that is most durable long-term...but if that’s at the cost of having reflections 24/7, I will be (on a day-to-day) basis much unhappier with the screen.
However, you can say the same for he nano if it’s looks extremely blurry! curse you, Apple!
The majority of people should choose glossy. Remember, Apple went glossy for basically an entire decade. That’s because nearly everyone prefers it.
The haze from a matte screen is not the only effect. The more visible impact is actually with the loss of contrast, resulting in less saturated and punchy colors. And the color sparkles that are visible on white backgrounds.
I think if you have a glare problem at your desk you would know already, wouldn’t you? I wouldn’t go looking for a problem that isn’t there.
I use a matte film on my Nintendo Switch and iPad. The Switch gets one because it gets used often in bright areas out and about where I’m not necessarily able to choose where I’m sitting. The iPad for a similar reason and also because I like to use it at the dining table which gets a lot of direct sun.
My main computer does not have any sort of matte treatment. One of the side monitors gets a lot of glare at certain times of day, but I have three monitors so I just switch off to the other side monitor and I don’t worry about it too much.
My phone doesn’t need matte either ... it’s easy to move my hand around to avoid glare, and I don’t use it so long in a single position that glare would ever be an issue.
The standard iMac screen is definitely not a "virtual mirror." It has a an antireflective coating just like all current Macbooks. As Apple states: "both the standard glass and nano-texture glass options of iMac are engineered for extremely low reflectivity."
For normal (reasonably diffuse) lighting conditions it is just not a problem. But if you have intense, or concentrated, light sources positioned behind you that cannot be moved, then yes, the reflections will interfere with the display on the standard screen, especially in dark mode. I suspect you know who you are if you have this situation.
OK, I just compared my two iMacs with standard screens (one 2014 and one 2020) with my 2015 Macbook and my 2019 iPad Pro. They all have exactly the same reflectivity. I positioned various lights and they all reflect exactly the same amount, as far as I can tell. So if you have a similar Macbook, or a similar iPad, you can "try out" how reflective the standard iMac screen is in advance.
I appreciate this is a bit off topic, but is there any reason why we couldn't see a nano screen in the MacBook Pro range?
I would have thought it would have even greater benefits in laptops, when being used in ever changing and uncontrolled environments.
I would have thought it would have even greater benefits in laptops, when being used in ever changing and uncontrolled environments.
I thought the same thing.
If it is offered as an upgrade option, just imagine the amount of indecision and returns.
If it offered as standard (with no option for a regular screen), just imagine the amount of complaining
Keep in mind how susceptible to damage the display is and how it can only be cleaned with a special cloth provided by Apple. It doesn't sound like the nano-texture etching technology is suitable for something like a portable device, at least in its current state.
My 10 core iMac Glossy has arrived. My nano should be here within 8-ish days. Now I'm really wondering if I should just keep the glossy. I flip flop on this every day! Help!
How does the glossiness on the iMac compare to something almost everyone has some version of somewhere in their house — a TCL/Vizio/etc 4K TV? I was trying to take a picture of one today to put up for sale, and there was no angle from which I wasn't also taking a photo of myself. Conversely, when I turn off my ASUS 25" 1440p monitor — which was $315 when I bought it five years ago, I see black. Just black. And as five-year-old 1440p monitors go, it's as sharp as a tack.
A cheap TV that acts like a mirror is one thing; a $3500+ professional tool is another. My frustration is that Apple has to take something as reasonably simple as a non-glossy screen and turn it into an exercise in extreme preciousness, expense, and fragility — especially the latter. I'll be afraid to touch it; I'll be wearing masks indoors now lest I sneeze on it, and will generally feel like I have Leonardo da Vinci's Codex on loan.
So I guess I'd really like to hear from someone who owns one, has accidentally bespoiled it somehow (e.g., you actually somehow touched it, its dust-reality-distortion field failed, etc), and then went through the cleaning process: How did it go, and how many Xanax did you need to take before, during, and after?
A cheap TV that acts like a mirror is one thing; a $3500+ professional tool is another. My frustration is that Apple has to take something as reasonably simple as a non-glossy screen and turn it into an exercise in extreme preciousness, expense, and fragility — especially the latter. I'll be afraid to touch it; I'll be wearing masks indoors now lest I sneeze on it, and will generally feel like I have Leonardo da Vinci's Codex on loan.
So I guess I'd really like to hear from someone who owns one, has accidentally bespoiled it somehow (e.g., you actually somehow touched it, its dust-reality-distortion field failed, etc), and then went through the cleaning process: How did it go, and how many Xanax did you need to take before, during, and after?
An iPhone or iPad screen is a pretty spot on reference point for “glossiness” / reflectivity.
Which we know acts as a great selfie mirror for those into... selfies.
Well, I checked the one local Apple store within 100 miles and the two Best Buys — nada Nano screens at the former, and neither rep at either of the latter two had ever even heard of it. So I'll be buying the cheapest model with the Nano screen and doing an in-home demo and a return. Sorry Apple.
Hey, if they don't offer a legitimate way to see the screen, no need for apologies! Lol
Well, I can see myself quite clearly in the iMac 2019 in most conditions. So yes, it's kind of like a mirror. Wouldn't use it as an actual bathroom mirror, but "extremely low reflectivity" is just marketing BS. It's glass, and there are reflections of your surroundings. No need for extreme lighting conditions neither.
There's a definite difference in sharpness. I know because I returned the Nano-texture I got after I compared it to my current 2014 Retina 27" iMac - yes a 6 year old iMac had a sharper screen than the 2020 Nano-texture. If someone bought one and don't notice a difference, it's probably because they didn't compare it against the glossy one.
It's not just a matter of text - photos also lose sharpness - it essentially downgrades your 5K display to a 4K one... a compromise I wasn't willing to make.
It's unfortunate, since the Nano texture is great otherwise, but for me paying an additional $500 to get a resolution downgrade makes no sense to me.
What really annoys me is that all the Youtube reviewers never really talk about it. To me it's intolerable - I'm really picky about sharpness, and the nano-texture just ruins it.
I'm glad Apple has a great returns policy, but it was a pain to drag a 27" iMac to FedEx for returns.
It's not just a matter of text - photos also lose sharpness - it essentially downgrades your 5K display to a 4K one... a compromise I wasn't willing to make.
It's unfortunate, since the Nano texture is great otherwise, but for me paying an additional $500 to get a resolution downgrade makes no sense to me.
What really annoys me is that all the Youtube reviewers never really talk about it. To me it's intolerable - I'm really picky about sharpness, and the nano-texture just ruins it.
I'm glad Apple has a great returns policy, but it was a pain to drag a 27" iMac to FedEx for returns.I would imagine most of them get loaned free "review" units, so they can do their YouTube reports. I'd also question how much time they actually spend using it, to give it a full and thorough review.
In my opinion, a review where the reviewer has had to pay for the device themselves, holds a lot more weight than those who receive them for free.
I also have the new iMac nano texture and in my humble opinion, there is no loss in sharpness. I've used this iMac since Friday. My 26MP photos from my DSLM look just as sharp when zoomed in as on my MBP 13.3" Retina screen.
Yes, there is a noticeable difference between these screens, because of the etching of the nano texture it appears there is some sort of layer on top of the LCD. You could go as far as saying it introduces some grain, but if you don't focus your eye on the grain but on the frame itself then you won't notice a reduction in quality. That's especially true if you view your LCD from a normal distance and don't search for the grain a few cm away from the panel.
I find glare much more disturbing because if effects a larger area of the screen and is more prominent than the evenly spread out nano texture surface.
To me, the nano texture display is worth it. Glare is reduced to 0 which makes the display easier on my eyes and I can focus easier on what's actually on the screen. I only wish it was half the price.
Yes, there is a noticeable difference between these screens, because of the etching of the nano texture it appears there is some sort of layer on top of the LCD. You could go as far as saying it introduces some grain, but if you don't focus your eye on the grain but on the frame itself then you won't notice a reduction in quality. That's especially true if you view your LCD from a normal distance and don't search for the grain a few cm away from the panel.
I find glare much more disturbing because if effects a larger area of the screen and is more prominent than the evenly spread out nano texture surface.
To me, the nano texture display is worth it. Glare is reduced to 0 which makes the display easier on my eyes and I can focus easier on what's actually on the screen. I only wish it was half the price.
Last edited:
This is exactly my opinion. I had both my 2014 and 2020 (with Nano) side-by-side and never saw a loss in sharpness, just you do look through the "Nano effect", which at normal viewing distance just doesn't affect things and pretty much becomes invisible. But, YMMV!
How does the "nano-effect" compare to a typical $400-$500 LG 4K monitor? Would you say it has a higher quality image?
IMO it's very visible - basically it adds a fuzzy layer across any sharp edge. This post sums it up very well https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...020-imac.2248657/?post=28796244#post-28796244
However for those who are happy with it then more power to y'all 👍 It's more of a caveat / warning to those who think there's no consequence to the display quality with the Nano-texture display - there's definitely an observable effect, and depending on your tolerance level it might not be acceptable.
[automerge]1598903369[/automerge]
I have a 27" LG 4K monitor as well - to me it makes it roughly the same quality i.e. downscales 5K to 4K.
However for those who are happy with it then more power to y'all 👍 It's more of a caveat / warning to those who think there's no consequence to the display quality with the Nano-texture display - there's definitely an observable effect, and depending on your tolerance level it might not be acceptable.
[automerge]1598903369[/automerge]
I have a 27" LG 4K monitor as well - to me it makes it roughly the same quality i.e. downscales 5K to 4K.
This is what I was curious about - thank you!
I’m currently working off of an old Asus 1080p gaming monitor, so I’m sure it will look like a massive jump in quality.
it’s weird, I use Procreate off of my iPad and love the sharpness and crispiness of the glossy display...so logically I should enjoy it on my iMac as well, but the idea of having any chance of reflections on my MAIN monitor I will be working on 10-12 hours a day, makes me lean towards the nano. It’s so funny how split everyone is over it!
Yup you should be good. It's definitely subjective. I think if I hadn't compared it with my current 27" iMac I might have been happier with it - but it's difficult for me once I saw the difference. In any case I don't get that much mileage from the anti-reflectiveness, so I decided that sharpness was of higher importance to me.