Nano-texture iMac is awesome

[mahaha]

Wow. I thought the feature would not be a big deal. It’s totally worth it. Zero reflections. I only see what’s on the screen. I can’t even look at my secondary display now due to how bad it is with reflecting everything around and behind me.

Other than the $$$6K Apple XDR, is there any other display on the market with this feature?

I'm wondering if you would do me a favor? I just got mine today, I too love the appearance of the screen and the lack of reflections. But I have a some pretty blotchy uniformity edge to edge, top to bottom. I'm wondering if you can put a solid gray background on your screen and tell me how smooth or non-smooth it is?

I'm seeing subtle cross hatch both vertical and horizontal. This is sort of our first iMac, we had been waiting for the new macPro's and they are just out of our price range unfortunately so we figured we would give the nano a try.

thanks!

 

[RAWvJPG]

Screen uniformity is not a strong suit of these iMacs, neither with or without nano texture.

 

[yurc]

Other than the $$$6K Apple XDR, is there any other display on the market with this feature?

Cintiq Pro already done that three years ago, I already used 24 inch version.32 inch is also available. Available in smaller 13 and 16 inch.

In Cintiq literature, they mentioned as etched glass. I compared with studio XDR and feel is similar.

The huge different is durability, while Apple tell users to keep XDR coated display extra carefully, Cintiq Pro are for abused used since it was meaning for pen input and support touch. I not use any protector and after 2 years of many pen strokes it still have no single scratch. Really amazing in terms of real world durability.

 

[xgman]

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!

Put them together and you'll know within a few minutes I would think. Either one alone, would probably be fine as long as there is nothing nearby to compare it to.

 

[masotime]

Put them together and you'll know within a few minutes I would think. Either one alone, would probably be fine as long as there is nothing nearby to compare it to.

Agree with this. It's really very YMMV. You'll have to look at them side by side and determine whether the sharpness tradeoff is worth the anti-glare advantages.

 

[mahaha]

Screen uniformity is not a strong suit of these iMacs, neither with or without nano texture.

Thanks... I'm coming off an eizo display too, so there's that, but thanks for the confirmation that it probably won't get better than this. We have a second one with the same specs arriving next week, so I'll compare the two as well.

thanks again

 

[Ciccio80]

I guys, my new iMac arrived today, unboxed and re-boxed in half an hour... nano texture is really "bad" regarding colors and sharpness, it seems there is some haze over all the screen

I'm awaiting a response from Apple on how to send it back and buy a new one with glossy screen

Cheers

Marco

 

[iDomDotCom]

I guys, my new iMac arrived today, unboxed and re-boxed in half an hour... nano texture is really "bad" regarding colors and sharpness, it seems there is some haze over all the screen

I'm awaiting a response from Apple on how to send it back and buy a new one with glossy screen

Cheers

Marco

How would you compare it to a traditional Matte screen? We’re you expecting it to look just like glass with no image sacrifice?

 

[Ciccio80]

Yes my expectation was high due to Apple advertising

Reality is that colors with nano-texture are less vibrant, sharpness is so so, is seems everything is fuzzy

The nano-texture panel standalone is so so, then I've connected on the side my second monitor LG Ultrafine 5K and immediately re-boxed the iMac to send it back

 

[ADGrant]

Screen uniformity is not a strong suit of these iMacs, neither with or without nano texture.

That is true though to be fair, its not a strong suit of most large LCD displays. Even Apple's 32" XDR display is not perfect. Hopefully micro led will be much better.

 

[dspdoc]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but there is an obvious difference. Anyone who claims otherwise has bad eyes or has no reference point to the glossy 5k.

I’d have to agree. Nano is way ‘fuzzier’ than glossy when it comes to text.

 

[CE3]

I’d have to agree. Nano is way ‘fuzzier’ than glossy when it comes to text.

That would be an issue for me. My iMac sits about 3 feet away from my face at my desk, and I want the text to be as crisp as possible. I've already experienced panel variances with the two glossy iMacs I've owned that impacted text readability. On the 2017 model, reading text for extended periods of time used to irritate my eyes, and I don't have that problem with the 2019 model. Fingers crossed for the 2020 display.

 

[MikkelAD]

I'm a bit curious 🧐

If people think that there is a noticeable difference between both 1) glossy and nano 2) iMac 2020 and previous models have anybody tried experimenting with resolution, color profile and font smoothing(which have been changed between several of earlier macOS versions) ?

 

[bigcat]

I'm a bit curious 🧐

If people think that there is a noticeable difference between both 1) glossy and nano 2) iMac 2020 and previous models have anybody tried experimenting with resolution, color profile and font smoothing(which have been changed between several of earlier macOS versions) ?

There’s no experimentation the anti-nano people can do to it to make it look glossy. It’s just easier and cheaper to order it glossy. Nano is awesome though if you can afford it.

 

[masotime]

I'm a bit curious 🧐

If people think that there is a noticeable difference between both 1) glossy and nano 2) iMac 2020 and previous models have anybody tried experimenting with resolution, color profile and font smoothing(which have been changed between several of earlier macOS versions) ?

I actually tried this for a while - e.g. turning off "Font Smoothing" - https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...texture-glass-option-appearing-fuzzy.2251371/ - but it's really just trying to patch over an inherent problem. For example, images still look fuzzy since they're not subject to disabling Font Smoothing.

Resolution is already max at 5K - you can't make it any sharper. I didn't have an issue with color, but the Nano-texture display affects how it looks like if you don't view it directly - that wasn't a deal breaker for me though.

There’s no experimentation the anti-nano people can do to it to make it look glossy. It’s just easier and cheaper to order it glossy. Nano is awesome though if you can afford it.

Not sure what you mean by "anti-nano". I don't think people complaining about the Nano-texture in this thread desire having their screen glossy - the expectation is that glare is reduced without compromising display quality.

I believe a lot of people have pointed out in this thread et al., both with evidence and via personal attestations, that there's a definite visual loss of quality, a loss which may or may not be tolerable depending on a person-by-person basis.

I know I personally would love to have kept the Nano-display if it didn't drop quality to a level I found unacceptable.

 

[Ciccio80]

Not sure what you mean by "anti-nano". I don't think people complaining about the Nano-texture in this thread desire having their screen glossy - the expectation is that glare is reduced without compromising display quality.

I believe a lot of people have pointed out in this thread et al., both with evidence and via personal attestations, that there's a definite visual loss of quality, a loss which may or may not be tolerable depending on a person-by-person basis.

I know I personally would love to have kept the Nano-display if it didn't drop quality to a level I found unacceptable.

100% agree

Marco

 

[CE3]

There’s no experimentation the anti-nano people can do to it to make it look glossy. It’s just easier and cheaper to order it glossy. Nano is awesome though if you can afford it.

Anyone who purchased the nano texture display and were disappointed in a perceived loss of clarity or contrast obviously wanted a matte screen over the glossy. I'm glad you're happy with the display and I'm sure many will be. My home office window is to the right of my desk, I have zero issues with reflections, and therefore zero need for the upgrade, especially if it might compromise the sharpness of a display I already love. They're both the same 5K display underneath the finish.

I'm seeing a lot of these "if you can afford it" comments on this forum regarding certain 2020 iMac upgrades. Newsflash: people buy things they can't afford all the time, and people don't automatically buy things simply because they can afford them.

 

[iDomDotCom]

I actually tried this for a while - e.g. turning off "Font Smoothing" - https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...texture-glass-option-appearing-fuzzy.2251371/ - but it's really just trying to patch over an inherent problem. For example, images still look fuzzy since they're not subject to disabling Font Smoothing.

Resolution is already max at 5K - you can't make it any sharper. I didn't have an issue with color, but the Nano-texture display affects how it looks like if you don't view it directly - that wasn't a deal breaker for me though.



Not sure what you mean by "anti-nano". I don't think people complaining about the Nano-texture in this thread desire having their screen glossy - the expectation is that glare is reduced without compromising display quality.

I believe a lot of people have pointed out in this thread et al., both with evidence and via personal attestations, that there's a definite visual loss of quality, a loss which may or may not be tolerable depending on a person-by-person basis.

I know I personally would love to have kept the Nano-display if it didn't drop quality to a level I found unacceptable.

If you thought there would be zero loss in clarity, you are extremely naive. From my understanding, it’s a better version of a matte screen (Not glossy) but without the typical loss of CONTRAST that usually happens with a matte screen. Matte screens are inherent blurrier just by their nature of scattering light. That’s through a coating or in this case, etched glass.

You guys are making it seem like someone heated up a stick of butter and rubbed it all over your glossy screen. It’s not a helpful comparison. We need To know how this compares to a typical matte display.

 

[masotime]

If you thought there would be zero loss in clarity, you are extremely naive. From my understanding, it’s a better version of a matte screen (Not glossy) but without the typical loss of CONTRAST that usually happens with a matte screen. Matte screens are inherent blurrier just by their nature of scattering light. That’s through a coating or in this case, etched glass.

You guys are making it seem like someone heated up a stick of butter and rubbed it all over your glossy screen. It’s not a helpful comparison. We need To know how this compares to a typical matte display.

I think its fair to say there may have been unrealistic expectations of Apple's "magic" in being able to deliver a non-reflective display without a significant compromise in display fidelity. My wording "without compromising display quality" may have given the impression that I was expecting the exact same display - but I would have been happy with a slightly less sharp screen.

To clarify - it was more than I expected (display sharpness drop), and to a level I was not able to tolerate. I had already read about it before receiving delivery on the iMac and had hoped I could wave away the nay-sayers. I was wrong.

The "helpful comparison" bit is I think misunderstood. The point here that many posters are making is that it's not emphasized enough that there's going to be a quality drop - something that potential buyers need to be aware of. There have already been several screenshots to show the effect, and serve to set up an expectation that if you don't really need the anti-glare effect, you should probably stick to glossy as the display sharpness drop is.... not insignificant.

I think if having a non-reflective display is a priority to a buyer, then the sharpness is probably less of a concern, and I definitely don't want to suggest otherwise.

 

[Donnation]

I love the Nano display and I honestly don't see any loss in clarity and only see zero glare while I'm sitting at my desk. It was so worth it in my opinion.

 

[iDomDotCom]

I think its fair to say there may have been unrealistic expectations of Apple's "magic" in being able to deliver a non-reflective display without a significant compromise in display fidelity. My wording "without compromising display quality" may have given the impression that I was expecting the exact same display - but I would have been happy with a slightly less sharp screen.

To clarify - it was more than I expected (display sharpness drop), and to a level I was not able to tolerate. I had already read about it before receiving delivery on the iMac and had hoped I could wave away the nay-sayers. I was wrong.

The "helpful comparison" bit is I think misunderstood. The point here that many posters are making is that it's not emphasized enough that there's going to be a quality drop - something that potential buyers need to be aware of. There have already been several screenshots to show the effect, and serve to set up an expectation that if you don't really need the anti-glare effect, you should probably stick to glossy as the display sharpness drop is.... not insignificant.

I think if having a non-reflective display is a priority to a buyer, then the sharpness is probably less of a concern, and I definitely don't want to suggest otherwise.

Yeah, I think a lot of this confusion comes from Apple not being completely clear in their marketing. I was expecting general blurriness, but overall for the monitor to still look better than a typical 4K LG monitor you'd find on Amazon.

Fortunately, it looks like mine will arrive within the next week, so I'm crossing my fingers I won't be feeling any buyer's remorse. I will come back here with my full, honest impressions - how I feel it compares to traditional 4K/1080p displays, e-ink displays, a traditional matte screen protector (a la Paperlike for iPad,) etc.

I will also scratch it with my fingernails to test its durability. Kidding! But boy am I curious...

 

[rkuo]

What I’m curious about is how the Nano texture display compares to a simple matte PET screen protector on top of a glossy iMac.

With that said, it’s just like others here have said ... apple’s marketing for this implies it’s a strict upgrade to the glossy and the “nano texture” tech makes it sounds plausible that they might have overcome the inherent limitations of matte displays.

If you were interested in the Nano texture option, and you listened to the people here saying they see no loss of sharpness or contrast ... well, you would be extremely disappointed when you got the actual display and found out it cost 500 dollars and looks WORSE in most indoor lighting conditions. Now you have to return the damn thing and buy the other one and you just wasted a whole lot of time. In fact, as you can see from this thread, this is exactly what happened for some.

I use matte films on displays all the time ... more than most would, quite honestly. I have one on my iPad right now as I write this. It’s a very deliberate choice and always a trade off.

 

[Donnation]

What I’m curious about is how the Nano texture display compares to a simple matte PET screen protector on top of a glossy iMac.

With that said, it’s just like others here have said ... apple’s marketing for this implies it’s a strict upgrade to the glossy and the “nano texture” tech makes it sounds plausible that they might have overcome the inherent limitations of matte displays.

If you were interested in the Nano texture option, and you listened to the people here saying they see no loss of sharpness or contrast ... well, you would be extremely disappointed when you got the actual display and found out it cost 500 dollars and looks WORSE in most indoor lighting conditions. Now you have to return the damn thing and buy the other one and you just wasted a whole lot of time. In fact, as you can see from this thread, this is exactly what happened for some.

I use matte films on displays all the time ... more than most would, quite honestly. I have one on my iPad right now as I write this. It’s a very deliberate choice and always a trade off.

I think people tend to exaggerate greatly how things look here. This is just my opinion but there are people over the in the MacBook Pro forum that say the latency is so bad on the 16" MacBook Pro Screens that it looks like paint smearing down the screen when you scroll through text. That is beyond an exaggeration.

Everything in here is always one extreme or the other.

 

[poematik13]

Contrast is usually worse on matte screens, how is the nanoglass on that front?

 

[1229175]

Contrast is usually worse on matte screens, how is the nanoglass on that front?

Contrast is lower than that of the standard, glossy display, hence the "fuzziness."