Oh, how very different may I ask?
I just had the Wacom Movink in the studio – matte, OLED, on paper quite identical (except 1080p). It's not even close to the NanoDisplay of the iPad.The Wacom feels plasticky and sticky, while the Apple Display is silk-smooth to the touch, absolutely nonstick, you really have to get used to a different way the pencil and your fingers glide over the surface. I also had the Remarkable (which I liked a lot for its specific use case) and some other tablets – the micro-texture by Apple feels much more high-end. Hard to describe and if you look for more texture to slow down the pencil, it's not quite like Paperlike, RockPaperScissors et al, almost the opposite but in a good way. It's something that surprised me in the store & I was not sure it would work out, but so far is really an upgrade to the regular display (which I loved).
Analog is exactly how I’ve been describing it. There’s something distinctly “non-digital” about it despite how fast and fluid it is. For instance, people keep describing the text as slightly “blurry” but I actually think it‘s that it looks less digitally sharpened? Not too distinct from reading print or my Kindle where text is crisp but slightly “soft” or less harsh.
Wacom unfortunately don't use good matte glass. They like to use those that have noticeable grain/colour noise.
For the PaperMatte, did you notice a difference with respect to OLED vs LCD and max brightness on each?
When the salesman took my new ipad with nano out of the box in the verizon store, he was just shocked to not see the reflection of the ceiling lights on the screen. He just kept looking at it and saying wow. So yep, I can
I actually disagree with this. Outdoors or under studio lighting it incrementally reduces glare and lowers the impact of reflections, albeit by a big increment, but you can still see them on the screen. Indoors in normal house lighting it makes reflections virtually disappear without visible artifacts.
