Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

OniExpress t1_j2sv3a3 wrote

What's the market overlap between people who want a 4k webcam and people who are going to be happy with a monitor integrated one?

It just seems to be that most of the market would prefer a separate one for positioning, specifications, outputs, maybe internal storage, etc.

150

Pubelication t1_j2tdys2 wrote

> With an integrated webcam and two speakers, Dell is marketing the display to professionals who need a quality screen for work and video conferencing.

Sounds like something the developers thought there'd be demand for during covid, but it took too long.

83

urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_j2vft2p wrote

actually you may be right

the monitor integrate most of what i use in my home office setting

including the KWM to swich between personal computer snd work laptop and the accessible ports

the difference with my set up is that this thing has eeverything conveniently integrated and of higher specific

19

GoX14 t1_j2tpgc1 wrote

There are a huge number of people who chase "latest and greatest" specs with their gadgets, despite a poor understanding of technology, itself.

This is for the person who buys the new iPhone with each cycle and always takes their Tesla key out of their pocket so that you can see it.

10

Pubelication t1_j2txith wrote

The specs are great though. I have two P2415Qs that have "retina" PPI and any monitor with lesser PPI you look at after using one looks pixelated and outdated. That webcam is atrocious though.

7

yumri t1_j2uthdw wrote

Mostly sounds like an all-in-one computer design that you can change out the computer part of. The main cited reason why the all-in-one computer design failed is to change out one part you had to change out it all as everything was to integrated with each other.

Mount your workstation to the back of it and you can have a wire free desk so you can use said space for other work stuff. For example a physical note book to jut down notes about the tasks you are doing that you might need later. Days, weeks or even months later having them on a physical paper is better. Depending on the job it could be good for the main monitor for a business conference room to connect to a remote business conference room.

For the end consumer uses i cannot think of any that have a 32-inch 6k monitor with a USB 4 input hub for 4 USB 3 ports then with the webcam separate from it would not be better.

5

socialcommentary2000 t1_j2wi70s wrote

??

AIOs are the go-to form factor for enterprise workstations. I buy a few hundred per PO for deployment and I know that I'm not Dell's biggest client that does this, by a long shot. Dell especially has perfected the art of making them modular (to an extent) and serviceable (completely) to guarantee uptime. They also come with the benefit with not having to buy specific attachments from furniture and office system OEM's to accommodate the separate box. They can also act as a docking head in a pinch without any excess equipment acquisition due to the proliferation of USB C.

4

Toasty27 t1_j338x2e wrote

AIO's have their place to be sure, but they failed in the consumer sector. The only real example left standing is the iMac.

2

kyralfie t1_j2sq8nw wrote

Nice. That's a great resolution for a 32" screen. The same PPI as 27" 5K (5120x2880) which is so much more pleasant to eyes than your usual 27" 4K (3840x2160)... And IPS Black as well. Good stuff.

29

pressedbread t1_j2u2z8j wrote

Maybe I'm out of the loop, whats wrong with 27" 4k? I have a 27" QHD 1440p and was thinking of going 4k

14

Trapdoor1635 t1_j2u87nh wrote

The fractional scaling required to make the UI look a reasonable size

13

kyralfie t1_j2w0pdt wrote

Absolutely nothing wrong with it! It will be an amazing upgrade. It's just that 5K looks even better and sharper and I love it. And I much prefer 200% scaling with a 5K monitor to 150% with a 4K.

7

amoral_ponder t1_j2unw74 wrote

It's more pleasant to your eyes in your imagination or if you're sitting 2 inches away from the screen.

−1

kyralfie t1_j2w0vno wrote

Nah, I have an 80cm deep desk and I used the 5K and multiple 4K ones at the same distance. It's just better. I understand it's not everyone's priority but that's completely alright. To each their own. I myself sold that 16:9 5K in favor of a taller 3:2 4K screen. It was a definite downgrade in quality but it's free real estate. :-)

4

iindigo t1_j2x9g2c wrote

Yeah, I’ve got one desk set up with an iMac Pro (27” 5120x2880) alongside a 27” 2560x1440 monitor and the difference between the two is quite visible at normal sitting distance. It’s by far the most visible with a screen full of text, with letterforms being notably less defined and more blobby on the lower DPI monitor, whereas the iMac’s screen looks almost like paper that emits light.

I share your distaste for 16:9 though, I’d love for there to be HiDPI screens at 16:10 (my personal favorite), 3:2, 5:4, etc that allow running your UI at a perfect 2x, but I don’t see that happening for a few more years at least. Hopefully the trend laptops have seen toward 16:10 and other tall aspect ratios spreads to desktop monitors sooner than later.

3

amoral_ponder t1_j2xzrdh wrote

>2560x1440 monitor

vs 4K is not 4K vs 5K.

1

iindigo t1_j2y14c4 wrote

The density difference is still visible, just not as visible, plus as noted in other comments 4K 27”-32” screens require fractional UI scaling which is problematic under some circumstances. 5k 27” or 6k 32” can run usably with integer scaling, e.g 2x instead of 1.5x.

4

levarburger t1_j2tu8qa wrote

Pls, all I want is a 32" 165hz oled...

11

Northcliff t1_j2tynoy wrote

How does mac handle 6k scaling ?

7

tnnrk t1_j2v3aa4 wrote

Well considering Apple sells a 32in 6K monitor (that’s the resolution and the price) id say very well. Matches the ppi of their 27in 5k iMacs

20

cheesepuff07 t1_j3420ac wrote

Hey come on now it starts at only $5k… it’s only $6k if you want a stand for it lol

3

mgd09292007 t1_j2ucwb4 wrote

That is one ugly monitor. I definitely want a 32 in 6k display, but the camera on top is an iSore™

7

mattm457 t1_j2too60 wrote

Glad to see some entrants in the >5k space. Although Dell is probably hoping the higher PPI means we don't notice all their stuck/dead pixels.

4

icup2 t1_j2w1zng wrote

wtf, so the thickest bezel is the TOP ONE? Geez.

3

Aggressive_Bill_2687 t1_j31lsp1 wrote

I understand the comments about the webcam, but honestly if this is price competitive I don’t care.

Dell displays have a reputation for being solid, if a little… chunky, and their included stands are fantastic (and are VESA compatible out of the box). If this is priced even close to a Studio Display (yes I know it’s closer to the XDR in specs) it’ll be a very tempting alternative.

3

PlayerOneNow t1_j2tpupo wrote

I hope the webcam includes windows hello facial recognition otherwise this a tough sell.

2

Bauzi t1_j2w3e14 wrote

Why do I need a webcam built in? Just concentrate on your monitors Dell.

2

VengefulAncient t1_j2w8ym8 wrote

So you feel more pushed to upgrade when that webcam breaks or becomes obsolete.

1

Testastic t1_j36knet wrote

Seriously? The kind of people who want a monitor like this do not want a built in webcam.

2

Racxie t1_j2tiult wrote

But why mini DisplayPort rather than a full-sized one? And shame about only having one HDMI port despite it being advertised as being able to have 2 computers connected at once. Otherwise that screen sounds like it could be lush.

1

iindigo t1_j2xb1e4 wrote

> But why mini DisplayPort rather than a full-sized one?

Hard to say but I’d guess due to space constraints.

> And shame about only having one HDMI port despite it being advertised as being able to have 2 computers connected at once.

You can still have two computers connected, one through Thunderbolt and one through miniDP + upstream USB. Could add a third with the HDMI port but that’s more suited to a streaming box or game console than it is for a computer.

1

PlayerOneNow t1_j2tpjdp wrote

Included HDMI 2.1(perfect for consoles) and Thunderbolt4 offers 140W of power. WOW. This monitor even has DUAL 15W speakers.... Amazing.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j2w9snc wrote

Do you work for Dell marketing or something? Or is this just thick sarcasm I'm too tired to see through?

> Included HDMI 2.1(perfect for consoles)

Oh yeah, console owners are totally going to drop more on a 32" monitor than their console costs - a monitor with a resolution their console won't even support.

> This monitor even has DUAL 15W speakers

Not once in the history of modern monitors was someone who actually cares about their monitor excited that it has inbuilt speakers.

1

iindigo t1_j2xbifm wrote

Nobody is going to buy this exclusively for use with a console, but it’s a nice value add for a work-play home office setup where the monitor is doing double duty. Have it hooked up to the company provided MacBook during the day, and then flip over to your PS5 or whatever in the evening. The monitor obviously won’t run at the console’s native resolution but with its pixel density that’s not too much of a problem.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j2yyt2f wrote

Most people who play on consoles aren't likely to spend this much on a monitor, double duty or not, they play on TVs that "already exist in their household" and in their minds are basically free (even though they are not). Yes, some people will do what you said, no doubt, but pretending that this is "perfect for consoles" is an extremely questionable claim, as it was definitely not the intention nor the target market.

1

Bigreddork t1_j2u9bak wrote

This is for IT people who only need to track on device issued to remote workers.

0

Theslash1 t1_j2whe9y wrote

Sigh. Webcam is hideous. Its not ultra wide, and only 32"?? WTH Dell. Everyone in our company uses at least a 34 ultrawide, most going larger.

0

iindigo t1_j2xajja wrote

A lot of people still prefer 2-3 regular width screens. I’m in this camp, because I’m an ardent user of virtual desktops in macOS and Linux, and that setup allows each monitor to have its own set of virtual desktops, which then allows for instant, independent switching between primary and secondary sets of windows by just switching virtual desktops.

I’m sure it depends on the workload, though. My use case has me switching between numerous different apps over the course of the day, but I could see how someone who mainly needs a single large set of windows onscreen at all times would prefer an ultrawide.

3

Theslash1 t1_j2xmftx wrote

The ultra wide allows 2 virtual monitors basically, with no center panes. That’s why most love them. They work in a claim system and email basically. I use 34 ultra wides for games and work as well, easy 2 screen setup when needed. Can’t say I’m doing anything with vms right now though

0

tr14l t1_j2woh4y wrote

"Let's add more pixels that are well beyond human visible detection!"
"What about refresh rate?"

"Same. Same forever. Never update it"

0

MrTrees_ t1_j2uign1 wrote

Spycam* 🥸

−2

nightwardx t1_j2shh2t wrote

why matte? :/

−9

Deliphin t1_j2t6o17 wrote

..Do people want gloss? who the hell wants half their screen obscured by the sun or ceiling lights' reflections?

10

ps_snail t1_j2t7zke wrote

I only want glossy when ever possible. The colors looks much clearer imo and well worth it. I never sit in direct sunlight

7

VengefulAncient t1_j2w9eap wrote

No, they don't. An extra layer of transparent glass on top of the display panel doesn't change the colours. What's actually happening is that the glossy screens you are seeing - most likely on MacBooks - just happen to have much better displays with higher colour accuracy and colourspace coverage than an average matte screen on cheaper laptops.

1

ps_snail t1_j2wetza wrote

Yea thats a fair point, i almost exlusivly work from a 16" Macbook

1

VengefulAncient t1_j2wmvfw wrote

Exactly. If you saw the average glossy screens on a cheap Windows laptop even just a few years ago, you'd want to instantly smash them. Garbage 200 nit (if you're lucky) 768p TN panels with low contrast, glossy coating only made them even harder to read. I have an MBP 16 for work and while the screen is good, I still prefer the gorgeous AHVA 1080p 120 Hz matte panel on my personal laptop. So much less eye strain in brighter rooms.

1

iindigo t1_j2y2txb wrote

I generally prefer matte too, but the antiglare coating on Apple displays is worlds better than what most laptops and glossy monitors use. Seems like damn near every other laptop with a glossy screen has little to no coating making them practically mirrors, even if the display itself is great (400+ nit IPS/OLED). I get the appeal of gloss but would it kill these manufacturers to spare a few cents on decent AG coating?

1

VengefulAncient t1_j2yyhz1 wrote

That coating tends to wear off with time, rendering the display unusable. Remember Staingate?

1

iindigo t1_j2yz0jt wrote

It’s less of a problem with newer machines than older ones. I have a 2016 MBP and 2017 iMac Pro and both their coatings are still like new.

Also helps to not use cleaners when cleaning the screen… I only ever use a microfiber cloth, occasionally getting it damp first for particularly stubborn smudges.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j2z25gz wrote

It's even less of a problem when your screen is matte. Glossy coating adds absolutely nothing of value to the screen's factual characteristics. The fact that Apple's version of glossy is less worse than usual glossy gets brought up a lot, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still worse than just matte - so why do we keep bringing it up at all? It only serves as an excuse for them to keep doing it.

> Also helps to not use cleaners when cleaning the screen

I've tried that, but that coating ironically makes it absolutely impossible even for the slightest smudges to come off with just a microfiber cloth, it needs cleaner. Glossy screens without that coating don't have that issue, in my experience. Or maybe they have oleophobic coating that Apple displays don't. Fortunately, it's not my problem in the long run, as this is a company laptop, so if the screen does stain while I'm still with them, it's an excuse for me to demand an upgrade.

1

fenrir245 t1_j5sylpv wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mTV1TOblbA

What you say is true if there is no light at all in your viewing space.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j5xn5io wrote

What part of what I said is only true if there is no light at all? You have to be more specific.

1

fenrir245 t1_j5xrp9w wrote

The part where you claimed the vibrancy of the panel has nothing to do with the coating. As shown in the video, any time there is any ambient lighting the matte version will look more washed out and dull compared to the same panel with a glossy coating.

And this isn't including the loss of sharpness matte coating causes.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j5xu4sw wrote

So first of all, there no such thing as a matte """coating""". That's just the natural state of any panel. Calling it a "coating" the way he and you do is incorrect. Glossy panels are the ones that have something extra - the glass layer.

Second, do the monitors in the video have exactly the same panel? He claims so, but I've seen plenty of big reviewers not understand the difference and claim that something is "the same/practically the same panel" when it wasn't even from the same manufacturer. Are brightness and contrast settings configured to match?

Third, using ambient lighting as an argument in favour of glossy displays... really doesn't make sense. You can literally see it in the video how the monitor is reflecting him. Who wants that? I have a MacBook (which of course has a glossy display) for work and a 24" matte desktop monitor - guess which one is a pain even at max brightness? Not the matte monitor.

The guy is literally talking out of his ass, claiming that the reason phones and tables have glossy screens is because "they provide the best visual experience". Wrong: it's because you need the glass layer for a capacitive touchscreen (back in the day, Windows Mobile PDAs had matte touchscreens because they were resistive - I miss that greatly, they also worked with anything that exerted pressure, meaning you could use them in gloves etc). Why should I listen to anything he says? He outright doesn't understand that reflections are not wanted by the overwhelming majority of users, and uses what's clearly a worse panel - my previous monitor (MSI Optix MAG241CR) also had that kind of "diffusion" that made text more difficult to read, but neither my current monitor (AOC Q24G2) nor my older one (Asus VX248H) do. All of them are matte.

1

fenrir245 t1_j5xycnu wrote

> So first of all, there no such thing as a matte """coating""". That's just the natural state of any panel. Calling it a "coating" the way he and you do is incorrect. Glossy panels are the ones that have something extra - the glass layer.

Based on what? Do you know how LCDs are manufactured?

All LCDs have an outer polarizing layer. The manufacturer decides whether that layer is coarsened to have a matte finish, or to leave it at that to get a glossy finish. Glossy displays don't have anything "extra" than matte displays do. There are exceptions at the ultra low end that do what you say, and the result is clearly visible. You don't get the vibrancy or sharpness of glossy displays nor do you get the diffusion of matte displays.

> Second, do the monitors in the video have exactly the same panel? He claims so, but I've seen plenty of big reviewers not understand the difference and claim that something is "the same/practically the same panel" when it wasn't even from the same manufacturer. Are brightness and contrast settings configured to match?

He runs his monitors full tilt for his tests, and yes, they're from the same manufacturer. Also I don't think you understand that there are only few actual panel manufacturers in the world, so many displays from different manufacturers will indeed have the same panel. The Eve shown in the video uses LG panels.

> Third, using ambient lighting as an argument in favour of glossy displays... really doesn't make sense. You can literally see it in the video how the monitor is reflecting him. Who wants that?

...so did the matte one. Did you even watch the full video?

In the case of glossy, I can position my monitor to completely cut out the glaring lights. With the matte even if I do that I still end up with a washed out image.

> The guy is literally talking out of his ass, claiming that the reason phones and tables have glossy screens is because "they provide the best visual experience". Wrong: it's because you need the glass layer for a capacitive touchscreen (back in the day, Windows Mobile PDAs had matte touchscreens because they were resistive - I miss that greatly, they also worked with anything that exerted pressure, meaning you could use them in gloves etc). Why should I listen to anything he says?

If anything you proved you're the one talking out your ass. If matte displays can't be touch sensitive, is Lenovo scamming customers by offering matte touch display options on their Thinkpads? Am I hallucinating that my screen protector on my phone right now is matte?

> He outright doesn't understand that reflections are not wanted by the overwhelming majority of users

And yet pretty much no one is claiming for matte displays on Apple laptops, smartphones, tablets or OLED TVs, despite it being such "an overwhelmingly negative point". Funny how that works, almost as if having a vibrant and sharper display where reflections can be mitigated pretty much completely through proper placement is way more desirable than washed out displays that are meant for office use where placement cannot be controlled.

> uses what's clearly a worse panel - my previous monitor (MSI Optix MAG241CR) also had that kind of "diffusion" that made text more difficult to read, but neither my current monitor (AOC Q24G2) nor my older one (Asus VX248H) do. All of them are matte.

And yet there are no laptops on notebookcheck where the matte display is anywhere near as sharp as their glossy counterparts (as seen in their subpixel view). Are they all using worse panels than the ones using glossy?

1

VengefulAncient t1_j5y14yp wrote

> All LCDs have an outer polarizing layer. The manufacturer decides whether that layer is coarsened to have a matte finish, or to leave it at that to get a glossy finish. Glossy displays don't have anything "extra" than matte displays do.

Wildly incorrect. You can't tell by simply touching the display that the glossy ones have a layer of glass (or plastic) on top, really?

> Also I don't think you understand that there are only few actual panel manufacturers in the world, so many displays from different manufacturers will indeed have the same panel.

I'm well aware of that. And are you aware of the fact that even the same laptop or monitor can source difference panels with "similar" specs that aren't the same? You claim to read Notebookcheck - they bring up that fact over and over.

> In the case of glossy, I can position my monitor to completely cut out the glaring lights.

Good luck with that when your lights are on the ceiling like they are in most cases - or when you are working outside/next to a window (which is very often the case with a laptop).

> With the matte even if I do that I still end up with a washed out image.

Except it's not washed out if you have a decent screen.

> If matte displays can't be touch sensitive

I literally said they can be. But they have to be resistive, not capacitive. Capacitive tech needs the glass or plastic layer to work. Read up on how it functions. "A capacitive touchscreen panel consists of an insulator, such as glass, coated with a transparent conductor, such as indium tin oxide (ITO)."

> Lenovo

... is an example of when a display actually has matte "coating" on top of the capacitive glass layer.

> Am I hallucinating that my screen protector on my phone right now is matte?

You said it yourself: screen protector. (And those truly make phone displays look like grainy trash.) Get back to me when you build a capacitive display without the glass layer, you will be rich overnight.

> ...so did the matte one.

Uh-huh - except matte screens do it to a much smaller extent and only on dark backgrounds. Glossy ones like on my MacBook do it regardless of background and lighting, and it's extremely tiring on the eyes.

> And yet pretty much no one is claiming for matte displays on Apple laptops, smartphones, tablets or OLED TVs

You're joking, right? People have been demanding a matte MacBook for ages. When you do actual work on it for a full day instead of being a pretentious "graphics designer" playing with fonts for half an hour, the reflections become extremely exhausting. The reason Apple isn't doing it is because matte screens look "cheap" - glass looks expensive and fancy.

> is way more desirable

Yet almost all desktop monitors, even the very expensive ones, are matte. I wonder why...

> And yet there are no laptops on notebookcheck where the matte display is anywhere near as sharp as their glossy counterparts (as seen in their subpixel view)

As an avid Notebookcheck reader myself: citation needed.

> Are they all using worse panels than the ones using glossy?

That's not as far from the truth as you think. The aforementioned MacBooks have been consistently offering some of the best displays on the market in terms of resolution, colour accuracy, and colorspace coverage - and all of them have glass. Those specs aren't the consequence of having glass, but they do skew the statistics in glossy screens' favour.

1

fenrir245 t1_j5y2jb3 wrote

> Wildly incorrect. You can't tell by simply touching the display that the glossy ones have a layer of glass (or plastic) on top, really?

...what do you think the outer polarizing layer is made out of? Do you really think the matte layer isn't glass?

Please, take a look at how screens are made before making such outlandish claims.

> I'm well aware of that. And are you aware of the fact that even the same laptop or monitor can source difference panels with "similar" specs that aren't the same? You claim to read Notebookcheck - they bring up that fact over and over.

And in those cases the panels are different, and come with different identifiers and very often display suppliers. You see discrepancies between LG panels and Samsung panels, not one Samsung panel vs another Samsung panel.

> Good luck with that when your lights are on the ceiling like they are in most cases - or when you are working outside/next to a window (which is very often the case with a laptop).

Yes, in an office scenario. I like to consume media on my devices, and I do that in comfort of my home, not office, where I do have control over placement of lighting.

> Except it's not washed out if you have a decent screen.

Provable false. What counts as "decent screen"? 500$? 1000$? 6000$? All of them will wash out the display, that's literally how matte works.

> I literally said they can be. But they have to be resistive, not capacitive. Capacitive tech needs the glass or plastic layer to work. Read up on how it functions. "A capacitive touchscreen panel consists of an insulator, such as glass, coated with a transparent conductor, such as indium tin oxide (ITO)."

Once again, on both matte and glossy displays the outer polarizing layer is glass. So nothing stops matte displays from being capacitive touch.

> ... is an example of when a display actually has matte "coating" on top of the capacitive glass layer.

So if one is to use your logic, the Lenovo has matte panel, over which they put a glossy glass layer, over which they put a matte layer once again? Do I really need to point out how ridiculous this is?

> Get back to me when you build a capacitive display without the glass layer, you will be rich overnight.

Lenovo does. Go ask them. And from what I know they aren't exclusive in that either.

> Uh-huh - except matte screens do it to a much smaller extent and only on dark backgrounds. Glossy ones like on my MacBook do it regardless of background and lighting, and it's extremely tiring on the eyes.

Then I guess you should stop sitting out in direct sun, it will damage your panel either way. Macbooks at max brightness are nowhere that reflective in office lighting.

> You're joking, right? People have been demanding a matte MacBook for ages. When you do actual work on it for a full day instead of being a pretentious "graphics designer" playing with fonts for half an hour, the reflections become extremely exhausting. The reason Apple isn't doing it is because matte screens look "cheap" - glass looks expensive and fancy.

Apple laptops were only one class I mentioned, where are the excuses for the others?

And Apple does make a matte version of their expensive monitor, so it's obviously not limited to "glass looks fancy".

> Yet almost all desktop monitors, even the very expensive ones, are matte. I wonder why...

Because most people use them in offices. That's what drives it.

> As an avid Notebookcheck reader myself: citation needed.

Like I said, check the subpixel shots of glossy laptops and matte laptops. That alone should completely destroy the notion of "panels being natively matte and glossy just have glass over them".

> That's not as far from the truth as you think. The aforementioned MacBooks have been consistently offering some of the best displays on the market in terms of resolution, colour accuracy, and colorspace coverage - and all of them have glass. Those specs aren't the consequence of having glass, but they do skew the statistics in glossy screens' favour.

If glass was that unnecessary they wouldn't have put it on in the first place. Of course, that's assuming the ridiculous notion of "panels being natively" matte is true in the first place.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j5y4pqf wrote

> ...what do you think the outer polarizing layer is made out of?

Film. Here, watch a video that shows it coming off. That's some flexible glass...

And here is another video showing an iMac's glass being removed. What's underneath? That's right, a matte panel...

> You see discrepancies between LG panels and Samsung panels, not one Samsung panel vs another Samsung panel.

So first of all, even the panels of the same model have discrepancies - that's why calibration exists. (Another thing you'll see Notebookcheck point out regularly, if you pay attention.) Second, Samsung or LG make dozens, if not hundreds, of different panel models - and the same monitor can use different panels from the same manufacturer whose model number differs only by one letter yet means a considerable difference in specs. I'll ask you again: is there any data that shows that both of these monitors use the exact same panels? (Impossibly by definition, by the way, because one is glossy and another matte, but let's at least compare their stated specifications.)

> Yes, in an office scenario. I like to consume media on my devices, and I do that in comfort of my home, not office, where I do have control over placement of lighting.

Cool beans, I do too. And I don't want to switch off my ceiling light just so my screen is legible lmao.

> Provable false. What counts as "decent screen"? 500$? 1000$? 6000$? All of them will wash out the display, that's literally how matte works.

IPS, high contrast, above 90% sRGB coverage, low deltaE values. Again: I have yet to see this "washing out".

> Then I guess you should stop sitting out in direct sun, it will damage your panel either way.

... lol?

> Macbooks at max brightness are nowhere that reflective in office lighting.

Yeah, because they use an additional anti-glare coating which tends to warp with age - remember Staingate? And I don't want to have to use maximum brightness, that depletes battery faster. Again something you should know from Notebookcheck.

> Apple laptops were only one class I mentioned, where are the excuses for the others?

CAPACITIVE TOUCHSCREEN. For fuck's sake! I love how you conveniently ignored the Wikipedia tidbit I linked. And yes, plenty of people have wanted a matte smartphone for years, because you DO use those outside a lot, and until manufacturers like Samsung and Apple started sticking ridiculous 500+ nit displays (that you can't even set to max brightness manually for numerous reasons - they only go that high via ambient light sensor) on their phones to cope with that, using a smartphone in the sun was a pain. Again something you should know from Notebookcheck. Or, you know, just common sense.

> And Apple does make a matte version of their expensive monitor, so it's obviously not limited to "glass looks fancy".

"Every Pro Display XDR screen is engineered for extremely low reflectivity. And if you’re in an especially uncontrolled lighting environment, there’s an innovative matt option with nano‑texture glass."

Oops, so it's still glossy, just less glossy.

> If glass was that unnecessary they wouldn't have put it on in the first place. Of course, that's assuming the ridiculous notion of "panels being natively" matte is true in the first place.

> Because most people use them in offices. That's what drives it.

I guess people also buy gaming monitors for offices?

> Like I said, check the subpixel shots of glossy laptops and matte laptops. That alone should completely destroy the notion of "panels being natively matte and glossy just have glass over them".

Did. What difference am I supposed to be looking at?

> If glass was that unnecessary they wouldn't have put it on in the first place.

And they don't on matte screens.

1

fenrir245 t1_j5y7n1r wrote

> Film. Here, watch a video that shows it coming off. That's some flexible glass...

Fine, it can be plastic as well. Happy? Does that change anything? Did the Macbook become magically matte all of a sudden?

> And here is another video showing an iMac's glass being removed. What's underneath? That's right, a matte panel...

That looks like matte to you? Since when do matte displays have razor sharp reflections?

And lol at linking literally 11 year old videos. If you haven't noticed, display tech has progressed quite a bit since then, and we used laminated displays now. Go ahead, use any modern smartphone, and see if there's any gap between the screen and your skin while touching it.

And as for peeling off layers, what exactly is up with all the "matte removal" processes available online?

Are these companies putting on "natively matte" panels, then putting glossy glass on it, and then again putting a matte coating on it?

> (Impossibly by definition, by the way, because one is glossy and another matte, but let's at least compare their stated specifications.)

Same colorspace, same brightness, same resolution, same refresh rate. What more do you want?

You seem desperate to grab at any tiny colorspace inaccuracy to justify the massive difference shown in vibrancy.

> Cool beans, I do too. And I don't want to switch off my ceiling light just so my screen is legible lmao.

Except I don't have to. I cant just tilt my screen away from light sources to completely eliminate reflections. But matte screens are still washed out.

> IPS, high contrast, above 90% sRGB coverage, low deltaE values. Again: I have yet to see this "washing out".

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Perceived vibrancy can be wildly different even if the colors measured at the surface of the panel is same. Do you even understand how matte works?

Basic physics: on a glossy surface, all light rays largely reflect off in a single direction, so if you angle it right, none of those reflections will ever reach you. But for matte surfaces, the reflections go all over the place. Regardless of how you angle it, there will always be some reflections coming to you, washing out the display.

And the video I linked originally gives a very good demonstration of how that turns out, and that's not the only comparison available.

> Yeah, because they use an additional anti-glare coating which tends to warp with age - remember Staingate? And I don't want to have to use maximum brightness, that depletes battery faster. Again something you should know from Notebookcheck.

I just used max brightness for the worst case scenario. In most cases even that's not required. You keep saying you're an "avid reader" of Notebookcheck, but then you'd be aware that Notebookcheck also says this in their Macbook reviews.

> CAPACITIVE TOUCHSCREEN. For fuck's sake! I love how you conveniently ignored the Wikipedia tidbit I linked.

Are you just spamming without reading now? I said the screens are already topped with glass or plastic even for matte, and you literally proved it for me with your videos, which means there's no barrier for matte displays getting capacitive input.

And the kicker? Here, from the very article you cited:

> Those for mobile devices are now being produced with 'in-cell' technology, such as in Samsung's Super AMOLED screens, that eliminates a layer by building the capacitors inside the display itself.

So the sensors are inside the display as well. No problem in making them matte now, given the "extra glass" layer is unnecessary, right?

> And yes, plenty of people have wanted a matte smartphone for years, because you DO use those outside a lot

And yet it has literally never come up once anywhere, outside of matte vs glossy arguments for monitors. Even people clamoring for small phones massively outnumber any such people.

> Oops, so it's still glossy, just less glossy.

Are you seriously claiming that glass can't be matte? Are you just trolling at this point?

> I guess people also buy gaming monitors for offices?

The panel manufacturing process is the same, they aren't going to spin up a whole other pipeline for glossy polarizing layers.

> Did. What difference am I supposed to be looking at?

Yep, you're trolling. No one with working eyes thinks this and this are the same.

Also "avid readers" of Notebookcheck would very much know they always point out the "graininess" of matte displays vs glossy ones, but it's already confirmed you're just trolling.

Only reply if you have actual arguments to make and not just spam nonsense in a cycle.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j5yj6n0 wrote

> Fine, it can be plastic as well. Happy? Does that change anything?

Yes. It disproves your false claim that "matte screens have glass on top because polarizer is always made of glass". Though by the end of your comment, you're already back to pretending that's the case. Does that actually work on people? I kinda always assumed it wouldn't.

> That looks like matte to you? Since when do matte displays have razor sharp reflections?

That's not "razor sharp" lol. And we've established that matte screens reflect to some extent as well. I can see myself in my matte screens when they are turned off - they don't behave the same way when turned on.

> If you haven't noticed, display tech has progressed quite a bit since then, and we used laminated displays now.

Which changes... what, exactly? Adds glass to matte displays? Nope.

> And as for peeling off layers, what exactly is up with all the "matte removal" processes available online? Are these companies putting on "natively matte" panels, then putting glossy glass on it, and then again putting a matte coating on it?

I mean... that's exactly what Apple has done, as shown in the video I've linked. Matte panel, then glass on top, then "anti-glare" coating on top of glass (which doesn't work very well but it gives their marketing another buzzword). Yes, they fuse them nowadays instead, but the layers remain the same.

Stripping the top layer from the panel and exposing the fragile inner layer doesn't make it the same as an actual glossy screen. Again, glossy screens have a glass (or hard plastic) on top of the panel (or fused with it), which generates most of the reflections. This exposed inner layer is still semi-soft, easily damaged, and will get absolutely destroyed by cleaning solutions (meanwhile, actual glossy screens can be fully cleaned with a microfiber cloth, especially since the glass allows them to be coated with an oleophobic layer - standard on most phones nowadays). It is not glass. People in the comments on that video even recommend getting a protective film for it, because it will get easily damaged otherwise. Hint: that does not happen with glass.

Yes, it's reflective, congratulations - but that's not at all what a glossy display on my MacBook or my Windows convertible is like. You can clearly feel the glass on them if you touch them. You won't feel it on that stripped display. In fact, the way it looks strongly reminds me of monitors sold in the early 00s when LCDs were still new and people didn't even know terms like "matte" or "glossy". Those monitors scratched extremely easily and their reflectiveness was somewhere in between real matte and real glossy displays and was annoying to both camps. They don't exist anymore nowadays.

> Same colorspace, same brightness, same resolution, same refresh rate. What more do you want?

Official specs that confirm that and not just your word.

> I just used max brightness for the worst case scenario. In most cases even that's not required.

Yes, except I have yet to find these "most cases" with this Macbook whenever any lighting is involved.

> Except I don't have to. I cant just tilt my screen away from light sources to completely eliminate reflections.

> tilt my screen away

> tilt my screen

It took over a decade for TN screens to be finally phased out and humanity breathed a collective sigh of relief once they no longer had to constantly adjust their screens to avoid colour distortion and brightness changes. But not this person! 🤡

> Perceived vibrancy can be wildly different even if the colors measured at the surface of the panel is same.

Oh okay, so we're firmly into snake oil territory now. Instruments say the colours are the same, but "perception" isn't.

The funniest thing is that you are sort of right - except that "perception" has nothing to do with the actual image quality. Why do you think glossy magazines existed? Humans just like flashy, shiny surfaces. They are perceived as expensive and high quality. Which is exactly why almost every shitty low-end laptop has a glossy layer to mask how awful their panels truly are. That's been the go-to tactic throughout the entire era of 150 nit TN panels being standard on laptops.

> So the sensors are inside the display as well. No problem in making them matte now, given the "extra glass" layer is unnecessary, right?

Except that you forgot that touchscreens are meant to be touched. You know, swiping gestures and all that. Glass makes that easy and pleasant. Cheap plastic or, worse, those tacky "matte" screen protectors? Horrible, your fingers literally stop in their tracks.

> I said the screens are already topped with glass or plastic even for matte, and you literally proved it for me with your videos

Incorrect. Nothing I linked "proves" that matte screens are topped with glass. And plastic film ≠ hard plastic layer (which is what's found on cheapest glossy displays).

> And yet it has literally never come up once anywhere, outside of matte vs glossy arguments for monitors. Even people clamoring for small phones massively outnumber any such people.

Really? Never came up? You must be quite young. The generation that grew up using resistive matte PDA touchscreens complains about it to this day.

> The panel manufacturing process is the same, they aren't going to spin up a whole other pipeline for glossy polarizing layers.

  • That comparison video you've originally linked allegedly has exactly the same panels but with a "different finish" (let's roll with that for the sake of the argument). So either they're actually different panels, unlike what you claim, or... changing the "finish" type isn't that difficult after all. You know, like sticking a glass layer on top.
  • If there's so much demand for glossy screens, why are they still running the matte pipeline at all?
  • We've already established that the polarizing layer isn't glossy or matte. But anyway, according to you, matte surface is created by sticking an additional layer on top of glass. So... every display is originally glossy anyway, and it should be incredibly easy to convert it to matte.

Doesn't track.

> Are you seriously claiming that glass can't be matte? Are you just trolling at this point?

Yes, glass can be matte, and if grandma had wheels, she'd have been a wagon. It doesn't matter how many layers of "anti glare" you coat it with - it's still glass, it generates reflections. The only way for a panel to not be glossy is to not utilize glass at all.

> Yep, you're trolling.

Trolling so much that I've paid extra and ordered my previous laptop from a different country back in 2011 just to make sure I get a matte version because the local SKUs of that model only had glossy. All to troll one random on the internet a decade later. All my clients that specifically demanded a matte screen for their home and office setups I've built for them were trolling, too. It's a conspiracy against you! Not a wide preference for several objective reasons, not at all.

> No one with working eyes thinks this and this are the same.

Here is the Surface Pro 9 subpixel grid. What's wrong? Why is it like that? It's glossy! It's supposed to be crystal clear!

> Also "avid readers" of Notebookcheck would very much know they always point out the "graininess" of matte displays vs glossy ones, but it's already confirmed you're just trolling.

Yes, they also call it a "screen-door effect". Not having a lowest bidder display helps: my monitor definitely doesn't have that. But I've certainly seen ones that do. That doesn't mean this graininess is inherent to matte screens.

1

fenrir245 t1_j5ykqss wrote

> Oh okay, so we're firmly into snake oil territory now. Instruments say the colours are the same, but "perception" isn't.

Ah yes, professional monitors having to come with massive hoods to block out ambient light, studios having to be painted in neutral gray colors to prevent the brain from automatically correcting color casts, and mastering standards specifying bias lighting specifically to enhanced perceived contrast are all snake oil.

> Why is it like that? It's glossy! It's supposed to be crystal clear!

They do have a whole ass Wacom pressure sensitive layer on top, but go on, find more excuses and deflection as to avoid answering why your "uncoated native matte" is somehow even more blurry (even with your surface pro 9 example lol) than the supposed "gloss is just glass over matte" screens, in literally all cases.

Yep, a troll indeed.

You want to prove your point? Go ahead, show one laptop with a matte screen that has at least equal sharpness to the panel I showed you. Should be really damn easy, given the Zenbook isn't an expensive laptop and doesn't really use high end panels.

Until you can't, you'll remain a troll.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j5yohj5 wrote

> Ah yes, professional monitors having to come with massive hoods to block out ambient light, studios having to be painted in neutral gray colors to prevent the brain from automatically correcting color casts, and mastering standards specifying bias lighting specifically to enhanced perceived contrast are all snake oil.

No, because all those factors change actual lighting. You know what those professionals also don't like? Reflections. That's why they have those hoods. And a lot of other professionals also just opt for matte screens instead. (Or both.)

> why your "uncoated native matte" is somehow even more blurry (even with your surface pro 9 example lol) than the supposed "gloss is just glass over matte" screens, in literally all cases

Because you are taking pictures of sub-millimeter particles with average equipment through a surface that diffuses light and not through clear glass. That matters for seeing individual subpixels on photos like that - and doesn't for the actual picture, because your eyes are looking at the result of those subpixels combined. If the screen actually appears grainy, that means that its surface is just low quality coarse garbage. And guess what, I've seen that with glossy screens too!

1

fenrir245 t1_j5yqc31 wrote

I don't need your excuses.

If you are right and I am wrong, you should be able to find at least one laptop with a matte display that is at least as sharp as the one I posted. Especially when there are laptops with matte displays that cost several times that of the Zenbook.

Unless you can post one such laptop from the immense database of Notebookcheck, it's all hot air and trolling.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j5yr6dp wrote

That's not an "excuse". It's an explanation. These photos are always going to look like that because of the physics you yourself mentioned. That doesn't mean that the actual screen will look grainy. Because most don't.

1

fenrir245 t1_j5ys7by wrote

Except most glossy display notebooks are as sharp.

Macbook air

Acer Spin 5

Surface Laptop 3

LG Gram 14

Vivobook 15 Pro

Huawei Matebook 13

Given it's so easy to find the glossy panels with sharp subpixels, it should be even easier to find the matte panels with sharp subpixels, given your claim. Especially when many of them cost far more than the laptops I've listed, so no excuses about "low end panels" either.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j5ysmlb wrote

> it should be even easier to find the matte panels with sharp subpixels, given your claim

Already explained to you why that's not going to happen.

> Except most glossy display notebooks are as sharp.

Sharpness is determined by resolution, not by how individual subpixels look under a microscope. Do your eyes look at individual subpixels? No.

2

fenrir245 t1_j5yt77a wrote

> Already explained to you why that's not going to happen.

How convenient. Almost as if matte causes graininess by its nature, and glossy displays do not have "native matte" surfaces. If the "diffusion" is the problem, then all the matte panels would be far sharper than the glossy panels, as by your definition glossy panels have an additional layer on top of the matte panel.

> Do your eyes look at individual subpixels? No.

Look up the concept of subpixel antialiasing. Also that LG Gram, Zenbook and Vivobook are all 1080p, so that excuse won't fly either.

Again, I'm waiting for that mythical matte panel with subpixels as clear as almost all the glossy laptop panels.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j5yv7g0 wrote

> How convenient. Almost as if matte causes graininess by its nature, and glossy displays do not have "native matte" surfaces.

Almost as if actual graininess has nothing to do with matte and everything to do with low quality screen materials.

> Also that LG Gram, Zenbook and Vivobook are all 1080p, so that excuse won't fly either.

What excuse?

> Again, I'm waiting for that mythical matte panel with subpixels as clear as almost all the glossy laptop panels.

I never promised to deliver it. All I've ever claimed is that even glossy screens can have a blurry subpixel array on those photos. But sure, here you go: Acer Aspire Vero AV14-51. Definitely a matte screen (see full review). What now?

2

fenrir245 t1_j5yyi6o wrote

> Almost as if actual graininess has nothing to do with matte and everything to do with low quality screen materials.

The laptops I listed all have much higher quality screen materials than laptops costing at least twice as much?

Surely even you think you're reaching.

> I never promised to deliver it.

Yes, because it completely counters your absurd claim of "all glossy is just glass over matte".

> All I've ever claimed is that even glossy screens can have a blurry subpixel array on those photos.

But they can also have sharp subpixel arrays, something almost non-existent on the matte ones. You seem to be avoiding this fact quite conveniently.

> But sure, here you go: Acer Aspire Vero AV14-51. Definitely a matte screen (see full review). What now?

Great. Let's look at the review again.

> It is possible to use the screen outdoors, provided that the sun isn't overly bright.

So by reducing the matte haze to improve the sharpness (still not fully, you can clearly see the graininess at the edges), you already lost the diffusion advantage, like what happens with all those "semigloss" and "2H" panels. Thanks for proving my point.

In the end, glossy panels have more sharpness and perceived vibrancy than matte panels, while matte panels are more usable in harsh lighting than glossy panels. Just as is common knowledge for literally anyone but you apparently.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j5z302d wrote

> The laptops I listed all have much higher quality screen materials than laptops costing at least twice as much?

Again. Subpixel array photos do not reflect actual graininess. I have never conceded that point, nor will I. You are the only one riding on it here.

Here's what the HP ZBook Firefly 14 G9 review has to say: "Subjectively, the panel offers excellent picture quality because even bright surfaces do not look grainy despite the matte coating." And yet, its subpixel array looks like this. But go on and keep trying to convince me it's connected lol.

> Yes, because it completely counters your absurd claim of "all glossy is just glass over matte".

So now I'm supposed to argue points that go against my own claim and experience? Do you even know how arguments work?

> It is possible to use the screen outdoors, provided that the sun isn't overly bright.

They say that for literally every display that isn't a phone display with 500+ nit brightness. Try someone who doesn't know their lingo inside and out lmao. It's very clear from the photo that the display looks excellent outdoors.

> you can clearly see the graininess at the edges

Of course, it doesn't sit well with you to just admit it's as clear as the ones you've linked, there has to be a defect...

> In the end, glossy panels have more sharpness and perceived vibrancy than matte panels

No, sorry. "Sharpness" is determined only by resolution, and "perceived vibrancy" is snake oil. We have tools that return objective numbers (deltaE, colorspace coverage, brightness, PPI calculators), and anyone who wants to deal in facts will stick with them.

> Just as is common knowledge for literally anyone but you apparently.

The same "literally anyone" who tried to convince me that 1080p at 24" is "totally enough" and there's no point in trying to get a rare 1440p 24" monitor to increase actual sharpness? Yeah, I'll totally listen to those people.

Also, thanks for the article! So many great points to disprove your bullshit:

> Some displays use a very mild matte anti-glare treatment for the screen surface. They have a very low haze value of around 2-7%. This describes the level of diffusion of light by the screen surface, with most matte screen surfaces having a higher haze value of ~25% or above. Such displays can therefore be classified as glossy or ‘close to glossy’ as their light emission and reflection properties most closely align with a glossy surface that has an anti-reflective film.

So I was completely right and there are "in-between" screens.

> Some manufacturers offer a compromise between the two – a surface type that is sometimes dubbed ‘semi-glossy’ or that we’d usually classify as ‘very light’ matte. These surfaces are still matte but are roughened up either a little or a lot less, giving them a smoother appearance and making the diffusion of light weaker.

Yep, definitely seen that. In fact, lots of desktop monitors I've dealt with are like that. Including my current one. But since it doesn't have freaking glass, I never see any reflections at all.

> In the past, some manufacturers (most notably Apple with their earlier ‘LED Cinema Display’ series) chose to forgo any anti-reflective treatment and included highly reflective untreated glass as the outermost surface. This was done largely for aesthetic reasons as there is no advantage of this over a properly treated anti-reflective surface when it comes to image quality.

Whoops... they did use glass, and it was for aesthetic reasons...

> Disadvantages of a Glossy Screen: Potentially increased eyestrain due to difficulty focusing on image through reflections

Hey look, this guy really knows what he's talking about after all! Unlike you.

> It’s important to note that screen surface texture is also important and there are some models that buck the trends for ‘image smoothness’ expected from their haze values. Screen surface is a complex 3D structure with many layers and there’s a lot more to consider beyond a single haze value. Good examples would be some 23.6 – 27″ IPS-type ‘4K’ UHD (3840 x 2160) panels such as those used on the Dell P2415Q or ASUS PG27AQ. These are light matte anti-glare (relatively low haze value), which preserves image vibrancy and clarity, but don’t have a particularly smooth surface texture.

Would you look at that, nuance! Actual understanding that there are different materials utilized with different properties!

My dude, you just dug your own grave.

2

fenrir245 t1_j5z7uuf wrote

😂😂😂

This guy really thought this and this are equally sharp.

Damn, no wonder you can't tell the difference between matte and glossy sharpness.

> "Subjectively, the panel offers excellent picture quality because even bright surfaces do not look grainy despite the matte coating."

Did you ever try to read the full sentence?

DESPITE THE MATTE COATING

Oh golly gee, I wonder why they needed to make that distinction, that too on literally every laptop with a matte panel.

> Subpixel array photos do not reflect actual graininess. I have never conceded that point, nor will I. You are the only one riding on it here.

> So now I'm supposed to argue points that go against my own claim and experience? Do you even know how arguments work?

Exactly lol. Simple physics dictates a grainier screen will have grainier subpixels by definition. There's no panel in the world that looks grainy but has completely sharp subpixels under a microscope.

You keep claiming all screens are matte by default, hence matte shouldn't have an effect on the graininess. And yet, you haven't managed to produce one matte screen that can match the sharpness of glossy panels, let alone exceed them in sharpness.

But then again you literally can't tell the difference, so you're incapable of arguing anything in the first place.

> They say that for literally every display that isn't a phone display with 500+ nit brightness. Try someone who doesn't know their lingo inside and out lmao. It's very clear from the photo that the display looks excellent outdoors.

So does the Macbook Air, so I guess matte doesn't do shit regarding reflections?

> Of course, it doesn't sit well with you to just admit it's as clear as the ones you've linked, there has to be a defect...

Yeah, only person who would claim that would be someone with very bad eyesight, someone who never bothered to open my links, or someone deliberately trolling. It's like saying 720p is equally sharp as 4k.

> No, sorry. "Sharpness" is determined only by resolution, and "perceived vibrancy" is snake oil.

Lol, that's why the Eve 4k with glossy was more sharp than the one with matte? One 4k was different resolution from other 4k?

Sharpness is determined by a lot of things, and the graininess of the screen coating is one of them.

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel there, buddy.

And as for "perceived" being snakeoil, diffused light is the same thing as non diffused light, eh?

Lol, do you even know how those metrics are measured? By literally sealing the display area being measured to prevent ambient light leakage.

By your logic setting the colorimeter 5 feet away from the display will give the exact same readings. Some "facts".

> The same "literally anyone" who tried to convince me that 1080p at 24" is "totally enough" and there's no point in trying to get a rare 1440p 24" monitor to increase actual sharpness? Yeah, I'll totally listen to those people.

And who exactly is claiming that? Making up arguments because no real ones available?

And as for your laughable "dug your own grave":

You: All panels are matte by default!!! Glossy is just layer over matte!!!

Article: Matte or glossy depends on the treatment of polarizer layer.

You: See I was right!!! You dug your own grave!!!

Looks like along with poor eyesight your also got poor reading comprehension, and in the end all you could do to salvage it is to say some matte screens are light enough to reach somewhat close to glossy screens, lol.

EDIT: Oh yeah, weren't you claiming "perception" was snake oil? Got on that train very quick when you found "light matte" is close to glossy in that regard lol.

1

VengefulAncient t1_j61dsqj wrote

> This guy really thought this and this are equally sharp.

Hello? That's the whole point? You are the one banging on about "perceived" things - here is Notebookcheck, telling you that despite how the subpixel array looks, the image is not grainy. But that's not convenient for your argument, is it?

> DESPITE THE MATTE COATING

So? People love sticking to established lingo even if it's wrong.

> And yet, you haven't managed to produce one matte screen that can match the sharpness of glossy panels, let alone exceed them in sharpness.

I did, but you ignored it because it's inconvenient.

> So does the Macbook Air, so I guess matte doesn't do shit regarding reflections?

LOL no it doesn't. This is how it looks outdoors. Half the screens is obscured with the reflection. And here is the Acer - not a hint of glare.

> Lol, that's why the Eve 4k with glossy was more sharp than the one with matte?

But... it isn't.

> By your logic setting the colorimeter 5 feet away from the display will give the exact same readings. Some "facts".

... how did you come to this conclusion?

> And who exactly is claiming that? Making up arguments because no real ones available?

Can link you dozens of threads on reddit where people keep droning on about this. Here is the latest one.

> You: All panels are matte by default!!! Glossy is just layer over matte!!!

So we've established from the article that it's a spectrum rather than binary. I explicitly mentioned that the "stripped" panel without the outer layer isn't the same as an all-out glossy panel with a glass layer, and that it falls somewhere in between. My argument still stands: to create an actual glossy panel, you need a layer of glass/hard plastic on top. Like MacBooks, smartphones, etc do. If you don't have that, your screen isn't glossy, end of story. It's just somewhere on that spectrum in between - and I've taken apart enough broken LCDs for hobby projects to know that not every one of them looks like this with the top layers stripped.

> EDIT: Oh yeah, weren't you claiming "perception" was snake oil? Got on that train very quick when you found "light matte" is close to glossy in that regard lol.

Except that's not "perception", that's literally a material with different qualities used and the article you linked states so.

2

fenrir245 t1_j62ghly wrote

> You are the one banging on about "perceived" things - here is Notebookcheck, telling you that despite how the subpixel array looks, the image is not grainy.

Lol, you yourself kept going on about how "perception" is snake oil, so I gave you an objective method to prove your dumb point.

If matte is not the cause of graininess, then there will be matte panels with equally sharp subpixels like there are for most glossy panels. All your excuses whining about "subpixels don't matter" are just that, excuses.

You keep harping about objective standards, I gave you an objective way to prove it. You didn't.

> So? People love sticking to established lingo even if it's wrong.

😂😂😂

Notebookcheck and "sticking to established lingo".

"Is it me that's wrong? No, it's literally anybody and everybody else including reviewers and manufacturers that are wrong."

> I did, but you ignored it because it's inconvenient.

Lol. Perception isn't "snake oil" anymore?

> LOL no it doesn't. This is how it looks outdoors. Half the screens is obscured with the reflection. And here is the Acer - not a hint of glare.

And you can already see it being all washed out to hell. Perception was only "snake oil", was it?

> But... it isn't.

Uh huh. Someone really didn't watch the video. Probably was too inconvenient for their worldview.

> ... how did you come to this conclusion?

From your logic. deltaE and colorspace don't depend on ambient light, and you keep claiming that's all there is to perception, so it shouldn't matter where I place the colorimeter, right? Any distortion should be snake oil, right?

> Can link you dozens of threads on reddit where people keep droning on about this. Here is the latest one.

So the "popular argument" is one that is downvoted to hell and the rest of the thread is complaining about how there's a severe lack of 1440p 24-inch monitors? Do you know what "popular" means?

> So we've established from the article that it's a spectrum rather than binary.

Lol, no. The "spectrum" is the amount of haze the matte coating is put through, with the lighter hazes coming with less graininess and diffusion but more glare. Almost as if glossy is the end point of that spectrum.

Don't try to pretend your stupid assumptions are valid because "spectrum".

> I explicitly mentioned that the "stripped" panel without the outer layer isn't the same as an all-out glossy panel with a glass layer

Nope, that's something you started wailing on once your "glossy is just matte with glass on top" nonsense failed to prove itself.

> My argument still stands: to create an actual glossy panel, you need a layer of glass/hard plastic on top.

Are you seriously thinking there's no glass on Dell Ultrasharps or Asus ProArts? Are those panels magically glossy now? Oh wait, you did call the matte version of Apple's monitor glossy as well. Guess there's no saving.

No matter the delusion you keep telling yourself, glossy displays do not have anything extra over their screens than matte displays do. Samsung Display showing off "thinnest" laptop panel, and yet it is glossy. One would think they'd be going for matte if matte displays magically have a layer less than glossy displays do.

> Like MacBooks, smartphones, etc do. If you don't have that, your screen isn't glossy, end of story.

LG Gram has no glass and the plastic is flexible. Guess it's matte now, lol.

> Except that's not "perception", that's literally a material with different qualities used and the article you linked states so.

Same deltaE, same colorspace, same white balance, same contrast measured. What now?

1

31337hacker t1_j2t8mzx wrote

You should ask that same question to every MacBook owner. I don’t think there’s a single model with a matte screen within the last decade.

I have a 16-inch MacBook Pro (2021) and glossy looks better to me in most situations. I also have a 27-inch Dell monitor with a matte screen and it looks different. It’s more practical, especially in an office setting with lots of light sources. Anyway, my point is that glossy isn’t always worse.

7

VengefulAncient t1_j2w99v4 wrote

I have a MacBook for work and I'd definitely opt for a matte screen if I could. Glossy is incredibly annoying. It looks more expensive, but is far more annoying to deal with the second you have a single light source in your room.

1

vtran85 t1_j4cd2oq wrote

The Apple studio display and Pro Display XDR are not only gloss, it’s covered with a sheet of glass.

1

bengringo2 t1_j2srcp1 wrote

Because I don't want to see my face every time my computer boots and some offices are overly bright.

2