alt Hacker NewsNot a single demonstration of contrast?
We've had matte screens for a long time that don't show glare. The problem is, the blacks are much more washed-out because that light still has to go somewhere, so it's basically just being smeared across the entire display.
This page shows lots of side-by-side photos of content that is primarily white, and most of the black bits (like text) are too small to make out.
The comparison needs to use things like busy photographs with bright areas and black areas. Then you can judge how much more washed-out the black areas look.
The second photo makes the Nano texture look pretty washed-out, but sadly doesn't include the traditional glossy laptop next to it for comparison, so it's impossible to tell.
Also, in all the side-by-side photos the Nano screen looks like it's set to much brighter. So any fair comparison should have them set to equal brightness. There's no universe in which a glossy screen is going to make the white areas look darker, as they are in all these examples.
I'm very curious if/how the Nano is better, but unfortunately these photos don't do anything to demonstrate it.
Replies
Appreciate the feedback and notes here- I would love to revisit the methodology and use a separate physical brightness meter to normalize for that. To my best memory I made sure both devices were at max stock brightness for each photo.
> Not a single demonstration of contrast?
The nano-texture has less contrast.
"The nano-texture adds a filter-like appearance, resulting in a lower contrast ratio than the glossy panel. That said, there are differing opinions about the subjective appearance of the raised blacks. Some say it's a dealbreaker, while others prefer it, arguing that it looks more like what you would see on paper. The glossy panel produces a deeper, more Google Pixel HDR type of contrast that some find unnatural." — https://www.rtings.com/laptop/learn/apple-nano-texture
Last year, I bought a MBP with both screen types (at the recommendation of an Apple employee - they said just return the one I didn’t like) and compared them side by side for a few days. I also spent some time in the Apple Store, looking at iMacs side by side, since they were the only things they had on display with the Nano Texture.
tl;dr in perfect lighting conditions - which I noticed the Apple Store did a pretty good job at - the glossy screen wins, obviously. The contrast is quite a bit better, pictures really pop, and text isn’t particularly affected. In anything other than perfect lighting, Nano Texture wins by a mile.
If you’re going to be doing any kind of photo or video work, you’ll probably want the glossy screen, or (what I suspect most would have) the Nano Texture, with a dedicated external monitor for the best of both worlds.
If you’re primarily using your laptop for anything other than photo / video work, or if you use it mobile, you want the Nano Texture screen. I can’t objectively say what you lose in contrast ratio, but it’s not bad enough to overcome the huge disparity in glare reduction. I haven’t regretted my Nano Texture MBP for a second.
Contrast is worse, it's a trade off. For me in most environments there will be bright reflections on the glossy screens, even indoors - your brain actually does a good job of ignoring them to the point you're not even conciously aware most of the time, but when you smear them out with the nano texture display it's just way more comfortable to look at, for me at least.
If I was focused on watching movies, or grading photos in a dark room then glossy would be the way to go.