This is what AG coating does to LCDs (magnified)

Crucible1001

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,611
I used a 100x pocket microscope set at 60x. I also had my cheap camera zoomed in fully at 5x. I don't know what magnification this is. Somewhere between 200 and 300.

Google "lcd pixels" to see what they normally look like. Without the AG coating they are perfectly smooth. The AG coating really distorts the pixels.

Anyways, here are two images I took.





Btw, the microscope can be found on Amazon for $12.22. It is the Carson MM-200.
 
Last edited:
This is like sensationalized news stories. The fact of the matter is this distortion isn't perceptible to the human eye. Further more, what good is a totally clear picture if you can't see it because of the mirror like reflections and intolerable glare? I'll keep my anti-glare coatings thank you. I like to see my monitors and TV's without having to turn off all the lights and black out / cover the windows.
 
No kidding. While yes, a perfectly clear screen does have a slightly clearer look in a perfectly dark room, in the real world the reflections kill things. We've recently started doing Mac support so I have an iMac on my desk and I can't believe how bad the reflections are.

Also something to note/consider: All high end design monitors feature a matte anti-glare filter. NEC, Eizo, LaCie, etc they all do that. They are the highest of the high end "money is no object" kind of displays. You think it is a coincidence they all do that? I think not.
 
In a brightly lit office where most of your work is doc's I can see how AG would be a wanted feature but in my mancave with the cardboarded windows I want the clearest brightest picture I can get. Maybe companies could offer us a monitor with/without AG.
 
This is like sensationalized news stories. The fact of the matter is this distortion isn't perceptible to the human eye.

If its not perceivable, then why does it bother so many people? Your argument makes no sense. Yes reflections can be bad, but so is a sparkly image.

There ARE matte coatings out there which do not exhibit this sparkly effect and still manage to diffuse most glare and reflections. Its just a shame that none seem to be used on high end IPS displays.
 
While both are not perfect, I prefer glossy over matte/AG. If the coating were very mild, then I might go with AG/matte. I have no issues with glossy, however. I know that a lot of people do, though.
 
If its not perceivable, then why does it bother so many people? Your argument makes no sense. Yes reflections can be bad, but so is a sparkly image.

There ARE matte coatings out there which do not exhibit this sparkly effect and still manage to diffuse most glare and reflections. Its just a shame that none seem to be used on high end IPS displays.

The coloring of the anti-glare coatings and light diffusion bothers some but I don't think the pixel distortion can be seen by the human eye. These are different things.
 
It's just preference. Comming from the world of laptops, I HATE glossy coatings. No exception. Whoever thought to put this on laptops should be [PG...PG...] idiot who thought of putting glossy on a laptop clearly never used a laptop.

EDIT: that being said, a glossy screen with a VERY bright backlight is acceptable to me.
 
It's just preference. Comming from the world of laptops, I HATE glossy coatings. No exception. Whoever thought to put this on laptops should be [PG...PG...] idiot who thought of putting glossy on a laptop clearly never used a laptop.

EDIT: that being said, a glossy screen with a VERY bright backlight is acceptable to me.

Well on laptops there is actually a reason: Glossy screens transmit more light. Matte AG coating reduces light transmission by its nature. On a desktop display, this is no problem. You can easily make the backlight far brighter than anyone would actually want to use. However on a laptop brightness eats battery so the less the better. Hence there is a desire to have better light transmission and thus lower backlight levels.

That said, I'd still much rather have a matte display. I'll take the battery hit.
 
There ARE matte coatings out there which do not exhibit this sparkly effect and still manage to diffuse most glare and reflections. Its just a shame that none seem to be used on high end IPS displays.

One question I've never really seen a good answer to... Is there a real reason LG chose to use such "sparkly" and "grainy" AG on their IPS panels? Is mild AG more expensive to implement? When sitting next to my mild AG TN monitor, my DELL U3011 seriously looked like a piece of GARBAGE. I don't get it.

Here's to hoping Samsung can really deliver with the PLS SA850 and wipe LG off the map. Otherwise, I will be buying only Apple displays from here on out.
 
My primary monitor has what seems to be considered a "medium" AG (HP ZR24w), I also have a netbook with a glossy display. The glossy display on my netbook is incredibly annoying, almost unusable in bright sunlight or a brightly lit room, I often find myself wishing it had an AG coating too...
 
I remember back when laptops commonly had matte finishes; my old Dell Inspiron 8100 from 2001 had one. I was actually pretty surprised when I was shopping for a new laptop in 2007 (before I decided to build a new desktop) that all the laptops I looked at from Dell had glossy finishes.

One question I've never really seen a good answer to... Is there a real reason LG chose to use such "sparkly" and "grainy" AG on their IPS panels? Is mild AG more expensive to implement? When sitting next to my mild AG TN monitor, my DELL U3011 seriously looked like a piece of GARBAGE. I don't get it.

Even though I hadn't looked at one myself in person, that was a big part of why I chose to not get a U2410. A shame, too, because the monitor had pretty much everything else I was looking for. Ah well; maybe one of these years, Dell will make IPS panels with medium AG finishes like my Samsung 226BW (or even a light AG finish), or even some glossy ones. ^_^
 
My primary monitor has what seems to be considered a "medium" AG (HP ZR24w), I also have a netbook with a glossy display. The glossy display on my netbook is incredibly annoying, almost unusable in bright sunlight or a brightly lit room, I often find myself wishing it had an AG coating too...

Even the medium AG on the ZR24w is too much for me. I guess I'm overly sensitive to it, as it bothered me.
 
I recently bought a laptop with a glossy screen and TN to boot.

Its horrible.

I'd take AG coating, warts and all over that.
 
I don't understand why people will sacrifice so much clarity for AG coatings. If you can control the light source in your room this should be a no-brainer. I cringe everyday I have to go to work and stare at a AG coating screen.
 
I don't understand why people will sacrifice so much clarity for AG coatings. If you can control the light source in your room this should be a no-brainer. I cringe everyday I have to go to work and stare at a AG coating screen.

I like letting my lightsource, the sun, into my room. Thus AG is mandatory.
 
I don't understand why people will sacrifice so much clarity for AG coatings. If you can control the light source in your room this should be a no-brainer. I cringe everyday I have to go to work and stare at a AG coating screen.

In most of the environments I've ever worked in, we had both the sun and florescent overhead lighting. I've used laptops with glossy displays in such places and found it to be painful. It was distracting, annoying, and difficult to see what I was doing. I also don't like to sit in the dark when I'm on my computer. Given the hours I sit on my computer at home, I've found that a totally dark room lit only by my displays to give me headaches and make it more taxing on my eyes over time. When I have additional lighting in the room it's far less taxing and I get less headaches. AG coatings are an absolute must.

I couldn't spent 12+ hours a day on my computer and look at glossy, mirror like displays. I don't know why anyone would.

I like letting my lightsource, the sun, into my room. Thus AG is mandatory.

Agreed.
 
I don't understand why people will sacrifice so much clarity for AG coatings. If you can control the light source in your room this should be a no-brainer. I cringe everyday I have to go to work and stare at a AG coating screen.

Because I like being able to see the rest of my room. I don't care for working in the dark at all. Also during the day a certain amount of light is non-optional as I do not have blackout curtains and thus cannot completely darken the room.
 
I don't understand why people will sacrifice so much clarity for AG coatings.

Again?

What extra clarity. I can already see each individual pixel. You don't need any sharper than that. If you think about it, you don't want R,G,B pixels to be distinct anyway, they should be blending to create color.

Most of us don't live in a cave, and neither do we want to emulate living in a cave. On glossy screens you get reflections in all but total darkness and even then it is possible when wearing bright clothing.

I regular curse the glossy bezel of my TV. Any designer that puts anything glossy on a device meant to display (not reflect), deserves a good kick in the Nads IMO.

It seem like these forums go in waves of obsessions and the current obsession is AG coating. If you really have a problem, write to LG. Whining on this forum isn't going to do any good.

Hint: don't sit so close. AG coatings visibility diminishes with distance, but reflections never do. If you spend time leaning in 12" from the screen obsessing about them, you are magnifying the problem.
 
Well I understand both positions and wish we had a choice: glossy or matte finish on any given monitor. Or actually maybe just a milder AG treatment. I currently have a 2405WFP and the matte finish is perfect. I bought a U2711 and (naively) assumed it would look the same. Instead, within a few minutes I had eye strain and headaches. Needless to say, I didn't keep the U2711.

I also have a Sony laptop with a 1600 x 900 14" glossy screen and it is quite managable even in bright rooms (perhaps b/c it has a very bright backlight.) I also have an Android iPad clone (same LG IPS glossy 9.7" panel) and while the reflections are mildy annoying, the anti-glare screen protector that came with the tablet totally ruined the image and looked exactly like the AG coating on the U2711. Needless to say, I use my tablet without a screen protector.
 
Having been using CRT displays for my entire life, I did not have any trouble transitioning to a glossy LCD display. Of course, even CRT displays have some kind of anti glare coating (the same kind that you can get on a pair of eye glasses, which turns glare/reflections a kind of dull green and purple).

I'm not one to think that matte displays suck, because they certainly have their advantages. My big issue is that many of these anti-glare coatings simply ruin the image quality. I immediately noticed it on my first LCD screen way back in 2002. Since then, i've come across ones that are excellent, and ones that look "sparkly", "shimmery" or make the image look "wet". Its most noticeable when ever so slightly shifting your head. I don't understand why display manufacturers would stick a matte coating over a $1000 display that degrades the quality of it. Especially when there ARE better alternatives out there.
 
So if my guess-sumptions are correct, most of the AG group is in the "laptop owners and just don't care" area, while most of the Glossy group is in the "fine detail exceedes other traits" group :p


I dunno, I think the ACD is acceptable, even though it is slightly harsher on the colors, because it has an insanely bright backlight (which seems to be extremely common among H-IPS panels), however, I'm still a firmly rooted laptop owner, so my stance... :D



EDIT: aaaaaand my post contributed nothing to this discussion, lol. Oh well, I don't think Glossy vs AG is going to die anytime soon. I'd swear people are shooting each other's grandmothers or something, based on the vile dripping from some posts :p

EDIT2: actually, I'm suprised I can still spell well right now!
 
I actually just bought 3 LG IPS231's for an NV surround setup. I've dealth with IPS displays at work for a while so I knew what I was getting into, or at least I thought I did. It was my first experience dealing with such a heavy AG coating on a monitor at home, though... dealt with it at work for a while, but I don't have overhead flourescent lights at home so the AG coating is a bit more than I need. I'd have to say it makes text a little more difficult to read, but it doesn't bother me at all while looking at graphics or games. I just hope I can get used to it. I came from a large 40" Sony high-gloss tv I was using as a monitor and I can say for certain high-gloss is not for me. I couldn't even turn on my desk lamp or I'd lose half the tv to the reflection from the lamp.

It's a trade-off either way. Just depends on what you're willing to live with and if you can find a monitor you like that has the type of coating you like. That's the hard part.
 
My personal point of view is that both DELL U2410 and HP ZR24w have a very harsh AG coating. May be LG IPS231P is in the same group.
 
AG coating "aggressiveness" or "harshness" is not at all the only thing that controls how much sparkle effect there will be. There are many factors:

1. Pixel size (smaller pixels = more sparkle)
2. Amount of black space between subpixels (more black space = more sparkle)
3. Distance between surface of AG coating and the LCD layer that selectively passes light through to form pixels (more distance = more sparkle) — this one may not vary much
4. Amount of diffusion caused by the AG coating (more = more sparkle)

My theory is that #4 really doesn't vary much and that #1 and #2 are the main ones that vary widely between different monitors.
 
AG coating "aggressiveness" or "harshness" is not at all the only thing that controls how much sparkle effect there will be. There are many factors:

1. Pixel size (smaller pixels = more sparkle)
2. Amount of black space between subpixels (more black space = more sparkle)
3. Distance between surface of AG coating and the LCD layer that selectively passes light through to form pixels (more distance = more sparkle) — this one may not vary much
4. Amount of diffusion caused by the AG coating (more = more sparkle)

My theory is that #4 really doesn't vary much and that #1 and #2 are the main ones that vary widely between different monitors.

1.) Larger pixels will great a move pixelated, low resolution look. It will not really affect sparkle.

2.) Black space between pixels will create a noticeable "screen door effect". It does not affect sparkle.

3.) Distance shouldn't have much of an effect

4.) This is the big one IMO. The more diffusion, the "rougher" the coating has to be to try to scatter light rays in different directions. This is what ends up causing sparkle, I believe.
 
MetaGenie said:
AG coating "aggressiveness" or "harshness" is not at all the only thing that controls how much sparkle effect there will be. There are many factors:

1. Pixel size (smaller pixels = more sparkle)
2. Amount of black space between subpixels (more black space = more sparkle)
3. Distance between surface of AG coating and the LCD layer that selectively passes light through to form pixels (more distance = more sparkle) — this one may not vary much
4. Amount of diffusion caused by the AG coating (more = more sparkle)

My theory is that #4 really doesn't vary much and that #1 and #2 are the main ones that vary widely between different monitors.
1. Nope. Glossy screens have no sparkle regardless of the pixel size, and different size screens with the same anti-glare have the same sparkle. Pixel size has no effect.
2. Nope. Glossy screens have no sparkle regardless of the space between the subpixels. Spacing causes screen door effect, not sparkle.
3. Nope. Distance would affect clarity, not sparkle.
4. I'm not even sure this is a factor. It's more about the size and shape of the microscopic pits rather than the amount of diffusion.
 
Glossy tends to allow richer deeper colors, wider viewing angles and a sharper image from my experience, Although there have been many valid points as to why people prefer Matte depending on where its being used.

Both of my current PC LCD's are matte (2333T & PX2370) but they're not very harsh at all vs. what Ive seen.

My Kuro plasma is very glossy and I wouldn't want it any other way if I were given a choice.
 
Last edited:
Big deal, glossy screens with reflections are annoying as hell, I won't put up that kinda money with screens like that.
 
1. Nope. Glossy screens have no sparkle regardless of the pixel size, and different size screens with the same anti-glare have the same sparkle. Pixel size has no effect.
2. Nope. Glossy screens have no sparkle regardless of the space between the subpixels. Spacing causes screen door effect, not sparkle.
3. Nope. Distance would affect clarity, not sparkle.
4. I'm not even sure this is a factor. It's more about the size and shape of the microscopic pits rather than the amount of diffusion.

Obviously I did not make my explanation detailed enough. These effects are multiplicative, not additive! If you multiply something by zero you get zero. If the AG layer had zero thickness and were directly laid on top of the pixel layer (which is impossible because you need polarization, etc. in between) then there would be zero sparkle no matter what. If the AG layer were not diffusive (i.e. just clear plastic that lets light straight through, i.e. glossy) then there would be zero sparkle no matter what.
Are you familiar with the ideal gas law? That's an example of a proportionality with multiple terms, kind of like this (qualitatively, at least).

A theoretical AG layer of zero thickness would diffuse light without randomizing it; every point would contribute evenly to the area around it, and there'd be no sparkle. But in reality, AG coating has thickness and microscopic structure, and its diffusion is the result of lots of tiny randomized light paths.

The sparkle is caused by light from the pixels taking a random path upon exiting the AG layer. You end up getting light that "pretends" to come from one location, but actually originated from another nearby location. This changes the color of a pixel randomly, e.g. by making parts of its green subpixel "pretend" to emit black from the neighboring black space, etc. So:

1. With large pixels, the random rerouting of light is more likely to make light from the same subpixel come from another part of itself, which doesn't modify its appearance. With small pixels, there is more variation within the same small area and randomizing any given spot on a subpixel from the nearby area is more likely to change its appearance.
2. With pixels that have no black space between, an area of solid white (for example) will have pixels more likely to "borrow" light from other neighboring white pixels, resulting in an unchanged appearance. (Or something like that. It's more complicated due to subpixels.) With more black space, the randomization is more likely to darken random spots on subpixels.
3. With more distance between the pixel layer and the AG layer, light can be "borrowed" from farther away. If the borrowing distance is limited, subpixels are more likely to borrow from themselves, leaving their appearance unchanged.

If #2 were at its minimum, there would still be sparkle, because subpixels would borrow from their neighbors; but the effect would be much less than if there were black space to borrow from.
With #1 at its minimum, the monitor would be one huge pixel. I'm pretty sure there would be no sparkle within it.

1.) Larger pixels will great a move pixelated, low resolution look. It will not really affect sparkle.
2.) Black space between pixels will create a noticeable "screen door effect". It does not affect sparkle.
3.) Distance shouldn't have much of an effect
4.) This is the big one IMO. The more diffusion, the "rougher" the coating has to be to try to scatter light rays in different directions. This is what ends up causing sparkle, I believe.
Is any of this based on experimentation or are you just making it up based on your imagination?

I only have two LCDs to experiment with. One is an S-IPS with a huge amount of black space. There is no "screen door effect"; there is a huge amount of sparkle. The other LCD is a TN. There's hardly any black space. There's hardly any sparkle (I can see some, but only if I look for it).
I compared the diffusive effect of the two LCDs with each other, by looking at reflections on them — both room reflections and a green laser pointer. The TN is actually a smidgen more diffusive than the IPS... yes, the TN has a slightly more "aggressive" AG coating than the IPS... but of course the TN has much, much less sparkle.
 
Last edited:
Meta:

Until proven, these are just your pet theories.

My pet theory, It is all about the the surface roughness, of the actual coating, the more aggressive pits/valleys the more it diffuses light, the more it scatters in different directions. I wish I would have bookmarked it, but somewhere I saw microscopic images of different coatings. This is all about the surface treatment.

How that relates to other factors:

1. Pixel size: IMO with smaller pixels, people will sit closer and or stare more intently at smaller pixels making AG more noticeable. I doubt any actual difference.

2. Amount of black space between subpixels: IMO doubtful this has any significant effect. It has shifted many times for all technologies.

3. Distance between surface of AG coating and the LCD layer: IMO If distances were massively different I could see this making AG seem worse, but dubious this is involved.

4. Amount of diffusion caused by the AG coating (more = more sparkle): If by diffusion, you mean surface roughness, I agree. This is the issue.

I will restate: This is simply a coating "roughness" issue, there are several different common coating used by industry. LG could switch and may at some point to a less aggressive coating.

A problem with theories about minor things like black space or depth:

IPS screen don't have any consistent history of significantly different black space around pixels or depth to pixels compared to all other technologies (MVA/PVA/TN), Over the years all of the parameters have shifted around a lot as they all shifted pixel structures many times, if these were the parameters causing the problem, the AG issue should have been much more inconsistent shifting between TN/PVA/MVA/IPS as pixel gaps changed etc..

But this has been a very consistent LG issue. Which would simply be the result of consistently strong AG coating. Something that never really gets marketed, never really shows up on spec sheets an doesnt' merit the R&D bucks.
 
Agreed on the ZR24w. Very harsh coating that bothered my eyes.

So to anyone who's actually used both, is the AG treatment on the ZR30w similar/same to the ZR24w? I was vaguely holding out hope that the ZR30w might be an option since the U3011 is now off my list based on my experience with the U2711. :(
 
Yes Snowdog, you're right, it's my pet theory and I have very little evidence for it.

The ultimate experiment would be to do an AG coating transplant between two LCDs. Is it possible to put an AG coating back onto a monitor after it has been removed using the wet-paper-towel-soaking method?
 
Yes Snowdog, you're right, it's my pet theory and I have very little evidence for it.

The ultimate experiment would be to do an AG coating transplant between two LCDs. Is it possible to put an AG coating back onto a monitor after it has been removed using the wet-paper-towel-soaking method?

:D

I was AFK thinking about saying exactly that, we won't settle it until someone does a AG sheet transplant.

Although if you could get the the sheets (or even a small section) that were removed it might possible to compare them on a third surface like a Gorilla glass smartphone with zero risk to the smartphone.
 
all IPS have harsh AG coating ! :rolleyes:
i wait the new S-PLS panel, first ips competitor with a semi glossy coating. ;)
 
In a brightly lit office where most of your work is doc's I can see how AG would be a wanted feature but in my mancave with the cardboarded windows I want the clearest brightest picture I can get. Maybe companies could offer us a monitor with/without AG.



LOL, cardboarded windows?

My home office has two windows and I sometimes actually have to squint in the early AM when the sun is rising. The windows are to the left of my monitor but if this were a glossy screen, the only thing I would be able to see would be the shine off my forehead.
 
Back
Top