AG Coating Paranoia - The Official Thread

NCX said:
So, how far away are you sitting from your monitor?
Click to expand...

I sit about somewhere between 60-75 cm away from from my U2311s. I also have an IPS laptop (Lenovo x220) which is also matte with an AG coating. Usually sit about 30-40cm away from that screen. Hm... the pixel pitch on my x220 (1366x768, 12.5" IPS, 124 DPI) is smaller than the U2711. Perhaps the U2711 has a really bad interaction with the AG coating at just that particular pixel pitch.

If you can't see the difference even after comparing the 2 different kinds of coating I would think you are sitting to far away, are lucky, or that you have poor eyesight:D.
Click to expand...

I disagree :p I would say it means I have great eyesight :D More seriously, I did a quick comparison between my x220 and a glossy Samsung (TN) that was lying around. Unfortunately, the Samsung is a crappy screen, so the picture quality between the two is no contest; the x220's IPS blows away the TN. As far as AG goes, it's noticeable, but I find that I need to focus on it. If I don't concentrate on seeing it, it doesn't bother me. There is a minor loss in picture quality... if I let myself focus on the minor AG sparkle. Nothing anywhere near close to the sparkle I saw on the U2711.

I meant that the defenders can't tell because they don't have experience with with lighter AG coating, so they don't notice (hence saying ignorance is bliss) and come in here to defend their purchase.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can agree with you there. I would vehemently disagree with you if you were saying that people shouldn't defend IPS if the reason they don't have a problem with the AG is because they don't notice it.
 
Hmm, the CRT I have is "glossy" but barely has any reflections at all, whereas I'm practically staring at myself all the time on the XPS15's glossy screen. Why can't LCD monitors have the same sort of AG as CRTs anyway?
 
NCX said:
Try comparing a few photos from here http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/downloads/date/any/ specifically this Ferie picture when looking at the sky. When I drag it from my glossy monitor to one with light AG the sky is quite dulled and hazy looking.
Click to expand...

I looked at the one you linked in your previous post. http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/D64aeb41/02706_ferie_1366x768.jpg Your link in this one is broken.

I'm actually having trouble getting a good match. Colour shifts on the Samsung and differing brightness settings affect the comparison. As close as I can get it without calibration equipment, the sky looks slightly bluer and "realer" on the glossy. The road surface did not look as good (not quite sure how to describe this) on the Samsung and the vegetation looked much better on the x220. Of course, neither screen is calibrated, so who knows.
 
I've said this many times, but for me the visibility of antiglare coating scales with backlight brightness.

I usually use my monitor at ~80 cd/m2 brightness, which most would consider dim. That brightness is much more comfortable for me when dealing with text and documents. I turn the brightness up to 120 when dealing with images and design work.

At low brightness, I prefer a monitor with antiglare coating to one without. If I had to use a monitor at ~300 cd/m2 brightness, I'd almost certainly want one without antiglare or with the Samsung intermediate.
 
I started noticing this "sparkly white" effect recently so I decided to do something about it.

The specific issue I have is that whites look "blotchy". They aren't a pure white. This could be described as sparkly, adjective a, adjective b, etc.

I figured I had started noticing this AG that drives people crazy so I figured I would try removing it from my 2209 and see what I thought.

The removal process was actually very easy. Took about an hour of work. Simply pulled the panel from the display housing, soaked the top with wet paper towels for a couple hours, peeled the AG off and reassembled.

What shocked me (other than the display still working) was how little change there was in the "sparkly" effect. With a perfect glossy surface and absolutely no AG the effect I thought was AG sparkle is still present. There was certainly some improvement but it wasn't much.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about here? Do other people see the "non-uniform" solid colors on glossy panels?
 
10e said:
Sounds to me like you have a "sub-pixel sensitivity". That's how I see it on glossy panels.
Click to expand...

Hm, I guess that must be what it is.

Is this sensitivity common? Until recently it never bothered me. I don't know what changed.
 
exploding5heep said:
Hm, I guess that must be what it is.

Is this sensitivity common? Until recently it never bothered me. I don't know what changed.
Click to expand...

No, you are the first person on these forums to mention it. I've seen it on my wife's glossy Dell TN screen and a friend's Apple Cinema Display.

I have to be up close to see it, but it almost looks like a slight over sharpening and slight graininess, most visible on white. It is not exactly a screen door effect but I believe we are talking about the same thing.
 
NCX said:
Try comparing a few photos from here...When I drag it from my glossy monitor to one with light AG the sky is quite dulled and hazy looking.
Click to expand...
If you have to do side by side comparisons for most people to easily spot the difference most people aren't going to care. This doesn't mean it isn't perfectly legitimate for you to hate aggressive AG since after all you buy for yourself and why should you spend money on something that drives you nuts? Just don't be too shocked or disappointed or make snarky comments about buyers' remorse or something when others aren't effected in the same way as you.
 
Originally Posted by NCX
Try comparing a few photos from here...When I drag it from my glossy monitor to one with light AG the sky is quite dulled and hazy looking.
Click to expand...

:D

Another enthusiast bothered the whole forum trying to make IPS out of his two PVAs and get identical colors on two monitors of the same model.
He failed!
Does it say anything to you?

Case # 1. Monitors basics.

Let alone specifics of glossy screens, you are dragging the sky from a glossy TN (gamma jumps way over 2.2 on the upper part where "the sky" would be) to a matte PVA with screwed down gamma (to reduce dark shadow loss), false 3D sparkling naturally induced by techlology and loss of contrast off-axis.
What an impressive scientific experiment!



Case # 2. Photography basics.

Photo #1
Which sky is from a "dulled and hazy" matte screen and which one is from a glossy screen?

f2qxeb.jpg





Photo #2
Which sky is correct?
Which sky is better?
Which one does look exactly as the artist wants it to look?
Shall we "improve" the artist's work to make them look less (more) "dulled and hazy" or leave them as is?

34goum9.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't need any side by side to spot over-aggressive AG crystallization, or direct light sources reflected~glaring in a glossy display for that matter. They are blatantly obvious.

I designed my desk location to have room light sources and windows behind my monitor's back, and nearer lamps for the desk to be adjacent - none visibly reflected in my glossy display. I can't remove an over-aggressive AG coating or dial it down. Its always there polluting solid color fields (especially whites), distorting text, and having a whole granular layer that its possible to focus on other than the panel itself. That said, my tablet is glossy and in the afternoon at my lunch counter the sunlight is painful if I don't move where I sit or set up standing blinds at the door's oval window behind me during those hours. Light sources above and behind where you sit = bad. Even AG coated panels should not be polluted with light if you really want more clarity and color. That's why many high end NEC's come with three-sided monitor hoods even if they are AG coated, and why most color testing is done in dark rooms right up against the panel.

I understand why some people need AG coatings for environments that have improper/inferior lighting arrangements that result in light sources polluting the panel surface. Even so, that AG coating does not need to be over-aggressive, and regardless imo results in a "veiled" , less clear and less rich looking display - by nature of the coating, and worse in the common light-polluted environments they are geared for.

The average person doesn't even know what TN and IPS are, or would even consider a high ppi 2560x panel. Whether they can see the AG or not, even if to some it is obvious, really doesn't matter to me. People buy vizio tv's that look like mud and are happy, or watch muddy SD tv regularly when they have the same channel in HD :rolleyes:
 
I don't have a problem with the concept of AG coating, but whatever is being put on the LG panels which seem to be in common in dell and hp lcds ...is just awful.

I've returned many monitors where it was just unbearable to read anything not on a dark background. Trying to read wikipedia and rubbing my eyes every 10 minutes because text felt blurry/hard to focus on was no fun.

I'm sure there is a happy medium to be found, but it will probably be some time before we see it. Until then I'll be enjoying the apple cinema display and my old ass 20wmgx2's ...
 
elvn said:
I don't need any side by side to spot over-aggressive AG crystallization, or direct light sources reflected~glaring in a glossy display for that matter. They are blatantly obvious.
Click to expand...

OK good on you then I guess. Don't buy those screens with aggressive AG then. But you know there are people like myself on these forums too who have to really stare to notice it, it just doesn't jump out at us. For those of us (lucky few I guess) its perfectly reasonable to buy those screens with aggressive AG, particularly if they offer great value.
 
my trusty old 23 inch apple monitor (dont worry its hooked up to a pc :p ) has an ag coating and it doesnt bug me at all. sure glossy screens look great but there arent many glossy screens availible without going to a higher price range. also my room is very bright so the relfections of a glossy screen would kill me
 
i dont notice any type of coating on my current monitors. I wonder if i just dont see it or its just very thin coating def not a glass screen.
 
albovin said:
.
Click to expand...

I could look at the picture on a CRT and then on an IPS panel with light AG, it doesn't matter really.

Panel type doesn't matter. Comapred to the clear glass screens CRT's have, or a semi-glossy PLS display it is only logical that a display with a thick layer of plastic put over it will look grainier.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42236618@N07/4672028113/in/photostream/

It is only logical that when increasing the amount of AG coating the grainier the picture will get. It is only logical that if whites look grainy and dirty the other colors will as well. Stop pretending aggressive AG is neither a problem nor noticeable.

You are only taking issue with people harping on AG coating because IPS panels are being criticized. If a PVA, TN, CRT, OLED, or Plasma screen used the coating it would have the same effect and they would also receive the same [H]atred.
 
If you own an iPhone 4, look at how clear and brilliant that IPS retina display is. Put a matte screen protector on it and look at what happens to that clarity. I like this analogy to what LG is doing to their IPS displays. I find this effect the same unless you can get a less aggressive AG coating such as what you see on TN displays.
 
Last edited:
I had to return my U2711 due to the hideous AG, and no, I didn't know anything about AG at the time. I was simply comparing to my old monitor (ironically also a Dell Ultrasharp, a TN from 2005, but with a much cleaner picture by comparison). It was only after getting on here and reading about others' experiences that I even understood what the problem was.

So yeah, I had no formed prejudice, but I couldn't stand it. It was like trying to see the screen through a coating of oil dusted with rainbow sand. Graphics editing is one of my pastimes, and it was so bad I couldn't tell the difference between the coating and actual image artifacts, nor could I be sure of color accuracy. It also gave me headaches looking at it too long.

Dell gave me a hell of a runaround about returning it too. Took months for them to give me my money back. Never again. My plan now is to buy a Samsung SA850. Backlight issues notwithstanding, at least I know it'll have a clear picture.
 
Last edited:
No paranoia here, but antiglare panels give me bad eyestrain after about 1 hour working on one. This on both desktop and laptop panels.
Which is super annoying, as I cant find a monitor to upgrade my NEC 20WMGX2's. Apple Cinema display is the only option and it is expensive.
 
John2000 said:
PC Pro magazine asked their readers what they prefer (matte vs glossy), here's the result:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/05/23/glossy-vs-matte-screens-why-the-pc-industrys-out-of-touch/

Looks like 75% prefer matte, 12.5% glossy, and 12.5% have no preference.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the point of this poll. The Samsung SA850 and the DELL U2711 are both matte displays which fall into that 75% category, and the SA850 has a much clearer appearance than a U2711. If LG manufactured matte IPS displays that used Samsung style surface treatment, this thread wouldn't even exist.
 
I couldn't care less what magazine readers poll. Anyone still reading a magazine about computers is doing it wrong.
 
What the hell is wrong with you guys? The glossy vs AG thing is getting really old, and is 100% personal preference.

Some like gloss. Some like AG. Get over it.
 
isp said:
I couldn't care less what magazine readers poll. Anyone still reading a magazine about computers is doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

There has also been several polls here, with similar results.

Glossy fans tend to be very vocal, but they are the minority.
 
Snowdog said:
There has also been several polls here, with similar results.

Glossy fans tend to be very vocal, but they are the minority.
Click to expand...

Glossy isn't even relevant to the issue. While I strongly dislike LG's specific AG coating, I actually prefer non-LG matte displays over glossy.
 
Ashok0 said:
Glossy isn't even relevant to the issue. While I strongly dislike LG's specific AG coating, I actually prefer non-LG matte displays over glossy.
Click to expand...

What you seldom realize, is that you aren't everyone, it isn't always about you.

This thread also has many glossy fans joining in.
 
Ashok0 said:
Glossy isn't even relevant to the issue. While I strongly dislike LG's specific AG coating, I actually prefer non-LG matte displays over glossy.
Click to expand...

yes! i like non-LG matte displays too... and i hate LG-hard-coating.
 
Talon Blackrazor said:
John2000 said:
PC Pro magazine asked their readers what they prefer (matte vs glossy), here's the result:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/05/23/glossy-vs-matte-screens-why-the-pc-industrys-out-of-touch/

Looks like 75% prefer matte, 12.5% glossy, and 12.5% have no preference.
Click to expand...
So, 8 people were polled? Definitive.
Click to expand...

Where did you read that 8 people were polled?

Note that I approximated the percentage numbers 75%, 12.5% and 12.5% from the graph since there were no specific numbers mentioned in the article. And anyway, even if the actual numbers turned out to be exactly 75%, 12.5% and 12.5% that doesn't mean that 8 people were polled. It could as well have been 80.000 people, where 60.000, 10.000 and 10.000 voted for the different options, respectively.

Also, since PC Pro that did the poll is a magazine with a large number of readers, it's probably safe to say that the amount of people that voted is quite large. And people who buy PC magazines in general tend to be rather interested in PC hardware (i.e. in the same way as people who buy camera magazines are interested in cameras). So it's also likely that the readers know the difference between "glossy" and "matte", as well as the pros and cons. This means that most of them probably have made an informed decision when voting.
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
What you seldom realize, is that you aren't everyone, it isn't always about you.

This thread also has many glossy fans joining in.
Click to expand...

It is about me :rolleyes:

My opinion matters over everyone elses, reguardless of what, when, or why :p.

And if you don't like it - then fuck off.







;)
 
Snowdog said:
What you seldom realize, is that you aren't everyone, it isn't always about you.

This thread also has many glossy fans joining in.
Click to expand...

Er... I never claimed otherwise. The last time I checked, the thread topic wasn't "Matte Paranoia". The heart of the discussion has been the specific type of AG coating used explicitly by LG. Nothing more and nothing less.
 
Ashok0 said:
Er... I never claimed otherwise. The last time I checked, the thread topic wasn't "Matte Paranoia". The heart of the discussion has been the specific type of AG coating used explicitly by LG. Nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...

AG coating = matte.

If you read the posts this is breaking down in matte vs glossy (again). Not matte vs matte.

I find when editing a lot of photos that a glossy screen makes the photo look heaps better, on a matte screen they look lifeless...

I hate AG coating, so I went out and bought a 27 Cinema Display...

When I drag it from my glossy monitor to one with light AG the sky is quite dulled and hazy looking.
Click to expand...

And so on.

So a matte vs glossy poll fits right in with the discussion.
 
Snowdog said:
AG coating = matte.

If you read the posts this is breaking down in matte vs glossy (again). Not matte vs matte.
Click to expand...

Snowdog,

Several posters in this exact same thread have already expressed that they prefer other more mildly coated MATTE screens over any AG coated LG IPS display. Matte doesn't really seem to be the issue at hand, only the grade of coating used by LG which is abnormal even amongst matte monitors. Even you seem to agree that LG's specific coating is absolute overkill, and that other matte displays by other manufacturers do a very good job at eliminating reflections while producing a much clearer image.

Snowdog said:
For as long as LG has been making LCDs panels, they seem to have been using the strongest Anti-Glare, Anti-Reflective coating out there. So much so that IPS monitors get a reputation for have odd visual characteristics:

This is an IPS review from 2003: As with S-IPS panels in general, the surface bears a slightly crystal like glittering effect.

When LG described the coating they called it a 3H Anti-Glare coating. Which refers to it's hardness, so it likely serves double duty of cutting reflections and scratch resistance.

While going to reflective screens would turn off even more people, I think there is almost universal agreement that the coatings used by other manufacturers offer a clearer view while still doing an adequate job, blocking reflections.

Why is that after years of having what is (my assumption) the worse AG coating in the industry does LG persist. Surely they must be able to get something like what is on other manufacturers screens.

I also think as DPI increases they need for clearer coatings escalates.

I know some will claim there is a magical 100% clear coating that also blocks reflections, but I don't buy that, and hence it isn't in the Poll.

I am mainly curious if anyone thinks LG's aggressive coating is necessary.
Click to expand...

You even participated in a thread with a poll on coatings here at [H] quite some time ago. The final tally was:

Agressive AG (LG IPS) - 13%
Mild AG (Typical TN/PVA) - 48%
No AG - 38%
 
Ashok0 said:
Snowdog,

Several posters in this exact same thread have already expressed that they prefer other more mildly coated MATTE screens over any AG coated LG IPS display.
Click to expand...

Uhh, you don't make a case for what this thread is about, but quoting me from a different thread.

This thread is about all types of AG issues, even including light AG vs Glossy as NCX brought up.

You can't join a thread and expect to limit it to one narrow range of discussion, just because it suits you.
 
Panasonic plasma or bust. LCD is a terrible technology and I'm absolutely finished trying to find one that measures up.
 
I did a side-by-side comparison of my x220's IPS vs my U2311's IPS panel. The x220's AG coating is barely noticeable next the U2311. It is less noticeable than the AG on my Acer. It is the same as the x220's TN version of the screen.

It doesn't seem to me that LG uses the same AG coating on all their IPS panels. Something is up here. If the same coating is used on all IPS screens, then it's not an issue of small dot pitch/high ppi that makes the U2711's coating so bad in comparison to the U2311.

Man, the IPS option on my x220 is looking like one of the best $35 upgrades I ever made in my life...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top