Glossy vs Matte - The Ultimate Smackdown

Which do you prefer?

  • Matte LCD

    Votes: 122 65.6%

  • Glossy LCD

    Votes: 64 34.4%
  • Total voters
    186
harlock328 said:
a650 was glossy it was the a630 that wasn't. both used same panel...a750 and a860(or was it 850) used different panel (I believe). a750 had different bezel and 860/850 was the very thin model.
Click to expand...

You're right; I misremembered the numbers. Been a while :) It was the a650 and a630 I'd compared and liked the a650 better. The a750 was different, but the a650/630 difference made my mind up for me on glossy vs matte. Went b750 a year later once I could convince myself to pay that much XD
 
Snowdog said:
That has to be one of the most ill informed pieces of nonsense that I have read in this forum in ages. You are comparing two completely different panels, an older CCFL 26" to a newer LED 24". Not to mention the effect that calibration will have (likely done on the NEC, but not done on the Apple).
Click to expand...

They are not "two completely different panels". The NEC model number is almost identical to the iMac, which is a mid-2009 24" before the new LEDs came out. The newer iMac LED models do not come in the 24" size.

Snowdog said:
Consider for a moment, one of the most revered Glossy IPS monitors of all time. The NEC 20WGX2. Gloss fans rave about the contrast and deep blacks on this monitor. Do you know what it actually measures like. Weak. Contrast UNDER 600 and high black levels:
Click to expand...

Red herring argument. You'd need to compare the same or very similar panel with a matte coating to the NEC 20WGX2.

Snowdog said:
The perception of greater contrast has absolutely nothing to do with the measured reality.
Click to expand...

This is bullshit, as the above link to imagescience and my own comparison has shown.

evilsofa said:
The 24" iMac panel is an LG.Display H-IPS (LM240WU2-(SL)(B1)). The NEC 2690WUXi is a LG.Philips H-IPS A-TW Pol (LM260WU1). They are not even close to being "the exact same panel", so your assumption that the difference you measured is due to the difference in coating is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Read your own post again. Look at the model numbers. They are both both LG H-IPS displays with almost the exact same model number. Please explain how they are "not even close". (and this better be good). For comparison of the effects of matte and glossy, the panels are close enough to be a good indication. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.
 
I like glossy when facing the windows
but matte when your back is facing the windows
 
Peat Moss said:
They are both both LG H-IPS displays with almost the exact same model number. Please explain how they are "not even close". (and this better be good). For comparison of the effects of matte and glossy, the panels are close enough to be a good indication. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Almost the same number? Because the both have LM and WU in them? :rolleyes:

LM240WU2-(SL)(B1)) vs (LM260WU1).

Not to mention the 2690 is from 2007 and your iMac from 2009.
Not to mention one is wide gamut and one is normal gamut.

But none of that holds a candle to the calibration issues. Turn of calibration, colorcomp on the NEC and it will likely jump ahead in contrast. Then what? By simply switching my NEC to native color point, instead of the calibrated one, I gain 100 points of contrast as it gets much brighter.

Really you are being silly. These panel are barely comparable in any parameter and you use this as proof?
 
Last edited:
blade52x said:
So I guess what our brains perceive isn't what really matters in the end?
Click to expand...
Was thinking the same. If a person tends to have better experience with glossy over matte, then ... why not? (In terms of personal preference.)

Although I understand that at a technical level, one person may be incorrect while the other correct (or both at partial levels). But then, referring to the above question, that is along the lines of "brains perceive isn't what really matters in the end?"

I would be curious about taking two monitors (one matte and one glossy), but having exactly the same or closest hardware specs possible, and then comparing contrast. That would really be the only way to find out and visually observe whether there is a noticeable difference or not.
 
blade52x said:
So I guess what our brains perceive isn't what really matters in the end?
Click to expand...

One case(measurement) is objective, the other(perception) is subjective.

We make a preference choice we will all go by the subjective perception that works for us, matter or glossy. Nothing wrong with that.

But if you start claiming subjective perception is objective reality, then you are becoming delusional.

You can note that perceive motion in this gif, but if you insist that cogs are actually rotating, you are losing touch. :D

rotsnake2.gif
 
Armatoste said:
I've had my 20WMGX2 for 4 1/2 years now. Feel the same about it.

However, I've given up hope for a 23"+ glossy ips ever coming out. If my Nec dies I might buy a Dell 2311 on sale and try the paper towel thing.
Click to expand...

Hahah awesome. I'm in the same boat. I've had my 20WMGX2 for 4 1/2 years now and i'm looking for a 23-24" Glossy IPS replacement. (remote is a plus!). The NEC 20WMGX2 has been, hands down, the best monitor i've ever had the privilege of owning. I've narrowed my search for a successor down to the Dell U2311h and the Apple 24" Cinema. From what i've been reading though, the Dell isn't glossy and has tinting issues. I just never thought i'd have to shell out $700+ every 4 years. lol. :(
 
harlock328 said:
a650 was glossy it was the a630 that wasn't. both used same panel...a750 and a860(or was it 850) used different panel (I believe). a750 had different bezel and 860/850 was the very thin model.
Click to expand...

I ended up going for the 52a650. Best price/performance. Plus the glossy panel made it look sexy. Unfortunately my receiver died so i've been unable to use it for a couple weeks... but that's a different story.
 
pseudo22 said:
I ended up going for the 52a650. Best price/performance. Plus the glossy panel made it look sexy. Unfortunately my receiver died so i've been unable to use it for a couple weeks... but that's a different story.
Click to expand...

I have a 52A650 as well and I really like it for a lot of reasons. I voted for matte, because assumed this thread is about computer displays rather than TVs.

I like glossy on TVs and matte on computer displays, because you sit much closer to a computers. I have a ASUS n71-jq which is a fantastic laptop for the price, it's only flaw is the glossy TN screen; yuck.

Dave
 
pseudo22 said:
Hahah awesome. I'm in the same boat. I've had my 20WMGX2 for 4 1/2 years now and i'm looking for a 23-24" Glossy IPS replacement. (remote is a plus!). The NEC 20WMGX2 has been, hands down, the best monitor i've ever had the privilege of owning. I've narrowed my search for a successor down to the Dell U2311h and the Apple 24" Cinema. From what i've been reading though, the Dell isn't glossy and has tinting issues. I just never thought i'd have to shell out $700+ every 4 years. lol. :(
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat as you. I'm currently using the NEC 20WMGX2 just because it's so damn nice. It's glossy, but a glossy I can tolerate - and sharpness and colors are top notch. I think I paid $600.00 for it brand new.

I want something larger (24" or 30") so my Radeon 5870 can stretch it's legs, but I'm afraid there's nothing on the market that can give me the same overall quality as the 20WMGX2 in a larger package without sacraficing something.

And then I have to decide what to do with this NEC. It's hard to even find them used online anymore. I don't want to sell it for peanuts, but it's too nice to just sit collecting dust too. :p I'm leaning towards the Dell U3011, but that panel has been around for 3 years now, right? Isn't it about due to be refreshed soon?
 
There is another reason I prefer glossy: the glass panel on top of the screen is extremely sturdy and easy to clean, while the matte is fragile, so while cleaning there is always the risk to break or scratch it.
 
kache said:
There is another reason I prefer glossy: the glass panel on top of the screen is extremely sturdy and easy to clean, while the matte is fragile, so while cleaning there is always the risk to break or scratch it.
Click to expand...

Not all glossy panels have a glass panel on top.
 
I want a switch installed that lets me change the level of matte-ness. But if I had to choose....
I couldn't choose. Glossy seems easier on the eyes to me, text looks a bit sharper to me. But matte is oh-so-reflection free. I've never had a glossy screen on anything other than my laptop, so that may change things a bit. I'd have to try both on my desktop.

Matte black bezels would be nice though. What's with all these shiny ones?
 
When you add reflectivity to something, light bounces away instead of getting absorbed. As a result, the material or image behind the layer of reflection will not absorb that light and appear darker.
 
Glossy for distance: with a screen several feet away you can adjust your position easily to remove glare. Matte for close: With a close up screen you cannot adjust for reflection as easily and a larger area is seen reflected.

I
 
pseudo22 said:
Hahah awesome. I'm in the same boat. I've had my 20WMGX2 for 4 1/2 years now and i'm looking for a 23-24" Glossy IPS replacement. (remote is a plus!). The NEC 20WMGX2 has been, hands down, the best monitor i've ever had the privilege of owning. I've narrowed my search for a successor down to the Dell U2311h and the Apple 24" Cinema. From what i've been reading though, the Dell isn't glossy and has tinting issues. I just never thought i'd have to shell out $700+ every 4 years. lol. :(
Click to expand...

I would be very interested in reviews on the "Glossy" version of the Mitsubishi Diamondcrysta WIDE RDT232WX, which is the RDT232WX-S, because I am wondering if the Matte Anti-Glare coating on my current monitor is part of the cause of my eye-strain.

Take a look at the following.

http://www.mitsubishielectric.co.jp/home/display/product/multi/rdt232wx_s/index.html
 
I love this argument. Matte defenders are so vocal, but I have to wonder how did any of you ever deal with CRTs? Anti-glare coating on some matte monitors is pretty offensive (Dell U27)

IMO with glossy.Text and colors look better. Pixels are less visible. Lights make a matte screen look washed out to me--loss of contrast. I think matte looks pretty good in low light situations, but then again doesn't everything.
 
Last edited:
I am on my third and final Sony GDM-F520. Antigalre looks fine. The only screen that I have and do not like is the glossy TN on my ASUS laptop. That is why I have it connected to a Dell 2209WA.

95 to 51 says it all.

Dave
 
FACT: People who like glossy screens are really just vain metrosexuals that enjoy looking at their own reflection all day. :p
 
qft kubebot. And no offense to matte purists, but some people actually DON'T use monitors near windows or under fluorescent lighting. :D
 
Matte for me.

I have used both,

Dell Inspiron 4150 Notebook, with 14.1' 1600*1200 display (Matte)
Apple Macbook Pro Pre-unibody 15.4' 1440*900 display (Matte)
Apple Macbook Pro Unibody 15.4' 1440*900 display (Glossy)
Dell 21' CRT W/ curved tube (Glossy) (Purchased early 90's)
Dell 2407 WFP LCD (24' 192081200) (Matte, Matte Bezel)
Asus 17' LCD (Glossy, Glossy bezel) (bought on price alone, have light situated above and slightly behind plane of screen. greatly minimizes reflections)
Sharp 32' HDTV (Matte, glossy bezel)

Now that the 15' macbook pro's have matte again, I'm debating getting one, when my current warranty runs out.

I'm also slightly autistic, not sure how that plays into things, but I definately prefer the matte displays.
 
kubebot said:
I love this argument. Matte defenders are so vocal, but I have to wonder how did any of you ever deal with CRTs? Anti-glare coating on some matte monitors is pretty offensive (Dell U27)

IMO with glossy.Text and colors look better. Pixels are less visible. Lights make a matte screen look washed out to me--loss of contrast. I think matte looks pretty good in low light situations, but then again doesn't everything.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where it was explained that a glossy screen only looks 'better' because it messes up the contrast of the screen? Glossy screens are utterly worthless for colour proofing because of this and you won't find any graphics department using them.
 
Elledan said:
Did you miss the part where it was explained that a glossy screen only looks 'better' because it messes up the contrast of the screen? Glossy screens are utterly worthless for colour proofing because of this and you won't find any graphics department using them.
Click to expand...

You must be out of your mind. The point of the glossy screen is to refract as little of the light coming out of the polarizer, giving the truest possible image. The point of a matte screen is to reduce the "annoyance factor" of reflections by reducing their intensity, at the cost of a noticeable attenuation of the signal from the polarizer. Why you persist in the absurd claim that having a fuzzy filter over the polarizer somehow makes the display more color-accurate boggles my mind.
 
Ashok0 said:
qft kubebot. And no offense to matte purists, but some people actually DON'T use monitors near windows or under fluorescent lighting. :D
Click to expand...

Most people do not use monitors that are turned off either

98 to 52, better get your friends to signup or create some fake ids.
 
Elledan said:
Did you miss the part where it was explained that a glossy screen only looks 'better' because it messes up the contrast of the screen? Glossy screens are utterly worthless for colour proofing because of this and you won't find any graphics department using them.
Click to expand...

So there goes a CRT for photo editing right?
 
Wrong; The best CRTs ever made were the Sony GDM series and they have AG coating. Go look at the CRT thread for instructions on how to remove it if you like.
 
daveswantek said:
Most people do not use monitors that are turned off either

98 to 52, better get your friends to signup or create some fake ids.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dave. Many people actually do use displays under controlled lightning. And who really cares about a non-scientific [H] poll? Once again, you post yet another completely worthless post that adds nothing to the discussion. :confused:
 
The two top vendors for graphics pros are NEC and Ezio. How many of their products have a glossy screen?
 
daveswantek said:
The two top vendors for graphics pros are NEC and Ezio. How many of their products have a glossy screen?
Click to expand...

Well, many professional graphics displays are VA and do not use LG's aggressive AG coating. I'd actually buy a less aggressive matte over a glossy, but there's no way I'd personally buy a matte display like the DELL U3011. Regardless, does it really matter? Like I've stated above, I love my glossy given the lightning conditions I have in my home. In my workplace, however, I use a matte and wouldn't switch to anything else.
 
Last edited:
I still don't understand why issues like this tend to turn into arguments over which is objectively better, where it seems quite obvious it is a matter preference and personal requirements.
 
limitedaccess said:
I still don't understand why issues like this tend to turn into arguments over which is objectively better, where it seems quite obvious it is a matter preference and personal requirements.
Click to expand...

Well said, I agree totally

The interesting thing I am seeing with this thread is that there is a lot more people lurking in the display section then I would have guessed. Over 150 responses means a lot of people are reading but not posting. That is good for [H].
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top