Anti-Glare coatings, discussion/Poll.

[Snowdog]

I'm sorry Snowdog but your wrong about glossy TV's and matte tv's having no difference..

I used to work at Circuit City in Minnesota and 3M would come in all the time purchasing different TV's to test their coatings to get better contrast and clarity on matte tv's that glossy screens provided. Samsung engineer also told me that the "glossy" screens provide more contrast and one of the reason they went with glossy. One could easily tell the difference in blacks and clearity from a samsung a630 and a650 (same electronics and lcd) the a630 (matte) didn't have the contrast or clearity the a650 (glossy) had.

Yeah sure.... Samsung Engineer/3M engineers are always chatting with Circuit City staff.

Matte coatings have negligible effect on measurable contrast. If a sheet blocks 5% of light, it will block it on both ends of the scale and there will be no significant change in contrast.

 

[limitedaccess]

Judging from this picture though, the grain of the AG seems to reduce perceived contrast.

I suspect the perceived quality difference is also what drives laptops to have more glossy options then matte options (in relation to monitors), as they make an otherwise "worse" panel better. Since from a use perspective, laptops would be used under much worse lighting conditions then a desktop monitor.

I wonder if the severity of how one perceives AG treatment is tied into the displays contrast. TVs due to there inherently higher contrast ratio, and likewise Samsungs monitors in comparison to LG ips displays, since static contrast is one of the traditional weak areas of IPS displays. Another observation is many users seem to report that LGs newer panels used in monitors such as the u2311h and ea231wmi have less distracting AG then previously, coincidentally these are also the highest measured static contrast IPS monitors. Likewise the NECs such as the 2490 have also comparatively high contrast compared to the IPS screens that people mention as having terrible AG.

Can you think of a high contrast screen relatively speaking that people mention as having distracting AG? Monitors, such as the u2410, that people mention as having terrible AG coincidentally have comparatively low static contrast.

It would be interesting to see comparison shots of different coatings using the packing tape method you described, to see if there is any difference on that level.

By any chance has anyone ever done an before and after measurement for contrast after removing the AG from there screen? As it would be hard to draw any conclusions from data on glossy/ag screens on market, as the panel characteristics are different.

 

[harlock328]

Whatever.... Samsung rep had one of their engineers with them during a tech meeting and 3M engineers always came in to purchase TVs, I just talked to them... Don't be an ass by calling one a liar.

Yeah sure.... Samsung Engineer/3M engineers are always chatting with Circuit City staff.

Matte coatings have negligible effect on measurable contrast. If a sheet blocks 5% of light, it will block it on both ends of the scale and there will be no significant change in contrast.

 

[amarcus]

Here's my take to try and set some things straight.

It will make no difference to Snow, but you are far from the only person to observe this. Snow, your explanation for this observation?

Simple, you will never be able to test in a totally dark environment. The screen will always be emitting light that will be reflected off of you - in effect this causes you to become a secondary light source i.e. there will always be an external light source, you! As we already discussed: with a matte screen this will appear as a slight diffusion as opposed to a slight reflection on a glossy screen. Unfortunately there is no right answer here. It's really whatever effect you find less distracting.

One could easily tell the difference in blacks and clearity from a samsung a630 and a650 (same electronics and lcd) the a630 (matte) didn't have the contrast or clearity the a650 (glossy) had.

In short, the answer to this again is that it's a matter or perception. Snowdog said it best:

This "perception" factor is an interesting one, even on TVs some fall for this when shimmer/crystal is not a factor. I think some actually think reflections make things pop more like a waxed car.

 

[Anemone]

Simple, you will never be able to test in a totally dark environment. The screen will always be emitting light that will be reflected off of you - in effect this causes you to become a secondary light source i.e. there will always be an external light source, you! As we already discussed: with a matte screen this will appear as a slight diffusion as opposed to a slight reflection on a glossy screen. Unfortunately there is no right answer here. It's really whatever effect you find less distracting.

From a laptop screen, you, standing far enough away in a "perfect dark" room with no lighting are not going to be a "light source" of any significance. I could see and agree in a less controlled environment, or a TV sized source that "might" be an effect to consider.

However, Anandtech's testing of the glossy Apple display compared to the U2711 showed a tiny (and relatively meaningless) difference in contrast ratio, so I think the testing has shown me to be wrong on this panel and likely all panels. I don't yet know how that fits with the observations but I'm at least goign to point to testing that disproves any points I was trying to make and leave it at that.


Snow - you took a tangent on the coating thing. So let me be more clear. I was simply trying to say that there is no guarantee that LG is using the same coating on all their panels. Visually it doesn't appear that they are because not all their displays show the same AG impact on the image. So I wasn't trying to guarantee they do not, but simply saying there is evidence visually that they don't and it's not really offset by any evidence they do, other than a manufacturing simplicity belief. I don't know if they do or do not (and that the visual variations aren't batch related or panel related) but you simply can't state that they do with surety. Does that help with your view? Assuming they do is ok, but there isn't evidence to be sure that is the case.

 

[Anemone]

I've chatted with Microsoft Engineers at CompUSA (and gotten some changes implemented) so don't think that such folks don't occasionally haunt the halls of the B&M stores. Though in my case, said store is now gone

 

[Anemone]

As far as the thickness issue goes I'll give you a demo you can do. Take the roll of clear packing tape and take one piece of it. Shine a laser pointer through it at the wall. That's item one.

Now take about ten layers (or less if you like) and shine it through again. You should be able to see an impact on the laser's dot. That will give you some idea of the impact of thickness.

Now with Anand having disproven contrast differences, may not matter much, but at least you could see that impact for yourself.

 

[Snowdog]

Judging from this picture though, the grain of the AG seems to reduce perceived contrast.

I suspect the perceived quality difference is also what drives laptops to have more glossy options then matte options (in relation to monitors), as they make an otherwise "worse" panel better. Since from a use perspective, laptops would be used under much worse lighting conditions then a desktop monitor.

BTW there is a laptop Glossy/Matte poll running here:
http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/19727
It is 79% matte/17% gloss/5% don't care.
I don't know what the sales are, but there doesn't seem to be universal love for glossy laptops.

I wonder if the severity of how one perceives AG treatment is tied into the displays contrast. TVs due to there inherently higher contrast ratio, and likewise Samsungs monitors in comparison to LG ips displays, since static contrast is one of the traditional weak areas of IPS displays. Another observation is many users seem to report that LGs newer panels used in monitors such as the u2311h and ea231wmi have less distracting AG then previously, coincidentally these are also the highest measured static contrast IPS monitors.

The "perceived contrast" issues is what keeps glossy displays selling at all.

As far as "perceived AG" treatment differences. These are being reported by different people, all you need is a couple of obsessive individuals who repeatedly assert it is the worse thing ever, to make it look like one monitor is much worse than another, or a thread absent these individuals and few people who claim it is not noticeable to sway it in the other direction. So you need good filters to read between the lines on these claims.

I concentrate on proven reliable members of the forum who have large experience and keen observational skills (ToastyX, 10e) backed by my own fairly extensive observations. Based on their comments and what I have observed, there has been no change in LG AG (with the exception of A-TW screens).

I don't think base panel contrast is a factor in the "perceived AG" as the actual contrast ratings of the majority of desktop/laptop monitor panels is in the range of 800-1000. There is really no huge difference here.

I do have a theory similar to this, but with a different parameter. My theory is that AG coating gets more obtrusive as the DPI increases. This is for two reasons:
1: Pixel size to "scatter area" ratio is going in an unfavorable direction.
2: There is a tendency to sit closer to smaller pixels, the closer you are to AG, the more noticeable the shimmer/crystal effect.

As monitor move to higher DPI, LG really needs to update to a less aggressive AG coating.

 

[Snowdog]

As far as the thickness issue goes I'll give you a demo you can do. Take the roll of clear packing tape and take one piece of it. Shine a laser pointer through it at the wall. That's item one.

Now take about ten layers (or less if you like) and shine it through again. You should be able to see an impact on the laser's dot. That will give you some idea of the impact of thickness.

As with your posts so far, thinking isn't strongly demonstrated here. You add 9 more interface boundaries, that will be the issue here, not thickness.

Here is a thickness vs boundary example. 1 KM of quality Fiber loses about 1db of signal. The connector at each end are usually budgeted to lose .75db each. Your connectors will likely lose more signal power than 1 KM "thickness" of optical glass.

I also don't know why you are continuing to obsess with thickness since your point was based on your other faulty assumption that only IPS screens used an AG sheet, while others didn't and used a some kind of much thinner deposited coating. Since this has collapsed, why are you continuing your misplaced rant on thickness?

 

[limitedaccess]

BTW there is a laptop Glossy/Matte poll running here:
http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/19727
It is 79% matte/17% gloss/5% don't care.
I don't know what the sales are, but there doesn't seem to be universal love for glossy laptops.

This is what I was meaning though. As most people who have used a glossy laptop probably know they are horrible in terms of reflections, especially since as portable device, you are often using it in terrible lighting conditions (such as outdoors in the sun). But for some reason the comparative amount of Glossy laptops offered is very high compared to desktop monitors (which you have more control in lighting conditions). I suspect this is done because the glossy screens basically give that showroom "pop" that makes up for likely worse panels to lure buyers.

What would be interesting is to compare shots of supposedly differing AG. I suspect AG differences are partly compounded by other factors, which comparison shots might shed some light on. A very high contrast monitor will have that perceived "pop" to users, negating some of the benefits of glossy vs. AG. While a low contrast monitor might compound the perceived difference between AG vs. glossy for instance.

 

[kache]

No AG.
I mostly use the computer in the dark anyway, so glare is not a problem for me.

 

[Surly73]

I prefer the option which isn't posted in the poll:

A non-matte, low reflection AR coating such as what is found on Trinitron GDM-F series CRT displays, plasma TVs, eyeglasses, SLR lenses...

 

[Vega]

No AG.
I mostly use the computer in the dark anyway, so glare is not a problem for me.

It is impossible to get rid of the reflection even with complete ambient darkness with a glossy screen. Especially in images displayed that have light and dark areas, the light areas will light up any items (your face) that will be visibly reflected in dark areas on the screen.

 

[Biges]

I think people can clearly distinguish between glossy and matte screens and buy whatever they like. (As for me I get headache form glossy screens.)

But the difference between various AG coating strength may not be that clear. What about an index, that would rate the AG coating strength? But it is an illusion considering manufacturers can't rate properly their monitors real maximum brightness, minimum black static contrast :-/

 

[the_real_7]

hate matte . . . . if it works soooooooo well , why dont the leaders of lcd tv screens Sony LG Samsung use it also . . . simple contrast ratio .

why is matte so popular ? cause 90 percent of pc monitor are sold in bulk for business reasons , um you think you local secretary , sales clerk , puts a spyder 3 on theyre screen . . . . Apple has one thing right glossy is sexy , to bad they hate pc or you would see apple sales fly in monitors

 

[Vega]

Have you ever seen pictures of inside professional image studios? You know how many glossy screens you would find? Zero. All of the high-end, super color accurate LCD"s like NEC's, Eizo's, medical displays, all non-glossy. For a reason!

 

[the_real_7]

Have you ever seen pictures of inside professional image studios? You know how many glossy screens you would find? Zero. All of the high-end, super color accurate LCD"s like NEC's, Eizo's, medical displays, all non-glossy. For a reason!

Good and Bad point . . .

Those super color accurate LCD"s like NEC's, Eizo's,that you talking about what are the cost ? 1200 - 1800 and up right i sure the picture is pretty . . . are they really built for media or a consumer no . . . movies games etc would play like crap on them compared to a let say samsung tv in general . . the matte screens we have right at moment , have these ag coating that like it are not take color from the image I
I have two screens here a nec ea231wi and nec 20wmgx2 and I can guarantee you this is no placebo effect and that there is a difference between the 2

 

[tk-don]

why dont the leaders of lcd tv screens Sony LG Samsung use it also . . . simple contrast ratio

The trend is that bezels are now glossy and made to immitate glass. Why ruin the surface experience with a matte screen? It's form over function - much like Apple and their LCDs.
Higher CR only makes sense in a situation during daylight and in a room with no reflections, i.e. you have to wear a mask and wear black clothes and sit in a black chair/sofa when sitting in front of the screen so that you're not reflected. I.e. in reality, it's bogus.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10449611-1.html shows a somewhat good example.

The comparison between the EA231WMi and 20WMGX2 is really hard to make - they are different generations and they don't have the same native color space (small differences can be seen). AG wouldn't affect the saturation.

What I do agree on is that LG is completely over-doing the AG coating. Sure it doesn't affeft CR, but it diffuses the light from the pixels and room so much that it's unbearable.

But the difference between various AG coating strength may not be that clear. What about an index, that would rate the AG coating strength?

I agree - manufacturers actually do measure the properties of the AG coatings, but they're not equally good at publishing it (at least without asking for it). One of them, Nitto-Denko, states the average distance between "ups and down" in the treatment, a roughness grade and a sparkling grade. And yes, multiple types are available http://www.nitto.com/product/datasheet/optical/002/ - another none, Toppan, doesn't state the specific properties, but that they have different types available with different haze ( http://electronics.toppan.co.jp/english/lcd/ ).

 

[Biges]

I agree - manufacturers actually do measure the properties of the AG coatings, but they're not equally good at publishing it (at least without asking for it). One of them, Nitto-Denko, states the average distance between "ups and down" in the treatment, a roughness grade and a sparkling grade. And yes, multiple types are available http://www.nitto.com/product/datasheet/optical/002/ - another none, Toppan, doesn't state the specific properties, but that they have different types available with different haze ( http://electronics.toppan.co.jp/english/lcd/ ).

Whoa, that's something

 

[Snowdog]

I have two screens here a nec ea231wi and nec 20wmgx2 and I can guarantee you this is no placebo effect and that there is a difference between the 2

Well of course there is a difference. One is a mirror, and the other is a screen.

If you think the 20wmgx2 has higher contrast, that is the placebo effect in a nutshell.

Measured contrast:
20wmgx2 662:1 (source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1958324,00.asp )
ea231wi 871:1 (source: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_ea231wmi.htm )

Despite marketing hype, AG coatings have negligible effect on measured contrast.

But of course it does effect perceived contrast for some as they see shiny with reflections as having more pop and contrast.

 

[Snowdog]

I agree - manufacturers actually do measure the properties of the AG coatings, but they're not equally good at publishing it (at least without asking for it). One of them, Nitto-Denko, states the average distance between "ups and down" in the treatment, a roughness grade and a sparkling grade. And yes, multiple types are available http://www.nitto.com/product/datasheet/optical/002/ - another none, Toppan, doesn't state the specific properties, but that they have different types available with different haze ( http://electronics.toppan.co.jp/english/lcd/ ).

Very nice find. I like the diagram showing surface roughness.

Of course part of the issue is whether we could count on panel manufacturers to report it in a consistent manner. Given the way they obscure useful information on other specifications, we would never see honest reporting on AG coating specs.

But I do think this only solidifies the point that AG properties of IPS monitors have nothing to do with them being IPS and everything to do with the poor choice of ultra aggressive AG that LG seems to prefer. Only a minority believed otherwise anyway.

The question remains: Why does LG use such an aggressive AG? Is there any channel we can use to suggest they need to do otherwise?

I really think it gets even more important as we see higher DPI screens with smaller pixels. Coatings need to become more fine as pixels shrink or they will have more relative effect. There is a tendency to sit closer to smaller pitch screens as well as the relative change surface roughness to pixel size ratio, unless you also reduce it when you reduce pixel size.

 

[the_real_7]

Hopefully something new comes out without AG at least . . . the coating really does bother me , guess im used to very vibrant color pop that glass or Plexiglas gives . . . we really need a evolution in pc monitors or for like marketing to slow down on the business side of things so they can start producing quality screens for the regular consumers again

 

[Vega]

I think LG went with such a coating on their IPS screens because it does a terrific job of minimizing glare/reflectiveness. I am sure a company of that size that sells millions of panels has done some research on the balance between anti-glare coatings and clarity. On white screens I do see a hint of sparkle on my ZR30w's but people blow the effect way out of proportion.

Your eyes have a much harder time trying to see through reflections from the image on glossy screens versus a very slight blurring of the image due to AG layer.

 

[Snowdog]

I think LG went with such a coating on their IPS screens because it does a terrific job of minimizing glare/reflectiveness. I am sure a company of that size that sells millions of panels has done some research on the balance between anti-glare coatings and clarity. On white screens I do see a hint of sparkle on my ZR30w's but people blow the effect way out of proportion.

Your eyes have a much harder time trying to see through reflections from the image on glossy screens versus a very slight blurring of the image due to AG layer.

I'll take strong AG over gloss anytime, but I really think the better choice is in between.

 

[Ankle]

I'd kill for some multilayer interference AR coatings instead of terrible AG and super reflective glossy coatings on my displays. :|

 

[chong67]

The worst AG coating for me is the Dell 3007wfp. Its sparky and muddy on the screen.

 

[amarcus]

I am under the impression that all current IPS dell (u2410, u2711, u3011) and HP monitors (zr24w, zr30w) have the same strong AG coating as they all use LG screens. Can anyone with first hand experience state otherwise?

 

[amenx]

I have 4 monitors, 2 glossy (Samsung 27a950d, Catleap Q270 2b), one semi-glossy (Yamakasi DS270) and a light AG matte (Qnix Evo II).

The 'glossiest' of all is the Sammy 27a950d, has the most vibrant 'popping' colors and the highest 'wow factor' where people tend to ask about it more than any other monitor I've owned. Funny because its a TN. Its also the most reflective.

Next up is the Catleap Q270 (IPS), its glossy, but not 'as glossy' as the Sammy. Its colors are more neutral, still nice and vibrant, and very accurate. Its my main display.

The Yamakasi DS270 is an AH-IPS display with a PDC coating, which has the greatest clarity of all the monitors I've seen or owned. The tiniest text is razor sharp and fully readable. Oddly, although its labled a 'semi-glossy', it looks more glossy than the Catleap. Sadly it doesnt have as good blacks as the others.

The Qnix, which has a light AG and measures impeccably (along with the Catleap) in color accuracy, looks best with whites and in desktop usage. Although I have great respect for this monitor, its not my favorite due to the light AG coating (which I consider not light enough).

To sum up, the most impressive coating I've seen is the PDC, which retains the glossy look but handles reflections much better. But as mentioned it does something to the depth of blacks. Not noticeable unless you place a monitor with superb blacks (ie, Qnix, Catleap) next to it. I hope technology further improves PDC so this is a non- issue, but again, it might not be biggie unless you've seen monitors with good black depth.

 

[icor1031]

Even with my PDC next to my CPVA monitors, which have a much superior black level - the PDC is definitely preferable.

 

[Armenius]

I've heard that PDC can make blacks appear purplish.

Reflections really ruin any improvement in perceived image quality for me. I could live with a semi-glossy coating, but even a low level of natural light can produce reflections that are sometimes distracting.


My experience has been:

• 1 TV (IPS) with a glass cover and no coating
  • Colors appear most "pure" to me, and this is my preferred display for watching movies. Unfortunately has a glossy black frame so blacks appear more grayish. Size is 55".
• 2 laptops (1 TN, 1 IPS) with glossy displays
  • Mostly did coding and document work on both. Colors looked great, but reflections in any lighting condition killed them for me. Both laptops were 17".
• 1 TV (VA) and 1 monitor (TN) with semi-glossy AG coating
  • VA TV is my current display I use for console gaming (input lag is lower than current IPS TV). This is a good compromise, in my opinion. There is no cross-hatching effect that medium to heavy AG creates and reflections are not as noticeable in mild lighting or natural light that glossy displays have. Size is 40" with a "frameless" bezel.
• 2 monitors (both TN) with light AG coating
  • Nothing much to say here. My opinion is pretty much the same as above, but does a better job of dispersing light. Monitor sizes were 20" 4:3 and 24" 16:9.
• 1 TV (TN) and 1 monitor (TN) with medium AG coating
  • TV is a 49" that my parents own that I've watched when visiting. The effects of the medium AG coating are badly exacerbated at this size and resolution (1080p). Sitting any closer than 10 feet is like watching an old CRT television. The monitor is a new PG278Q I hooked up last night, and I really haven't noticed anything bad about the coating. It does do an excellent job of dispersing light. I have not noticed any reflections or focal points of light during my use, and picture quality appears to not suffer from shimmering of colors during gaming sessions. I can see it on my desktop, though, so I think it would definitely bother me if I used my PC for any image or video work.

Bottom line is I would prefer a light AG or semi-glossy coating, but a medium coating would not bother me depending on the application. I have no personal experience with a heavy AG coating and I have yet to see a display using PDC.

 

[hodgempls]

For text work (programming, development etc), the plasma deposition coating on the ah-ips panels has been great for me. Photos and colors are vibrant as well. Black levels do suffer some but my Yamakasi ds270 is by far my favorite monitor. Others that I have tried include the qnix IPS 27"- my current 2nd monitor - overclocked well but had backlight bleed issues, Ben Q BL2710PT - i bought it for the additional ports but it suffered from occasional dimming, and the dell 2711 - the ag coating was too aggressive for me.

 

[Deleted member 89018]

I was all confused reading this thread, thinking that someone had somehow missed the newer IPS panels which don't have nearly as aggressive coatings as the ones on, say, Dell's panels that were 4+ years old.

Then I saw the date of the thread. :/

I think this needs a new poll, with the middling "light matte" option added to it.

 

[XenDeltaPhi]

Can confirm all of the above. Proud owner of a Yamakasi DS270.