Do you prefer glossy monitors or monitors with AR film applied?

[777]

You said, "if you get glare move the monitor". The monitor's lighting environment/vectors, placement, and targeted usage are critical. Some people seem to want to use their monitors with direct light sources such as overhead and/or behind lighting and windows/sunlight hitting them and bouncing off of the monitor face. For a portable that could make sense, but outdoor photographers and cameramen use hoods over their camera viewports for a reason. For an office monitor with horrible fluorescent lighting overhead that could make sense too, but some technicolor certified professional monitors come with monitor hoods for a reason. Some also come with light sensing hardware+software to adjust for ambient light changes in an attempt to maintain calibration to your eyes/brain's lighting (contrast, saturation) biases.

A point where some of us differ is that we want to use our monitors in a home theater (home gaming theater) and/or a photography/video studio where the image clarity is pristine and the monitor settings or calibration are not compromised to our eyes by differing ambient light swings let alone direct light bouncing off of the monitor's face. In a studio or a home theater, you design the viewing environment to suit the experience(e.g. display and seating placement/orientation, lighting design/placement, windows and window treatments, surround speaker placement, etc.) rather than compromising your experience to suit the (improper) environment. You aren't supposed to let (direct) light hit the monitor face if you want a pristine view of a monitor with it's settings/calibration (including contrast, black depth, and saturation) maintained to your eyes.

Why do people not use hoods with their home theatres?

 

[HeavensCloud]

My last monitor was a glossy 27", I'm not a fan of the reflections. If when light wasn't peppering the screen I could see my reflection in every black / dark scene in games or movies and it drove me crazy. I'll stick to matte.

 

[elvn]

The obvious answer why no hood on a tv is that you aren't sitting in the same place all of the time and you have potential for more than one person viewing the screen. People do use blinds for their home theaters, and well designed room lighting. A hood is essentially a type of localized blind, blocking the screen from direct light pollution.

Both hoods(blinds) and anti glare screens are attempting to make up for being in an inappropriate viewing environment where direct light is polluting the screen. The difference is, hoods and/or room layout and lighting design can keep a glossy screen clear where the anti glare will always be a film layer over the screen. Direct light hitting any screen, including ag coated screens, will still pollute the screen parameters to your eyes. That means any screen, even AG screens, benefit from hoods, blinds, and/or appropriate room layout and lighting design.

People can design their lighting scheme and window orientation to completely avoid bouncing direct light sources off of their displays.
The point is in a proper setup you design the environment - a surround sound and theater system, design studio, pc gaming-center, to suit the display and sound not the other way around making compromises on the quality. Of course there should be options of anti glare for people who have to use their screens in inappropriate environments like overhead fluorescent lighting offices as an example.

You can't have a direct light source in front of a glossy monitor which is what you are showing in those pictures. Direct light sources hitting any monitor type is a bad thing and will wash out the settings.

Here is an extreme example of direct light source(camera flash in this case) hitting an ag and a glossy screen.

Just like setting up a tv surround sound array or a photo studio, you should design your gaming (and/or pc design) station layout appropriately. The stereotypical stuffing away of the pc desk against the wall like a bookshelf is the worst possible setup and acts as a catcher's mitt for direct light pollution. Direct light sources hitting any monitor surface will change the way your eyes see the contrast, brightness, and saturation. Allowing ambient lighting swings will also change the way your eyes see your settings.

I think in the far future we will all be using extremely high resolution AR glasses right on our faces, with virtual screens, objects, servants, people in real world space to our perspective so this shouldn't be an issue in the far future where looking at framed black/gray crystal sheets at desks, on walls, and in little bricks in your hands will be seen as primitive. In the nearer future hopefully further generations of VR will progress too.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

One problem with matte films is they don't work well with high density displays (When the dot pitch is smaller than the grain of the AG itself). Hence all tablets/phones are glossy and why the Dell 5K UP2715K & 8K UP3218K are glossy with AR coatings although with monitors that expensive you would expect a better AR coating.

Something like this, would be expensive but if you're already spending a grand on a monitor an extra hundred or 2 won't hurt.

 

[KG-Prime90]

I disagree with you completely. The only way to remove direct reflections in a non dark environment is with matte finishes. AR on glass only does so much. Even in that picture you can see the reflections on the glass panel.

There are non aggressive matte finishes that don't diminish IQ or cause sparkle effect. If you are getting glare, move/change your light sources or move the monitor.

Its taken years to get away from glossy panels, in no way do I want to go back. matte finishes was a major selling point when LCDs were first released.

Instead of going to the inferior glossy screens ask manufacturers to use proper matte finishes. My IPS LG screens at work are borderline and Samsung lately has been doing an excellent job with smooth matte finishes.

Matte sucks.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

The simple solution here would be for the manufacturers to offer two versions of their product: a matte screen version and a gloss version or a more expensive AR coating. QNIX used to sell both matte and glossy screens. There's a lot of us who still want glossy, but it's hard to show this preference with our wallets when literally no one makes glossy displays outside of Dell/HP/QNIX budget panels. (99% of high-end "Professional" displays use matte coating but can be removed if you're willing to take the risk)

 

[Bun-Bun]

???

??? what? glossy panels have more contrast shift than matte. Easy to see just going to any store that has a selection of screens on display.

I find glossy annoying even in completely dark rooms. The light coming from the screen itself lights up the room and you see your reflection.

Exactly.

Don't underestimate modern AR coatings.

View attachment 22997

Even high end expensive optic AR coatings arn't immune to direct reflections. I'm talking the stuff that comes on $10k+ lenses.

Matte finshes the likes of what Samsung use are the best of both worlds. This is what we should be promoting, not inferior AR coatings.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

??? what? glossy panels have more contrast shift than matte. Easy to see just going to any store that has a selection of screens on display.



Exactly.



Even high end expensive optic AR coatings arn't immune to direct reflections. I'm talking the stuff that comes on $10k+ lenses.

Matte finshes the likes of what Samsung use are the best of both worlds. This is what we should be promoting, not inferior AR coatings.

Color shift and bad viewing angles is caused by TN panels, not the panel coating.

The sole purpose of a matte coating is to diffuse light, thus reducing glare/reflections. The problem is that it's not possible to do it in one direction, so it also diffuses the light coming from the monitor itself. Being placed in such close proximity to the panel greatly mitigates this, but some detail is going to be lost. The idea is to find the best balance between reduction in glare/reflection while preserving as much detail as possible. Today's implementations are better than they have ever been, and there's still room for some improvement. However, they will never achieve the same level of clarity as a true glossy surface. It's just not possible.

These guys explain it better than I do.

 

[Bun-Bun]

TN, VA, doesn't matter. You take two TN or two VA displays side by side with the only difference being glossy vs matte and you will notice the glossy version has more contrast shift. I have plenty of TN panels with matte coatings that do not exhibit any noticeable contrast shift.

And exactly, its a balance which modern semi glossy finishes have accomplished IMO. With a glossy panel you see yourself looking back at you, so what good are all the details when they are hidden by reflections?

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

I removed the Matte coating from my QNIX 2710, here is a picture side by side. If you removed your AG and compare side by side you see a huge difference. The AG is "semi-gloss" low haze and it still reduces image quality. Could only imagine how much aggressive AG affects image. Point is that any amount of Matte coating will reduce color accuracy/sharpness/clarity. I'm not saying to abolish matte coatings entirely as some people prefer them, I'm saying to use better methods of reducing glare like AR coatings not AG (matte). It's also impossible to find glossy displays these days, if you want a high quality glossy you have to buy a matte display and remove the matte coating (Vega here on HardForum does an AG removal service) Companies like Dell and ASUS need to offer both a Matte and Glossy option instead of forcing Matte on everyone. I've done it to several monitors, night and day difference and plus I have no issues with reflected glare in the environment that the monitors are used in. Everyone says "Just get used to Matte" sorry but I can't get used to it, I already tried so until some high-end professional glossy displays start getting made I'll have to resort to dematting. It's a shame people have to mod $500-1000 monitors out of the box.

Matte film makes the image look Lifeless/dull/boring while Glossy is full of life and videos/images look more like the real world. If Matte is superior (In terms of IQ) then why do eyeglasses, camera lenses and the eye itself have a glossy surface?

 

[chenw]

You can't really equate matt surfaces and glossy surfaces based on optics alone.

The reason why eyes, eye glasses and lenses have glossy surfaces is because if the surface is matte, the optics in question is completely destroyed, because a matte surface wil distort any light emission more the further it is away from the emitting/reflecting source. This is why screen can use matte surfaces, but if you removed it from the panel itself, then pulled the matte coating away from the screen, it will become more and more blurry until you cannot see the fine details on the screen anymore, this is how matte screens work, they disrupt the long distance light sources and keeping the near distance light sources relatively untouched.

It has nothing to do with IQ, it has to do with being able to see at all or not. Also, camera lenses can use matte surfaces to eliminate flares.

 

[Vega]

To imply that matte AR films don't negatively impact image quality is just silly. Why do you think there is hardly a television produced that ever uses a matte AR film?

I'd definitely take the left, with the much better perceived colors, blacks, vibrancy and contrast over the light diffused washed out mess on the right. Sure, the bright light reflection on the left stands out, but matte AR films negatively impact the image 100% of the time.

And elvn's picture, the monitor on the left looks terrible compared to the one on the right:

 

[chenw]

I am not saying it doesn't, but IQ isn't the reason why optics (artificial or natural) chose to use glossy instead of matte lens surfacee

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

Matte coatings will always degrade image quality to some degree, even the "Semi-gloss" matte coatings still degrade image quality to a degree that is noticeable, just look at the side by side on the same panel picture (Qnix 2710 with semi gloss matte coating that I removed) bottom picture is one of Vega's AG removals (side by side on same panel)

 

[SuperSubZero]

To imply that matte AR films don't negatively impact image quality is just silly. Why do you think there is hardly a television produced that ever uses a matte AR film?

I'm curious how you ended up with a Mac that has an AG coating but no AG frame. They always have a grey frame around the border with the MacBook Pro logo on the bottom.

As for the topic, I like glossy but generally I'm indifferent. I have a 5K iMac (glossy as heck) and a 32" 4K monitor that's AG coated and I am cool with both. The AG coating has to be good though.. I had a first generation HP ZR2740w with a VERY aggressive AG coating, it made the display sort of sparkly and screwed up the image a little. Luckily it died and HP swapped it with a later model with a much less aggressive AG that was totally cool.

 

[General Lee]

Glossy is definitely the better option in terms of image quality if you can control the lighting, but even in a normal room, there's only so much you can do to prevent reflections. My current BDM4065UC reflects a ton so I often have to adjust the lights and close doors and blinds to make it bearable, while my smaller matte screen is still fine during daylight hours. That said, there's certainly a lot of differences in the amount of reflections some glossy panels give off. I have KS9000 (EU) that reflects a lot less than the glossy monitor. Not sure how much of a difference the curve is making there but I think it's mostly the coating quality.

 

[zone74]

To imply that matte AR films don't negatively impact image quality is just silly. Why do you think there is hardly a television produced that ever uses a matte AR film?

I'd definitely take the left, with the much better perceived colors, blacks, vibrancy and contrast over the light diffused washed out mess on the right. Sure, the bright light reflection on the left stands out, but matte AR films negatively impact the image 100% of the time.

That is an old non-retina MacBook Pro on the left too, which is much worse than the current models.
The old models just had a sheet of glass in front of the LCD panel, with an air-gap between them.
The new models have a sheet of AR-coated glass laminated to the LCD panel.

Old vs New:

Retina vs Matte:

Try reading the menu bar in the full-sized image.
With a matte screen, where reflections are diffused on the surface of the display, reflections obscure what is 'underneath' them.
With a glossy screen you can see 'through' the reflection.

It's also more comfortable to read text on a glossy display since the reflections are in a different plane of focus instead of being diffused on the surface.
I find that I get headaches, eye strain, or migraines a lot more frequently on matte panels when used in a bright room.


That's not to say that I hate matte panels in all circumstances.
When they can be set up in a medium to low light environment where there is no significant glare, the absence of direct reflections looks very nice.

However, indoors on a bright day, I find that I am fussing with my monitor/seating position more with matte screens than glossy panels which use laminated AR-coated glass.
A slight change of angle with a matte panel can make all the difference between it being a clear reflection-free image and one totally destroyed by glare.

I do have matte films applied to portable devices that I use outdoors though. (phone, camera etc.)
It greatly reduces the contrast, but since they are small screens I find it easier to position them to avoid significant glare than it is to avoid direct reflections.
And since it's a matte film, it can easily be removed at any time if I change my mind, unlike a matte display. You just need a piece of tape to lift up one of the corners and it will peel right off without leaving a mark.
If you are careful with the application, you wouldn't know that the screen didn't come with it applied. All of my devices have it perfectly aligned and there are no air bubbles or dust under it.

 

[XoR_]

There are all sorts of films out there which can fall into AR category. Full glossy is mostly cheap and bad engineering.
Proper AG should look like glass without any reflections. For me anything going strongly in this direction is proffered. Checked option for AG

 

[N4CR]

Diffuse and glossy both are 'glare' - it's just reflected light and they both do this. The amount and visibility depends on the situation.

 

[Bun-Bun]

You guys are comparing displays without correcting the calibration. Of course all else equal they will be different. The coating affects the optics. Doesn't mean worse, means different. Which means the calibration needs to be different.

Calibrate the displays and there will be minimal color difference between them. All my AR coated screens have better blacks, better contrast and better contrast consistency across the panel than any glossy screen I have ever seen. Contrast shift is always more apparent on a glossy display which destroys blacks away from the center of the screen.

To imply that matte AR films don't negatively impact image quality is just silly. Why do you think there is hardly a television produced that ever uses a matte AR film?

I'd definitely take the left, with the much better perceived colors, blacks, vibrancy and contrast over the light diffused washed out mess on the right. Sure, the bright light reflection on the left stands out, but matte AR films negatively impact the image 100% of the time.

And elvn's picture, the monitor on the left looks terrible compared to the one on the right:

None of my TVs have glossy finishes on them. Big selling feature of the past three TV's I bought were non glossy finishes so that glare isn't an issue while not compromising IQ. Flagship Samsungs and no glossy finish... I wonder why? These type of finishes are very expensive and I doubt you will ever see them on computer monitors for under $1000. TV are also under different situations from computer monitors. TVs are typically at a distance from the user whereas monitors are directly in front of the user. This changes things considerably.

And all I see in your bottom example is the right looks brighter. So of course you "think" it looks better. Humans will always perceive "brighter" and "louder" as "better" when doing side by side comparisons. The right screen looks like it needs its brightness reduced, yes AR coatings reduce maximum brightness but even laptops now are capable of twice the brightness required for most home/office situations. Color/Contrast/Brightness calibrate those displays and the only difference that picture would show is the reflection vs glare. Which in the case of the setup, the monitors or the light source should be moved. If you are sitting at a monitor with glare like it's you're own damn fault. The glare can be removed by changing the environment. The reflections on the right one can never be removed.

 

[Vega]

Everything you said above besides the last four sentences = wrong.

 

[Bun-Bun]

Everything you said above besides the last four sentences = wrong.

Right because volume level matching isn't critical to ABX blind tests and TV/Monitors aren't calibrated in showrooms for brighter/vibrant (read poorly calibrated) colors to attract people to buy them. I suggest you actually research on A/B and ABX comparisons and the tricks the human brain plays along with understanding what proper calibration means to a display and the environment the display is in.

I get it, you're selling a service removing AR coatings: You're biased. Nothing wrong with that, but don't go around spreading FUD.

The brightest, most color/gamma accurate and most lively looking monitor I have ever witnessed had AR coating. AR coating itself isn't the issue. Its the quality of said coating and QC from the manufacture that is the issue.

 

[Vega]

I do not offer an AR coating removal service. Saying AR film screens have better blacks and contrast is probably one of the most stupid things I've read on this forum. I think we should tell LG to put AR film on their glossy OLED's so that we can have better blacks and contrast.

Also, Samsungs top of the line FALD TV has a glossy screen:

http://uk.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ks9500

I'd like to know what "top of the line TV" has AR film on it.

 

[l88bastard]

I wish my LG OLED C6 had an AG coating so that its blacks and contrast could be improved.....

Har, har, har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har.....

 

[Bun-Bun]

I do not offer an AR coating removal service. Saying AR film screens have better blacks and contrast is probably one of the most stupid things I've read on this forum. I think we should tell LG to put AR film on their glossy OLED's so that we can have better blacks and contrast.

Also, Samsungs top of the line FALD TV has a glossy screen:

http://uk.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ks9500

I'd like to know what "top of the line TV" has AR film on it.

8000 series samsung lcd and plasmas from the past decade. And I never said AR film, just not glossy. And that you will never see the kind of coating thats on a flagship TV on a sub $1000 monitor so its really a moot point to be discussing TVs at all in this thread. Nor is it applicable to compare them directly as they are used differently.

OLED is different for blacks as the blacks are actually black and the technology has very little contrast shift to begin with. OLED is not readily availible for computer monitors. And the other pros of AR coatings still stand for OLED displays IE not seeing yourself in the display.

And my bad, the way others talk about your AR removal on here sounds like you are selling a service.

Also find it interesting to mention a FALD display but then link to a edge lit one.

 

[jedijeb13]

I bought my current Samsung laptop back in 2012 and I had to shop for weeks to find one that did not have a glossy screen. I also picked up a Dell monitor for my desktop and had to settle for one that was glossy. Maybe the color is a little better on the glossy, but it is also twice the size, but I absolutely hate the reflections on it if the room isn't completely dark. A diffuse spot of light on the screen from a bright light behind me is much less distracting than being able to see everything around me in vivid detail.

I don't game, don't watch movies, and don't view HD images on my computer so for general text and low quality graphics the mat screen is much better for me. I have a 51" plasma for watching movies and while the color is excellent I have to watch in a very dark room to avoid the distraction of reflections on the screen.

Better or worse is a matter of personal preference and end use. To argue that one is simply better and what another person thinks is better is incorrect is silly. It is like arguing with me that broccoli taste better than french fries

 

[elvn]

light on the screen from a bright light behind me

People can design their lighting scheme and window orientation to completely avoid bouncing direct light sources off of their displays.
The point is in a proper setup you design the environment - a surround sound and theater system, design studio, pc gaming-center, to suit the display and sound not the other way around making compromises on the quality. Of course there should be options of anti glare for people who have to use their screens in inappropriate environments like overhead fluorescent lighting offices as an example.

Keeping a desk up against the wall like a bookshelf is like a catcher's mitt for light pollution no matter what kind of coating you have.

A point where some of us differ is that we want to use our monitors in a home theater (home gaming theater) and/or a photography/video studio where the image clarity is pristine and the monitor settings or calibration are not compromised to our eyes by differing ambient light swings let alone direct light bouncing off of the monitor's face. In a studio or a home theater, you design the viewing environment to suit the experience(e.g. display and seating placement/orientation, lighting design/placement, windows and window treatments, surround speaker placement, etc.) rather than compromising your experience to suit the (improper) environment. You aren't supposed to let (direct) light hit the monitor face if you want a pristine view of a monitor with it's settings/calibration (including contrast, black depth, and saturation) maintained to your eyes.

 

[Vega]

8000 series samsung lcd and plasmas from the past decade. And I never said AR film, just not glossy. And that you will never see the kind of coating thats on a flagship TV on a sub $1000 monitor so its really a moot point to be discussing TVs at all in this thread. Nor is it applicable to compare them directly as they are used differently.

OLED is different for blacks as the blacks are actually black and the technology has very little contrast shift to begin with. OLED is not readily availible for computer monitors. And the other pros of AR coatings still stand for OLED displays IE not seeing yourself in the display.

And my bad, the way others talk about your AR removal on here sounds like you are selling a service.

Also find it interesting to mention a FALD display but then link to a edge lit one.

This thread is about glossy displays vs AR film, per the title, that like 90+% of computer monitors use. It is horrid.

Oh and the KS9500 is FALD in Europe, can't keep up with Samsungs silly naming schemes:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1467286167

 

[l88bastard]

8000 series samsung lcd and plasmas from the past decade. And I never said AR film, just not glossy. And that you will never see the kind of coating thats on a flagship TV on a sub $1000 monitor so its really a moot point to be discussing TVs at all in this thread. Nor is it applicable to compare them directly as they are used differently.

OLED is different for blacks as the blacks are actually black and the technology has very little contrast shift to begin with. OLED is not readily availible for computer monitors. And the other pros of AR coatings still stand for OLED displays IE not seeing yourself in the display.

And my bad, the way others talk about your AR removal on here sounds like you are selling a service.

Also find it interesting to mention a FALD display but then link to a edge lit one.

Hey go easy on Vega hes the father of 8 and has a lot of mouths to feed man and they have had a rough year. I use my 55" as a work productivity, gaming and pornatorium and its glossy screen is awesome....so its relevant to compare to "monitors"

AG coating is trash, it totally does more harm than good as it degrades image quality which makes it more stressful on the eyes. If your room has too much sunlight, there is an amazing invention called "curtains"

 

[nvgrim]

Glossy all the way. The colors pop way more on a glossy screen and everything doesnt look muted like a matte screen. Wish more manufactures would make glossy options.

 

[CDX]

Glossy all the way. The colors pop way more on a glossy screen and everything doesnt look muted like a matte screen. Wish more manufactures would make glossy options.

yes man! Glossy all the way. Strange thing that it is so hard to find a glossy 27"+ with a nice resolution.almost impossible -_-
1080p is getting pretty prehistoric.but chances are good since all new ultra wide 4k monitors have very light coating aka semi glossy.i was reading that its needed since pixels are so fine.

 

[nvgrim]

yes man! Glossy all the way. Strange thing that it is so hard to find a glossy 27"+ with a nice resolution.almost impossible -_-
1080p is getting pretty prehistoric.but chances are good since all new ultra wide 4k monitors have very light coating aka semi glossy.i was reading that its needed since pixels are so fine.

Im still rocking my 27" glossy korean IPS and its been a champ for the past 4 years. It can overclock too 120hz,but i keep it at 90hz because it starts to get glitchy around 100hz. Sucks that all the big brand 144hz ips panels are matte.

 

[Aithos]

You guys are comparing displays without correcting the calibration. Of course all else equal they will be different. The coating affects the optics. Doesn't mean worse, means different. Which means the calibration needs to be different.

Calibrate the displays and there will be minimal color difference between them. All my AR coated screens have better blacks, better contrast and better contrast consistency across the panel than any glossy screen I have ever seen. Contrast shift is always more apparent on a glossy display which destroys blacks away from the center of the screen.

None of my TVs have glossy finishes on them. Big selling feature of the past three TV's I bought were non glossy finishes so that glare isn't an issue while not compromising IQ. Flagship Samsungs and no glossy finish... I wonder why? These type of finishes are very expensive and I doubt you will ever see them on computer monitors for under $1000. TV are also under different situations from computer monitors. TVs are typically at a distance from the user whereas monitors are directly in front of the user. This changes things considerably.

And all I see in your bottom example is the right looks brighter. So of course you "think" it looks better. Humans will always perceive "brighter" and "louder" as "better" when doing side by side comparisons. The right screen looks like it needs its brightness reduced, yes AR coatings reduce maximum brightness but even laptops now are capable of twice the brightness required for most home/office situations. Color/Contrast/Brightness calibrate those displays and the only difference that picture would show is the reflection vs glare. Which in the case of the setup, the monitors or the light source should be moved. If you are sitting at a monitor with glare like it's you're own damn fault. The glare can be removed by changing the environment. The reflections on the right one can never be removed.

Except in this case it does mean worse. Adding an AR coating has a pretty significant negative impact on both clarity and overall color quality (blacks, contrast, etc) and I'm not sure how you can possibly sit here and argue that it's just "different". Let me make it extremely simple: if there was no downside to an AR coating then there would have been zero reason for glossy TVs and monitors to exist once the technology was created. The trade-off has always been less glare for less clarity and washed out colors, and don't give me the nonsense about it being "calibration" because I'm referring to identical screens that have both been calibrated.

Along with my last computer build I bought a Korean off-brand monitor to overclock, I ordered glossy but the first one I received was matte finish on accident. I tested the overclock and calibrated it to see if it was worth the hassle of returning and ultimately decided I couldn't stand the AR coating and returned it for a glossy one. I calibrated and overclocked the second one and it was substantially more clear and the colors and blacks were significantly better. The same panel, the same brand, and the glossy panel was clearly the better image quality. You're full of it if you say you've gotten better blacks and contrast on an AR panel unless you're talking about a cheap glossy panel and an expensive matte one.

Also, you're wrong about humans perceiving "brighter and louder as better"... or rather you need to qualify that by saying "uninformed people". I used to sell high end TVs and HT equipment and one of the most frequent things I did to build trust and rapport with my customers was to show them the difference between a "burn" mode with overly saturated colors, crushing blacks, etc and what a calibrated screen should look like. Some customers still liked the bright and shiny modes, but many came back later and thanked me for showing them the difference because they came to enjoy a properly calibrated screen (we did not offer calibration services either).

I do not offer an AR coating removal service. Saying AR film screens have better blacks and contrast is probably one of the most stupid things I've read on this forum. I think we should tell LG to put AR film on their glossy OLED's so that we can have better blacks and contrast.

Also, Samsungs top of the line FALD TV has a glossy screen:

http://uk.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ks9500

I'd like to know what "top of the line TV" has AR film on it.

I was going to mention this above but I wanted to quote this because it's spot on. Top of the line TVs have never had AR film.

First, the best TV in the world until the last year or two was the Pioneer Elite Kuro FD-111. A plasma which for obvious reasons has a glass front. Only in the last year or two have OLEDs gotten to the point where you can make an argument that they have better overall image quality (talking about blacks, colors, contrast, and ignoring resolution). I have never seen anyone who had any level of expertise in the area of TVs or monitors that thought a matte finish monitor looked better than a glossy one when you take direct light out of the equation. Period.

You may not like glossy monitors and that's fine, but don't sit here and pretend they look better because that's blatantly false. The fact of the matter is that most people don't have a lighting situation that necessitates AR film, and definitely not to the degree that most monitor manufacturers use. This is another situation where stupidity and laziness won out over the superior product, just like LCDs being "better" than plasma despite every single industry person agreeing plasma was vastly superior in every way except cost and energy use. The only reason there aren't glossy panels today is because monitor companies would rather keep manufacturing costs low and only offer monitors that can be marketed to both businesses and individuals.

Personally I can't stand matte finish monitors and it makes me sick that there isn't a single major manufacturer that offers a 4k glossy screen of any kind. AR coating still looks like garbage with direct light, it's just as irritating to look at with strong lighting, and it's less crisp and more fatiguing on the eyes at the same time. Not to mention it washes out the colors, dulls whites and blacks and tends to sparkle more with IPS panels. All-around if there was a gaming panel with ULMB and 120hz+ and a glossy screen I'd pay substantially more even if it meant special ordering and waiting months longer to get it. Come on Asus!

 

[Comixbooks]

Depends on the videogame my phone is glossy and that looks great. Just not of ton of glossy monitor out today. I think they would be tolerable running blue light reduction in the background.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

The HP Spectre 32 is the only glossy IPS 4K (it has a 2% haze coating so It's REALLY close to full gloss) It uses the exact same panel as the BL3201PT and XB321HK. It blows away the other monitors using the same panel just with a matte coating. The matte coating makes the screen look lifeless, dull, and boring.

 

[Vega]

Yup, I bought a Spectre 32 for work. Everyone in my office is in awe of it. AR film is crap.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

For use at work? what monitor do you use at home?

 

[mejobloggs_]

So far I've hated every glossy screen I've used, because no matter what environment I'm in the reflections drive me mad.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Reflections don't really bother me. And the extra contrast and better color rendition matter so much more to me (granted it's because I mainly use computers to do photography work). Glossy on everything for life.

Super Long Post...

This may be the first time ever that a first time poster has something that not only is well though out and true, but I wish I could double like. Welcome Aithos, keep up the quality posting.

EDIT: Although you are arguing with Vega, which is sort of funny, since you both agree that AR coating is crap. I'm guessing you misread him. Which is fine, it happens. Just know you're on the same team.

 

[kasakka]

Both can be distracting in the wrong position or lighting. I have gone crazy trying to position a glossy monitor so a ceiling light doesn't reflect off it and likewise I've experienced some matte displays that had very distracting AR coating. I don't feel current high end gaming monitors have any issues on this front so I don't care if it's glossy or matte, other specs matter more.