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

[elvn]

Outside of OLED which probably won't have a full featured gaming panel for years, if ever, those HDR VA's promise some of the best trade-offs imo.

They should stay pretty tight if you cap them at 120hz or 144hz (keeping your average frame rate over 100fps-hz). The viewing angles on a 35" curved ultrawide shouldn't be an issue since you are right in front of it unlike having a seating array a distance from a television. I haven't seen a quantum dot filtered VA yet but it's said they help with the viewing angles somewhat too. A high density (512 direct led) FALD array should also help with screen uniformity - A LOT. Edge lit (flashlights, clouding, bloom) from the edges of the screen can't compare, and as stated the curve will also help. A pro monitor arm like an ergotron is also a very good idea for getting the best distance and viewing angles for any given game/usage scenario. HDR monitors are shooting for P3 color as well, so significant color issues shouldn't be a concern, even considering it's a gaming monitor. With quantum dot high density FALD and good HDR content, the brightness/darkness spectrum opens up a lot and with color saturation throughout the range without crushing to white or mud at the narrow limits SDR clips at. The contrast on modern VA gaming panels shoots for 3000:1 and usually gets around 2800:1 while tn and ips get 860:1, 980:1 typically. With the high density quantum dot filtered FALD array on the HDR
VA monitors that contrast ratio and especially black depth has potential to be much better (perhaps 25% more contrast ratio at least -I'm hoping. and .05 to .04 black depth or better instead of the .12 to .14 ips and TN get).

 

[Meeho]

I've owned every LCD panel type and while they are all garbage, I find VA the easiest to live with. IPS glow alone is bad enough to ruin the experience but coupled with poor contrast it's a deal breaker.

 

[zone74]

uhh no i didn't, you have me confused with someone else.

Sorry, you're right I did mix that up and have corrected my post.

i own a QNIX QX2710 which uses a PLS panel. it is a perfect monitor other than the fucking disgusting IPS glow that ruins literally anything dimmer than directly lit scenes. trying to play The Witcher 3, STALKER, ANY game that ever has any darkness in it whatsoever is awful because all you can see is glow in the corners. my dad's U2715 has the same bullshit.

This is part of the problem. Everyone calls IPS-like panels "IPS" when they have different properties.
Some panels are much worse than others for the IPS glow, it's not nearly the same across all displays. (even excluding A-TW polarizers)
AUO's AHVA panels are not the best, but the gaming-focused ones are better than a lot of the cheaper IPS displays.

i have no idea what you're talking about. i've never used a VA where the corners were a different color from the rest of the screen.

It's difficult to get a good photo that shows what I see.
In the photo it looks like the center is orange and the corners are pink which is not quite how it looks in person - but it does show the extent of the color shifting.

black crush is the only meaningful drawback listed here, and it's still a minor issue at worst. the insanely lower black level VA provides outweighs everything. there's a reason the vast majority of televisions and especially higher end ones are all VA. its multimedia image quality is unparalleled within LCD tech. IPS and TN black performance is a joke, especially in monitors because there aren't any consumer IPS monitors with A-TW polarizers, and

Subpixel structure is a big issue affecting the sharpness of a monitor - especially when displaying text. Just as important as matte vs glossy.

You don't think 50ms response times near black or with red are a problem?

VA panels only deliver their rated contrast in a tiny spot in the center of your vision, hence the black crush/contrast hot-spotting:

That's an FG2421 which is a lot better panel than any of AUO's AMVA panels that gaming monitors use. (5000:1 native instead of 3000:1)

black performance, all else being equal, is the single greatest factor of image quality in a display. it doesn't matter if you can move around and see the same thing if the thing you're seeing looks awful. i'll take ideal picture quality with slightly restrictive viewing requirements over a lesser picture any day.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when this is a topic about matte vs glossy - which is largely about contrast - but I disagree.
Black level is important, but being able to see details in that darkness, or having a display which can show a uniform image across the entire screen are fundamental things that you have to get right first.

I had a Kuro Plasma but sold it because it only did black level well. The rest of the image quality sucked.
Low brightness, intrusive ABL, bad response times, posterization, lots of dither noise, poor shadow detail etc.
Black level alone is not enough for a display in my opinion.
It's the same thing with the current OLED displays. They solved black level but have issues with detail/posterization/noise near black, cheat brightness measurements with a white subpixel, have bad color shifting at wide viewing angles, don't support variable refresh rate or even 4K120 yet. Image retention/burn-in is still a problem too. Hopefully they'll get better.

Try viewing this image on a VA panel.
If you move your head even slightly, the image changes due to the gamma shifting and contrast hot-spotting.

Does it look like the VA panel is higher contrast here, or does the contrast hot-spotting actually make the image brighter than IPS outside of the tiny spot in the center where you actually get the rated contrast?
That Samsung panel is specified as 4000:1 static contrast. I don't have details on the NEC panel but I would not be surprised if it was 800:1.

Here's a video describing it as a "silver glossy shine effect".

I haven't seen a quantum dot filtered VA yet but it's said they help with the viewing angles somewhat too.

Actually, it's the opposite.
Fully saturated colors typically show the least amount of change at an angle, while it gets progressively worse the less saturated a color is, since you are displaying a mix of R/G/B instead of a single color.
When you are using a wide gamut display and viewing standard gamut content (the majority of content) colors are much more prone to shifting with viewing angle.

A high density (512 direct led) FALD array should also help with screen uniformity - A LOT. Edge lit (flashlights, clouding, bloom)

Flaslights, yes, clouding/mura is a panel/diffuser defect though, not backlight.

 

[Meeho]

AUO's AHVA panels are not the best, but the gaming-focused ones are better than a lot of the cheaper IPS displays.

I disagree. They are among the worst offenders, at least at 27".

Your pic examples aren't representative of real world experience as far as my...experience goes. Yes, they do highlight VA's drawbacks, but in real world usage I found them less annoying and detrimental to PQ than IPS properties.

 

[Vega]

What I find odd is a significant potion of people prefer glossy monitors yet they are almost non-existent.

Yet in the world of TV's, matte AR film like used on monitors is literally non-existent. Does anyone know of a single matte AR film TV sold today?

 

[elvn]

Any monitor has tradeoffs. I have a PG278Q "high end" TN and an apple ips cinema display right next to each other, an imac and a HP all in one at work.. an asus 15" 4k ips laptop, samsung tab s2 8" oled tablet, note 5 oled phone, vizio 4k FALD VA tv. Almost all of them are glossy by the way, the main stand out being my main gaming monitor unfortunately

--------------
Lumping edge lit non quantum dot VA's up with well implemented high density FALD array VA's is probably not fair.
Considering the ultrawide HDR gaming VA's are made for viewing at desktop distances and are curved, it means you should be watching them in the focal point/area of the curve. Between that and the high density FALD array, shift shouldn't be a big issue. The high density FALD array will avoid a lot of the issues that edge lit exacerbates.

I hope tftcentral.com does a review of both the 27" IPS 4k HDR gaming screens and the 35" VA 3440 x 1440 HDR gaming screens so we can see a direct (and very detailed as their reviews are) comparison.

A little off topic really since they'll both probably have the same coating.
-------------

In response to Vega, in addition to monitors sometimes being used in office environments I think it goes back to the fact that people stuck their PCs in their houses like bookshelves against a wall which acts like a catcher's mitt for direct light pollution, often with overhead lighting or windows bouncing off of the screens. Big televisions are often part of a living room home theater or dedicated home theatre room setup which is more often designed around a multimedia experience where placement of the multimedia components and seating as well as the practice of shading light for viewing is usually not seen as abnormal or unexpected.

If you face your desk out from the walls, taking over a whole corner of a room, your monitors are much less of a collector "catcher's mitt" for light. That's assuming you have the space to do so, and that no light sources are behind you in the corner. I never like having my back to a room anyway.


Stark's glossy screens would look a lot better if he didn't have a menagerie of iron man suits in brightly lit alcoves behind his desk......... should keep the light sources in front of the displays - that is, behind the monitor backs, outside of the corner he's in.

Looking better in this shot...

Overhead lighting is a horrible idea in computer areas.. those banks of overhead fluorescents are terrible.

When I think back to the magnolia area of best buy, it was always a dark room with the high end screens. There was never a place like that for computer monitors, only direct overhead fluorescent lights blasting. Computers as multimedia gaming battlestation "theatres" with their own designed space (preferably facing away from the wall to my taste) is still not the norm.

 

[ChaosDivine]

Definitely prefer matte monitors!

 

[acmilangr]

I Just tested a New Model asus monitor (mx27uq) side by side with my glossy DELL UP2715K (about 3 years old)


On the right is dell glossy
On the left down is asus Matte

On glossy there is much more deep Red, Green, blue colors . On the photos you cant see the real difference. It is bigger actually.

Glossy all the way.

 

[zone74]

I Just tested a New Model asus monitor (mx27uq) side by side with my glossy DELL UP2715K (about 3 years old)
On the right is dell glossy
On the left down is asus Matte
On glossy there is much more deep Red, Green, blue colors . On the photos you cant see the real difference. It is bigger actually.
Glossy all the way.

I'm all for glossy displays - specifically ones with bonded glass panels that have an AR coating - but a lot of that looks like gamut, brightness, and calibration differences rather than just matte/glossy.
I do wonder if resolutions beyond 4K will require that displays use this finish though. Matte may blur things too much to make the resolution difference noticeable.

 

[acmilangr]

I'm all for glossy displays - specifically ones with bonded glass panels that have an AR coating - but a lot of that looks like gamut, brightness, and calibration differences rather than just matte/glossy.
I do wonder if resolutions beyond 4K will require that displays use this finish though. Matte may blur things too much to make the resolution difference noticeable.

Dell Up2715k have AG coating. It is not like mirror

 

[acmilangr]

http://www.straitstimes.com/tech/pcs/a-dream-monitor-for-creative-professionals

it is a mini review of a new HDR DELL monitor UP2718Q

in the article it says this:

I watched a couple of Ultra HD Blu-ray videos on the Dell monitor using an LG Ultra HD Blu-ray player. While the videos looked impressive, thanks to their 4K resolution and HDR effect, I felt that the UP2718Q's anti-glare coating dampened some of the brighter HDR visuals, as well as making the images look grainy.



anothe one expensive monitor that it lucks due to matt.....

 

[Valnar]

Real life isn't glossy, unless you're always looking through a window.

 

[elvn]

real life isn't glazed or frosted either. Your eyeballs have lenses.. Also, some people do wear glasses.

 

[Nenu]

Real life isn't glossy, unless you're always looking through a window.

Glossy is plain see through, ie no filters.
Like real life really.

 

[Braamer]

Glossy is plain see through, ie no filters.
Like real life really.

It's not plain see through, though, due to the reflections.

 

[Nenu]

It's not plain see through, though, due to the reflections.

So minimise them.
If you cant, unfortunate that you may have to use a filtered display.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

If Matte is "Closer to real life" then why do camera lenses, eyeglasses and the eye itself have a glossy finish?

 

[Odellus]

these last few posts... my brain hurts.

 

[HiCZoK]

Just wanted to bump this topic since there needs to be more "glossy" talk,
I was always preferred matte displays because of "reflections"... but I've gave HP 27ea a chance and the difference is staggering. Here are my observations after years of owning different matte monitors and now this 98% glossy screen:
-Matte coatings almost always introduce grain. Some do it better like iiyama and it's not as grainy but it is there to some degree always.
-Matte coatings reduce reflections but at a cost of enormous light diffusion. What would be a simple light source reflected on a glossy coating, is twice as big diffused blob on a matte display.
-Colors are better on glossy. Matt can introduce dullness and discoloration. Not always but most matt coatings do that
-Perceived black depth is much better with glossy coating. I think it has to do with light being diffused and spread underneath the matte coating ruining the black point ?

Overall it is an eye-opening experience. Colors are better, black is better, clarity is better... HP's coating is unique because it's not mirror exactly but I find it perfect at about 98% gloss

 

[Armenius]

Just wanted to bump this topic since there needs to be more "glossy" talk,
I was always preferred matte displays because of "reflections"... but I've gave HP 27ea a chance and the difference is staggering. Here are my observations after years of owning different matte monitors and now this 98% glossy screen:
-Matte coatings almost always introduce grain. Some do it better like iiyama and it's not as grainy but it is there to some degree always.
-Matte coatings reduce reflections but at a cost of enormous light diffusion. What would be a simple light source reflected on a glossy coating, is twice as big diffused blob on a matte display.
-Colors are better on glossy. Matt can introduce dullness and discoloration. Not always but most matt coatings do that
-Perceived black depth is much better with glossy coating. I think it has to do with light being diffused and spread underneath the matte coating ruining the black point ?

Overall it is an eye-opening experience. Colors are better, black is better, clarity is better... HP's coating is unique because it's not mirror exactly but I find it perfect at about 98% gloss

Can't say I've ever seen the diffusion problem you're describing. I've had sunlight shine directly onto a monitor's surface and the colors appeared more or less the same as in pure darkness. Not all antiglare coatings are made the same.

Perceived black depth is more to do with the combination of the frame and subframe of the display, though coating will still play a role. Contrast with matte coatings is more affected on the high end than it is on the low end in my experience.

In my opinion, glass with no coating provides the best viewing experience, while glossy versus matte ultimately comes down to preference. I prefer to not have glare and/or reflections in my display, so my preference is with a light to medium antiglare coating, though I prefer the former. My movie viewing and gaming experience is not adversely affected by the tradeoffs with using an antiglare coating.

 

[Comixbooks]

I haven't seen a good glossy in years except for the one on my Razer laptop that I won from Retail Edge.
I think ti's glossy anyway.....

I had a CFL HP that just made everything look good I mean everything would pop would love to see a modern panel like that. I couldn't use it though because it was CFL.

 

[Valnar]

As with everything in life, if anyone gives you absolutes, they're ill-informed. The proper answer for most things is "it depends". Matte screens work much better in a work environment with all those lights above and subjectively work much better than ANY glossy screen. A glossy screen can't be better than matte if all you see is you and the light's reflection in it. Matte +1, glossy 0.

It depends.

It depends.

It depends.

 

[l88bastard]

Glossy is King

AG is hot herpes infested hepatitis trash....AIDS infested wet dripping donkey balls

But muuhhh reflections....but muuuhhh windows.....but muuuhhh lights..... SAVE IT PRISSY PANTS!

GLOSSY is for Alphas!

 

[thelead]

OLED’s have the best picture on displays these days... glossy. High end phones have great displays... glossy... high end laptops (Surface, MacBook Pro, etc) have great displays... glossy

 

[Canon]

I prefer a nice mat AR coating.

 

[HiCZoK]

OLED’s have the best picture on displays these days... glossy. High end phones have great displays... glossy... high end laptops (Surface, MacBook Pro, etc) have great displays... glossy

That's mainly because pixel density is higher than size of grain in a grainy coating I think so they cannot use it. Which is great because glossy is super clear and nice. Matte tv's diffuse so much light it's difficult to watch any show

 

[elvn]

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.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o139/callsign_vega/PICT0021-1.jpg~original

(credit Vega on 2nd and 3rd one)


I keep my 3 panel desk facing out from the corner like a help desk or command center. That way, all direct light sources are behind the backs of the monitors. I keep a floor lamp on each end of the desk in line just behind them for desk area lighting, and I don't allow any overhead lighting above or behind where I sit. In this way, any reflections are greatly minimized and direct light sources laser-beaming directly off whatever monitor surface you have is eliminated. The gain from having a clear glossy panel is far too great to pass up.

Unfortunately, glossy isn't always a given option anymore on gaming monitors like on my pg278Q coming from a much more lush glossy samsung 120hz 750D. I have a glossy cinema display on the side of the same desk. My laptop is also a glossy asus, my tablet is a glossy oled samsung tab s2, and my phone a glossy oled samsung note 5.

Another thing to consider is that people go through all of the trouble to calibrate their monitors, then they allow the lighting in the room to shift. Your eyes perceive contrast and saturation differently with different ambient light bias so when the lighting shifts the display values are trashed (e.g. Very bright conditions make the monitor look pale and de-saturated, and vice versa.) The easiest ways to eliminate or at least minimize this shift is by either keeping the room dark, keeping adjustable lighting to maintain the same light level throughout the day and night, or keeping several saved sets of monitor settings and switching them to suit the ambient lighting at any given time.

The First page of this thread has several examples of how AR diffusion still pollutes the screen when direct light sources are hitting it. Optimally, your multimedia room should be designed around the displays and sound not the other way around.

This is obvious and accepted in home theatre + surround sound setups, and in filming and photo studios.
Bookshelf-against-the wall desks act as a catcher's mitt for direct light sources against the screen(s).

 

[Absalom]

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.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o139/callsign_vega/PICT0021-1.jpg~original

(credit Vega on 2nd and 3rd one)


I keep my 3 panel desk facing out from the corner like a help desk or command center. That way, all direct light sources are behind the backs of the monitors. I keep a floor lamp on each end of the desk in line just behind them for desk area lighting, and I don't allow any overhead lighting above or behind where I sit. In this way, any reflections are greatly minimized and direct light sources laser-beaming directly off whatever monitor surface you have is eliminated. The gain from having a clear glossy panel is far too great to pass up.

Unfortunately, glossy isn't always a given option anymore on gaming monitors like on my pg278Q coming from a much more lush glossy samsung 120hz 750D. I have a glossy cinema display on the side of the same desk. My laptop is also a glossy asus, my tablet is a glossy oled samsung tab s2, and my phone a glossy oled samsung note 5.

Another thing to consider is that people go through all of the trouble to calibrate their monitors, then they allow the lighting in the room to shift. Your eyes perceive contrast and saturation differently with different ambient light bias so when the lighting shifts the display values are trashed (e.g. Very bright conditions make the monitor look pale and de-saturated, and vice versa.) The easiest ways to eliminate or at least minimize this shift is by either keeping the room dark, keeping adjustable lighting to maintain the same light level throughout the day and night, or keeping several saved sets of monitor settings and switching them to suit the ambient lighting at any given time.

Nice to see another [H] member with a still functioning 20WMGX2 (I'm assuming it's yours as much). 13 years later since I bought mine, I've not run across anything better than it IQ-wise. It still holds the IQ record as far as my eyes are concerned. I still think it's better than my Iiyama 22" CRT from back in the day (when I could keep the damn thing calibrated). Will be a sad day when my NEC decides to leave me for good.

I would agree with some here that the newer mattes are a lot better these days. But they're still not nearly as good as a good glossy.

 

[George Chuvalo]

Definitely glossy

 

[Formula.350]

I read the first page, but 3 more is a bit much for me to commit.

That being said, I'm with zone74 on this. The poll choices are not properly set up or worded. When I saw them my immediate thought was "Where's the choice to prefer glossy but with AR/AG coating?"

I remember in like 2009 when my friend had gotten a new laptop. It wasn't anything special, just an HP with an AMD chip -- which being this was the time of Intel's shenanigans to keep AMD's chips from being in decent systems, that should highlight the quality here. However, that was the first time I had seen an LCD panel with a glossy screen... Prior to that they'd all been matte, and I thought stuff looked quite good, not CRT image quality by any means, but quite good! However, when I saw that laptop, I was simply amazed at the image quality. Everything was SO crisp and vibrant looking! It made it hard to go back to my own laptop, a low end Toshiba with a T3400 Core 2 Duo, with a matte screen.

Now, I have an AMD powered HP ENVY x360 with an IPS 1080p glossy touchscreen... with FreeSync (despite not being advertised it had that!) and I love the screen. Yea, it's a fingerprint magnet, but I have a microfiber cloth that I use on it (and my glasses). Opening the old Toshiba to find a file on it and I'm reminded at how horrible LCDs used to look and am glad to have a glossy screen now As far as I can tell, it doesn't have any AR or AG coating on it either, but on the flipside it's backlight can get SUPER bright, so it can power through reflections in that way. When in my room with shades drawn, I actually have the backlight set to 0! (well, ok, 2% because 0% has a weird PWM flicker)

That's why I love my TV. 46" Samsung, glossy screen (pretty sure... otherwise it's THE most subtle micro-matte, but I consider it glossy *shrug*). I use it for my monitor. It has a really great coating on it and polarizing filter. I suspect the filter was more for the other models in the D6000 series that had 3D (mine has the 120hz panel like 3D needs, then "240 CMR" as the BS marketing frame-doubling [aka smoothing] feature), but it does help to keep the light the TV emits from reflecting off other stuff, too.

As illustrated in the some of the pics on page 1, the Matte screens, while sure they eliminate reflections... they introduce a problem of their own... Incoming light gets diffused and now you're left with a large washed-out portion of the screen, or worse in the instance of zone74's picture. Though, I do see that example as being a bit of "worst-case scenario" since his screen was at an angle (both side and tilt angles) and would exacerbate the issue. While an AR/AG coated glossy wouldn't completely eliminate the issue with a strong background (err? reverse-foreground? lol) light source like the sun, I don't think it'd wash out the entire screen like matte can.

Either way, my film-less ENVY screen handles things quite well and I don't generally suffer from mirror issues since I keep the screen at a slight tilt. And my TV I don't have a problem with either unless it's a dark movie/show and I have my overhead light on, which is a no-no for serious TV watching anyways! lol
So while I won't, in good conscious, vote for "glossy" since it doesn't seem to indicate with a AR/AG coating... I can't vote for the "anti-reflection" choice since it implies a matte screen

So with that said: Glossy+AR & AG coatings for me, please. Matte has it's place and uses, just not in my life.

 

[sharknice]

Glossy screens are fine as long as they come with a mask made out of vertically aligned carbon nanotube arrays so you don't have to stare at your own reflection caused by the light coming from the screen itself.

 

[Formula.350]

Glossy screens are fine as long as they come with a mask made out of vertically aligned carbon nanotube arrays so you don't have to stare at your own reflection caused by the light coming from the screen itself.

*raises hand*
I'm not certain how much of your post was to be taken as sarcasm, but... erring on the side that thinks you were being serious about the carbon nanotube part...

Wouldn't they be horizontally aligned? As my assumption would be that vertically aligned would prevent light from even being emitted, therefore no picture displayed, rendering it all pointless to begin with.


But... Then there's the other part of me, the dry-humor part of me, which thinks that was your whole point... That the only good glossy screen is a screen which emits no light; thus, why they'd be vertically aligned. lol

 

[sharknice]

I meant a mask you put on your face

 

[Formula.350]

Welp... I'll take ownership of that fail... LOL

 

[HiCZoK]

Back to the topic - Are there any 4K 27-32" IPS montors coming? I think right now LG produces best 4k monitors and all are matte... Which does not make any sense with high dpi...
the pixel pitch is almost as small as grain of coating... not to mention that matte diffuses the light and craps colors but we talked about this already.

I would settle for nice 98% glossy

 

[elvn]

The people who hate their reflection so much need a mask on their face. Got it.

 

[ironforge]

Don't really care either way.. as long as I can keep any glare/reflections off the SOB!