• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

First time with AR holy crap!!

A

Andyk5

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,154
You guys were right. The AR haters by the way. I had 2 2007fp's and one 2007 wfp and maybe since they were somewhat small I did not notice it but I just got a U3011 A08 and holy crap this is ridiculous. I am coming from a glossy 1080p 27" and it looks like someone blurred my vision. The whites are just not white. I don't understand how do "color professionals" talk about color uniformity and trueness and adobe RGB spectrum bla bla bla, I can't even tell if there is white noise behind this message entry box. This is absolutely ridiculous.
Before you judge me as an un educated noob glossy monitor lover, I would like to say that I also humored this monitors AR to see if it actually worked for everything that it took away. I am currently sitting next to a window with the shades half down. It is sunny outside (December in LA what can I say). Now normally I would see my own reflection coming from the monitor in deep black areas with my 2 year old glossy HP 2710. One thing for sure, with this AR coating I do not see my self like a mirror. Instead, right where my mirrored image is supposed to be, there is a big blob of white light shining back from the monitor. So AR coating does not really prevent the light from shining it, it just scrambles it and makes it mushy and un recognizable, which is not any better than the image shining back in the first place. In order to appreciate whatever is left over from the AR coating, I still need to go and shut the blinds. This is unacceptable to me. I may get used to it, but you know what, I don't want to. It feels like bad vision to me.
God dang it seriously, I love the 30", I love the 16:10 and the IPS but I simply can not live with this AR. So this thing is going back for sure, either going to wait for a glossy 30" or the korean 1440p 27" for me. I really don't want to go back to 16:9 but I would rather have 16:9 which looks crystal clear than 16:10 which looks like I have 5/20 vision and I just took my glasses off.
 
Everyone has there own tastes , nothing wrong with hating a strong AR coating. My former U2410 had a VERY aggressive coating of it and I got use to it and didn't find it as appalling.

Now however I try my best to stick with strictly matte. All I can say is if you hate it on that individual monitor then it might be in your best interest to return it and do some research on monitors that don't have such an aggressive coating or are glossy or matte.
 
Godmachine said:
Everyone has there own tastes , nothing wrong with hating a strong AR coating. My former U2410 had a VERY aggressive coating of it and I got use to it and didn't find it as appalling.

Now however I try my best to stick with strictly matte. All I can say is if you hate it on that individual monitor then it might be in your best interest to return it and do some research on monitors that don't have such an aggressive coating or are glossy or matte.
Click to expand...

I already did that, but since it did not bother me on the 2007fp and the 2007wfp, I thought it would be ok on the u3011 also. I was thinking that all the AR haters were just being " girly" and complaining about everything. I now own this monitor, first time seeing it in real life, and yeah they are not being girly at all. I now totally understand why this is unacceptable to some people because it is to me.
 
Don't get used to it, return it and get a good monitor, doesn't sound like you need a wide gamut display anyway.
 
That was sort of my reaction to the Dell 2412 when I got it. I previously had been using CRTs my whole life. After seeing it, I wondered if everyone else was blind, or somehow I just got a bad monitor.

I think those who are fine with it either have used heavy coated/matte screens their entire life, so they don't notice a big difference, or they simply convince themselves it's no big deal or they'll get used to it, to partially rectify spending a fortune on a monitor. Or their lighting situation is truly so bad, it's the lesser of two evils. I don't know really.... I do agree with you how it's odd that color accuracy is such a big deal, but then they put on a coating where you can't even tell what is noise and what is due to the monitor's coating. It's like buying a $500 pair of speakers with the best quality in the world, so long as you don't mind the background static blaring out of it ... it makes no sense at all.
 
Namelessme said:
That was sort of my reaction to the Dell 2412 when I got it. I previously had been using CRTs my whole life. After seeing it, I wondered if everyone else was blind, or somehow I just got a bad monitor.

I think those who are fine with it either have used heavy coated/matte screens their entire life, so they don't notice a big difference, or they simply convince themselves it's no big deal or they'll get used to it, to partially rectify spending a fortune on a monitor. Or their lighting situation is truly so bad, it's the lesser of two evils. I don't know really.... I do agree with you how it's odd that color accuracy is such a big deal, but then they put on a coating where you can't even tell what is noise and what is due to the monitor's coating. It's like buying a $500 pair of speakers with the best quality in the world, so long as you don't mind the background static blaring out of it ... it makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Of course there's always the possibility that it truly isn't a problem.

PS.. That's antiglare, not antireflective. Antireflective is different, and is superior to both glossy and antiglare coatings. The new apple iMacs use AR coatings and have much reduced reflections without an AG coating.
 
I had a HP ZR30W that I thought was the best thing in the world. It has a very strong matte coating. Then I set a glossy panel next to it and it's like my vision greatly increased and everything was so crisp and clear. No more blurred sparkle. I have no idea how people use matte screens compared to glossy unless they are forced to have a window behind them or something.
 
Vega said:
I had a HP ZR30W that I thought was the best thing in the world. It has a very strong matte coating. Then I set a glossy panel next to it and it's like my vision greatly increased and everything was so crisp and clear. No more blurred sparkle. I have no idea how people use matte screens compared to glossy unless they are forced to have a window behind them or something.
Click to expand...

Dude, even with a window behind you the anti matte,reflective,grain whatever coating is not helping. All it does is, it breaks the angle of the incoming light rays so when they reflect from the monitor, they do not form a uniform picture in your retina and rather look like a blurry mess of light. It is a useless technology that serves absolutely no purpose. Even people who defend these coating are not like OMG I love the fact that my monitor has aggressive coating on it, it makes images so much sharper and better. They just say it does not bother them/they got used to it/ it is no big deal.
 
Obviously a window or bright light behind you isn't ideal no matter what type of screen you are using, but it would definitely be more annoying on a glossy screen versus a matte. In a light controlled environment, glossy wins by miles.
 
If you haven't calibrated the monitor the AG will look awful. It can be tamed... a lot, by simply adjusting the brightness, but proper calibration is really needed fro best results. These monitors, in my opinion, look fugly with the factory settings.

They also need time to "break-in", or maybe it's just an adjustment period where your eyes get used to it.

But, there's always glossy, and they tend to be priced for less, so win-win for you if you go that route.
 
Was disappointed. Expecting AR-15 thread. I guess that's what I get for not looking at what sub-forum things are posted in :(
 
Please don't use AR and AG interchangeably. Anti-reflective coatings are what make high-quality non-matte TVs look great in lit situations. Anti-glare coatings are sandy crap that damage image fidelity.
 
Manage your environment if ambient light is a problem, don't ruin your experience by opting for an inferior coating. I bought a U2311H when it came out and was absolutely shocked by the coating. It is absolutely dreadful. I will never buy an AG coated desktop display again. If you are going to spend the money on an accurate/responsive display, how can you ruin it with such inferior AG coating?
 
wabbitseason said:
Please don't use AR and AG interchangeably. Anti-reflective coatings are what make high-quality non-matte TVs look great in lit situations. Anti-glare coatings are sandy crap that damage image fidelity.
Click to expand...


Yes I just realized that the crystal on my omega watch is coated with AR and it looks crystal clear, and it is readable under direct sun. I understand that my issue is with AG.
 
When a hardware calibrator takes "samples" from the screen it will take a huge area and make an average, that contains pixels of all colors, oh I mean not the pixels are of many colors, but the coating makes it look like everything is covered with a blurry plane that is filled with very small pixels of all the colors in existence. That is why they obtain such "fantastic" results.

Guess what, if there is something glossy about a monitor, and I do agree that is annoying, is the tempered glass. I am close to unable to see any reflections on a monitor without tempered glass that uses glossy coating, unless I get my head like 5 cm close to the monitor, and look at a black zone such way that I can see the reflection of the ceiling light in it. The rest of the situations, I am unable to see any reflections. Also, it is less glossy then my old crt, which is blurry/foggy now and can't be used.
 
Andyk5 said:
Dude, even with a window behind you the anti matte,reflective,grain whatever coating is not helping. All it does is, it breaks the angle of the incoming light rays so when they reflect from the monitor, they do not form a uniform picture in your retina and rather look like a blurry mess of light. It is a useless technology that serves absolutely no purpose. Even people who defend these coating are not like OMG I love the fact that my monitor has aggressive coating on it, it makes images so much sharper and better. They just say it does not bother them/they got used to it/ it is no big deal.
Click to expand...

This is what most people don't understand. In order to get bothered by a reflection, and have your vision focus that image, your eyes need a HUUUGE adjustment to be able to focus the image, which won't happen by mistake/uncontrolled. In the case of AG coating I finally understand that there is a distance difference between the pixels and the ag plane, and the biggest issue out of this is that the difference is so small, that my eyes were continuously focusing between the ag plane and the pixels plane, being extremely annoying, not to mention the fact that the font recognition brain process is altered very hard by the random small pixels that you see with the ag coating.
 
wabbitseason said:
Please don't use AR and AG interchangeably. Anti-reflective coatings are what make high-quality non-matte TVs look great in lit situations. Anti-glare coatings are sandy crap that damage image fidelity.
Click to expand...

So why is AG still being used if AR is available?
 
XTF said:
So why is AG still being used if AR is available?
Click to expand...


If you have a point, why don't you attempt to make it.

AR is much more expensive, by the way.

Your position is over and done with. Even Dell reduced the coating on the 30" monitor and that just about tidies up debate on the matter.
 
Perhaps I have you confused with someone else. I thought you were with the "AG complaining is totally overblown" crowd. Surely you can see how ridiculous that position is, especially in light of a major manufacturer reducing the AG coating on its flagship monitor?
 
wabbitseason said:
Perhaps I have you confused with someone else. I thought you were with the "AG complaining is totally overblown" crowd. Surely you can see how ridiculous that position is, especially in light of a major manufacturer reducing the AG coating on its flagship monitor?
Click to expand...

I, for one, do not find that position ridiculous.
 
wabbitseason said:
Perhaps I have you confused with someone else. I thought you were with the "AG complaining is totally overblown" crowd. Surely you can see how ridiculous that position is, especially in light of a major manufacturer reducing the AG coating on its flagship monitor?
Click to expand...
No, I'm in the "I hate AG" camp.
 
It's my understanding true professionals use Eizo/NEC displays which are typically semi-glossy. I mean, people can say they're a 'professional' at what they do but when professional Xs display is a $2000 Eizo, and 'professional' Ys display is a one of those being discussed... Professionals requiring true-to-life color reproduction buy Eizo/NEC not only because of the semi-gloss but because they have very high QC standards that ensure 99.6% of the time the panel you'll receive has no BLB, as advertised contrast levels, and complete screen uniformity. In other words, all the things that will degrade accurate reproduction of an image are not present in Eizo/NEC models targeted at the professional market. In fact, Eizos FS2333 which is targeted at consumers, gamers, shares those QC standards.

So, the next time a 'professional' tells you he loves his Samsung/Dell/Asus remember people who buy into marketing will oftentimes shovel the same bullshit to market themselves.
 
The NEC p232w is the only NEC with semi-glossy coating, and aside from Eizo's foris line and ev2333, all of their high end IPS use LG's norma, grainy AG, same with Lacies and the HP Dream Colour.
 
Well... I went from having 4 glossy 19" 16:10 1440x900 monitors to having 3 matte 16:9 1920x1080 monitors. It didn't really bother me. It was just different. Of course back then, I wasn't a snob about picture quality and honestly now I'm still happy with vivid (not accurate) colors, an okay contrast ratio (though on my current displays, it would be nice to have more), and 178 Degree vertical viewing angles (I like to go portrait from time to time). I like to boost saturation levels because I mostly game, watch youtube, and browse forums and don't need accurate colors for that. But I like Eye-popping colors. So far, my Dell 3007wfp-HC's are the best monitors I've ever had. They are matte and are considered by some, the worst monitors in existence due to wide gamut, low contrast, harsh AG, and lacking in multiple inputs. But honestly, I don't feel like they have any harsher AG than any other matte screen. I've also owned a 3008wfp for a short time and I dare say it had a better picture, but the AG was the similar if not the same.

tl,dr: The AG issue is overblown in my experience. I have used both Glossy and Matte screens and at the end of the day, my choice is an IPS screen that's high resolution with a Matte finish.
 
I didn't know the NEC P232 has a light coating... although after looking at the price and the fact it's 1080p, I'd skip it anyway.

I'm still hoping a 24", 16:10er comes out with a light or semiglossy coating. Or even glossy with a touch of AR. And I don't count the Samsung 850, due to less than ideal contrast + bleed issues.


@suiken_2mieu

To each their own... everyone has different preferences. But I think most people wouldn't prefer a low contrast, grainy image with wildly inaccurate colors, if given a choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top