Glossy vs Matte - The Ultimate Smackdown

Which do you prefer?

  • Matte LCD

    Votes: 122 65.6%

  • Glossy LCD

    Votes: 64 34.4%
  • Total voters
    186
Cerulean

Cerulean

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
9,476
Why glossy? Why matte? Share and express!

I think whoever invented glossy LCDs (probably a salesman or someone in marketing) should be backhanded. I don't understand how you can see through the glossiness very easily. I mean, most of you probably spend most of your time at home indoors where it isn't a huge problem to have the reflective characteristic of the gloss, but with laptops ... c'mon ... the sun is out and I can't find shade. :(
 
Snowdog said:
Matte all the way.

The response you always get from Glossy fans is control you lighting, but in reality, you can even see reflections in a dark room.
Click to expand...

Yep... with glossy, I see my own reflection caused by the light coming from the screen.. heh

And I have blackout shades. It's dark as night in my room when it's all closed up.
 
Maybe glossy looks better when it's switched off.. ie as a piece of furniture. Can't think of any other explanation for it.
 
My preference ATM is for glossy. I still need to see what some Samsung displays look like though (I've only seen LG, dells, hp, etc).

Snowdog said:
The response you always get from Glossy fans is "control your lighting", but in reality, you can even see reflections in a dark room.

Reflections are UNAVOIDABLE with Glossy. Glossy fans just like reflections. ;)
Click to expand...
Much like matte fans with responses of "The sparkle effect doesn't bother me." and "I don't notice it" or even "It's a myth". I don't feel that they're just defending a purchase and being deceptive just because all of the matte displays I've tried have really bugged my eyes. I know that it's just going to be a different experience for everyone depending on the actual product, the lighting in the environment, and their own unique perception. I think the topic needs to shift from "this is the best11!" type of mentality to a discussion of the different factors that typically heighten or diminish a users perception of the associated negative traits inherent with both glossy/matte displays.

As for glossy users well...I'm not sure that they LIKE reflections. Perhaps there are others like myself that feel they are able to look past or "filter out" subtle reflections when focusing on the screen. I say "subtle" because I assume that if they decide to uses a glossy display they will make some effort to control lighting (even though you are correct that it will be impossible to completely eliminate any reflection). If I am looking for a reflection then it is quite easy to find on dark backgrounds, but I've never found it to be as large of a distraction as the way that the "sparkle effect" distracted my focus when reading text on light backgrounds. Whereas, IME with matte displays the more light you can throw on them the better - when I bring in a fair bit of natural or artificial light in the environment the sparkle effect really fades away to a certain extent.

Do Samsung panels have a milder AG coating than LG panels? Can anyone speak to this? A guy upstate repairs/refurbishes Gateway XHD3000s after they fail and lately I've been thinking about trying one. 16:10 is sorely missed.


TLDR; It's a PREFERENCE that depends on a lot of factors. What may be best for you will not always be the right choice for everyone.
 
Last edited:
This again?

Matte. Reflections in my display piss me off.
 
..which brings the next question: glossy vs matte bezels..
seems that most HDTVs but also PC monitors lately have turned to eye candy glossy black.
one can always sandstone the bezel of course but I believe it voids warranty.
 
How about a middle ground? Glossy screens do reflect, even in a darkened room, but heavy matte coatings also help ruin the colour purity of your whites etc.

So my preference would be a middle ground where there's just enough matte coating to stop the majority of reflections in a darker room, but not so much that whites look like they have a shimmering layer of dirt over them.

So I guess that means matte - just not of the really heavy anti-glare variety :)
 
PatK said:
How about a middle ground? Glossy screens do reflect, even in a darkened room, but heavy matte coatings also help ruin the colour purity of your whites etc.

So my preference would be a middle ground where there's just enough matte coating to stop the majority of reflections in a darker room, but not so much that whites look like they have a shimmering layer of dirt over them.

So I guess that means matte - just not of the really heavy anti-glare variety :)
Click to expand...

I could live with some kind of middle ground, but I haven't seen it.
 
As a professional designer and graphics artist there's no contest. Ever noticed how there exist no professional glossy LCDs? :)

Glossy is literally just a case of 'oh, shiny!', as it ruins the contrast of the display, making it impossible to judge colours on it. In other words, if you buy a glossy screen, you just got screwed with a sub-par display.
 
Glossy for me personally. I love the "clean" image that glossy screens produce due to no AG coating. Reflections ARE avoidable in the right lighting conditions. I use my Apple LED Cinema 27" in a dark room and I cannot see any reflections in blacks (perhaps due to Apple's LED backlight?). That being said, I would never use an ACD27" in an office environment.

PatK said:
How about a middle ground?
Click to expand...

I had an old Xerox XA719i flatpanel that used what was called XShield glass. It was, imho, a fantastic middle ground between "glossy" and "matte". The anti-glare layer was just thick enough to eliminate most glare, but was thin enough that there was no sparkle effect on whites. The panel still looked very "clean" like a glossy display, just without the glare. Why no one uses this type of surface treatment on current monitors puzzles me. Imho it looked 100x better than LGs currently used 3H treatment. I just don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are somehow able to avoid all reflections on a glossy panel, then it isn't glossy anymore? I mean, it's the reflection of the light that makes things look glossy, isn't it?

I would have voted for a "middle ground" option ad well if it there was such choice, but as it stands I voted matte as AG coating is by far the lesser of two evils for me.
 
If there are no reflections in the glossy panel, then you're in a darkened room with a glossy panel :)
 
Neb said:
If there are no reflections in the glossy panel, then you're in a darkened room with a glossy panel :)
Click to expand...

And everything in the room is painted black and you are dressed in your black Ninja costume, because other wise the light from the screen would be light you up and you would see your reflection. :D
 
ive been using always a glossy screen and it just seems so much clearer and i,m in a lighted room , last screen I tried out with AG was so hard to see in the light with windows open . . . im up for a matte without this AG garbage then im sure all would looks normal
 
Glossy fanboys should be forced to migrate to the oftForums for wussies.

I KID! :D
 
Yeah, I currently have a glossy Gateway 24" monitor - has amazingly bright saturated colors and nice light-tones, but the darks are horrible! Anything below about 15% gray gets rounded down to black, and mild light-leak at top does really weird inverting effects to those darker tones. It stays dark enough in my house that I've never had a problem with reflections on the gloss surface, but the calibration issues have been enough to turn me off from it for several applications.

I ended up putting that monitor on my living room HTPC ('till i can afford a big 50" to put in there) and went back to my old 19" ViewSonic CRT on main rig 'cause it has better calibration for photo-editing etc.

But yeah, I probably won't ever buy another glossy monitor - I bought the Gateway becuase it had the best/brigtest colors of any monitor I looked at when shopping for one a few years ago, but next time I go to buy a monitor it will probably be one that is correctly calibrated for photo-editing, not for one that has the brightest most eye-popping color saturation.
 
I'm just happy that Apple builds glossy IPS displays and DELL builds matte IPS displays, so that consumers can have a choice. Last time I checked, both are selling. :D
 
Ashok0 said:
I'm just happy that Apple builds glossy IPS displays and DELL builds matte IPS displays, so that consumers can have a choice. Last time I checked, both are selling. :D
Click to expand...

They are selling, but there are a lot of really Angry Apple fans that can only get iMacs with glossy screens.
 
A lot of people dont like glossy because theyve only seen glossy on shitty screens. I on the other hand have used a 20wmgx2 for the past 2 years, and I can honestly say that I have yet to see another monitor with as crisp of a screen and vivid colors. I'm still waiting for a 26-28inch glossy IPS monitor with low input lag to replace this 20inch.
 
I probably wouldn't buy a glossy screen because of the reflections, but the lack of an AG coating makes them look so clean and sharp. If only there was a compromise between the two... a semi-glossy screen!! :D But seriously, a really slight AG coating just enough to blur reflections that lets whites show more clearly would be really nice.
 
I remember looking at the Samsung 52a750 and the 52a650 which used the exact same panel but one was matte and the other was glossy. The glossy image was far better. I could also still see reflections on the matte finish, they were just smudgy reflections. Personally I can ignore reflections on the glossy (and have minimized them with my setup) so for me the choice was glossy. (eventually wound up with the 52b750)

For monitors, I've had other factors that've made the decision for me (resolution, price, etc), but I think that all things considered I'd prefer glossy over matte.
 
sok0 said:
A lot of people dont like glossy because theyve only seen glossy on shitty screens. I on the other hand have used a 20wmgx2 for the past 2 years, and I can honestly say that I have yet to see another monitor with as crisp of a screen and vivid colors. I'm still waiting for a 26-28inch glossy IPS monitor with low input lag to replace this 20inch.
Click to expand...

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

However, I've given up hope for a 23"+ glossy ips ever coming out. If my Nec dies I might buy a Dell 2311 on sale and try the paper towel thing.
 
sok0 said:
A lot of people dont like glossy because theyve only seen glossy on shitty screens. I on the other hand have used a 20wmgx2 for the past 2 years, and I can honestly say that I have yet to see another monitor with as crisp of a screen and vivid colors. I'm still waiting for a 26-28inch glossy IPS monitor with low input lag to replace this 20inch.
Click to expand...

Nope. I simply don't like reflections. I have seen a lot of Apple screens and they are great except for the reflections.
 
Snowdog said:
Nope. I simply don't like reflections. I have seen a lot of Apple screens and they are great except for the reflections.
Click to expand...

Every time someone says 'vivid' in relation to the colours of a glossy screen I can't help but giggle. It's incredible that a highly reflective surface resulting in the loss of contrast can be used as a marketing feature. Maybe people are indeed happy with it, but I pity them for not being able to see games, movies and photographs the way they were meant to be seen :)
 
Elledan said:
Every time someone says 'vivid' in relation to the colours of a glossy screen I can't help but giggle. It's incredible that a highly reflective surface resulting in the loss of contrast can be used as a marketing feature. Maybe people are indeed happy with it, but I pity them for not being able to see games, movies and photographs the way they were meant to be seen :)
Click to expand...

Maybe your giggles are the result of drugs, not what other people are seeing. There is no "loss of contrast" on a glossy screen, in fact, just the opposite.

And so the way games, movies and photos are "meant to be seen" is through the muted, diffused colors of a muddy coated matte screen? That's pretty funny.
 
a650 was glossy it was the a630 that wasn't. both used same panel...a750 and a860(or was it 850) used different panel (I believe). a750 had different bezel and 860/850 was the very thin model.

Khanmots said:
I remember looking at the Samsung 52a750 and the 52a650 which used the exact same panel but one was matte and the other was glossy. The glossy image was far better. I could also still see reflections on the matte finish, they were just smudgy reflections. Personally I can ignore reflections on the glossy (and have minimized them with my setup) so for me the choice was glossy. (eventually wound up with the 52b750)

For monitors, I've had other factors that've made the decision for me (resolution, price, etc), but I think that all things considered I'd prefer glossy over matte.
Click to expand...
 
Peat Moss said:
Maybe your giggles are the result of drugs, not what other people are seeing. There is no "loss of contrast" on a glossy screen, in fact, just the opposite.

And so the way games, movies and photos are "meant to be seen" is through the muted, diffused colors of a muddy coated matte screen? That's pretty funny.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I meant to say that it increases contrast to ridiculous levels.

Good quality LCD screens must have a matte surface, not a shiny, reflective gloss coating. Gloss is bad in every way - it increases contrast (which we don't want, see above) - and it dramatically increases the reflectively characteristics of the screen, which is again very bad. High quality screens all have very matte surfaces that minimise reflections and allow for a very pleasing, natural display. Very high quality screens have lens grade coatings on them for extremely high quality display, and this gives images on these screens a wonderfully natural, three dimensional quality.
Click to expand...
http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/120/Monitors+For+High+Quality+Imaging+Work#PanelSurface
 
Gloss does NOT increase measurable contrast.

It does increase perceptual contrast for glossy fans, because when then look at black/dark colors and see a reflection in it, they think it is "deeper", just like how a deeper reflection is better on a waxed car.

But this effect does not actually impact measured contrast. Black on a glossy monitor will not measure any darker than black on a matte monitor. And unlike a waxed car, deep reflections are not a desirable trait of monitors.
 
Glossy.
I mostly use the PC in a dark environment, so I prefer having the advantages of a glossy screen.
 
Matte for me. I feel like a loser when I use my computer with the lights off.
 
Snowdog said:
Gloss does NOT increase measurable contrast.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect.

A friend of mine owns an NEC 2690wuxi. About 4 months ago I brought my 24" iMac over to his house to calibrate it for me. One of the things I was curious about was the contrast ratio (to see if Apple also lies about their contrast ratio specs). He checked it and sure enough, the iMacs contrast ratio came in lower than the officially stated specs. While he was at it, he compared his NEC monitor to my iMac. Both have the exact same panel (an H-IPS LG LM 240WU2) only his NEC panel is 2" larger and has a slightly wider gamut. After configuring the same settings, the NEC contrast ratio came to 748:1. The iMac came to 815:1. Not a huge difference, but measurable. He said the blacks were pretty close (NEC=.52, iMac=.49), but the whites were higher on the iMac. We both felt that this was due to the absence of a matte coating on the iMac.

Not only is this incorrect according to the imagescience link provided by Elledan above, it is incorrect according to my friend's measurements using a LaCie Blue Eye on essentially the same LG panel.
 
Last edited:
Peat Moss said:
This is incorrect.

A friend of mine owns an NEC 2690wuxi. About 4 months ago I brought my 24" iMac over to his house to calibrate it for me. One of the things I was curious about was the contrast ratio (to see if Apple also lies about their contrast ratio specs). He checked it and sure enough, the iMacs contrast ratio came in lower than the officially stated specs. While he was at it, he compared his NEC monitor to my iMac. Both have the exact same panel (an H-IPS LG LM 240WU2) only his NEC panel is 2" larger and has a slightly wider gamut. After configuring the same settings, the NEC contrast ratio came to 748:1. The iMac came to 815:1. Not a huge difference, but measurable. He said the blacks were pretty close (NEC=.52, iMac=.49), but the whites were higher on the iMac. We both felt that this was due to the absence of a matte coating on the iMac.
Click to expand...

That has to be one of the most ill informed pieces of nonsense that I have read in this forum in ages. You are comparing two completely different panels, an older CCFL 26" to a newer LED 24". Not to mention the effect that calibration will have (likely done on the NEC, but not done on the Apple).

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

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_20wgx2_phase2.htm

Glossy fans think black is blacker because they see reflections in it, not because it is actually blacker. If you sat the glossy NEC 20wgx2 next to the newer 2690, glossy fans would think the 20wgx2 has higher contrast, despite it measuring 200 points lower.

This perception of greater contrast has absolutely nothing to do with the measured reality.
 
Peat Moss said:
he compared his NEC monitor to my iMac. Both have the exact same panel (an H-IPS LG LM 240WU2) only his NEC panel is 2" larger and has a slightly wider gamut. After configuring the same settings, the NEC contrast ratio came to 748:1. The iMac came to 815:1. Not a huge difference, but measurable. He said the blacks were pretty close (NEC=.52, iMac=.49), but the whites were higher on the iMac. We both felt that this was due to the absence of a matte coating on the iMac.
Click to expand...

The 24" iMac panel is an LG.Display H-IPS (LM240WU2-(SL)(B1)). The NEC 2690WUXi is a LG.Philips H-IPS A-TW Pol (LM260WU1). They are not even close to being "the exact same panel", so your assumption that the difference you measured is due to the difference in coating is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top