Glass or matte display and screen size on laptop

[RedFox88]

Hollie wrote:

So I'd like to know, is it fine for you all to use such small screens and isn't the glass too reflective?

Glass doesn't come on laptop screens, it's plastic. I prefer a matte screen due to reflections but many laptops don't come with a choice.

 

[RedFox88]

hotdog321 wrote:

As a photojournalist, I was looking for a combination of maximum power plus tiny size. I sometimes even wear the laptop in a fannypack as I shoot pictures because I dare not set the laptop down.

It's not easy working on such a small laptop--but my last "field" laptop had a 10.6" display! I couldn't find one that small again, so I settled for the "larger" Acer Aspire TimelineX AS1830T-68U118 11.6-Inch laptop.

I have a 1.6 inch Acer laptop and the color is blah when it's right next to my calibrated computer screen. Didn't emachines or gateway get bought out by Acer and that's what Acer computers actually are these days?

 

[Hollie]

It's interesting that so many of you don't mind the plastic displays for editing. I think I'm going to stick with matte if I can find it, which means a Lenovo or another Dell Precision. I've been working with a Dell Precision for years and find the print colors spot on, but it is soooo heavy. It's huge, with a 17" display.

I don't even have a desktop computer anymore, just a few laptops and tablets networked to a Synology NAS storage box.

Lenovo's biggest display is the 15.6" and I'm wondering if that is big enough to do all editing.

Thanks for all your replies, really helpful.

Hollie

 

[NewsyL]

jwhig wrote:

Sorry, Hollie, for not replying sooner. I don't have a problem with colours on my Lenovo laptop. I do calibrate quite regularly. But I DO find angle of view a problem. A slight shift up or down and the screen is considerably darker (up) or lighter (down.) I put this down to the shiny screen but may be wrong.

,

Your issue with angle of view has nothing to do with the screen being matte or glossy.

It has everything to do with the LCD panel matrix behind the front layer of the screen. I'm almost 100% sure you have a TN type LCD panel.

Tilt your screen back as far as it will go so that you are essentially looking "up" from the bottom of the screen. If the image shifts from looking normal to looking like a film negative then you have a TN panel.

An IPS panel will continue to look reasonably normal at extreme angles of view, including from below.

.

 

[NewsyL]

TFT Central does a real nice job in their monitor reviews showing the difference in viewing angles between panel types.

Here's a recent review of a monitor with an IPS type panel; go to the "Viewing Angles" section and you'll see an image there which can be clicked on for a larger size.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_pa248q.htm

.

and a monitor with a TN panel:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_vg278he.htm

Bear in mind that this is a desktop TN which seem to be better in general than the laptop TN panels for viewing angles. Some laptops I've seen have very distinct dark zones top and bottom sandwiching a bright middle zone.


.

and one with a recent version of a MVA panel (better angles than older versions):

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/benq_gw2760hs.htm

.

.

 

[sdribetahi]

Gloss screens are the devils work.

 

[raminolta]

Many new laptops have a screen that some call semi-glossy: it's a matte screen with light AG quote. My Asus Ultrabook UX32 is one. I find the semi-glossy screens are way closer to a matte screen than to a glossy one Coming from a glossy MBP, I would certainly prefer a matter screen with light AG quote over a glossy one. My UX32 is great though it definitely had to be calibrated because out of the box, it had a strong yellow caste.

You may also want to make sure you would get an IPS panel with good sRGB coverage. That's why I chose UX32 since according to review its sRGB coverage is %99.

 

[Hollie]

sdribetahi wrote:

Gloss screens are the devils work.

I can't argue with that....

 

[hotdog321]

Honestly, I just don't try to keep track of who owns who these days. Not only do the owners change constantly, but the quality seems to drift all over the map. Acer/Gateway/whoever is legendary for crummy customer support, but I take care of my own stuff anyway.

All I can say is that my little Timeline X is satisfactory for field work and that the colors/contrast don't need tweaking if I compare them on my desktop later. Surprises me, too.

I'm running PhotoMechanic, CS6, calibrated with Spyder 3 Express and have upgraded the Timeline X with a SSD and 8 GB of ram. Works for me; not trying to sell anyone else on the system.

 

[Jim Cockfield]

Hollie wrote:

It's interesting that so many of you don't mind the plastic displays for editing. I think I'm going to stick with matte if I can find it, which means a Lenovo or another Dell Precision. I've been working with a Dell Precision for years and find the print colors spot on, but it is soooo heavy. It's huge, with a 17" display.

I find it very interesting that you seem to care more about the exact construction material being used, versus the actual display quality (color gamut, viewing angle, and things that are more important).

Frankly, I've never even paid much attention to the material being used for displays. After seeing some of your earlier posts, I checked my two Dell laptops (Insprion 11Z, Inspiron 17), and they both appear to have a glass anti-glare surface. Of course, I don't know for sure, but when tapping on them, they appear to be glass.

Interestingly, one of my desktop display panels appears to have a polymer surface of some type (as the material flexes inward a bit when pressing on it).

All of them are matte (anti-glare surfaces). I could care less what they're made out of. I'm more concerned with things like brightness, contrast, viewing angle, color gamut, color accuracy, etc.

I can remember when pistol owners joked about "plastic" Pistols from Glock, until they built up a reputation for reliability. I've owned a number of them, including the Glock 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27 and 30 models.

You can find lots of "torture" tests of Glocks online, where they've been frozen, ran over by trucks, dumped in mud, etc.; and still worked -- shooting hundreds of thousands of rounds without a major failure in some cases.

The Glock pistols have a polymer (plastic) frame, and I'd trust one of them to work before I'd trust most all steel firearms to work if my life depended on it, and I've had lots of all steel pistols, too (including a wide variety of 1911A1 models from Springfield, Colt, Dan Wesson, and even Norinco; as well as many other all steel firearms.

That's one reason you'll find that many law enforcement agencies use Glock Pistols. They're very reliable, because (not in spite of) their polymer frame construction.

Yea.... perhaps that's a very different thing (pistol versus monitor). But, I'd still give similar advise.

Look at how a product works, versus what it's made out of.

IOW, I'd suggest you take a closer look at the displays on models you're interested in to see how they work (especially things like viewing angle, color accuracy, etc.) versus caring about the exact surface material being used to get you that matte (anti-glare) property.

Most major computer brands (Dell, Lenovo, HP, Asus, etc.) use display panels from major manufacturers of them. For example, LG and Samsung are major OEM display providers) and I think you'll find similar characteristics between most similar systems with the same rough specs.

Again, look at the displays themselves and look for information on things like brightness, color gamut supported, display type (TN, IPS, PLS), viewing angle, etc.

IMO, those things are a lot more important than if the surface is made of polymer or glass. ;-)

--
JimC
------

 

[Hollie]

Jim, from your post I wonder if you've ever seen a true matte display, when you touch the display it acts like fabric rather than hard plastic. I have a plastic display on my smaller Fujitsu and really would not like to use it for editing. Viewing angle is worse on plastic, reflections are common, it is not as good. This is why I'm surprised people can edit with this type of display.

I don't need to be concerned about durability since the Dell Precision 17" is so big I can't take it anywhere. But I have dropped it with no bad result.

My only purpose with this post was to get experiences from photographers editing on plastic displays, and with smaller than 17" displays.

Of course the Precisions are more expensive than the other laptops from Dell.

Hollie

Jim Cockfield wrote:

Hollie wrote:

It's interesting that so many of you don't mind the plastic displays for editing. I think I'm going to stick with matte if I can find it, which means a Lenovo or another Dell Precision. I've been working with a Dell Precision for years and find the print colors spot on, but it is soooo heavy. It's huge, with a 17" display.

I find it very interesting that you seem to care more about the exact construction material being used, versus the actual display quality (color gamut, viewing angle, and things that are more important).

Frankly, I've never even paid much attention to the material being used for displays. After seeing some of your earlier posts, I checked my two Dell laptops (Insprion 11Z, Inspiron 17), and they both appear to have a glass anti-glare surface. Of course, I don't know for sure, but when tapping on them, they appear to be glass.

Interestingly, one of my desktop display panels appears to have a polymer surface of some type (as the material flexes inward a bit when pressing on it).

All of them are matte (anti-glare surfaces). I could care less what they're made out of. I'm more concerned with things like brightness, contrast, viewing angle, color gamut, color accuracy, etc.

I can remember when pistol owners joked about "plastic" Pistols from Glock, until they built up a reputation for reliability. I've owned a number of them, including the Glock 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27 and 30 models.

You can find lots of "torture" tests of Glocks online, where they've been frozen, ran over by trucks, dumped in mud, etc.; and still worked -- shooting hundreds of thousands of rounds without a major failure in some cases.

The Glock pistols have a polymer (plastic) frame, and I'd trust one of them to work before I'd trust most all steel firearms to work if my life depended on it, and I've had lots of all steel pistols, too (including a wide variety of 1911A1 models from Springfield, Colt, Dan Wesson, and even Norinco; as well as many other all steel firearms.

That's one reason you'll find that many law enforcement agencies use Glock Pistols. They're very reliable, because (not in spite of) their polymer frame construction.

Yea.... perhaps that's a very different thing (pistol versus monitor). But, I'd still give similar advise.

Look at how a product works, versus what it's made out of.

IOW, I'd suggest you take a closer look at the displays on models you're interested in to see how they work (especially things like viewing angle, color accuracy, etc.) versus caring about the exact surface material being used to get you that matte (anti-glare) property.

Most major computer brands (Dell, Lenovo, HP, Asus, etc.) use display panels from major manufacturers of them. For example, LG and Samsung are major OEM display providers) and I think you'll find similar characteristics between most similar systems with the same rough specs.

Again, look at the displays themselves and look for information on things like brightness, color gamut supported, display type (TN, IPS, PLS), viewing angle, etc.

IMO, those things are a lot more important than if the surface is made of polymer or glass. ;-)

--
JimC
------