LCD / high gloss screen vs conventional

I've been working with a lot of clients using newer laptops with the

high gloss / anti reflective technology such as Toshiba's TruBrite,

Sony Xbrite, etc., to jazz up their LCD displays. If you have to work

on a LCD, this is the way to do it, IMHO.

 

Even though the laptop market is all over the shiny new screen

technology, I'm not seeing much of it at all in the hyper competitive

17-19" LCD market. At least in anything but the high end category.

Any particular technical reason you *wouldn't* want the higher gloss

screen on an LCD, or am I just not looking in the right places?

I don't like shiny screens. They reflect waaaaaay too much stuff. It gives me headaches.

 

 

They are also brighter but seems to lose detail in the shadows and blows highlights.

<I>high gloss / anti reflective technology</I>

<P>

 

I'm confused - how can they be high gloss <B>AND</B> anti-reflective? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Basically they use polarized layers to reduce glare {marketing term really}.

 

The hyper glossy LCDs are actually worse in terms of glare than standard ones, but that's not my point. If you're doing digital work in a brightly lit room you're not working in an ideal environment anyways. I'll argue that point to the death.56

 

Calderon, blown highlights and lost blacks are a function of poor monitor calibration, not the panel type. When I work on a Toshiba TruBrite laptop and then move to a standard LCD I feel like somebody has taken fine grit sand paper to my screen.

 

I just don't get why we see the new glossy LCD screens with laptops, but rarely with stand alone LCDs.

Okay then, I cannot say anything more since I do not edit in bright areas. I always do that in my dark studio.

 

 

Any LCD is not as good as a CRT though and I hate glare on my screen.

 

I have seen all those tru brite screens and they are full of glare no matter how many coatings they have. I have to admit that there are some that look much better than others but still give you so much glare.

 

In response yo your question "Any particular technical reason you *wouldn't* want the higher gloss screen on an LCD" is because they are land of glare hell.

In desktop LCDs, the two most interesting marketing terms seem to be the size and the response time. Many manufacturers have laptops with 15", 1600x1050 displays, but computer stores seem to be full of 19" 1280x1024 desktop displays. Why? Haven't got a clue...I know a number of people who'd like higher res and/or glossy desktop LCDs, but there doesn't seem to be any around, must be some perverted market segmentation idea...

Shadow detail on my Sony XBlack kicks ass and I don't have any problems with the highlights either. Just noticed that Sony sells some desktop LCDs with XBlack, maybe they are glossy? Still, I'd want higher res desktop LCDs...

Yeah, same here. The price jump from a typical 19" 1280x1024 LCD to a 20-21" is also far more severe than 17 to 19". I've been using 17/19" Polyviews, which cost less than $300, and once calibrated are pretty decent for digital imaging. I still double check all my critical stuff on my 19" CRT for color balance, but you can't beat the big LCD's for detail and defect hunting.

 

Still, I'd rather have a hyper glossy LCD than a standard one because the high gloss screens 'vanish' in a dimmed room and provide better black detail. I agree they are more reflection prone than a typical glass CRT or non coated LCDs, but I tend to work in darker rooms for imaging work anyways. I know the market is saturated right now with LCDs, so maybe that's why there's a market discrepency. The big Apple LCD displays are glossy, right?

Just a theory: currently the standalone LCD market is primarily for

monitor replacement in fluorescent-lit offices. No sense raising

the price or creating something that works better in near-darkness.

For text display, which is mostly what happens in office environments,

LCD has crisper rendition than CRT. Whereas laptops are considered premium and often used in airplanes and other dimly-lit places.

<i>LCD market is primarily for monitor replacement in fluorescent-lit offices</i>

 

<p>Yes, but there are now many tv-tuenr equipped LCDs ("for homes") and very fast LCDs ("for gamers"), so there should be a market niche. In my work, I go through a lot of documents and occassionally check on some source code and in those tasks high-res really helps. One needs at least 1600x1200 to get a full A4 spread on screen, so I would think that there's a sizable market for higher-res screens (and now using the sony XBlack in my laptop, I'm completely convinced of the benefits of glossy screens...e.g. I can use it to give an instant slideshow on screen to friends and relatives and the photos look great).

Hey Guys. I believe technically the new anti-reflective screen layer is less "glossy" than the older anti-glare lcds. I have an Acer laptop with 15.4-inch lcd with Crystal Brite, same thing as XBrite, ect., and also a Dell w/ 15-inch lcd with regular anti-glare and under all conditions both low-light and bright light the Acer shows significantly less overall reflection of light. Because the anti-reflective screens actually absorb much of the incoming light instead of just diffusing the as anti-glare screens do overall light reflection will always be lower. However, that's not to say that it might seem like the anti-reflective screen looks like it might be reflecting more light. Here's my case in point. I have both laptops out and open with a bright overhead light on. When in front of the Acer I can see the reflection of the lamp clearly - not just a bright reflection but a mirror like image of the light on the upper left corner of the screen. But the rest of the screen is completely free from any "glare" or reflection. As a matter of fact if I move my head or move the screen so that the reflection of the lamp is out of sight then the entire screen has no "glare" at all. However, if I move in front of the Dell, I can't see a clear image of the lamp but I can see the diffused light source at the same area as the Acer. The positive is that I can't see the mirror like image of the lamp, but the negative is that the majority of the screen has some glare on it. Also it doesn't really matter if I change my viewing position.

 

I think the new anti-reflective technology is an inherently better technology and we will see it in pretty much all lcds in the coming year(s), just like TFT replaced all passive lcd technology.

 

Also worth note is none of Apple's displays use anti-reflective technology. They all use a version of anti-glare with hard coat. I'm looking forward to seeing a 23-inch CD with anti-reflective layer - that would be something!