←back to thread

My Impressions of the MacBook Pro M4

(michael.stapelberg.ch)
240 points secure | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.468s | source
Show context
rottencupcakes ◴[] No.45775475[source]
It's classic Apple to spend over a decade insisting that that glossy screens were the best option, and then to eventually roll out a matte screen as a "premium" feature with a bunch of marketing around it.
replies(10): >>45775577 #>>45775641 #>>45775695 #>>45775731 #>>45775840 #>>45775889 #>>45776046 #>>45776153 #>>45777821 #>>45778629 #
LeoPanthera ◴[] No.45775641[source]
Historically, traditional matte screen finishes exhibited poor optical qualities by scattering ambient light, which tended to wash out colors. This scattering process also affected the light from individual pixels, causing it to refract into neighboring pixels.

This reduced overall image quality and caused pixel-fine details, such as small text, to appear smeary on high-density LCDs. In contrast, well-designed glossy displays provide a superior visual experience by minimizing internal refraction and reflecting ambient light at high angles, which reduces display pollution. Consequently, glossy screens often appear much brighter, blacks appear blacker without being washed out, colors show a higher dynamic range, and small details remain crisper. High-quality glass glossy displays are often easy to use even in full daylight, and reflections are manageable because they are full optical reflections with correct depth, allowing the user to focus on the screen content.

Apple's "nano texture" matte screens were engineered to solve the specific optical problems of traditional matte finishes, the washed-out colors and smeary details. But they cost more to make. The glossy option is still available, and still good.

replies(12): >>45775726 #>>45775837 #>>45775923 #>>45776075 #>>45776148 #>>45776766 #>>45777532 #>>45777723 #>>45778296 #>>45778580 #>>45779048 #>>45779708 #
1. 2OEH8eoCRo0 ◴[] No.45775726[source]
Sounds like Apple marketing wankery. I have a matte high density LCD from 2013 (Lenovo) that looks great. Does Apple even make the displays? What exactly are they "engineering" here?
replies(3): >>45775808 #>>45775836 #>>45775969 #
2. ◴[] No.45775808[source]
3. ◴[] No.45775836[source]
4. kergonath ◴[] No.45775969[source]
> What exactly are they "engineering" here?

The coatings, which do matter quite a bit when you are optimising for some durability/optical quality tradeoff.

Glass covers make screens more durable, but imply internal and external reflections. Laminated screens on glass panes solves the internal reflections and improve transmission, but do not help with glare and external reflections. Those can be improved by texturing the glass, but at the cost of diffraction and smearing, leading to a decrease in effective resolution. Unless the texture becomes small enough, but then you need it to be durable enough to avoid being wiped or damaged by things that might come into contact with the screen.

It turns out that there is a lot more than the bottom layers that matter in a display. You can see all these problems being solved in succession when looking at the evolution of Apple’s displays over the years (and others’, but it is much easier to find information about the good and bad sides of any Apple product). It’s fascinating, actually.

[edit] add the issue of oils on the human skin and you have do deal with oleophobic coatings for touch screens, which is another very important factor to consider. In addition to how the touch sensors are integrated.