←back to thread

My Impressions of the MacBook Pro M4

(michael.stapelberg.ch)
240 points secure | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.828s | source | bottom
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. zdragnar ◴[] No.45776075[source]
> High-quality glass glossy displays are often easy to use even in full daylight,

I guess Apple cheaped out on their glossy displays, because I definitely didn't care for mine in full daylight

replies(1): >>45776121 #
2. BoorishBears ◴[] No.45776121[source]
Glossy vs matte has started to matter less as the peak brightness goes up.

When your screen can do 1,600 nits, daylight isn't as much of a problem

replies(2): >>45776188 #>>45777654 #
3. asdff ◴[] No.45776188[source]
Yeah this m3 pro isn't really doing 1600 nits. Marginally brighter than my 2012.

To get to actual 1600 nits you need to use scripts.

https://github.com/SerjoschDuering/macbook_1600nits

Not sure the impacts to display health or battery running the screen full bore like this.

replies(1): >>45776237 #
4. BoorishBears ◴[] No.45776237{3}[source]
I use Lunar and have used it on my Pro Display XDR and every MBP with XDR I've owned with 0 issues.
5. heavyset_go ◴[] No.45777654[source]
I'd rather not blow my battery budget on fighting the sun for visibility.
replies(1): >>45778631 #
6. BoorishBears ◴[] No.45778631{3}[source]
I tend to do outdoor things outdoors, so occasionally cranking up brightness is not an issue.

I'd much rather do that than to have a granier screen with worse viewing angles all the time I'm not in direct sunlight, so next time around I'll be back on glossy.