Do glossy displays require dark rooms?

aLcATRAZ

n00b
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
52
I'm curious about your opinions. I'm not a gamer and I'm leaning towards matte being easier to live with.

The argument goes. You're also diffusing the picture and not just the reflections with a matte screen.

I'm not sure the benefit outweighs the cost. When I move my head I don't have reflections moving over the screen. Hmm...

Another argument goes. If you're getting a nice screen then arrange your room to match. Does that mean make it dark? Close curtains etc? If you're in a shared room, not dedicated computer room, then would matte be your first choice then?

Thank you for reading and replying.
 
It will always depend on the individual room. I used the LG CX 48" which is glossy for two years in a bright room but because there were no direct lights from windows to the screen it worked fine.

At my current apartment I typically keep curtains (which do let light through) closed even with a LCD.

Sometimes matte can be worse because it diffuses reflections in a way that just spreads the light source rather than being a smaller bright section on a glossy screen.
 
I don't think anyone likes heavy reflections on their displays. With that said, the human brain is pretty remarkable at being able to effectively "tune out" things like that. So, YMMV with regards to how big of a problem it is.

Some of the best rated panels in the world, even under different lighting conditions have been glossy panels. So, there's that.
 
I think all the positions on this have been covered already.

But to say it in another perhaps concise way: this is basically preference.
I'm on team: always glossy. And I've seen people on this forum that would never pick a display without some form of AG coating.
And this is regardless of people's lighting/room type. Some people are hyper sensitive to reflections. Some people want maximum contrast/IQ regardless of reflections.

Most fit somewhere in the middle. However, it's not like there is a huge amount of choice in the market. Most PC displays have AG coating. Most TV's are glossy. There's only a handful of models that are the opposite.
 
I think all the positions on this have been covered already.

But to say it in another perhaps concise way: this is basically preference.
I'm on team: always glossy. And I've seen people on this forum that would never pick a display without some form of AG coating.
And this is regardless of people's lighting/room type. Some people are hyper sensitive to reflections. Some people want maximum contrast/IQ regardless of reflections.

Most fit somewhere in the middle. However, it's not like there is a huge amount of choice in the market. Most PC displays have AG coating. Most TV's are glossy. There's only a handful of models that are the opposite.
Pretty much. I currently have a matte 28" 4K IPS, a glossy 2019 16" Macbook Pro and a glossy 12.9" iPad Pro on my desk and don't really care either way with these. I don't think the glossy Apple products look any better or worse than the matte Samsung G70A.

The only thing I do not like is a very grainy antiglare coating. It always looks like the screen is dirty. By comparison the coating on my Samsung's Innolux panel just looks nice. No complaints.
 
I don't think the glossy Apple products look any better or worse than the matte Samsung G70A.
You're very brave to write that. Unpopular opinion. 😁 I can totally see it though.

I bet Apple has developed an amazing AG. If you're budget oriented like myself picking glossy displays is going to be a gamble. Would you agree?
 
This has been argued in hardforum threads many times. Here is how I see it.

====================

Think of it like a light haze on clear "dry" ice vs. ultra clear wet ice.

Direct light sources hitting a screen are going to pollute the screen surface regardless. Some (many?) people are using their screens in poor setups. It's just like audio or photography - you should set up your environment to suit your hardware/screen not the other way around imo.

Like I said, improper lighting conditions and room layouts that allow direct light sources to hit a screen surface are going to pollute the screen regardless, as shown in the images below.
S9gqCVy.png


Lj3vf4O.png



PICT0021-1.jpg


Since traditionally desks have been laid out up against the wall like a bookshelf, or upright piano with sheet music against a wall - most setups act like a catcher's mitt for direct light source pollution from behind and overhead. Professional/reference monitors often come with a hood that covers the top and some of the sides, like some production cameras have. Light pollution (as well as allowing lighting conditions to change throughout the day) will alter/pollute how even a calibrated screen's values are seen and perceived.

The direct light source vectors hitting the matte or ag screens will blow out contrast and pale saturation, washing out areas of the screen they hit and are diffused onto. Allowing lighting conditions to change will also alter the way our eyes/brain perceives the screen's contrast and saturation so even their "calibrated" values will be lost to your eyes and brain. E.g. the screen will look more pale, weakly contrasted and undersaturated the brighter the room gets, and vice versa. Some keep several sets of settings so that they can switch between them for different times of the day or different room lighting conditions. So you are going to get compromised results if you don't design your viewing environment more optimally no matter what screen coating you have.

. . . . . . . . . .

From TFTcentral review of the PG42UQ:

The PG42UQ features a more traditional monitor-like matte anti-glare coating, as opposed to a glossy panel coating like you’d find on TV’s including the LG C2. This does a very good job of reducing reflections and handling external light sources like windows and lamps and we noticed much better reflection handling (no surprise) than the LG C2. However this does mean that in some conditions the blacks do not look as deep or inky visually to the user. With this being an OLED panel, famous for its true blacks and amazing contrast ratio this could be considered a problem – are you “wasting” that by having an AG coating that reduces your perceived contrast?
.
In certain conditions blacks look a little more dark grey as the anti-reflective coating reflects some of the surrounding light back at you and it “dulls” the contrast a bit. The anti-glare coating means the image is not as clear and clean as a fully glossy coating. You don’t get this same effect if the coating is fully glossy as there’s no AG layer, but what you do get instead is more reflections. Don’t forget this same thing applies to all AG coated desktop monitors, you have the same impact on perceived black depth and contrast on IPS, TN Film and VA panels depending on your lighting conditions if there’s an AG coating used. You’d still get better relative blacks and contrast on the OLED (not to mention other benefits) compared with LCD technologies. They are all impacted in the same way by their coatings.

While they are concentrating on how it affects the blacks which is bad enough, it can also degrade the color saturation as it creates a haze.
 
Last edited:
You're very brave to write that. Unpopular opinion. 😁 I can totally see it though.

I bet Apple has developed an amazing AG. If you're budget oriented like myself picking glossy displays is going to be a gamble. Would you agree?
Apple doesn't have an AG coating.

The only thing they've done with more recently displays is creating "nano-texture glass" which is basically a hyper-uniform bead blasted finish.
This is Apple's statement regarding it when selecting it as a (very expensive) option on the Studio Display:
Nano-texture glass is a great option if you’re in a workspace with bright light sources, like a lot of sunlight. Typical matte displays have a coating added to their surface that scatters light. However, these coatings lower contrast while producing unwanted haze and sparkle. Etched into the glass at the nanometer level, the nano-texture scatters light to further minimize glare — for outstanding image quality even in challenging lighting conditions. The nano-texture glass option comes with a polishing cloth that’s made with soft, nonabrasive material for safe cleaning.
Before that it was glossy only for Thunderbolt and Cinema Displays (both glass). You'd have to go all the way back to G5 and before to get matte displays.
 
Last edited:
Apple doesn't have an AG coating.

The only thing they've done with more recently displays is creating "nano-texture glass" which is basically a hyper-uniform bead blasted finish.
This is Apple's statement regarding it when selecting it as a (very expensive) option on the Studio Display:

Before that it was glossy only for Thunderbolt and Cinema Displays (both glass). You'd have to go all the way back to G5 and before to get matte displays.

Interesting info. I had heard of that mentioned before but I did a little homework on it after you posted that.

It's still a matte/ag coating technically even if it's fine "nano" scratching/etching.

https://pcmonitors.info/articles/matte-vs-glossy-monitors/
A matte screen surface comprises an outer polarising layer (or non-polarising layer for some screen technologies) that has been coarsened using mechanical and sometimes additional chemical processing.

Advantages of a Matte Screen:Disadvantages of a Matte Screen:
Reduced glare can improve visibility of image in areas of strong direct or ambient lightReduction in perceived contrast and colour vibrancy
Potential reduction in eyestrain in such circumstances as you don’t have to focus ‘through’ intense reflections or glare to see the imageSlight to moderate reduction in sharpness, depending on thickness and layering of matte surface
Dust, grease and dirt less visibleGenerally more difficult to clean due to dirt penetration and relative difficulty seeing the fruits of your labour
Grainy or hazy texture apparent in some instances, particularly when displaying white and other light colours

The "nano" etching layer does maintain the color vibrancy much better than typical matte screen coatings but it suffers lost of sharpness/has some blurriness. It also has a visible layer effect, especially on bright colors.



==============================

There are some tradeoffs with apple's "nano" diffusion layer.

"Actual macro shots of a glossy vs nano-etched display (Apple Pro Display XDR)"
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ay-on-the-new-2020-imac.2248657/post-28796244

The difference in sharpness is massive, please do not make the mistake I did and make sure you go see a display in the store before you purchase. I didn't do that because of the coronavirus situation, I judged only on people's opinions online and as many videos / photos as I could find, but the difference in sharpness is very big – I am likely going to return my iMac and reorder the same spec but without the nano-texture.... And my work environment has a lot of glare...


1597879801917-png.png



1597894916673-png.png



1597896168011-png.png

. .

commenter in that thread:
I have taken one for the team... I'm processing my return tomorrow, dropping it to an Apple store so the refund can happen right away without a hitch, and then going home to re-order one and wait another two to three weeks... Oy vey!

But, I had to see the nano-texture for myself. Based on the things I read and the youtube reviews I watched, everyone seemed to really like it and only mentioned the softness as a "very minor tradeoff".... They're blind!

It also has a quality to it that looks almost like it's wet..

And look, I'm a borderline fanboy, definitely not one of those people who ***** on Apple for things they do, I'm usually on board with it all and I have loved every Apple product I've ever owned, blah blah blah – but this thing, the display is amazing at glare-reduction while maintaining great color, contrast, and brightness, but the sharpness is something I think they should mention as a clear trade-off...

Certainly a great technology, certainly "worth it" for many use-cases, but for me, even though I'm someone who works professionally in a glare-heavy room making graphics (both digital and printed) – it's not worth it. ?

. . .

From the rest of the comments it seems like it still comes down to a user preference thing (as well as cost). It does preserve color saturation and contrast better than larger grain matte coatings do. There is softening/blurring of the image though, vs some reflections on glossy by comparison (especially in poor viewing environments). Some prefer one over the other. Some passionately , much like every glossy vs whatever argument. :rolleyes:

Nice to have more options. They could have forced one coating but their nano one is an option instead (at ~ +$500 usd I think).

No matter what the coating, if allowing direct light sources to be hitting the surface they will compromise it (the video linked below shows this with an led hand light directed at each screen (glossy and the nano scratched coating side by side). Apple doesn't magically absorb direct light sources.






n3mChE2.jpg




pWxnAYJ.jpg


. .


1JPB0Hd.jpg


WGLHqDy.jpg



. .

. . . in summary, the nano isn't worthwhile in his opinion
6KX6a2u.jpg


. . . . .

Also curious about how the nano layer would work with bright HDR content.
 
Last edited:
Interesting info. I had heard of that mentioned before but I did a little homework on it after you posted that.

It's still a matte/ag coating technically even if it's fine "nano" scratching/etching.
Just going to point out a "technicality": it can't be a "coating" if there is no "coating". Yes, obviously it's matte, but it's not a coating.

I'll put it another way. You can take a piece of steel and polish it to a mirror finish. You can take the same steel and run sand paper over it so it's dull and matte. There is no coating on the steel either way, just a "smoothness" difference. Similarly, there is no coating on the glass either way.

----------

As for the rest of your post, I largely agree. If you saw my other post in this thread, I'm on always: team glossy. But people want what they want.
 
It's semantics maybe... I said "coating" at some points meaning an application above the regular screen emitters or LCD.. . Matte doesn't have to be a coating on top of the top layer really, just an applied effect to a layer.

if you take the definition I posted:

"A matte screen surface comprises an outer polarising layer (or non-polarising layer for some screen technologies) that has been coarsened using mechanical and sometimes additional chemical processing.

The nano screens seem to have an outer layer on them of some type, like a regular polarizing layer, top layer, or gorilla glass type of thing .. and it's coarsened. It's technically an "anti glare" type screen (as opposed to glossy), specifically a matte one, though very fine etching wise, on that layer.

People have soaked the polarizer layer of AG screens before and peeled that layer off on some screens because they disliked the ag coating so much.
 
Last edited:
It's semantics maybe... I said "coating" at some points meaning an application above the regular screen emitters or LCD.. . Matte doesn't have to be a coating on top of the top layer really, just an applied effect to a layer.

if you take the definition I posted:

"A matte screen surface comprises an outer polarising layer (or non-polarising layer for some screen technologies) that has been coarsened using mechanical and sometimes additional chemical processing.
Using a definition is only useful if it actually applies to the item in question. This, categorically, does not. Apple went to great lengths to intentionally not using any form of "coating" to make the screen anti-glare, which brings us to your next point...
The nano screens seem to have an outer layer on them of some type, like a regular polarizing layer, top layer, or gorilla glass type of thing .. and it's coarsened. It's technically an "anti glare" glare type screen (as opposed to glossy), specifically a matte one, though very fine etching wise, on that layer.
It's glass. There is no coating. The quote I gave from Apple talking about this from the beginning speaks to this directly. In fact your post showing the screen in many different forms also does.

If you want to talk about the "layers" on the display it's Glass on top of an LCD screen. If you want to call the "glass" a layer, sure fine whatever. But then what makes the glass "not smooth" is micro etching. It isn't a coating.

Here, let me break it down for you fully using Macworld's break down of Nano-Texture Glass when the Display XDR came out:

One of the main causes of glare is light from lamps, windows and other sources reflecting back at you due to the smooth surfaces on modern displays. Matte finishes combat this by having some kind of coating on the display which diffuse or break down the light due to its more angular surface. Sadly, this works both ways, so the light emanating from the display itself is also altered, resulting in the murkier results that usually accompany the technique.
Apple has taken things to the next level by foregoing a coating and instead physically altering the surface itself through tiny (nano) etchings. The pattern of the etchings means that light rays hitting the display are reflected off at a range of angles, eradicating most of the glare in the process.
And then further in the article:

“I asked Apple about the durability of the finish. I was told that they don’t want to give anybody the impression that it’s fragile, but that, yes: over time, using something too abrasive could mess up that finish. Unlike other screens, there’s really no coating on top of the nano finish; it’s just etched, bare glass.

This is fundamentally different than a coating. For the third time.
People have soaked the polarizer layer of AG screens before and peeled that layer off on some screens because they disliked the ag coating so much.
... you wouldn't be able to do that to a nano-texture display. It's part of the glass. This seems to be the part you're not understanding, there is no coating. The only way you could "remove the nano-texture" would be if you were able to polish the glass. Or literally remove the glass and replace it with glossy glass.


The problem is you're trying to base what Apple has done via comparison to previous displays from other manufacturers. Apple has categorically NOT done the things other display manufacturers have done.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying it's a matte layer application. Coating is old term but matte applications are not necessarily coatings. They can be mechanical applications and or chemically abbraded/roughness effected upon a layer. So the nano is similarly a type of matte application, just another type even if the results are smaller or the top layer is glass instead of plastic or other material.

"A matte screen surface comprises an outer polarising layer (or non-polarising layer for some screen technologies) that has been coarsened using mechanical and sometimes additional chemical processing.
 
....

https://www.benq.com/en-us/knowledg...-glossy-screens--which-is-better-for-you.html

Yes, matte screens objectively don’t look as good as glossy. But that’s in a highly controlled environment. In the real world, matte monitor surfaces are the only practical and rational way to go.
^ disagree re: only way obviously lol


Matte monitors employ plastic surfaces made of different polymers that undergo an etching process. Either chemical or mechanical, the etching creates an enormous number of grooves or indentations in the screen surface.
 
Mechanically etched plastic polymer layer = matte

Mechanically etched glass layer = matte

They are matte applications on coverings rather than coatings on top of coverings. The screen surface. Coating is admittedly a dated term that I was using generically. Other than the medium (glass) it's just another mechanical etching matte application. Plastic surfaces were already doIng mechanical etching, just not on glass and probably not as fine of an etching size. Nano is still a matte screen type.
 
Last edited:
Hey the biggest mistake I think people make is they only go by what some site/youtube says with out buying it and trying it themselfs unless that's the only way you can know. Had so many monitors. We have 6 right now. I as of late bought the LG 48GQ900-B UltraGear 48. Now this one was matte vs my 42" Arous FV43U which was simi gloss. I sent back the LG 48GQ900-b for the LG C2 48". Did I notice the matte vs the 48 glossy? Maybe? Yeah its one of those things where you watch all those video and they tell you the glossy is really noticeable. So I got the matte since its a monitor. I never really knew the Arous was simi glossy. So now having the LG C2. Yeah its NOT like night and day. I am not like most in that I really truly love the soap opera effect. So this is why I got the C2. I don't watch much TV yet I have more setting then the LG 48 gear..

Another thing was the LG 48GQ900-b had the dimming every 5min. DIdn't really notice it but there is no where in the service menu to turn it off. Yet on the C2 I could turn it off and LOVE THE C2. Love it so much more then the LG48 matte one.. as in settings and TV part. I have one window off to my right yet.. its never fully open and I never ever notice glossy.
 
In a controlled environment, glossy is objectively a better picture quality. The problem is a lot of people don't design (or have no option of designing due to some constraints) their viewing environment around their screen. That is unlike how people with decent media setups will usually design their media room layout around their surround sound speaker array so that they can layout the speakers to work more optimally (as well as their tv and seating locations). Or how photography and "film" studios absolutely control their scene lighting/light placement in relation to the content and the camera(s).

A matte/ag layer affects both directions - light hitting the display from the outside and the light coming out of the display. It's a diffusion layer of some intensity/aggressiveness or another, plain and simple.

The apple nano matte layer is abrading glass instead of plastic and with finer abrasions on that layer. The glass medium and the very fine abrasions result in more color bleeding through than typical matte screens but from the reports I watched on youtube and what I read, images I viewed, etc. - it still makes the display out of focus effectively a certain % with a loss of detail. The glass layer also has a visible textured/top-layer effect from reports (and images posted), especially on bright colors and backgrounds. e.g. black text on a white background among other scenarios. Not a screen door effect of cells necessarily but a visible textured/layer effect that is noticeable on top of the screen beneath. I'm curious how that works with HDR media and games as well since HDR can be very bright at times. I haven't seen any reviews of HDR material on one of those displays in relation to the layer effect. It might make that issue more prominent in HDR, as it is more prominent on bright backgrounds already in SDR. Apple doesn't force their nano coating abraded layer and it's tradeoff on their displays apparently, so you can buy the same display with it ( for $500 more) or without it.

Matte/ag apply various levels of frost-like abrasion to the top layer in effect, like frost~hazing a clear plastic or glass mug to one degree or another (or mechanically or chemically abraded "frost" like effect manufactured into a glass or plastic mug's outer surface if you want to be pedantic about it).

Besides that, hitting a matte/ag screen with direct light sources is going to pollute the screen and your viewing environment regardless so is a bad setup to start with. Additionally, allowing your viewing environment's lighting levels to vary throughout the day and night throws any calibration and settings (yours or the factory's default) out the window due to the way our eyes see contrast and saturation in a relative way to our surroundings. So color accuracy and consistent picture quality to your eyes/brain is lost as room lighting varies. You can set up multiple sets of picture settings for different times of day/different ambient lighting levels depending on the display OSD or pc software you are using though, which can help to compensate for varying room lighting levels. Slapping the screen in the face with direct light source vectors will probably always flood and compromise parts of the screen though, even if it's not a pristine well defined reflection.



 
Last edited:
Matte aren't unusable or anything, I'm using one right now on a modern laptop but I'd prefer if it was glossy. It would look much more rich/saturated and more clear. My last laptop before this one was glossy. I sprung for my current one spec wise even though I knew it was matte. My ips tablet next to this laptop is glossy as is my OLED tv in the background and they both look better.


I have had several TVs with different coatings, various monitors in the past and actively in service now, and see both tv screens and pc screens at work and at other people's houses.


At one point I had a pg278q asus b/c it was the first 1440p monitor with g-sync 120hz+ (144hz). I had it right next to a 27" glossy cinema display (60hz) in a dual monitor array. The difference in picture quality between the two was aggravating but I stomached the AG layer on the asus for the other specs in gaming as a tradeoff. My 48CX glossy oled is so nice looking now though and has been for quite some time. I am extremely happy with being back to glossy and on OLED per pixel emitters, quality HDR, and "infinite" contrast/black depth besides.



Personally I would hate if my options on OLED gaming displays going forward were limited to matte/non-gloss coatings. I fear that dp 2.1 displays that roll out for future more powerful gpus will all be matte type AG for some time/years . . and if so, at some point I might have to consider sufferring a matte coating on my main gaming display all over again ... that and having to suffer the premium/extorted pricing of non-tv gaming monitors to boot. At least for awhile until possibly the next iteration of hdmi someyear in order to get an upgrade in port/cable bandwidth on "gaming TVs" that is (maybe when we get more into the 8k era).. Unless they switch to dp in the long run after all but hdmi hdcp (copy protection) on tvs may have been a big factor so idk if that will ever happen?. Maybe some mfg will realize how abraded layers/"coatings" compromises OLED black depth and contrast and will provide at least a few glossy dp 2.1 OLED gaming monitors in the nearer future. I won't hold my breath though. Will have to see.



https://linustechtips.com/topic/729...ssion=dsc2.0x&calculations=show&formulas=show


Max. Data Rate Reference Table:


DisplayPort 2.0 77.37 Gbit/s
DisplayPort 1.3–1.4 25.92 Gbit/s
DisplayPort 1.2 17.28 Gbit/s
DisplayPort 1.0–1.1 8.64 Gbit/s
HDMI 2.1 41.92 Gbit/s
HDMI 2.0 14.40 Gbit/s
HDMI 1.3–1.4 8.16 Gbit/s
HDMI 1.0–1.2 3.96 Gbit/s
DVI 7.92 Gbit/s
Thunderbolt 3 34.56 Gbit/s
Thunderbolt 2 17.28 Gbit/s
Thunderbolt 8.64 Gbit/s
 
Last edited:
In a controlled environment, glossy is objectively a better picture quality. The problem is a lot of people don't design (or have no option of designing due to some constraints) their viewing environment around their screen. That is unlike how people with decent media setups will usually design their media room layout around their surround sound speaker array so that they can layout the speakers to work more optimally (as well as their tv and seating locations). Or how photography and "film" studios absolutely control their scene lighting/light placement in relation to the content and the camera(s).
It's more like people can't design their setup around the display. Your windows are where they are and at best you can put blinds or curtains on but often the places where you can put a desk (and your displays) are limited. If it's an apartment you don't have many places to pick from in the first place and if it's a house, you most likely did not have it built to your preferences.

If a basement room with no windows would be ideal for watching screens, at the same time it's awful for spending time in as a person. Like I don't mind going to a basement to watch a movie for a few hours, but working all day in a no windows room, only coming up for light on a break, lunch etc? No way. It's already bad enough in the dark Finnish winter when the amount of daylight is limited.
 
Yep of course you are right regarding limitations in some cases. I tried to indicate that when I said " or have no option of designing due to some constraints" whatever those might be.

In a similar vein, I think, from hearing interviews, carmack eventually realized and was disappointed by this kind of limitation similarly but in a bigger way in the lack of space and options most people have for roomscale VR's potential (among other roadblocks to VR's timeline).


======================

However regarding PC setups, in some rooms or sections of larger rooms you might have the ability to:

. . clear the whole room down to bare floor and start over if possible.

. . make it a full pc media room/area instead of trying to hybridize the room or area for multi-purpose from the start. At least start with the pc as the primary focus of the room or area. Like making a room or area into a workout room, a workshop, an art studio/room, or in this case a pc room/media~gaming center/pc design studio. Traditionally PCs have been relegated to more of an afterthought bookshelf up against a wall somewhere in a lot of homes. The amount of time you spend on your pc, if it is a lot of time, might warrant it's own primary space (if at all possible) imo.

-- or ---

. . simply move a desk's orientation around so that your face and the back of the screen are facing the main window(s) instead of having the screen surface as a solar collector / catcher's mitt opposite the window(s). If there is a side window consider blinding/curtains while using the display and just using the window(s) that are behind the back of the screen.

. . In a house you could redo your room lights in your computer room, not using direct light sources behind your back and overhead. at least while using the screen.

.. In an apartment or a house an easy fix with no real DIY involved would be getting a few shaded standing floor lamps and putting them in line with the screen against the same wall or behind the screen area on that wall, as well as adding bias lighting behind the screen itself. That and positioning the desk to keep the primary window daylight behind the back of the screen. That way no direct lighting would be in front of the screen surface or overhead while using the screen. With wifi home automation it would be very easy to activate and deactivate lighting while using the screen, and switch back when not.

.. in more of an area oriented layout, you could try facing the pc out from a corner of the room, with your back facing the corner. I've done that before with a corner desk and it worked great instead of having the back of my head to the room.

.. There are also monitor hoods available which could help in certain layouts, especially vs overheads and side direct light sources. A lot of professional/reference monitors come with hoods (b/c they know light pollutes screen and accuracy to your eyes/brain) but you can buy 3rd party ones for a screen. That for standard monitor sizes of course, idk what you could use for 42" or 48" oleds heh but maybe you could DiY something if you absolutely had to.

In those kinds of scenarios you still have light in the room, you just don't have any direct light sourcing hitting the face of the screen.

I find it odd that some people go to lengths to calibrate their screens (usually in a dark room and right up against the screen surface) and/or do a lot of research on the screen's high specs, but then they allow the screens to get blasted by direct light source vectors that pollute the screen space and they allow their room lighting levels to vary a lot when our eyes/brain see contrast and saturation in a relative way to ambient lighting conditions.

===============================

Most people didn't have PCs at first in the old days, only fringe enthusiasts. The PCs as they started to be added to more homes that I saw were typically stuffed onto a very mini desk in a cramped front hall, or put on a tiny bookshelf like desk with tiny shelves on it in one of the bedrooms, etc. Those typically with small bad chairs, cheap chairs or spare chairs from a table etc. People also tended to be reluctant about spending money on a dedicated line for the internet at first too.

Now for example people often centralize their living room around their TV viewing, including their couch and chairs, with a large TV screen and sometimes a surround speaker layout where originally TVs weren't quite as overtaking of a room's design as a media room duty wise.

To me the main pc evolved to being it's own space like a workout room/area, TV media room/area, art room/area etc. If you don't design your room/light sources/orientation around the pc then your viewing is going to be compromised no matter what the screen coating is. The layout vs. speakers is also important if using a 5.1 or 7.1, etc. surround system on one.

I think the more of your life you spend doing a main thing (at home) whether your main thing is working out, doing art, workshopping, using a pc as a media gaming station and/or design machine, the more you should consider dedicating a space to that passion if at all possible and orienting it as best you can rather than shoehorning it into an existing layout. At least if at all possible.

Fyi, I don't personally have some big mcmansion home by any means but I have a modeled basement rec room (with bright glass block windows that pour direct sunlight into one end of the room, and some mirrors and ambient lights so it's not a dark hole) and a 3 bedroom main floor (and no kids) so I have a spare room or rec room space for my pc(s) or some fitness equipment.
 
To answer the OP. Required? No. Would it benefit from a dark room? Yup. Direct lights are going to be the biggest culprit to your enjoyment. We use our plasma in a living room with 10 or so windows. So long as the windows directly in front of the screen are shaded, everything is peachy.
 
Usage scenarios and priorities can vary from person to person too.

Are you viewing a room that happens to have a relatively small glossy or matte (computer) screen in it that you can use,

or are you immersing yourself into a virtual world or screen system space that happens to have a room outside of it?

🤔


. . . . . . . . . .


screens that fill your human viewing angle at 50 - 60 degrees, multi monitor setups, large ultrawides (in some cases double/stacked), and of course VR headsets are pretty much filling your binocular/color human viewing angle (or more) with the screen environment or world to start with. And if you have the computer desk up against a wall you are sitting up against a wall like a dunce time-out corner rather than viewing the room space itself too. Not disparaging that, just saying you aren't viewing the room when up against a wall really.

Maybe a portable wall screen on wheels or other blind or curtain on a ceiling rail/wire to put behind your chair would help some setups while using the screen, like photography studios use. There are some "green screen" green/blue/white/black screen hoop backgrounds that attach to chair back, popup style green/blue/white/black screens, pull up from a floor housing bar or pull-down screens on a stand (like how a window shade works), or other pole/stand green screen hardware that can go behind your chair to blind out room light sources while diving into your screen-worlds.

In those desk against the wall etc. layouts and scenarios I just outlined you really aren't viewing the room much at all when you are in your virtual world/system screen space and with a wall right in front of you anyway.


gZC7Z25.jpg

..

=============================================================

There is a reason photographers use viewfinder shades, umbrellas, wall-blinds, even a blanket over their head and the camera in some cases (or press a cupped viewfinder right up to their eye). Light pollutes screens.

Some professional and studio cameras have sun shades on the lens

1539786227_1436767.jpg


and the viewfinder display to block the bright direct light sources

1-studio-viewfinder-hero.jpg


A lot of the professional/reference monitors come with a hood for a reason too.

ColorEdge_PROMINENCE_CG3146_press_01_s.jpg





. .

In the future we'll probably use AR/MR at some point. If so there will be no sunlight or room lights between you and the virtual screens and composited virtual objects once that happens (once at very high PPD and using svelte enough glasses). Through the looking glass so to speak. The screens we use now and these kinds of issues will all seems pretty primitive if those kind of advances happen in the long run. If advanced enough they will probably composite MR objects to match the real world area lighting/shadows when desired, but you'd never have a real world light washing out the glasses' displays. You would still have lights hitting the cameras and the lenses of the glasses but it wouldn't obscure any virtual objects and virtual screens.


. . . . . .
 
To answer the OP. Required? No. Would it benefit from a dark room? Yup. Direct lights are going to be the biggest culprit to your enjoyment. We use our plasma in a living room with 10 or so windows. So long as the windows directly in front of the screen are shaded, everything is peachy.
Thank you. I guess this is what it boils down to.

In our apartment we've got white walls and lots of black trim/doors. So there's tons of contrast everywhere. The back wall isn't close either (the side wall is right at the edge of the monitor) so in a screen reflection I can see a wide variety of stuff. No windows, just contrasty stuff.

But even if I couldn't, isn't it annoying to be looking at your own face? In a normal lit room (think office) isn't your face is in the reflection, right in the middle? To eliminate the head then I'd need to dim the lights which isn't going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Just some ideas in general regarding direct light sources:

"Maybe a portable wall screen on wheels or other blind or curtain on a ceiling rail/wire to put behind your chair would help some setups while using the screen, like photography studios use. There are some "green screen" green/blue/white/black screen hoop backgrounds that attach to chair back, popup style green/blue/white/black screens, pull up from a floor housing bar or pull-down screens on a stand (like how a window shade works), or other pole/stand green screen hardware that can go behind your chair to blind out room light sources while diving into your screen-worlds."


Here are a few things I pulled up (no pun intended) :

. .

https://www.cultofmac.com/549477/elgatos-portable-green-screen-is-the-perfect-setup-for-gamers/

elgato-greenscreen.gif


. .

Extra Wide Long Curtain Privacy Office Space Divider Wall Panel, Portable Grommet Room Divider Curtain for Patio Sliding Glass Door Pool House, 9 ft Tall x 15 ft Wide, Black ~ $74 usd​

91VOmRZdQ0L.jpg


. .

74.8in Large Collapsible Black Backdrop Portable Retractable Panel Photo Background with Stand for Video Conference, Photographic Studio, Streaming ~ $210 usd

61k5VjEs8EL._AC_SL1500_.jpg


61ZVMoCtOyL.jpg

. .

Partition Room Dividers 3 Panel Folding Privacy Screens 6 Ft Portable Office Walls Dividers for Room Separator 102"x20"x71" ~ $66 usd​

(available in grey or black)​


71T6AeE9RcL.jpg
. .

61QS61N4iLL.jpg



 
Thank you. I guess this is what it boils down to.

In our apartment we've got white walls and lots of black trim/doors. So there's tons of contrast everywhere. The wall isn't close either so in a screen reflection I can see a wide variety of stuff. No windows, just contrasty stuff.

But even if I couldn't, isn't it annoying to be looking at your own face? In a normal lit room (think office) isn't your face is in the reflection, right in the middle? To eliminate the head then I'd need to dim the lights which isn't going to happen.

It depends how much it bothers you to see yourself lol.

A recent thread in another forum had this joke/meme:

o85by04pwdca1.png



But really the alternative is more like this, but prob still brighter window area than this:

kJE1xME.png


That's a horrible setup to start with though in that example because there is a direct light source, a double window, slapping the screen right in it's face.

The direct light is polluting the screen space and how your eyes see the screen parameters regardless of the screen surface type.

And don't forget, the matte diffusion you are seeing works in both directions - the light hitting the diffusion layer from the outside and the screen's display output hitting the diffusion layer form beneath it. Glossy is objectively a better picture in a controlled environment.

yn23Sq7.png
 
Last edited:
Main takeaways are that

- you are going to get some kind of ghost like reflection even with a matte layer, and when direct light sources are hitting the screen they will still be compromising the screen parameters (perceived contrast, saturation . . washing it out at least on zones where the direct light is splashing on the screen surface).

- you are going to create a frost like effect on the light coming out of the screen through the matte diffusion layer. It will also raise blacks to greys and can affect how wet and saturated the screen looks. The +$500 apple nano layer allows more saturation through it's matte glass layer than most matte layers do but it still takes things out of focus some degrees in effect, blurring/losing some fine detail. All matte diffuse, they are a light diffusion layer using abrasions.

Ghost in the matte screen 👻
inside-mirror_102618012504.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top