Glossy vs. non-glare: WP from Eizo

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

Traveller

Distinguished
May 6, 2004
111
0
18,680
While researching for another post I came across a white paper written by Eizo regarding Glossy vs. non-glare panels which I thought might be of interest to this community!

Btw, it's only four pages long so don't let the term white paper scare you off 😉
 
Looks like they bent over backwards to show maximum reflection of fluorescent light.... and if there were usually or always such a reflection, nobody would every buy one. If you were contemplating using a glossy screen in such an environment and were powerless to exercise some control over lighting or viewing angle, then a matte finish would likely be a lesser of evils choice.

Overall, IMO, the glossy panel "outshines" the traditional matte panel by a mile. I just wish there were more of them avaiable to choose from for desktop use.
 
Everyone who doesn't like the Brite screen "protests too much". In real-life use (except under the WORST possible lighting conditions), the "glare" is nearly ZERO!!!! (I use mine with a window and ceiling light in a bad postion. And when the screen is powered off, it looks like a black mirror with the lights showing clearly. However, when I have an app or web page displayed, the reflection is totally masked. And if necessary, I could turn off the light/or and block the window. If you are one who really doesn't like the look of the Brite screen, you've already determined that. But to say you "don't think you'd like it because of the glare" is almost toally unsupported. And those who claim "the glare can cause eye strain".... well that's about 99.9% total BS.)

If you can't control *strong* lighting behind so that reflections are into your eyes... as might be the case in some office setting... the reflection *could* be a problem. (I believe it is this possibility alone which has kept makers from putting Brite screens on enterprise class monitors.) Under virtually any other condition, it is not.
 
Well, I have looked at the screens in the store, and the glare is quite strong. Sometimes I wondered if I wasn't starting to fell bad from looking at the screens even for a short time (but not near long enough to make an accurate judgement). On the other hand, I have also used shiny coat screens without problems before. However, eyestrain is really important if you use the computer extensively, so I would have to be 100% sure before making such a decision.
Click to expand...

Actually, viewing a Brite screen at a computer store is likely one of the worst places... all the overhead fluorescent lighting.

Best way to tell is put some apps or web pages up, then see about orienting the screen in such a way as to eliminate the glare from overhead lights.

There are not many desktop Brite screen monitors... those few are mostly aimed at comsumer/gamers... where it is presumed the lighting environment and/orientation of the screen can be controlled to eliminate reflection.

Have you noticed that virtually all of the notebook computers today are made with Brite screen? They're trying to emphasize the obvious benefits while knowing the user should be able to orient the screen/lighting in such a way as to prevent reflection.

Personally, I find the traditional matte finish on non-Britescreen monitors to appear annoyingly "dirty" looking.
 
What I found most interesting in the WP was the following statements:

"The measurement results show that a glossy LCD and a non-glare LCD have little differences in their performance in color space and grayscale rendering". This of course noted in a dark testing environment.

"Absorbing extended range of wavelength by applying multi-layer AR coating can further reduce light reflection. However, this can lead to higher cost and lower brightness. The balance of these factors is part of the crucial technical know-how of each manufacturer."

The latter suggesting that if you decide for a glossy panel, then you should invest in a high-quality panel with ample brightness. Clearly, NEC's 20WGX2, costing roughly €500 and boasting 470 nits would fall in this category - something in line with the many reviews that have confirmed the monitor's excellent quality. In contrast, a lower-cost TN-equipped monitor couldn't possibly include costly layers of HQ Anti-reflective coating(s) and should most likely be avoided.
 
1. Reflective Coating... whereas on a CRT, there is actually a sprayed-on coating to achieve some sort of anti-glare, anti-static properties, it's different on an LCD. It's a film layer (not sprayed on), and it's a polarizing filter.

I have mine on for about 10 hours a day for work, and it causes me no problem with reflection, eye strain, etc. In fact, it's a pleasure compared to my traditional matte screens.

2. As for refresh rates.... most specify 60hz maximum. I've read that even if your LCD monitor allows you to select > 60hz, it STILL only operates at 60 hz. That statement was in some review like X-Bit labs or BeHardware, or something. I found it rather surprising.
 
"... if you decide for a glossy panel, then you should invest in a high-quality panel with ample brightness. Clearly, NEC's 20WGX2, costing roughly €500 and boasting 470 nits would fall in this category - something in line with the many reviews that have confirmed the monitor's excellent quality. In contrast, a lower-cost TN-equipped monitor couldn't possibly include costly layers of HQ Anti-reflective coating(s) and should most likely be avoided.
Click to expand...

I doubt this is true. I have read that ALL of the Brite screens, regardless of LCD maker or what brand name they use, are exactly the same... all licensed from one company... Sony, if I recall.

The NEC 20WMGX2 has an AS-IPS panel... that and its exclusive place in the market probably account for the price.
 
...read that ALL of the Brite screens, regardless of LCD maker or what brand name they use, are exactly the same...
Click to expand...
If you get a chance, plz post the link to the article, assuming you remember where you read it & if it was on the 'Net (vs. in a magazine/ journal), thx.
 
I don't remember exactly where I saw it.... 'twas on the net, however. It caught my memory because of all the brand names, like XBrite, Crystall Brite, Opticlear, etc, the article said they were all exactly the same. It also caught my attention that their cost including license fee was $10-$20 per unit, the makers were charging about $100 for it. The excess charge has since moderated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom