
Is a glossy or matte LCD screen better for long coding sessions? - Charles__L
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/421560/is-a-glossy-or-matte-lcd-screen-better-for-long-coding-sessions
======
jamesmcn
If anyone reading this is interested in throwing caution to the wind and doing
a hardware startup: I'd _love_ a 24" eInk display or two, connected via USB.
Ideally usable in either portrait or landscape orientation. Sure, the refresh
rate would be super slow, but I'd use it for documentation and other reference
material while actually coding on my macbook or one of my external LCD
displays.

~~~
corysama
Anyone here coding on a Pixel Qi screen? The OLPC in reflective monochrome
mode looks nearly as sharp as e-ink but refreshes at 60Hz.

This is a 7.5 inch screen:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/nirak/2113877184/sizes/o/in/pho...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/nirak/2113877184/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

~~~
cskau
I really wish there were more screens like the Pixel Qi. If it was an option
for my laptop I'd buy it right away.

Pixel Qi's big problem as I see it is that they can't seem to get their
production up to speed. The few (two?) options they have are so outdated they
really only make sense on the OLPCs. Except of course that they are rather
pricy at 275 USD.

And if you're going to use the screen entirely in monochrome anyway, what you
really need is just the LCD stripped of the color filter and the backlight
replaced with a simple mirror. Should be much cheaper than what PixelQi is
doing. I'm even tempted to try this as a DIY project at some point. That would
be a nice monitor for coding on.

------
gilgoomesh
One point against matte screens that you need to consider...

Matte screen coatings eliminate reflections by diffusing them over the entire
field of view. As the total brightness of your room increases, matte screens
diffuse all of it evenly, eliminating reflections but also losing contrast
ratio.

As the total ambient light increases, your screen's contrast ratio can drop
from 800:1 to 50:1 (or worse). Any contrast ratio lower than about 300:1 can
cause eye strain.

End result: with a typical screen of about 200cd/m^2 a matte coating is
totally unusable if your room is brighter than about 1000 lux but falls below
300:1 contrast around 450 lux (typical office lux is between 350 and 500).

In summary... you need to know your environment. Matte screens work great in
dark rooms with lots of spot lights to cause reflections. Glossy screens work
great in bright ambient conditions with even lighting. Semi matte works well
if you need a balance.

~~~
alok-g
Is there any data in support for < 300:1 contrast ratio causing eye strain?

Kindles have a contrast ratio of about 10:1 [1]. As I know, prints have
contrast ratio in 10:1 to 15:1 range.

[1] [http://www.best-ereaders.com/2010/09/02/eink-pearl-vs-
eink-v...](http://www.best-ereaders.com/2010/09/02/eink-pearl-vs-eink-
vizplex/)

~~~
gilgoomesh
No, I don't have data. I'm running off memory from when I worked at a printing
and display company (8 years ago so memory could be faulty).

The point is actually related to the way your eye adjusts to ambient
brightness levels. It's not about the contrast on its own but about the
contrast, the number of brightness levels of the display and the brightness
level with respect to the ambient conditions.

The rule of thumb was that less than 300:1 starts to cause eye strain on an 8
bits per channel (256 levels) gamma power curve (non-linear) device when the
device had a limited maximum brightness output (for LCDs at the time that was
200cd/m^2) and the room was bright (for an office).

Kindles are 4 bits per channel (16 levels) linear and their contrast ratio
isn't a complete lie (unlike most LCD makers contrast ratios who report only
the absolute best case). But that's not the biggest reason why they're
different. Kindles don't emit light, they reflect it (not including the Kindle
White and Fire). This means that they maintain their brightness level with
respect to the environment much better.

Of course, Kindles start to suffer at _low_ light (for similar reasons -- they
lose their apparent contrast level).

------
arrrg
It’s just opinions. There isn’t any answer there. (I’m not even sure there is
one. The difference may be too small to be able to say that in general, one or
the other is better. Maybe it’s really down to opinion.)

~~~
alexanderh
Matte is hands down superior in almost all situations except games and movies.

People who own computers that don't give them the option often formulate
excuses or justifications, but I dont think anyone with extensive experience
with both would ever choose glossy. Matte wins hands down with everyone i
know.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Agree, looking at a matte screen is much easier on my eyes than any glossy
screen has been. Everything looks smoother, the colors softer, and zero glare.

------
jamesmcn
Whatever idiosyncratic stuff you do that helps you get into the zone for a
long coding session is perfectly fine.

Shortly after landing my first job out of college, I picked up Orbital's first
two albums and listened to them nonstop with a bit of Autechre and Aphex Twin
while coding. After I left that job, I misplaced the Orbital albums, but kept
listening to Autechre and Aphex Twin while doing other stuff.

Last week I picked up Orbital 1 and 2 again, and put them on while coding.
_BAM_ right into the zone. Probably won't work for you, but it works for me.

------
skrebbel
Isn't the healthy answer "either, and frequent breaks"? You should never look
at a single focal point too long at a stretch, no matter its shininess.

------
DanBC
If you can control the lighting conditions then glossy is probably better.

If you have less control of lighting, or of position of the screen, or etc
then matte is probably better.

This is assuming both glossy and matte monitor are equal for everything else.

------
billirvine
> Is a glossy or matte LCD screen better for long coding sessions?

Better for you than screen choice: standing desk - you will code better and
faster

Better for you than screen choice: inject 2 minutes of getting up and walking
around every 15-20 minutes of your "long coding" session - you will code
better and faster

Better for you than screen choice: start your long coding session after 30
minutes of moderate exercise (walk or bike ride) - you will code better and
faster

\-- after the above is in play --

It probably won't matter which one you choose.

------
tomlu
I've recently had the pleasure of purchasing the 30" matte Dell U3011 IPS and
the 27" semi-glossy Samsung S27B970 PLS.

There are pros and cons to both. The anti-glare coating on the Dell makes
black text on white background look absolutely rubbish, fuzzy and hard to
read. You can sort of get used to it, but every time you switch back from
using the semi-glossy Macbook it looks terrible. Black themes don't suffer
from these problems nearly as much.

With the Samsung, colours look _much_ more vibrant and text is sharper.
Reflections are very much an issue, especially with black themes. In very
bright conditions with visible light sources the screen becomes almost
unusable.

Overall, if I could control my lighting, I would go with semi-glossy.
Otherwise I would suffer the Dell's anti-glare.

I find that both fuzzy text and reflections lead to eye strain and headaches.
If they could tone down the anti-glare strength (but still leave _some_ AG
coating) I would probably go for that in all circumstances.

On an unrelated note, I do prefer the 30" pixel pitch (.25 mm) to the 27" (.23
mm). At the given viewing distance the .25mm pixel pitch more closely matches
my Macbook's, meaning you can use the same font sizes for both.

------
ojbyrne
The mention of "wide screen" in the second most voted comment reminded me of
my biggest pet peeves for monitors in 2012 - the disappearance of 16:10
monitors.

~~~
lifeformed
Get a big 16:9 one, and use a wide, vertical taskbar. It'll cut you down to
16:10 and you get the joys of using a wide, vertical taskbar:
<http://snag.gy/0pZP1.jpg>

------
JVIDEL
I have both and well, glossy blows: not only it reflects nearly everything
around it more than a CRT would but its also a dirt magnet.

Too bad these days a lot of laptops, specially mid to highend models come with
glossy screens. Unless you're working in a cave you'll get reflections all the
time.

------
ScottBurson
I've noticed that at least some of the MacBook Air screens -- and the Retina
MBP screen? -- are glossy, but with an anti-reflection coating. I've been
wondering for some time why Apple hasn't been using using AR coatings on their
glossy screens. These coatings used to be standard on high-end CRT monitors.

Anyway, I'm glad to see Apple coming around on this. Interesting, too, that
they don't seem to be talking about it at all. Maybe they're worried that
advertising some of their screens as AR-coated will draw attention to the fact
that others, such as their 27" Thunderbolt monitor, are not. (I tried to use
one of those for a few days, and gave up; the reflections were driving me
nuts.)

~~~
gurkendoktor
I came here to say this. The glossy MBP 13" screen has driven me nuts, I did
the whole online petition dance, and it turns out the MBA 13" isn't half as
bad. Dropping the glossy black bezel helps, too. The only thing better would
be a matte, black bezel (to hide the camera hole).

~~~
stock_toaster
It will be curious to see how significant the glare on the supposed retina MBP
13" turns out to be.

------
petercooper
I think the general quality of the screen is _far_ more important than glossy
or matte. It's like asking if a 2 liter engine is better than a 4 liter one.
In what chassis? At what weight?

The latest Apple displays I'm using that are glossy easily trump my 30" Cinema
Display in terms of being pleasant to read. They might be better in matte but
the underlying display quality and technology has proven to be far more
important than the coating.

------
spodek
Did everybody get so busy that they forgot how to find things out for
themselves?

Try both. Figure out what variables you have to control for and control for
them. If you can't tell, it probably doesn't matter.

Obviously some people prefer one or the other. If glossy gives you headaches
and matte doesn't, does it matter how many people prefer glossy? So why ask
them when you can get the data yourself?

If you think the difference affects your health and performance, isn't it
worth the experiment? If it doesn't, why bother asking?

~~~
roryokane
Asking is cheaper than performing the experiment. The asker probably can’t
afford buying one matte and one glossy monitor just to try them out. They also
might not know anybody else with the other kind of monitor to compare with.
That is especially likely if they’re buying a laptop with a built-in display –
it’s unlikely that they’ll know two people with that model of laptop, with the
same size of display, but one display matte and the other glossy.

~~~
001sky
_If glossy gives you headaches and matte doesn't, does it matter how many
people prefer glossy?_

\-- Some experiments are non-reversible

Damage to your eyes, for example. This is one area that asking for peer comps
should not be crtiticised as just being lazy. Pay it forward, and all that.
IMHO.

------
ixacto
matte, all the way. You can get a refurb 30" LCD + MBP for the price of a
retina MBP...

