Talk:Glossy display
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Confusion between terms
- I guess the article makes some confusion between "anti-reflective" and "anti-glare", but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to be sure --Gennaro Prota 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some Facts
Most of this article was a citation of some advertisement text published by the company of 'ScreenTek' (http://www.screentekinc.com/fujitsu-crystal-view-superfine-lcd-screens.shtml), who are producers of LCD displays.
It is simply not true that normal LCD displays cause "eye-fatigue". Eye problems, fatigue, or headache etc. are very often symptoms of bad ergonomics in the workplace, e. g. reflexions on the screen or directly blinding light e. g. from a window behind the screen, or many other factors.
If glare-type screens which seem to be hip at the moment are called anti-reflective, this sounds like a joke in the ears of an ergonomics expert.
--84.161.224.248 23:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Information disappearing
Anyone else notice that (I would say) fairly relevant information has disappeared from this article over revisions? Take for instance the information about being introduced into japaneese markets in the beginning of 2003. In any event, fixed a typo.
[edit] This page is mostly wrong
The page starts with a fundamental confusion between anti-glare and anti-reflection and goes downhill from there, made worse by marketing doublespeak. I'm a consultant with an expertise in AG/AR and related areas, and I'd like to fix the page, but I don't know quite how to get started. I've never contributed anything before to Wikipedia, although I've written more than three dozen articles for conventional technical print media. I'd like to write a page that clarifies the difference between AR and AG, as well as gives information about trends (e.g., how and why "glare" screens got started in the Japanese retail market, as the author above me indirectly references). But such a page wouldn't go under the subject of "anti-reflective screen", which in itself is an incorrect term (one can have an anti-reflection coating on a screen, but a screen itself cannot be anti-reflective). Anyone willing to give me some guidance?
Gfwalker 06:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I might be able to help, I have some experience writing wiki articles.. see Calgary Science School and Maple Skate. I have a dell inspiron 6400 with "TrueLife". Let me know on My talk page if you'd like some help. Ard0 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the content here as of this date is a bit slanted. I am certainly no expert, but I have a handful of laptops. The glare screen type (i.e., Dell's TrueLife) described as "unviewable" in high light conditions offers a compromise of sorts. It increases contrast and overall image quality in conditions where most people use laptops--coffee shops, offices, homes, etc., but it does not perform as well as older "matte" screens in high-light conditions such as park benches, open land, sunlit areas, etc. Also, the "TrueLife" screen, I have noticed, does well under fluorescent lighting but not as well under full-spectrum light.
[edit] This page is titled wrong
May I also add that its very confusing. There is: anti-reflective, glossy, matte, anti-glare, and many more terms. I'd like to help with the article, but the way it was written, the terms included and the way they are described, the redirects that are included.. it's a mess. Ard0 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Marketing hype, inferior technology
An article on the Anti-reflective screen should at least get its facts correct: purely driven by profit margin, the marketing names for the high gloss surface screens and the deceptive Marketing methods, are intended to overshadow and understate the more costly, but more effective true "matte finish" anti-reflective Fresnel lens technology that has been used with great success in various applications since the 1800's.
Laptop LCD screen technology, in particular, has been the target of marketing hype designed to promote so-called "anti-reflective" or "anti-glare" screen technology. This technology makes primary use of optical polarization, but does not go much further than that. High Gloss, simply put, describes a very reflective surface: one would think that for Laptop screens, which are used both indoors and outdoors, a non reflective surface would be the best choice. Far superior to this glaring, reflective technology. is the low gloss matte finish, which is based on the light scattering properties of a Fresnel lens surface. This is typically why almost all stand-alone desktop screens have matte surfaces. Unfortunately, this marketing hype has largely thrown out ergonomic studies so that Laptop and TV manufacturers can dramatically reduce the cost of one of the most expensive components in their products: the screen.
These high gloss, highly reflective screen surfaces, are simply the cheapest LCD glass available; matte finish screens are now reserved as an option on select higher quality Laptop products because of their cost to manufacture at high enough quality to support the demanding screen resolutions of full HDTV resolution WSXGA 1680 x 1050 pixels without scattering too much of the light emitted by the LCD.
I suggest that this page present both sides of the polarized surface vs fresnel surface debate.
I would be typing this on an affordable laptop, if I could actually find one that doesn't fall short on everything but quality of the screen surface. User:Beerden 2007 May 15
[edit] Hoping to improve this page...
Hi, yesterday I helped someone who was looking for a new laptop. Key questions included new vs. used; intended use; Mac vs. Windows PC; if Windows, which OS; and ... whether the person wanted a glossy or a matte-finish screen. She stated emphatically "I have vision issues" and did NOT want a glossy screen. Finding a laptop without a glossy screen is a challenge. We found that Lenovo and Apple sell laptops with matte-finish screens. There may be others.
We also found this entry. Its emphasis on "anti-reflective" screens (meaning, the new glossy ones) was totally misleading to this person. We passed over the problem, looked for more authoritative descriptions (I didn't even look for the term "transreflective"), went looking for computer makers offering matte finish lcds.
Today I'm back, dabbling in the text, hoping to make improvements.
Especially with a laptop, which might be taken into many different "uncontrolled" environments, a glossy screen that reflects well-lit objects in the room (or, if outdoors, within line of sight distance), I think that many users will find a glossy screen difficult.
I'm looking for images on the web of glossy screens reflecting stuff.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatsandcats (talk • contribs) 16:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Bob Stromberg in Greenwich, NY 17:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Big cleanup and renamed page & Remove tags?
Well, I've done my bit. Sectioned the article up, added advantages/disadvantages, renamed it to something that more people can relate to (over the term 'anti-reflective', which rather confusingly is exactly what it tends not to do), added references, and just general clean up.
Do you think we ought to remove the neutrality and factual accuracy tag, and also the two 'stub' tags?--Shaliron 10:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to remove the tags now. There doesn't seem to be any real discussion on this talk page anymore so I'm not expecting a response for a while. The page has expanded fairly well and it doesn't seem to be bias anymore.
If anyone objects, feel free to re-add the tags.--Shaliron 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
