Originally Posted by Koehler
Any distortion will
alter image quality whether you like to believe it or not.
Yeah, of course. But you overblow it.
Macro images of the anti-glare is nice, but you don't see the subpixels.
You can make an inference about "this antiglare looks worse than another one", but how much worse is it in reality?
Just take a look at the Dell U2711 and compare it when the Korean 27" S-IPS monitors. The Korean S-IPS monitors have much better image quality and also has color accuracy.
Er. No. The Dell U2711 is wide -gamut - but that doesn't mean it doesn't have colour accuracy. It just isn't for sRGB
. Saying that "it doesn't have good colour accuracy" when comparing the two screens is pointless without saying that it's for sRGB. I could, perhaps, say that the korean monitors have terrible
colour accuracy for aRGB - and that would also be a perfectly valid statement. But it would be silly to say that. Of course, most people are using sRGB, but assuming that right off and making a blanket statement "THIS MONITOR HAS WORSE COLOURS THAN THE OTHER" is silly.
The Dell U2711 is still color accurate but the AG coating does somewhat decrease the accuracy.
Patently false. AG does not reduce the accuracy of colours. The wide-gamut nature of the U2711 reduces accuracy of colours relative to the sRGB gamut
. The AG is not responsible for this.
It is a big deal, which is why most of the newer mid-high end IPS panels sport reduced coatings. Companies are tired of dealing with all the returns and loosing money and are now using lighter coatings, HP even replaced the ZR2740W's aggressive AG with semi-glossy coating. LG's AG only became a really big issue in the last year, and LG just happened to change the coating within a year of this issue exploding on the internet. This is not a coincidence, just like there is a reason Samsung only uses semi-glossy coating on their PLS and A-MVA panels which came out last fall vs. the medium AG they use on their matte TN's and older S-PVA panels. These events are all tied together.
It (the antiglare "issue") is not
a big deal. But yes, it was enough of an issue that thankfully, we have better antiglare coatings now than were used on the U2711. Was there a huge furor over the Dell U2711 not have USB 3? Since the U2713 has USB 3, it must be because a huge outcry over the lack of USB on the U2711, right?
As for the bolded, that's a huge assumption. Perhaps in your mind, it was a huge deal resulting in huge losses. As for what I've seen, this is far from the case. I would rather say that big monitor companies heard some complaints about anti-glare, and improved it. They did not lose any more money from these returns compared to returns from other sources. Definitely not a coincidence (the previous antiglare was pretty bad), but I would definitely say that your logic linking the two overstates the importance of the issue.