> You are the one banging on about "perceived" things - here is Notebookcheck, telling you that despite how the subpixel array looks, the image is not grainy.

Lol, you yourself kept going on about how "perception" is snake oil, so I gave you an objective method to prove your dumb point.

If matte is not the cause of graininess, then there will be matte panels with equally sharp subpixels like there are for most glossy panels. All your excuses whining about "subpixels don't matter" are just that, excuses.

You keep harping about objective standards, I gave you an objective way to prove it. You didn't.

> So? People love sticking to established lingo even if it's wrong.

😂😂😂

Notebookcheck and "sticking to established lingo".

"Is it me that's wrong? No, it's literally anybody and everybody else including reviewers and manufacturers that are wrong."

> I did, but you ignored it because it's inconvenient.

Lol. Perception isn't "snake oil" anymore?

> LOL no it doesn't. This is how it looks outdoors. Half the screens is obscured with the reflection. And here is the Acer - not a hint of glare.

And you can already see it being all washed out to hell. Perception was only "snake oil", was it?

> But... it isn't.

Uh huh. Someone really didn't watch the video. Probably was too inconvenient for their worldview.

> ... how did you come to this conclusion?

From your logic. deltaE and colorspace don't depend on ambient light, and you keep claiming that's all there is to perception, so it shouldn't matter where I place the colorimeter, right? Any distortion should be snake oil, right?

> Can link you dozens of threads on reddit where people keep droning on about this. Here is the latest one.

So the "popular argument" is one that is downvoted to hell and the rest of the thread is complaining about how there's a severe lack of 1440p 24-inch monitors? Do you know what "popular" means?

> So we've established from the article that it's a spectrum rather than binary.

Lol, no. The "spectrum" is the amount of haze the matte coating is put through, with the lighter hazes coming with less graininess and diffusion but more glare. Almost as if glossy is the end point of that spectrum.

Don't try to pretend your stupid assumptions are valid because "spectrum".

> I explicitly mentioned that the "stripped" panel without the outer layer isn't the same as an all-out glossy panel with a glass layer

Nope, that's something you started wailing on once your "glossy is just matte with glass on top" nonsense failed to prove itself.

> My argument still stands: to create an actual glossy panel, you need a layer of glass/hard plastic on top.

Are you seriously thinking there's no glass on Dell Ultrasharps or Asus ProArts? Are those panels magically glossy now? Oh wait, you did call the matte version of Apple's monitor glossy as well. Guess there's no saving.

No matter the delusion you keep telling yourself, glossy displays do not have anything extra over their screens than matte displays do. Samsung Display showing off "thinnest" laptop panel, and yet it is glossy. One would think they'd be going for matte if matte displays magically have a layer less than glossy displays do.

> Like MacBooks, smartphones, etc do. If you don't have that, your screen isn't glossy, end of story.

LG Gram has no glass and the plastic is flexible. Guess it's matte now, lol.

> Except that's not "perception", that's literally a material with different qualities used and the article you linked states so.

Same deltaE, same colorspace, same white balance, same contrast measured. What now?