Apple Releases Second Studio Display 15.5 Firmware Beta With Webcam Update

[StudioMacs]

I get that, but I feel like when Apple first introduced a glossy finish on MBPs(ages ago) the difference wasn't this drastic, but I could be wrong — it's been a while.

That was 2009. The matte option was a $50 upgrade (I got it on my MBP). The matte option had aluminum bezels and a plastic screen instead of the black bezels with the panel laminated to glass. The matte option now is much different, but I haven't seen it in person to know if it's better than the old plastic screens.

I can see the glossy Studio Display is a lot less reflective than those glossy MBP were.

 

[performa_6400]

Hater's gonna hate. I can't wait to receive mine. And I'll definitely be using the screen more than the camera.

 

[Isamu Tyson]

Apple made a huge mistake putting a ultra wide for centre stage 99% of people just sit in front of there screen and not use centre stage and if they put a normal wide camera like the iPhone 13 one it would be epic quality, it’s not like a laptops the display is thick so they could or put the iPhone sensor in it

Do not agree, with huge numbers of people working remote today, stand-up and move is healthy, in my case I've been using Studio Display for more than a week and it's great to stand-up during meetings without need to accommodate the camera, it does an amazing work following you not only horizontally but vertically too.

 

[NSURLSession]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1521573853889183744

 

[threesixty360]

Mac = video resolution
Studio Display = still image resolution

When you compare the video resolution of both, which is 1080P, the Studio Display has terrible resolution because of cropping and zooming. This all comes down to the use of ultrawide lens.

The big issue is the actual lens. An ultra wide lens with take in less light (its aperture). So without a good amount of light the picture isn't exposed properly and you get less detail, less information in the pic. Apple then has to process the image to put back detail that it doesn't actually have, (I suppose its guessing really). Then that gets cropped to 6MP and then blown up to 27inch screen with a very high pixel ratio. Its never going to look great.

On the other hand, what you see on the monitor is not what others see viewing your feed. Other people will have phones, smaller monitors maybe etc.. so it might actually come across as a good picture. So maybe its a psychological thing as you only see the bad picture because you have the studio display?

The thing that gets me is that the engineers would have known all of this when they made it. And still chose it. So they must have felt the trade off was worthwhile. Apple laptop/descktop FaceTime cameras have always been pretty bad so maybe they thought any change is better than what Mac users have had. But the chance to get a best of breed camera in a best of breed monitor is such a missed opportunity. Just to include a sort of gimmicky feature that most serious users will try to turn off anyway. Who wants to see the camera zoom into accommodate your cat on a business call??

 

[StudioMacs]

Who wants to see the camera zoom into accommodate your cat on a business call??

I think Center Stage ignores animals.

The issue of letting in less light isn't an issue of detail, that's up to the resolving power of the lens. Letting in less light adds more noise to the image as the sensitivity (ISO) needs to be raised. Also, small sensors (like the one used in the Studio Display) are inherently noisier than larger sensors. Adding to that, Center Stage requires cropping the image and then enlarging it, so the noisy pixels are enlarged along with the rest of the image.

 

[alexandr]

That was 2009. The matte option was a $50 upgrade (I got it on my MBP). The matte option had aluminum bezels and a plastic screen instead of the black bezels with the panel laminated to glass. The matte option now is much different, but I haven't seen it in person to know if it's better than the old plastic screens.

I can see the glossy Studio Display is a lot less reflective than those glossy MBP were.

Yup, I had one. And then I had it on my next gen 17" MBP too. Those silver bezels sure made a difference visually)

 

[BWhaler]

I really hope this fixes the problem. I'd love to buy 2 of there beautiful displays, but a great webcam is table stakes now. Apple should know better.

 

[BeatCrazy]

I really hope this fixes the problem. I'd love to buy 2 of there beautiful displays, but a great webcam is table stakes now. Apple should know better.

You can get a much better webcam for <$200. No need to cut off your nose to spite your face.

 

[threesixty360]

I think Center Stage ignores animals.

The issue of letting in less light isn't an issue of detail, that's up to the resolving power of the lens. Letting in less light adds more noise to the image as the sensitivity (ISO) needs to be raised. Also, small sensors (like the one used in the Studio Display) are inherently noisier than larger sensors. Adding to that, Center Stage requires cropping the image and then enlarging it, so the noisy pixels are enlarged along with the rest of the image.

Mmm.. I’m not talking about resolving detail as in sharpness of the image. Essentially without light there is nothing to see. Light “exposes” an image to our eyes. The less light the less of the image you can actually see, I.e. the detail of the image right? Same with a camera sensor.

Noise is the result of trying to fix the lack of light in an image. It’s amplifying the contents of an image but as it’s missing data it’s essentially an approximation of what the image would look like if it was exposed better. But since it’s just guessing (well not actually guessing , it’s essentially an algorithm or mathematical formula) what pixels should be where it ends up looking distorted. That’s why raising the ISO adds noise to an image. However, increasing the aperture or decreasing the shutter speed increases the light of available to expose the image but doesn’t add noise in the way ISO does to a image. Those methods actually increase the detail captured (not sharpness).

A small sensor on a tripod could create a great noise free image if it has enough exposure time to gather the amount of light it needs.

The downside of those ways of increasing light capture can be over exposure ,narrow focus area or motion blur.

So ultimately light uncovers detail. The less light a lens can gather the less detail it will capture.
That’s my understanding at least.

 

[loby]

Enough of the arm chair commentary.. for those who updated their display, how is it now? Better?

 

[Loismustdie1]

Enough of the arm chair commentary.. for those who updated their display, how is it now? Better?

In decent light, it's what I would consider acceptable now. It's not a night and day difference, but enough where I noticed. I think the comments about the camera are slightly overblown. Is it an amazing camera? No, and at this price point, it should be. However, it does a convincing enough job that I'm not going to lose sleep over it, or return either of them. I've been using them for virtual work and it isn't a problem.

 

[ukwebdev]

This is getting ridiculous

 

[JPack]

Enough of the arm chair commentary.. for those who updated their display, how is it now? Better?

Already posted above.

Same pasty, soft images as before. Not sure why anyone is expecting software improvements to fix a hardware weakness.

 

[StudioMacs]

Mmm.. I’m not talking about resolving detail as in sharpness of the image. Essentially without light there is nothing to see. Light “exposes” an image to our eyes. The less light the less of the image you can actually see, I.e. the detail of the image right? Same with a camera sensor.

Noise is the result of trying to fix the lack of light in an image. It’s amplifying the contents of an image but as it’s missing data it’s essentially an approximation of what the image would look like if it was exposed better. But since it’s just guessing (well not actually guessing , it’s essentially an algorithm or mathematical formula) what pixels should be where it ends up looking distorted. That’s why raising the ISO adds noise to an image. However, increasing the aperture or decreasing the shutter speed increases the light of available to expose the image but doesn’t add noise in the way ISO does to a image. Those methods actually increase the detail captured (not sharpness).

A small sensor on a tripod could create a great noise free image if it has enough exposure time to gather the amount of light it needs.

The downside of those ways of increasing light capture can be over exposure ,narrow focus area or motion blur.

So ultimately light uncovers detail. The less light a lens can gather the less detail it will capture.
That’s my understanding at least.

We’re essentially saying the same thing differently… but I agree. The bottom line is there is only so much magic the software can do.

 

[Razorpit]

Women in photo look like they were told to make fake smiles

Every Apple photo and video look like that.

That was 2009. The matte option was a $50 upgrade (I got it on my MBP). The matte option had aluminum bezels and a plastic screen instead of the black bezels with the panel laminated to glass. The matte option now is much different, but I haven't seen it in person to know if it's better than the old plastic screens.

I can see the glossy Studio Display is a lot less reflective than those glossy MBP were.

My ‘06 MBP has a matte screen.

 

[sigamy]

Already posted above.

Same pasty, soft images as before. Not sure why anyone is expecting software improvements to fix a hardware weakness.

Not sure why you can’t realize there are some things (noise, over smoothing, contrast) that can be improved with better image processing and computational photography. Most of us aren’t asking for “fixed”, we are asking for “better”.

 

[mariusignorello]

Because there's nothing to fix. Apple took an image sensor from a device that, relatively, is far smaller than the Studio Display. You blow up that image, it's obviously going to magnify the pixels and produce worse image quality on a larger screen. But they didn't just stop there, they actually used a wide-angle lens and need to crop the image just to keep one person in the centre of the frame - whilst using AI to alter the perspective.

The real question is why Apple didn't use a higher quality sensor, such as the selfie camera from their iPhones.

Thank you for the informative answer. It’s amazing how when the camera is secondary in certain products, Apple just doesn’t give a damn. If it’s a flagship iPhone, however, they pull all the stops. Absolutely agree they should’ve used a higher quality sensor.

Generally speaking, webcams have a lot to be desired. Logitech models are grossly overpriced IMO. Maybe Apple really thought that people don’t care about webcam quality? Makes no sense because of the mass WFH purchases necessitating a webcam.

 

[StudioMacs]

My ‘06 MBP has a matte screen.

As did everyone. It wasn’t until after iPhone that Apple started offering glossy screens, and the MBP was first offered glossy in 2008, with no matte option. It was January 2009 when they again offered the matte as an “upgrade” on the 17” only, then later to the 15”.

 

[SSDGUY]

I finally saw the Studio Display in-person this weekend. I left surprisingly unimpressed.

Me too. I mean, it's a great 27" display but it's the same panel as my seven year old iMac but without the computer, and nearly the same price.

 

[alexandr]

Me too. I mean, it's a great 27" display but it's the same panel as my seven year old iMac but without the computer, and nearly the same price.

I'm not entirely sure what I was expecting, but I wasn't blown away by the amazing quality that a lot of reviewers mention. And yes — once seeing it in person, it doesn't seem it's worth the money. For a moment there I actually considered the XDR)))

 

[F75]

“The best firmware update for the Studio Display we ever released”

?

 

[loby]

Me too. I mean, it's a great 27" display but it's the same panel as my seven year old iMac but without the computer, and nearly the same price.

Same thing happen to me. Was not impressed when considering the price for what it offers, especially if you consider the additional options. It looks to me like Apple at the last minute decided to take out the iMac parts and sell for the SAME price as an iMac so the Mac Studio has a monitor to go along with it at launch.

When discussing the monitor with an Apple employee who was assisting me, he in so many words said the same thing but still maintained his good employee manners about the product. Nice looking monitor, but price wise…come on…how much is the profit margin on this? 40 to 50% or more. Standards that are acceptable in business is 20-30% max as reasonabe and fair…please Apple…come on…Tim..

 

[hagar]

Apple can’t stop humiliating itself! It’s embarrassing!! ?

I’m sure Apple will get over this. And so will you. No need to keep posting the same thing over and over again.

 

[drewbab]

Apple today released a second beta version of new 15.5 firmware that's coming to the Studio Display, with the software coming one week after the launch of the first beta. The Studio Display firmware is designed to improve the function of the webcam on the device.

All Studio Display models are able to receive over-the-air firmware updates, but this firmware update is limited to Macs that are running the ‌macOS Monterey‌ 12.4 beta at the current time. After installing the macOS 12.4 beta, Studio Display owners can go to System Preferences &gt; Software Update to install the firmware.

Apple in March promised a firmware update for the Studio Display to address an issue with the webcam.

The Studio Display is equipped with a 12-megapixel Ultra Wide camera that supports Center Stage, but Studio Display reviewers and owners have discovered that the camera consistently produces grainy, washed-out images, which Apple has said is the result of the system to not behaving as expected. The firmware brings updated "camera tuning, improved noise reduction, contrast, and framing."

Article Link: Apple Releases Second Studio Display 15.5 Firmware Beta With Webcam Update

I have a Mac Studio and the Studio Display. I have installed the new 15.5 firmware update. I can tell no difference. The camera is horrible and this display is not worth the money, at all! My camera on my iPad Pro is at least 10 times better than the camera on the Studio Display. Huge waste of money!