No, because you would get a warped image.
It's the same way you can't "turn off" the ultra wide lens in iPhone and get a normal sharp image using the UW lens.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases Studio Display Firmware 15.5 With Webcam Update
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, because you would get a warped image.
It's the same way you can't "turn off" the ultra wide lens in iPhone and get a normal sharp image using the UW lens.
Center Stage looks fine on my iPadPro so as long Apple can get it to that level it should be good.
I currently use an 27" LG 4k, my 16" MBP Max, and an old 24" 1920x1200. I hate having to use the 1920x1200, but I need the screen space. If my Studio Display ever gets here, the LG will replace the 1920x1200, and I'll have crisp text all around
I currently use an 27" LG 4k, my 16" MBP Max, and an old 24" 1920x1200. I hate having to use the 1920x1200, but I need the screen space. If my Studio Display ever gets here, the LG will replace the 1920x1200, and I'll have crisp text all around
Apple should not have swapped-in fake video and still images (not from the actual camera) for their marketing. Set expectations high, and what do know: Folks actually want what you're selling, and what they think they're buying.
Last edited:
That's because turning off Center Stage only turns off the tracking and makes the crop less aggressive.
It still zooms in and crops. There's no way to use the entire sensor to produce a normal image without cropping.
Yeah, it's definitely not a normal image either way. Good enough for my Zoom calls though.
It is true that many people are happy with the display quality (color reproduction, sharpness, etc.) but for $1500 I would expect equally high quality for all its functionalities and features. While it is smaller, the M1 iMac has not only an equally good display but it is a whole computer and has a better webcam at $200 less for the base model.
This whole kerfuffle reminds me of the iPhone 4 Antennagate. This song, which was popular then, could easily apply (with minor modification) today.
Like the man says: “If you don’t want a Studio Display, don’t buy it. If you bought one and you don’t like it, bring it back.“ Seriously, I bought my Studio Display on Day One and I couldn’t be happier with it.
I think Apple should have done what Nest and others have - a higher quality (greater megapixel/native resolution) camera with Center Stage.
By using the same camera as - I believe - older phones, the software wizardry has made okay (or good) into bad. And now they’re just tweaking it.
On my Nest IQ, it has 4K native, but only records at 1080p, allowing for full 1080p record - within reason - while zoomed throughout the frame.
Yeah I think the 24” iMac has a very good camera. problem is the cropping with the ultra wide
If you can afford this display and don’t care for it‘s webcam, you can certainly afford a 3rd party webcam to suit your tastes.
It’s kind of like how Apple added cheap ports to it’s hardware, HDMI & SD card not being anywhere near the latest specs.
That’s a bit of a reach. Those are useful ports for a lot of people, but there are other ports for those who don’t need them. This camera is the only one available on the monitor, so it sucks equally for everyone regardless of their needs.
Yeah, something feels off about this product in terms of quality and branding. Let's remember they didn't do anything fundamental to improve the display portion of this monitor over what's in the 2020 iMac (no increase in size or resolution, no local dimming, no variable refresh, no HDR), and yet they are charging only $200 less for this ($1599) than they did for an entire 2020 iMac ($1799). At best, it seems there are small improvements in max brightness and black levels. And the bezels are narrower (though still twice as wide as those on the XDR, which has a more sleek, modern look for that reason).
I understand they were probably under manufacturing/technological/time constraints that prevented them from doing anything really cool with the screen (as contrasted with what they did with the 14" and 16" MBPs). But given this, and given what they planned to charge, the best approach would have been do to something special with the camera, like they did with the three-microphone array (which is reportedly excellent), and also not force an upcharge for something as basic as a vertically adjustable stand.
Specifically, at $1599, the webcam should have been outstanding. They could have done some clever engineering to both have Center Stage, yet allow the webcam to make use of the entire sensor when used in the most common mode, which is with one person. Simply doing a wide view and and then implementing an agressive crop for single-person use is a cheap, lazy approach.
I understand they were probably under manufacturing/technological/time constraints that prevented them from doing anything really cool with the screen (as contrasted with what they did with the 14" and 16" MBPs). But given this, and given what they planned to charge, the best approach would have been do to something special with the camera, like they did with the three-microphone array (which is reportedly excellent), and also not force an upcharge for something as basic as a vertically adjustable stand.
Specifically, at $1599, the webcam should have been outstanding. They could have done some clever engineering to both have Center Stage, yet allow the webcam to make use of the entire sensor when used in the most common mode, which is with one person. Simply doing a wide view and and then implementing an agressive crop for single-person use is a cheap, lazy approach.
It’s not “a bit of a reach” at all. You can‘t get HDMI 2.1 out on Apple hardware except the latest Apple TV, & you’re stuck with a slow SD slot, exactly like you’re stuck with a subpar camera in the new Apple Display. At least with the display you can add a 3rd party webcam. You can’t get an HDMI 2.1 cable out of Apples’s newer hardware that will power HDMI 2.1 TVs. One reason Ivy left is Apples’s accountants pinching pennies everywhere they could find, and that’s why we get subpar display webcams and last generation ports.
Last edited:
They should have put two cameras in these things..
Would be great to have one dedicated to close up/seated and the other for wide angle/center stage usage
Would be great to have one dedicated to close up/seated and the other for wide angle/center stage usage
$1600 if you round up that last dollar. This display is simply not a good value.
Please name a 5K display with the same or better attributes to Apples’s for less. (4K doesn’t count as these are mass produced and sold with razor thin margins.)
There isn't one. But that doesn't mean the only product available in a category a good value, even by Apple's own standards. Hell, it's only a couple hundred less than a recent base model 27" iMac with essentially the same panel … and a real computer inside.
There are currently none. But being unique does not automatically make something a good value irrespective of its price. For instance, suppose Apple instead charged $3500 for this. There would still be no 5k displays with the same or better attributes for less. By your argument, based on this, it would still be a good value.
Then there's also the issue of markup, which is separate from value. [Something could have a huge markup but still be a good value, and visa-versa.] Remember that Apple could make a profit selling an entire 2020 27" iMac for $1800. Given this, what do you think they'd need to charge to make a similar profit on the display alone? A lot less than $1600, I suspect.
Last edited:
You mean a product that doesn’t exist anymore? Apple will continue to sell these panels as fast as they can make them, so their value is correct.
That would be totally against Apple aesthetics and would also really look not as nice..