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 Reportedly Working on 90Hz Studio Display, iMac, iPad Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Give your customers just enough so they don't jump ship, but not so much that you limit your future upgrade options. Something like screen refresh rates has a very quick and natural plateau so if you can stretch out the time it take to get to that place for as long as possible whilst still being seen to be making improvements each year then you can maintain your reputation for "innovating".
They cannot because 120hz has been dedicated for the Pro lines (ipad Pro and mbp). Lol
considering that Apple used to be a company willing to provide customers with leading display technologies.. How did we end up in this? 120hz anyone? Or maybe only nerds care about this, and we are a minority. So Apple goes with majority of buyers, who just want Apple logo.
I got tired of waiting and “upgraded to the Apple Studio” earlier this year. It actually is better than the LG 5K. The screen is similar, but not the same and every other aspect is considerably better. It looks better, sounds better, webcam is (slightly) better, and it’s more compact.
They still are - the MacBook Pro displays are still comfortably ahead of the game c.f. PC laptops, the iPad Pro is rocking dual-layer OLED and even the lowly iMac has a higher resolution display than most, if not all other 24" displays on the market.
There's one 6k display from Dell which - yes - is cheaper than the Pro XDR but doesn't have local dimming. There's the Samsung S9 5k which - at the most generous - is no better than the Studio Display. You can count the number of 220ppi 5120x2880 @ 90Hz displays currently available on the fingers of both feet. Don't get confused by 5k2k - 2560x2160 ultrawide displays which are the same ppi as a 4kUHD display and will share the same scaling issues that people complain about with 4k UHD screens (although Your Mileage May Vary as to how important those are).
I quite agree that one of the disappointments of the Studio Display is that - apart from being slightly brighter - it's not significantly better than a 2017 iMac, but then neither is anything else comparable on the market, Apple don't make display panels and the idea of 220ppi being the gold standard only really applies to MacOS.
Anyway, although the 90Hz thing is still only a rumor, it would probably be very effective at making scrolling and window dragging smoother (hardly at the top of my deal-breaker list) in general use. If I wanted a realistic preview of HDR/HFR video on a "casual" basis I'd plug in my 55" OLED TV - I'd guess someone doing it professionally would want an 8k display these days or might even need to pay sillybucks for some sort of reference display (and would not necessarily be beholden to the 220ppi magic numbar for MacOS) - all too expensive for a "general purpose" "prosumer" Studio Display product.
One of the sillier things Apple did was to try and present the Studio Display as a real alternative to a $20k HDR reference monitor with individually dimmable pixels...
Just replaced my TV with a 120hz, 4K as the previous one. 8K will eventually arrive (presently shares destiny with 3D) but the big picture is that most streaming services are short even on 4K content, and what they present as 4K can very well be ordinary HD which they have scaled up before making it available. A not insignificant part of the computing resources of a TV is being used to handle decent scaling of low grade content. Because the streaming supplier don`t want to pay for additional storage capacity for bigger files, and the additional bandwidth/transfer volumes. 120Hz? Most content is not. Thus the TV has to update the same picture several times. Which makes no sense.
There is of course content available in 4K and 120Hz, sports benefits from it and games do too (144 these days for most TV`s optimised for it?) Then the TV owner would benefit, but not when watching movies/series/gameshows/news.
Guess there`s a "similar" picture for pc/mac monitors. Great for specific consumer needs, and seriously important to those who creates 8K/120hz content/games+++
I don`t mind 90/120hz at all, and as someone nicely put it: 120 is great for scaling up content made with lower refresh rates, but the sky isn`t falling down because of it
Did you experience the "soap opera" effect?
Motion interpolation - Wikipedia
I got that for a month or so after first I moved to a 100Hz (UK frequencies) TV... Purely psychological "association" thing. Maybe old codgers also remember the "phantom pincushion" effect back in prehistory when you first used a Trinitron CRT with a flatter screen...
You're right. Thank you! I'm really happy with it actually - had been weighing the pros and cons for several months. My current monitor crapped out so I just pulled the trigger. No regrets!
Nope, no such thing, but have only had it for a month. It`s a budget LG 65 with the 2024 alpha 8 processor, and I believe that processor (and above) handles scaling and variation in content rather well.Did you experience the "soap opera" effect?
Motion interpolation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I got that for a month or so after first I moved to a 100Hz (UK frequencies) TV... Purely psychological "association" thing. Maybe old codgers also remember the "phantom pincushion" effect back in prehistory when you first used a Trinitron CRT with a flatter screen...
What makes you think a super-thin 27 or 32(+) inch Apple monitor would not be expensive? Takes a bit more to keep a skinny 32 from being flimsy, and that costs both in engineering, materials and production.
I’d like to see a third monitor from Apple: a “Studio Display Curve”: an ultra-wide curved Studio Display whose width is equivalent to two or three ordinary displays. This could be a more elegant solution for some than two or three separate monitors.
But 120hz tv actually helps with non 120hz content. It makes movement smoother, if you can not see judder on 60Hz tv you are lucky man, but if you see it, 120hz tv is only way for you… yes, there are some picture purists that would say turn off all picture improvements and wouldJust replaced my TV with a 120hz, 4K as the previous one. 8K will eventually arrive (presently shares destiny with 3D) but the big picture is that most streaming services are short even on 4K content, and what they present as 4K can very well be ordinary HD which they have scaled up before making it available. A not insignificant part of the computing resources of a TV is being used to handle decent scaling of low grade content. Because the streaming supplier don`t want to pay for additional storage capacity for bigger files, and the additional bandwidth/transfer volumes. 120Hz? Most content is not. Thus the TV has to update the same picture several times. Which makes no sense.
There is of course content available in 4K and 120Hz, sports benefits from it and games do too (144 these days for most TV`s optimised for it?) Then the TV owner would benefit, but not when watching movies/series/gameshows/news.
Guess there`s a "similar" picture for pc/mac monitors. Great for specific consumer needs, and seriously important to those who creates 8K/120hz content/games+++
I don`t mind 90/120hz at all, and as someone nicely put it: 120 is great for scaling up content made with lower refresh rates, but the sky isn`t falling down because of it
rather watch juddery movies (typically fast camera movement looks juddery) than non juddery with some picture improvements.
Only looks juddery if your display can't display at the native framerate; get a better display. Or configure it correctly. Sure when you have native content like the long halftime walk displayed at the native framerate it is great. And those pans are super smooth. But that doesn't mean that a 24fps movie played back at 24fps can't be smooth. Nor that a 120hz TV all of a sudden make source content recorded at 24.95 or 50 look great, and smooth.
First setting I change; match native framerate.
Nope, every oled tv i saw looks juddery to me with no picture improvements (i guess hft content would look fine?), due to oleds fast response time. If u cant see it, good for you, you dont have to tune picture for your liking.
must admit, I got myself a ProDisplay XDR - real improvement to a 5K screen.
At the end my most satisfying Apple purchase- enjoy it every day.
You are avoiding the point made. But that is ok, if you prefer artificial processing that has nothing to do with the source in near realtime that is great. That is why some manufacturers add it on the systems. Some people like that and don’t seem to see the unnatural artifacts they introduce. I’m sorry to be the one having to explain this, but you’ve got this backwards. 🤷♂️
You are still ignoring the points I made. I already acknowledged and even named one of the very rare sources that was actually recorded at the higher frame rate. When you record at a higher frame rate you get a smoother picture, absolutely. It can look rather unnatural though, as although we do not see in fps very few can reach that if it was measurable and even less can go beyond it. That is not to say it doesn't have other advantages like in a user interface with moving objects, or if you want to slow down and maintain the typical frame rate.
That article does not go against the points that I've made. We all agree that if you record something in 120fps and you display it natively on a 120hz screen it looks incredible (funny word that when you think about it). And super smooth.
However it isn't as simple as that. In theory yes 30fps content fits nicely in 120hz display, but to playback at normal speed you still 'hold' the frame eventhough it gets refreshed. But now do that with other typical broadcast frame rates like 50hz which is most of the world? Or a movie which is typically at 24, you'll need a pulldown process, and then you create judder. Now 24fps neatly fits within 120hz so the judder doesn't create stutter
But 24fps doesn't fit in 60hz so yes you create judder, and in your case you likely notice the stutter as well.So, source frame matching and don't lock your display at 60hz and you don't introduce anything to it. But some people don't like that as there can be like for a second or so a black screen whilst the screen adjusts to the actual input signal. I think it is totally worth it so you can enjoy a production as how it was intended to be.
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE IS THAT 5K DEMANDS FAR HIGHER BANDWIDTH THAN 4K AND THATS WHY 120 HZ 5K MONITORS DON"T EXIST.
Please point out where anyone is selling 5K 120hz monitors for any reasonable price that work with any reasonable PC setup. Then and only then you can complain about a rumor Apple is going to 90 hz.
Yeah, I would argue it helps. Don`t believe it would help at all for 60 on 120hz, but 60 hz hardware would struggle a bit more with lower frame rate content, and doubling the refresh rate would reduce/remove that issue. Given the processor and the rest of the chips are matched with 120hz and do the job with lower frame rate content. Just upping the panel to 120 hz won`t cut it I believe.
Guess that would be something people should keep in mind for budget TV`s in particular - processors/main board++ needs to be more capable and it is not just for the brands to swap 60hz with 120hz panels. Can only speak for the one I got, but I specifically avoided available (similar) 2023 models because I wanted the latest gen processor, and I believe LG`s is slightly better than Samsung`s processor at same level of their newest generation. As I seriously do not want Android in my TV, LG and Samsung are the options as far as this market goes. Don`t like Google. At all.