Yes, but color correction mistakes rise exponentially. If the color is slightly off during post-production, but you make several adjustments afterwards, it is off even more in the final product.
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's Pro Display XDR is Nearly Five Years Old With No Update in Sight
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but color correction mistakes rise exponentially. If the color is slightly off during post-production, but you make several adjustments afterwards, it is off even more in the final product.
With the exception of some CPU improvements, all the Apple product line is at least 10 yrs old, being the Apple Watch the last "real" device introduced. Tim Cook deserves to be fired for Apple to start again as the innovator company it was until Jobs' legacy ended.
Outside the fact that they redesigned several products (and continuing that a redesigned mini is almost certainly coming in like 2 weeks), a massive, highly successful, architecture change to their own CPU and GPU designs doesnt count as significant?
Leaving aside many minor products such as HomePod and Vision Pro, not to mention software and services, AirPods is a pretty big success that happened less than ten years ago.
OK.
Fired in favor of whom, exactly?
While y’all complaining about the XDR I’m still using the 27” Thunderbolt 2 monitor which I bought used on eBay 3 years ago. My only complaint is the heat and main cable is not easy to replace but I love looking at it all day.
That tells you now well they engineer and build their displays. The fact that the XDR can still command its price without changes tells you how right they got it despite initial pricing complaints, which, if we’re being honest, were mostly by Mac users who really wanted what was eventually delivered in the Studio Display.
That tells you now well they engineer and build their displays. The fact that the XDR can still command its price without changes tells you how right they got it despite initial pricing complaints, which, if we’re being honest, were mostly by Mac users who really wanted what was eventually delivered in the Studio Display.
Check CamelCamelCamel to track Amazon prices. The XDR was on sale just the other week!
A 120Hz XDR or Studio Display isn't coming anytime soon. The tech to support that high of a refresh rate on a screen that large is still too niche for it to be a viable product. I don't think most people understand what it takes to drive a 120Hz display. Apple could surely produce a 120Hz XDR, but cost aside, it'd be pointless as few people would be able to get it to run at 120Hz.
Medical imaging, remote surgery, feature film grading and effects work, broadcast stations who need to make sure their output is as close to perfect as possible, monitor manufacturers who need a reference to set up their cheaper monitors to look right, really high end fashion photographers, the sort of people who have a lot of satellite images of other people's military bases...
Technically, glossy panel is better than matte in many ways. It's just difficult to maintenance and keep the environment in control. Even photography requires glossy monitors since all of their contents will be displayed on iPhone, iPad, or Mac anyway.
The only problem is XDR is not great due to poor dimming zones which is worse than iPad Pro and MBP. Adding much more mini-LED or dimming zones will easily solve the problem. Having a lack of professional glossy monitor under $5000 sucks and Studio display does not have 10 bit and had been using a same panel since 2014.
I hope Apple makes a whole new one with better specs.
5 years and neither an upgrade nor a price cut in sight. As if there had been no technology improvements since then, or if 2019 tech still cost the same to manufacture today. Give me a break. It gives the impression that Apple only upgrades its products regularly when forced to do so by the competition (iPhone, etc.), instead of a genuine desire to always offer its customers the latest technologies, as the company's keynotes would have you believe. This mentality somewhat reminds me of Sony's Ken Kutaragi, at one point implying that his PSP was already a perfect product and needed no improvement. Two decades later, we all know the result. You may have the most advanced product but should never take your customers for granted (or give them that impression).
Last edited:
All of this talk that Apple can’t get 120hz to run yet is completely false.
They ship all pro Mac’s with HDMI 2.1 ports. All Apple has to do is make a display that includes it (I know hell would freeze over).
Yes, it wouldn’t provide data (need thunderbolt five), but it would work otherwise completely fine.
One of the main problems with Apple displays is lack of hdmi. There new displays should have both inputs.
I would love to just swap out one of my studio displays for a new one with 120/mini-led. Don’t need a data hub and my Mac Studio has HDMI 2.1. But Apple won’t do it because it’s another way to force an upgrade on the computer.
There’s also no excuse for no mini-LED backlighting. Has nothing to do with the Thunderbolt dilemma.
They ship all pro Mac’s with HDMI 2.1 ports. All Apple has to do is make a display that includes it (I know hell would freeze over).
Yes, it wouldn’t provide data (need thunderbolt five), but it would work otherwise completely fine.
One of the main problems with Apple displays is lack of hdmi. There new displays should have both inputs.
I would love to just swap out one of my studio displays for a new one with 120/mini-led. Don’t need a data hub and my Mac Studio has HDMI 2.1. But Apple won’t do it because it’s another way to force an upgrade on the computer.
There’s also no excuse for no mini-LED backlighting. Has nothing to do with the Thunderbolt dilemma.
Last edited:
Good point.
Given Apple lists 4k@240 and 8K@60... 5K@120 is easy-peasy, and 6K@120 is feasible.
DSC is your friend.
Few things about XDR monitor and why it needs a panel update. Blooming. This thing blooms like a mofo compared to competition. It blooms because of few things, fewer local dimming zones (only 550 or so) and poor grouping of those zones. Dimming zone group controllers on the panel are subpar. Also they prioritized the high resolution for marketing purposes so with 6K they were only limited to fewer ldz compared to 4K competition miniLED which boosts over 2000.
Let's talk about that resolution for a second. It's a 16:9 panel with 6K and while it does sound good it's actually not all that useful. When do you actually work in such dpi? If you are matte painter or texture painter more dpi you got the better. But print, web or video delivery? This resolution is more of a drawback then an actual perk when you view the final product 1:1. Maybe YouTubers with 6K/8K footage will benefit because they can deliver the final footage in natively shot resolution because there is very little post process. But as soon as you throw in some CGI and I'm talking about invisible CGI and comping you need to deliver 4K cause everything else above that is an overkill unless you have access to farm rendering. So 6K is more of a hindrance when you want to pixel peep and do 1:1 inspection. I would understand if monitor was ultrawide but 32 inch 16:9 there is very little benefit for such dense dpi
And then there is color calibration. Do you know how much Calman calibration will cost you for this panel? Arm n a leg! This is another aspect people don't take into consideration when buying XDR, you are buying top of the line panel but you are going to skip on custom calibration to get the most of it in your working area? Apple XDR calibrates super fine but getting it to be calibrated is hell. And when I say getting it to get calibrated, I literally mean it. It requires windows virtual machine, calman ultimate plus patterns for macOS and so much nonsense that you will end up taking it to a guy instead of a guy coming over to your place. And then you need to do that every year pretty much. Keep in mind XDR is not meant for mastering either because its software managed. I mean of course you can master whatever you want but when you land a gig for HBO, Netflix or whatever it's a no go for XDR or any other software managed display.
I also have issues with XDR panel uniformity and color shifts when not viewed spot on. Competition covers 99.5% of Adobe RGB, not that it makes a whole lot difference but for the price of $7K all the tickboxes should be covered.
So what's good about it and how does it justify the price? macOS. There is no single monitor on the market that offers such flexibility on Mac like Apple XDR does. All others are kind of like workarounds due to imposed Apple limitations. While yes panel technology has made a lot of progress since 2019 XDR monitor remains the only viable option for Mac users when it comes to high end tier displays if you want all the bells and whistles to work. Then there is sustainable brightness in HDR content which is awesome. What's even better is that XDR has about $1,000 discount most of the time.
Overall, yes Apple XDR needs an update but not in terms of refresh rate or OLED like many suggest here. It needs better dimming zone controllers, more dimming zones, better uniformity, better blacks, better color space coverage and proper calibration just to start. All of that is now available.
Let's talk about that resolution for a second. It's a 16:9 panel with 6K and while it does sound good it's actually not all that useful. When do you actually work in such dpi? If you are matte painter or texture painter more dpi you got the better. But print, web or video delivery? This resolution is more of a drawback then an actual perk when you view the final product 1:1. Maybe YouTubers with 6K/8K footage will benefit because they can deliver the final footage in natively shot resolution because there is very little post process. But as soon as you throw in some CGI and I'm talking about invisible CGI and comping you need to deliver 4K cause everything else above that is an overkill unless you have access to farm rendering. So 6K is more of a hindrance when you want to pixel peep and do 1:1 inspection. I would understand if monitor was ultrawide but 32 inch 16:9 there is very little benefit for such dense dpi
And then there is color calibration. Do you know how much Calman calibration will cost you for this panel? Arm n a leg! This is another aspect people don't take into consideration when buying XDR, you are buying top of the line panel but you are going to skip on custom calibration to get the most of it in your working area? Apple XDR calibrates super fine but getting it to be calibrated is hell. And when I say getting it to get calibrated, I literally mean it. It requires windows virtual machine, calman ultimate plus patterns for macOS and so much nonsense that you will end up taking it to a guy instead of a guy coming over to your place. And then you need to do that every year pretty much. Keep in mind XDR is not meant for mastering either because its software managed. I mean of course you can master whatever you want but when you land a gig for HBO, Netflix or whatever it's a no go for XDR or any other software managed display.
I also have issues with XDR panel uniformity and color shifts when not viewed spot on. Competition covers 99.5% of Adobe RGB, not that it makes a whole lot difference but for the price of $7K all the tickboxes should be covered.
So what's good about it and how does it justify the price? macOS. There is no single monitor on the market that offers such flexibility on Mac like Apple XDR does. All others are kind of like workarounds due to imposed Apple limitations. While yes panel technology has made a lot of progress since 2019 XDR monitor remains the only viable option for Mac users when it comes to high end tier displays if you want all the bells and whistles to work. Then there is sustainable brightness in HDR content which is awesome. What's even better is that XDR has about $1,000 discount most of the time.
Overall, yes Apple XDR needs an update but not in terms of refresh rate or OLED like many suggest here. It needs better dimming zone controllers, more dimming zones, better uniformity, better blacks, better color space coverage and proper calibration just to start. All of that is now available.
DSC would be a problem for some of the target users, while for most folks (me included) it’s fine a lot of photographers, video editors, etc dont want it on a display like the XDR. Also nobody makes the panels Apple would need, at least not at anything close to a price point that could keep the XDR anywhere near the same price
What problem does it create for them? Does it degrade fine detail in image quality onscreen or something else?
If Apple puts out a next gen. XDR using Thunderbolt 5 (once Macs support it) rather than relying on DSC, do you anticipate that will broaden its appeal to more professional users?
It adds latency, which can be a problem in editing, and the artifacting while typically (though not always) invisible to the human eye can lead to mistakes being compounded into big problems over the course of several edits the same way color inaccuracy when not using much higher end reference monitors for that kind of work can be
Doesn't DSC compress lines of pixels, only adding about 1/2 a microsecond of latency?
In order to get higher USB-C data speeds, isn't almost every XDR already running with DSC turned on?
The only time DSC couldn't be used with the XDR was with the RX 580X, which didn't support it, and therefore only offered slow USB speeds to the XDR ports?
To my knowledge it only uses dsc if you’re using the the data ports on the display, giving you the option of not having it if needed, bumping the refresh would make it mandatory all the time
I'm not expecting a Pro Display XDR replacement until TB5 arrives with the requisite bandwidth to accommodate the color bit depths and refresh rates and resolution suitable for 8K HDR production. The question for me becomes whether they've advanced their version of stacked OLED tech or they opt for some yet-unforeseen panel derivative. Late 2025 or 2026 at the earliest is my expectation. Another scenario that seems plausible for me would be taking the existing MBP panels and manufacturing them in larger sizes for Studio Display and iMac replacements.
Fingers crossed on the latter.
Thanks. That raises an interesting possibility...once TB5 gets more mainstream in computers, will other monitor vendors offer 6K 32-inch displays (aiming more for mainstream users than deep-pocketed higher end pro.s)?
Despite Apple's long use of 5K monitors at the 27-inch display size (e.g.: iMacs, Apple Studio Display), the rest of the industry has mainly stuck with 4K (with some exceptions from LG, Samsung, etc...). And at the 27-inch display size and typical viewing distances, from online discussions I get the sense it doesn't make a big difference (overall; some may argue).
But at the 32-inch point, would 6K make a big difference? I'm not thinking about Apple (because what Apple does in this space and what I can and will afford don't have a lot of overlap), but what about Dell, Acer, Philips, etc...? The people who currently make 4K USB-C 27" displays in the roughly $300-600 range (granted, Thunderbolt monitors tend to cost more).
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but it may be relevant that Samsung's 5K 27" displays are sometimes on sale in the $600US range. On the down side, it took Samsung almost 8 years to join the party with a more budget friendly 5K option.
It won't require TB5, DisplayPort 2.1 can optionally go up to 80 Gbps, and USB4v2 will support higher bandwidth DisplayPort as well.
Hopefully the PC gaming market doesn't bother going above 500MHz
Once HFR is fast enough, and 10-bit HDR is common, and the monitors are all huge, the rest of the PC monitor industry is going to also take on high density just to find a new marketing angle to compete on. There are lots of PC Windows laptops that are already "retina", so now it is just the desktops that need it.
I'm asking whether it's likely other vendors will offer 6K 32" displays at a much lower price point than Apple's XDR, once there are substantial numbers of computers with Thunderbolt 5.
Much like many people would like to have an Apple Studio Display now, but instead settle for much cheaper 4K 27" displays from other vendors.
Even as we are today, Dell has a 6K 32" display that's much cheaper... though still not cheap enough to be anyone's idea of affordable. It tempted me, but I ultimately went with a Studio Display.
I do have to wonder if that most laptops already having really good screens is hurting the market for external displays. Nobody seems to be eager to rush ahead to fill in any market gaps... probably because the demand isn't high. It's not like how it used to be where the laptop experience was like viewing a cheap tablet in landscape orientation.
Apple is mass-market, consumer-orientated hardware and software manufacturer. Creating a product for a few folks does not make any sense. Probably it made sense for Apple 25 years ago, but not anymore. There is no single proprietary Apple technology in the Pro Display XDR. This product does not deserve to exist.