I'm genuinely surprised by the negative reviews of the Studio Display

[vddobrev]

And I clearly stated my opinion about the Dell. For 600€ less where I live this monitor has no better value! Less PPI, no cam, no speakers, plastic build and shaky stand! ASDs unique selling feature is 5k! 14,7 Millionen vs 8,3 Millionen pixels is a huge difference! There are 2 monitors with 5k at 27! What is the unique selling feature of the 1000€ Dell?! I rather spend 200€ more and just get the LG 5k! or just spend way less for any other 4k out there..

Please understand I am not arguing nor imposing anything on anyone.

I do apologize, but you are wrong in your price calculation. I am also in Europe. If you count in a tilt and height adjustable stand and a nano-texture in the ASD and a USB hub (so that you fairly compare the features), then you will see that the price difference is about 1500 Euro, not 600.

I purchased the Dell 32" for exactly 1000 Euro with tilt/height/swivel and anti-glare and USB hub and KVM, while an ASD with tilt/height (but no swivel) and nano-texture is 2500 Euro.

And no, it does not look cheap, even though it is made of plastic. What looks cheap to me is Apples greediness to not include a height adjustable stand by default and not to offer a real matte screen not this BS nano-texture - that is dirty cheap in my book.

 

[MacLawyer]

I've been following the webcam matter on many forums. The users seem split 50-50 on FaceTime quality. As far as I can determine the latest Display firmware update did not solve issues for those who were complaining about poor image quality. I checked out a Display at the Oak Brook Apple Store today and (of course) it was perfect. I'm beginning to think Apple loaded some of these with leftover/overstocked cams from other devices. In any event it seems prudent to wait things out. Maybe the fabled 2022 iMac Pro will be a better solution.

 

[haruhiko]

Can’t imagine you guys are still arguing over the ASD. Even the PPI, for real? I’ve been using it happily for some time already. ???‍♂️

 

[turbineseaplane]

.

 

[Golf7-R]

Please understand I am not arguing nor imposing anything on anyone.

I do apologize, but you are wrong in your price calculation. I am also in Europe. If you count in a tilt and height adjustable stand and a nano-texture in the ASD and a USB hub (so that you fairly compare the features), then you will see that the price difference is about 1500 Euro, not 600.

I purchased the Dell 32" for exactly 1000 Euro with tilt/height/swivel and anti-glare and USB hub and KVM, while an ASD with tilt/height (but no swivel) and nano-texture is 2500 Euro.

And no, it does not look cheap, even though it is made of plastic. What looks cheap to me is Apples greediness to not include a height adjustable stand by default and not to offer a real matte screen not this BS nano-texture - that is dirty cheap in my book.

Compared to the ASD the Dell looks and feels cheap! Just like any other 4K monitor! And with the glass the display on the ASD looks sharper and has more contrast. So having no matte screen is a huge plus! I use them both, and the difference is super obvious. Sometimes people speak badly about things to convince themselves, because deep down they want it
Btw I am using height adjustable tables, so I don’t change the height of my monitors. Otherwise I would just take a Vesa mount.

Ah and the instant wake of the ASD and my MacBook cannot be praised enough!

 

[petvas]

I love sharp text and sharp images, I have seen this chart many times, and it does not make any sense to me. Retina display is a factor of screen resolution and distance to the screen, i.e. at what distance you will not be able to see the pixels. End of story. I can see the pixels of my iPhone if I bring it too close. In the same way, I can see pixels on 5K up-too-close. If we go back to 1080 displays - yes we can see pixels, but at 4K and above - no if you set up at proper distance.

Today I went to see the ASD in person, as well as compare the Dell 32" U3223QE. I wanted to like the ASD. I was not impressed, to say the least, I was even disappointed. This is the same old iMac glossy screen (well a little better) that is complete mirror in bright daylight working conditions, such as my office and living room. I sold the iMac, I was tired of seeing myself, and every other reflection. Apples nano-texture implementation is poor on the ASD, it is very fuzzy. Perhaps the nano-texture is better on the XDR - I have not seen it, but have a friend who swears it is very good.

I chose the Dell 3223QE - a 4K display. I set it up on my desk, at exactly 78cm viewing distance at full 4K resolution, and I do not see pixels. It is perfect. This is retina to me! And I have way more real estate than 2560x1440.

Not to speak of the single input of the ASD, compared to 3 inputs of the Dell monitor, and included: tilt, height, and swivel stand, a USB-C hub, and a KVM switch.

Price wise, in local currency the Dell was 1950 compared to 4999 of the ASD.

Once again, this is my opinion only, not trying to put down the ASD, but to me personally 32" 4K at the proper distance is retina. Sorry, 5K or not, the ASD is a poor value in 2022 from my point of view.

Edit: And one more thing... fans in display is equal to sucking in dust and getting in between the screen and the glass, resulting in dark stains. iMac 5K screen was not fully laminated to the glass, it was isolated with tape, and it was a common problem. I had the screen replaced for dust stains, only to have the same problem a few months after. Unless the LCD is fully laminated to glass in the ASD (I doubt it) it will, sooner or later, develop dust stains because of constant forced airflow. So I don't see a value in this first iteration of the ASD, no.

4K in a 32" display is much lower PPI and text and images will of course not look as sharp as on a 5K 27" Studio Display. If that doesn't matter to you, then maybe the 350 nits brightness could matter to you, compared to the 600nits of the Studio Display. If you compare all the specs, then the Dell Display is not even competition to the Studio Display. I think that the blog article I posted above explains the situation very well. Many Mac users do care about hiDPI displays because they make macOS look beautiful and also they improve the whole user experience. Remember, we are sitting in front of such displays all day. I wouldn't want to have a Dell in front of me for more than one second. It looks awful, it feels like a Windows display to me and I would never, ever use it with a Mac. Having said that though, each person has different opinions. Proper Retina can be achieved by displays having a higher than 200 PPI. The Dell monitor has 137 PPI, which is on a Mac less than great. The viewing distance of course does play a role. The rule of thumb here is to put the display at an arm's length away from your sitting position. At an arm's length 4K on 32" looks pretty bad to me, unless your arm is 1 meter long...

 

[jdoll021]

Because we have no idea how many Apple made up front or put in the future order book

Lack of availability to purchase for quick delivery ≠ insatiable consumer demand

But Apple would certainly love for everyone to think that.

 

[jdoll021]

I kinda feel like the iPhone 11 did worse than Apple expected so they had a hundred thousand A13s, cameras and what not lying around and the 27" iMac sales weren't quite their either so somebody decided to clear out inventory by smashing the two together.

It certainly would explain things. When iFixit’s own staffers can’t tell the difference between the 27” iMac or the ASD, you gotta wonder if someone somewhere looked at the numbers and decided to change course late in the design stage.

Of course, I expect Apple will not admit to that. We’ll find out when someone “spills the beans” after leaving the company or if/when Apple itself admits it many years from now.

 

[haruhiko]

It certainly would explain things. When iFixit’s own staffers can’t tell the difference between the 27” iMac or the ASD, you gotta wonder if someone somewhere looked at the numbers and decided to change course late in the design stage.

Of course, I expect Apple will not admit to that. We’ll find out when someone “spills the beans” after leaving the company or if/when Apple itself admits it many years from now.

Well, I don't think they will make a video where everyone can distinguish between the two?
I think Apple would rather give it an even older processor if they can, but somehow the A13 is the cheapest way to support all the features like Center Stage, etc. either because older processors are no longer in production, or A13 is required (or code already existed without re-engineering) for these features.
If you think that the Studio Display is used to clear the A13 inventory I think you may be overestimating the sales number of the Display? I think Apple would sell a ton more iPad 9 than the ASD.

 

[vddobrev]

4K in a 32" display is much lower PPI and text and images will of course not look as sharp as on a 5K 27" Studio Display. If that doesn't matter to you, then maybe the 350 nits brightness could matter to you, compared to the 600nits of the Studio Display. If you compare all the specs, then the Dell Display is not even competition to the Studio Display. I think that the blog article I posted above explains the situation very well. Many Mac users do care about hiDPI displays because they make macOS look beautiful and also they improve the whole user experience. Remember, we are sitting in front of such displays all day. I wouldn't want to have a Dell in front of me for more than one second. It looks awful, it feels like a Windows display to me and I would never, ever use it with a Mac. Having said that though, each person has different opinions. Proper Retina can be achieved by displays having a higher than 200 PPI. The Dell monitor has 137 PPI, which is on a Mac less than great. The viewing distance of course does play a role. The rule of thumb here is to put the display at an arm's length away from your sitting position. At an arm's length 4K on 32" looks pretty bad to me, unless your arm is 1 meter long...

I will start backwards from your post:

- Arms length is a guidance invented when displays were 17". Online monitor positioning guides state "one arm length, but if your monitor is big, move it further". 32" at arms length is no ergonomic, it has to be at least one and a half arms length away. The proper guidance is using angles of viewing that will not cause too much neck/head rotation, but I will not go into that, if you want you can research on the subject (we have a whole department in our company doing just that, and they adjust our workstations each 6 months to make sure no repetitive stress injury).

- PPI and "retina" is relative to the viewing distance.

- It is a fact that ASD has a higher PPI, and the Dell has lower, but it is also a fact that the ASD is 27" and the Dell is 32". I am not sure what is this general misconception on the internet that you have to view the display at the same distance...

- Proper retina can be achieved by PPI and viewing distance together, not by one of this. The article you quote does not account for viewing distance, so is not a real scientific article. It is one thing to view a 21" monitor at arms length, and another to view a 32". One arm length is not going to be proper in terms of viewing angles.

- If we went by "retina" invented term, then our 75" inch TVs should be 16K. But they are not, they are 4K, because we watch the from farm away, and we do not see the pixels.

- I would not want to have the ASD in front of me for a second because of its terrible reflections - I see myself and all surroundings. It feels like a mirror. I had iMac 5K, as I stated above, and I sold it.

- 4K is a high DPI display, and depending on the size, you only have to adjust the viewing distance for it to become retina. Try it for yourself. Read ergonomic guidance in terms of viewing angles and neck/head rotation and tilting, and you will see what I mean. If 32" is too close, you will suffer from too much neck/head rotation/tilt to see the peripheral of the screen.

 

[vddobrev]

Compared to the ASD the Dell looks and feels cheap! Just like any other 4K monitor! And with the glass the display on the ASD looks sharper and has more contrast. So having no matte screen is a huge plus! I use them both, and the difference is super obvious. Sometimes people speak badly about things to convince themselves, because deep down they want it
Btw I am using height adjustable tables, so I don’t change the height of my monitors. Otherwise I would just take a Vesa mount.

Ah and the instant wake of the ASD and my MacBook cannot be praised enough!

No problem, we have different opinions, and that is allowed, is it not?
It does not look cheap to me, I only see the screen, my desk is against the wall.
You value the glossy screen with sharper text and higher contrast (and obviously huge reflections), but I value more the matte screen!

If you use them both, are they at different distances to account for size? If not then of course you will see the pixels in the Dell.

And also (when people speak badly about things to convince themselves, because deep down they want it) the opposite is true - more often people praise things they bought to justify their purchase and the amount they spent - to be honest I was also considering the XDR, money is not in the equation here. Usually I buy what I like, and money is not an object. But I was not able to demo the XDR in my country with the nano-texture (and return is not possible once purchased).

The instant wake is a no-feature, the Dell wakes within 1 to 2 seconds with my Mac mini. I don't see how this is selling point. And also, the Dell immediately goes off, when I click "sleep" on my Mac mini.

 

[petvas]

No problem, we have different opinions, and that is allowed, is it not?
It does not look cheap to me, I only see the screen, my desk is against the wall.
You value the glossy screen with sharper text and higher contrast (and obviously huge reflections), but I value more the matte screen!

If you use them both, are they at different distances to account for size? If not then of course you will see the pixels in the Dell.

And also (when people speak badly about things to convince themselves, because deep down they want it) the opposite is true - more often people praise things they bought to justify their purchase and the amount they spent - to be honest I was also considering the XDR, money is not in the equation here. Usually I buy what I like, and money is not an object. But I was not able to demo the XDR in my country with the nano-texture (and return is not possible once purchased).

The instant wake is a no-feature, the Dell wakes within 1 to 2 seconds with my Mac mini. I don't see how this is selling point. And also, the Dell immediately goes off, when I click "sleep" on my Mac mini.

The Studio Display does offer a nano texture option with minimal reflections. (at a higher cost)

 

[petvas]

I will start backwards from your post:

- Arms length is a guidance invented when displays were 17". Online monitor positioning guides state "one arm length, but if your monitor is big, move it further". 32" at arms length is no ergonomic, it has to be at least one and a half arms length away. The proper guidance is using angles of viewing that will not cause too much neck/head rotation, but I will not go into that, if you want you can research on the subject (we have a whole department in our company doing just that, and they adjust our workstations each 6 months to make sure no repetitive stress injury).

- PPI and "retina" is relative to the viewing distance.

- It is a fact that ASD has a higher PPI, and the Dell has lower, but it is also a fact that the ASD is 27" and the Dell is 32". I am not sure what is this general misconception on the internet that you have to view the display at the same distance...

- Proper retina can be achieved by PPI and viewing distance together, not by one of this. The article you quote does not account for viewing distance, so is not a real scientific article. It is one thing to view a 21" monitor at arms length, and another to view a 32". One arm length is not going to be proper in terms of viewing angles.

- If we went by "retina" invented term, then our 75" inch TVs should be 16K. But they are not, they are 4K, because we watch the from farm away, and we do not see the pixels.

- I would not want to have the ASD in front of me for a second because of its terrible reflections - I see myself and all surroundings. It feels like a mirror. I had iMac 5K, as I stated above, and I sold it.

- 4K is a high DPI display, and depending on the size, you only have to adjust the viewing distance for it to become retina. Try it for yourself. Read ergonomic guidance in terms of viewing angles and neck/head rotation and tilting, and you will see what I mean. If 32" is too close, you will suffer from too much neck/head rotation/tilt to see the peripheral of the screen.

Viewing distance is of course important when talking about Retina. I am more referring to the way macOS deals with HiDPI displays and how it renders everything. Having a 2x scaling (which requires high PPI, above 200) is perfect for macOS and there is no comparison to a 130PPI display. If you read the linked article carefully you will see that there is a diagram showing how many PPIs are required for each mode. If you are using your Mac with a standard DPI mode, then you don't need a 27" 5K display. If you position your display far away, then of course you will probably not see any pixels and everything will appear sharp. I am using my Studio Display about 60cm away from me and I wouldn't want to increase this distance.
Having said that, a 350 nits monitor is not really bright, but somehow Dell must make these displays cheap to buy.

 

[vddobrev]

Viewing distance is of course important when talking about Retina. I am more referring to the way macOS deals with HiDPI displays and how it renders everything. Having a 2x scaling (which requires high PPI, above 200) is perfect for macOS and there is no comparison to a 130PPI display. If you read the linked article carefully you will see that there is a diagram showing how many PPIs are required for each mode. If you are using your Mac with a standard DPI mode, then you don't need a 27" 5K display. If you position your display far away, then of course you will probably not see any pixels and everything will appear sharp. I am using my Studio Display about 60cm away from me and I wouldn't want to increase this distance.
Having said that, a 350 nits monitor is not really bright, but somehow Dell must make these displays cheap to buy.

I am not running the Dell at 2x - I am running it at 3840 x 2160, so Mac OS scaling is 1:1 - even better than 2x.
60cm for 27" is quite right, but it is too close for a 32" from my perspective. The Dell U3223QE is 400 nits monitor, and this is plenty for me.

The Studio Display does offer a nano texture option with minimal reflections. (at a higher cost)

Yes I know, I would have loved it to be as sharp as the Dell's antiglare hard coating, but it is not.

 

[petvas]

I am not running the Dell at 2x - I am running it at 3840 x 2160, so Mac OS scaling is 1:1 - even better than 2x.
60cm for 27" is quite right, but it is too close for a 32" from my perspective. The Dell U3223QE is 400 nits monitor, and this is plenty for me.


Yes I know, I would have loved it to be as sharp as the Dell's antiglare hard coating, but it is not.

1:1 scaling isn't better, but each to their own..

 

[Cashmonee]

The Studio Display does offer a nano texture option with minimal reflections. (at a higher cost)

It should be noted that this comes with a significant hit to sharpness. I would not recommend anyone to get the nano texture unless they absolutely must have an Apple monitor. The argument all of those who purchase the ASD make is for the integer scaling and accompanying sharpness. That is negated by the nano texture.

1:1 scaling isn't better, but each to their own..

I believe the poster was referring to the sharpness of the scaling. 1:1 will always be better at producing the sharpest possible image. However, I believe you are referring to the size of the elements on screen, which I would agree that 2x scaling is better at 27".

350 nits is also plenty bright for most people using a monitor in day-to-day activities. Also, Dell is just as likely keeping the brightness lower because anyone using something like this for video production will have to master the video at 100-nits for SDR content. Video editors do not usually want something super bright since most have to master to lower brightness levels.

In general for all of the people looking at these threads, bigger numbers is not always better. Apple is throwing a lot of marketing speak at a monitor that is extremely limited in its use. Many are eating up these big numbers without knowing what they mean or if they are actually any better because they really want an Apple monitor. Which is fine, but if someone is on the fence, be careful of the marketing speak.

 

[vddobrev]

1:1 scaling isn't better, but each to their own..

On my 32" 3840x2160 1:1 scaling is better because:

1. One pixel is mapped to exactly 1 pixel, there is no scaling up, then scaling down. Less taxing on the GPU.
2. I get the largest work area possible on this display.
3. UI elements are small but still readable
4. I have increased the font size in most apps that support this

 

[satcomer]

Please understand I am not arguing nor imposing anything on anyone.

I do apologize, but you are wrong in your price calculation. I am also in Europe. If you count in a tilt and height adjustable stand and a nano-texture in the ASD and a USB hub (so that you fairly compare the features), then you will see that the price difference is about 1500 Euro, not 600.

I purchased the Dell 32" for exactly 1000 Euro with tilt/height/swivel and anti-glare and USB hub and KVM, while an ASD with tilt/height (but no swivel) and nano-texture is 2500 Euro.

And no, it does not look cheap, even though it is made of plastic. What looks cheap to me is Apples greediness to not include a height adjustable stand by default and not to offer a real matte screen not this BS nano-texture - that is dirty cheap in my book.

Just understand in video conference get a 1080 version camera because no one wants to see you five o'clock shadow!

 

[petvas]

On my 32" 3840x2160 1:1 scaling is better because:

1. One pixel is mapped to exactly 1 pixel, there is no scaling up, then scaling down. Less taxing on the GPU.
2. I get the largest work area possible on this display.
3. UI elements are small but still readable
4. I have increased the font size in most apps that support this

A 2x integer scaling can be handled with no issues on any Mac of the last 10 years and provides a much sharper image. Having a 1:1 scaling does make everything much smaller. The thing is that even on a Studio Display you can do 1:1, by installing a 3rd party app like Switch ResX https://www.madrau.com or by clicking on the scaled option with the option key pressed..

 

[theluggage]

1. One pixel is mapped to exactly 1 pixel, there is no scaling up, then scaling down. Less taxing on the GPU.

Unless you are running ancient, pre-HiDPI software, there is no quality loss with 2:1 scaling vs. 1:1 scaling - they are both true "4k" UHD - and the only practical difference is that in 2:1 mode the system UI (icons, fonts, dialogues etc.) are displayed double size (and usually with twice the resolution if the App has HiDPI support).

Apart from that it really comes down to physical screen size vs. how small you like the UI - your mileage may vary, but generally 1:1 @ 4k results in unusably small menus/icons below about 28-30" screen size, but 2:1 @ 4k on a >27" screen starts wasting too much screen space on the UI and looks kinda ridiculous by the time you get to 32" (2:1 @ 5k is about the sweet spot, which is one reason why Mac users are prepared to spend over the odds to get 5k).

MacOS kinda disguises the fact that there are two types of "scaled mode" - exact 2:1 which is "non-lossy" and just scales up the UI by x2 and the intermediate scaled modes which effectively plot at 2x resolution to an internal buffer and then downsample to the native resolution of the display. Those modes are still much higher resolution than the "looks like" figures in their descriptions, but there's extra GPU load and possibly slight artefacts - pretty much invisible on a 5k @ 27" or a 4k < 27", but would start to become visible if you go much past 27" on a 4k display.

Apple lumps both of these under "Scaled" but if you hover over the scaled resolution icons on the Display Settings panel you'll see a "using a scaled resolution may affect performance" warning over the intermediate modes, but not the 1:1 or 2:1 modes (on 4k, that's 'looks like' 3840x2160 and 1920x1080 - although they are both 3840x2180).

 

[palmor]

Unless you are running ancient, pre-HiDPI software, there is no quality loss with 2:1 scaling vs. 1:1 scaling - they are both true "4k" UHD - and the only practical difference is that in 2:1 mode the system UI (icons, fonts, dialogues etc.) are displayed double size (and usually with twice the resolution if the App has HiDPI support).

That's not quite true, photos that you are viewing (in preview or in a browser for example) are also doubled in size and the quality while viewing those photos are impacted and easily noticed.

 

[BobSc]

I'm beginning to think Apple loaded some of these with leftover/overstocked cams from other devices.

Wow!

 

[theluggage]

That's not quite true, photos that you are viewing (in preview or in a browser for example) are also doubled in size and the quality while viewing those photos are impacted and easily noticed.

So zoom out, then.

Any worthwhile creative software - whether it's graphics, video or WP - will let you set the zoom/scale of the content quite independently of the UI scale - and should take the screen PPI into account for things like "actual pixels" zoom mode. (...and a really well written website will switch to double-resolution bitmaps if it has them - for smaller images that won't waste too much bandwidth I usually use "high res" images with the scale set to 50% in CSS, but modern CSS can auto-select images based on PPI anyway).

Remember: 2:1 scaling is the default for most current Apple displays including the much lauded 5k panels.

 

[palmor]

So zoom out, then.

Any worthwhile creative software - whether it's graphics, video or WP - will let you set the zoom/scale of the content quite independently of the UI scale - and should take the screen PPI into account for things like "actual pixels" zoom mode. (...and a really well written website will switch to double-resolution bitmaps if it has them - for smaller images that won't waste too much bandwidth I usually use "high res" images with the scale set to 50% in CSS, but modern CSS can auto-select images based on PPI anyway).

Remember: 2:1 scaling is the default for most current Apple displays including the much lauded 5k panels.

Yes... LR, PS ect take care of this no problem. My only point is that there are implications to having the UI scaled that the average user doesn't know about. The statement that there are is no quality loss is too absolute (IMO) when there can be without workarounds.

For me I can see my 5k screen at native resolution just fine so I keep it there so I don't have to deal with zooming in/out. It's most annoying when participating in online photo forums because many of them don't take scaling into account. I understand this isn't just a Mac problem, it happens on any platform when you scale the UI.

 

[vddobrev]

Unless you are running ancient, pre-HiDPI software, there is no quality loss with 2:1 scaling vs. 1:1 scaling - they are both true "4k" UHD - and the only practical difference is that in 2:1 mode the system UI (icons, fonts, dialogues etc.) are displayed double size (and usually with twice the resolution if the App has HiDPI support).

Apart from that it really comes down to physical screen size vs. how small you like the UI - your mileage may vary, but generally 1:1 @ 4k results in unusably small menus/icons below about 28-30" screen size, but 2:1 @ 4k on a >27" screen starts wasting too much screen space on the UI and looks kinda ridiculous by the time you get to 32" (2:1 @ 5k is about the sweet spot, which is one reason why Mac users are prepared to spend over the odds to get 5k).

MacOS kinda disguises the fact that there are two types of "scaled mode" - exact 2:1 which is "non-lossy" and just scales up the UI by x2 and the intermediate scaled modes which effectively plot at 2x resolution to an internal buffer and then downsample to the native resolution of the display. Those modes are still much higher resolution than the "looks like" figures in their descriptions, but there's extra GPU load and possibly slight artefacts - pretty much invisible on a 5k @ 27" or a 4k < 27", but would start to become visible if you go much past 27" on a 4k display.

Apple lumps both of these under "Scaled" but if you hover over the scaled resolution icons on the Display Settings panel you'll see a "using a scaled resolution may affect performance" warning over the intermediate modes, but not the 1:1 or 2:1 modes (on 4k, that's 'looks like' 3840x2160 and 1920x1080 - although they are both 3840x2180).

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I am completely aware of this. For me at full 4K on 32" the UI is not too small, it is just fine. And there is no doubt that the ASD is higher DPI, but it is also a smaller size. I would have loved a 32" XDR, but that display is out of my price range.

But in all honesty, even with a scaling different than 1:1 or 2:1, the difference is ever so slight when you move the monitor further away, because it is a 32" not a 27", and that matters.