Pro Display XDR... Am I missing something?

[Chaszmyr]

Today I hooked up a Pro Display XDR (standard glass) for the first time, and my initial impressions are pretty underwhelming.

Set up side by side with a 27" iMac, the iMac screen clearly looks brighter (the Pro Display is in "Pro Display XDR (P3-1600 nits) mode with auto brightness, true tone, and night shift all disabled). Additionally, color uniformity and viewing angle on the iMac are at least as good, probably better.

As for color accuracy, based on just first impressions I can't say which display is more accurate, but I can say the iMac colors definitely seem more vivid (maybe partially just because it's brighter?). The Pro Display definitely displays a wider range of contrast. Blacks look blacker (especially if the whole background is black) and there is more detail in some of the shadows.


Anyway, am I missing something? Do I just not understand how brightness is measured? Am I somehow doing something wrong? Could this particular Pro Display be defective?

 

[blackadde]

Color accuracy is not really possible to judge without a known reference. I wouldn't use an iMac as a ruler to judge another screen for any color critical applications. I can't speak to the other issues you're dealing with, but accuracy requires a spectrophotometer or colorimeter and patch generator to meaningfully measure.

You can measure panel uniformity with DisplayCal and a good colorimeter (eg. X-Rite i1 Display Pro). It has a built-in uniformity test, and it's free.

 

[henrymyf]

I'm having really good time with my nano-textured XDR, and I just think it is good enough in terms of performance (without knowing much about those professional specs), and with the Logi 4K cam hooked on, it just looks so cool to me~!

 

[724699]

Just picked one up, and to me it's a beautiful monitor overall. Noticeably better display quality than my iMac displaying finer detail and great overall colour balance.

Edit: figured out the "full truth" of the brightness levels on the XDR. So in standard display mode (even when set to HDR 1600 nits) the max nits is actually around 500. The same/similar to the iMac 5K screens. The 1,000 sustained nits only comes into play when watching actual HDR content, using the HDR 1,600 mode.

Otherwise, this display side-by-side with the iMac or LG5K monitor, the sharpness, color accuracy and contrast makes everything (especially text & very fine details) stand out like nothing else I've had the opportunity to use monitor wise.

This monitor is truly great. Almost makes using my iMac 5K screen beside it seem "annoying" wishing I had two of these XDR's.

 

[henrymyf]

Just picked one up, and to me it's a beautiful monitor overall. Noticeably better display quality than my iMac displaying finer detail and great overall colour balance.

Edit: figured out the "full truth" of the brightness levels on the XDR. So in standard display mode (even when set to HDR 1600 nits) the max nits is actually around 500. The same/similar to the iMac 5K screens. The 1,000 sustained nits only comes into play when watching actual HDR content, using the HDR 1,600 mode.

Otherwise, this display side-by-side with the iMac or LG5K monitor, the sharpness, color accuracy and contrast makes everything (especially text & very fine details) stand out like nothing else I've had the opportunity to use monitor wise.

This monitor is truly great. Almost makes using my iMac 5K screen beside it seem "annoying" wishing I had two of these XDR's.

May I ask if you are using the glossy or the matte version? What do you think of that compared to the iMac screen in terms of clarity?

 

[724699]

The standard glossy version. I find it less reflective than the iMac screen; curious what the nano coated version looks like by comparison.

One further thing to note, the XDR is indeed an LCD despite all the great tech packed into this display. Meaning, the uniformity is not going to be 100% perfect, and you do notice on the edges a slight drop-off in brightness and very very feint 'banding' you get between the rows of LED backlighting if you look very closely. I suspect the only way to truly get rid of that effect is to double or triple the number of LED backlights, or ... make an OLED panel.

 

[henrymyf]

The standard glossy version. I find it less reflective than the iMac screen; curious what the nano coated version looks like by comparison.

One further thing to note, the XDR is indeed an LCD despite all the great tech packed into this display. Meaning, the uniformity is not going to be 100% perfect, and you do notice on the edges a slight drop-off in brightness and very very feint 'banding' you get between the rows of LED backlighting if you look very closely. I suspect the only way to truly get rid of that effect is to double or triple the number of LED backlights, or ... make an OLED panel.

When I turn off the room light, make the desktop black and move the white cursor, I can see clearly an illuminated square move along with the cursor.

I think by increasing the density of the LED backlighting grid, such issue could get improved, but cannot ultimately conqured, as long as Apple is using LCD.

But I got an impression that only LCD can give such good image quality. OLED appears too vivid to be true. I don't know.

 

[blackadde]

FALD backlighting operates with low-resolution lighting zones to provide their high dynamic contrast. It's just a compromise you have to live with if you want LCD's with deep blacks, aside from very expensive dual-cell displays.

 

[oneafour]

I've been really happy with my glass Pro Display XDR. It is easily the nicest monitor I've ever used and next to my BENQ 32 4K edge lit display (250~ nits), the apple pro display is league's better. I can't compare it to the the iMac display's however, but the PPI should be the same as the MacBook pros but this thing supports hdr.

this is just someone using it to surf the net and play video games. I can't speak for someone whose using it in a professional photo or video manner, but as a a consumer, this monitor is great!

 

[Chaszmyr]

For anyone wondering, I did determine that the Pro Display XDR is, in fact, only able to display brightnesses over 500 nits when displaying actual HDR content (which for most users, is not something we come across very often). As a photographer, this is disappointing. iPhone photos are HDR and therefore can display up to 1600 nits, while RAW photos from my high end camera are locked at 500 nits. I don't really understand why the display works this way, and for people who edit HDR video footage for a living I'm sure it's fantastic, but for me it's kind of a let down.

To be clear, I'm not saying I think it's in any way a bad display, but when one of the main selling points appears to be the brightness, I feel like it's disingenuous for Apple to not more adequately communicate that for most people the brightness is locked at 500 nits 99% of the time.

 

[henrymyf]

For anyone wondering, I did determine that the Pro Display XDR is, in fact, only able to display brightnesses over 500 nits when displaying actual HDR content (which for most users, is not something we come across very often). As a photographer, this is disappointing. iPhone photos are HDR and therefore can display up to 1600 nits, while RAW photos from my high end camera are locked at 500 nits. I don't really understand why the display works this way, and for people who edit HDR video footage for a living I'm sure it's fantastic, but for me it's kind of a let down.

To be clear, I'm not saying I think it's in any way a bad display, but when one of the main selling points appears to be the brightness, I feel like it's disingenuous for Apple to not more adequately communicate that for most people the brightness is locked at 500 nits 99% of the time.

I guess maybe Apple is trying to caltivate the habit of using HDR content. Gradually, I think the 500 nits lock would be removed by firmware update.

 

[blast87]

For anyone wondering, I did determine that the Pro Display XDR is, in fact, only able to display brightnesses over 500 nits when displaying actual HDR content (which for most users, is not something we come across very often). As a photographer, this is disappointing. iPhone photos are HDR and therefore can display up to 1600 nits, while RAW photos from my high end camera are locked at 500 nits. I don't really understand why the display works this way, and for people who edit HDR video footage for a living I'm sure it's fantastic, but for me it's kind of a let down.

To be clear, I'm not saying I think it's in any way a bad display, but when one of the main selling points appears to be the brightness, I feel like it's disingenuous for Apple to not more adequately communicate that for most people the brightness is locked at 500 nits 99% of the time.

I just received my nano-glass XDR and I am feeling underwhelmed as well.

One thing I noticed with the nano-glass is that the areas of the screen that display white have a strange look to it. It gives off this pixeled/color look, where you can see the color LED pixels within the white. At first, it made my brain think there is some grease/water on the screen that needs to be wiped off. It's prevalent whenever there is white on the screen.

I'm debating between returning for the regular glass model or returning it and just getting the LG 5k model instead. It seems like way better bang for your buck. Same brightness and PPI. Like you said unless you are doing HDR content this thing doesn't really have any special capabilities.

 

[724699]

blast87 -It's a solid and beautiful monitor, and the design also doesn't look like a plasticky POS like all other screens That's one benefit outside of 6K, and also much better calibration out of the box (especially vs the LG 5K), and the beautiful glass (not plastic...again) screen.

I purchased the standard non nano coated screen; personally I love it. Own 2 now, with a new Mac Pro once the W5700X was release the other week.

BTW, you can adjust the luminance by creating a custom mode for the screen. Have you guys played with that? I think you can actually adjust the max brightness yourself by adding a custom mode ....

 

[blast87]

What software do you use to make a custom mode? As of now, I am leaning towards switching to the regular glass model. Nano gives a weird look

When I go to display my presets list is empty. Apple's website about presets mentions many are built-in. But mine are missing here, and there is no way to add. Any idea if there is a solution? My firmware was updated to 2.2.2

 

[724699]

What software do you use to make a custom mode? As of now, I am leaning towards switching to the regular glass model. Nano gives a weird look

When I go to display my presets list is empty. Apple's website about presets mentions many are built-in. But mine are missing here, and there is no way to add. Any idea if there is a solution? My firmware was updated to 2.2.2

That’s weird you’ve got that error - but that’s exactly where you go to create a custom preset. You hit the + sign to add a new one, and it has all the options needed to make a custom profile there. Not sure what’s happening on your machine

 

[Adult80HD]

What software do you use to make a custom mode? As of now, I am leaning towards switching to the regular glass model. Nano gives a weird look

When I go to display my presets list is empty. Apple's website about presets mentions many are built-in. But mine are missing here, and there is no way to add. Any idea if there is a solution? My firmware was updated to 2.2.2

Someone else had this problem after updating their firmware. Make sure your Mac is fully up to date on the OS, and then unplug the XDR completely--both the TB3 cable and the power. Leave it unplugged for at least one full minute, better yet 2 minutes. Then plug it all back in. That should fix the issue.

The nano is definitely not for everyone. It can give a little bit of a "dirty screen" effect. I don't mind it and early prefer the lack of reflections, but it seems that more people don't like it than like it.

 

[Chaszmyr]

BTW, you can adjust the luminance by creating a custom mode for the screen. Have you guys played with that? I think you can actually adjust the max brightness yourself by adding a custom mode ....

It LOOKS like it will let you set a higher brightness, but it won't actually accept any value higher than 500 for SDR.

 

[blackadde]

500 cd/m2 brightness for flat white is blindingly bright for most interior lighting situations. Typical SDR sRGB / Rec 709 standard is something like 80-140 cd/m2. What are you using your screen for?

 

[tuncer]

When I first got my monitor, I was underwhelmed by the monitor. Over time the display seems to have gotten brighter and is about on par with my LG 5K monitors. Overall very happy with it.

 

[henrymyf]

500 cd/m2 brightness for flat white is blindingly bright for most interior lighting situations. Typical SDR sRGB / Rec 709 standard is something like 80-140 cd/m2. What are you using your screen for?

Problem is, is the XDR really emitting 500 cd/m2 brightness for non-HDR contents? I highly doubt that. I think the brightness is only about 300~350 cd/m2.

 

[Adult80HD]

Problem is, is the XDR really emitting 500 cd/m2 brightness for non-HDR contents? I highly doubt that. I think the brightness is only about 300~350 cd/m2.

Yes, it is. I've verified with it with my X-Rite i1 Display Pro Plus, which is designed for HDR monitors.

 

[-narcan-]

For day to day work, is the XDR really that much better than the 5k LG ?

 

[Adult80HD]

For day to day work, is the XDR really that much better than the 5k LG ?

That's more of a personal opinion. I love the extra screen real estate--32" is a lot bigger than 27"--and it's noticeably more accurate in color. For me the answer is yes, but for others the extra space and color accuracy may not matter that much.

 

[-narcan-]

That's more of a personal opinion. I love the extra screen real estate--32" is a lot bigger than 27"--and it's noticeably more accurate in color.

Yeah, that’s fair enough. Question was probably more around color and contrast etc as screen size is a bit easier to answer when it comes to better / worse . But if color is noticeably better then that definitely answers it!

 

[Adult80HD]

Yeah, that’s fair enough. Question was probably more around color and contrast etc as screen size is a bit easier to answer when it comes to better / worse . But if color is noticeably better then that definitely answers it!

I use my two XDR's for color-critical photography so the color matters to me. Right now I still can't calibrate the XDR but that is supposed to be available shortly in a new release of MacOS. That said, even when I calibrate my old LG UltraFine it still doesn't seem to be as close to real-life as the XDR. I would say that my overall first impressions were tilted more to the size and quality of construction--at first the image quality seemed great but I wasn't "wowed" but then after using it for a week, I put the LG UltraFine next to it suddenly I realized how much nicer it was. That actually led me to buy at second XDR.