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.
Review: ViewSonic's VP2788-5K Display Offers a Cheaper Alternative to Apple's Studio Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, but what you’re essentially talking about is just out of the box colour accuracy. It’s typically much more accurate than other monitors but that alone doesn’t make it an overall superb monitor.
Remember, it’s a 600 nit non-HDR 8-bit FRC 60 Hz monitor.
Only MacBook Pro models have 120 Hz display. I’m not sure if that counts as “most“ since Apple only sells two different laptops.
I’m sure there are a few cases where it would benefit, but it doesn’t seem like that number is high enough to justify creating a new monitor. When you’re making a product the higher production numbers you can get helps offset cost of setup and development.
I honestly think Apple did the 120 Hz display on the MacBook Pro just as a check the box spec they can use as a selling point.
I know variable refresh rates are common but I think the problem is you’re combining two specific specs that put it in niche case. Most people are happy with 4K so there’s plenty of variable refresh rate 4K monitors out there. Very few people want 5K or 6K. Out of those very few I’m sure only a small percentage would benefit from 120 Hz. It’s kind of like selling a pickup truck with a luggage rack on top. I’m sure someone would benefit from that but manufacturers aren’t going to make it because they would sell five of them.
I think when the change will happen is when 120 Hz just becomes standard with all displays. Then it’s just going to be they’re all 120 Hz so we’re going to make the 5K one that as well.
We strongly disagree with your comment (apparently without even testing the display) of "only a poor matte display." Some of us [me] find that the glare inherent in glossy displays "reduces the display quality" [not my words] moreso than a matte display does. Those who like heavily saturated color tend to also like glossy. Just different strokes for different folks.Again it is only a poor matte displayA matt coating reduces the display quality, so you might as well stick with 4K.
Why don't the manufacturers finally offer glossy 220PPI displays!
I’ve heard this too, but I’m not 100% sure. I would assume the latest spec of HDMI would support 5K at 120 Hz since it supports 8K. Of course then you would need a video output to support it and that would be interesting if you wanted multiple monitors
If prints coming out of my printer exactly match what I'm seeing on the screen, day-in/day-out, and having zero drift over three years with zero adjustments, for me, that qualifies as superb.
I agree that it's a matter of preference - but if you're suffering from glare on a glossy monitor then a matte monitor just swaps the glare for lost contrast.
I've used both matte and glossy displays in rooms with sunlit windows, and any sunlight on the screen from any angle will pretty much wipe out a matte display, whereas if you can position a glossy display so that it's not reflecting the window directly into your eyes, it stays usable in a dark room.
The 2017+ iMac and the Studio Display use a combination of a glossy screen and an optical anti-reflection coating which is really the best of bith worlds. At a price. Lacking basics such as extra video inputs, adjustable stands and VESA mounting holes... but the screens themselves are hard to beat.
Just curious where you get your words "much lower build quality" from. I have not reviewed this specific Viedwsonic, but using MBPs I have been driving multiple very good quality Viewsonics on my desk for more than a decade and I would not assume "much" lower build quality from any Viewsonic without first testing a specific display (Viewsonic makes a wide range of displays at widely varied price points).
Apple's build quality of course is better than Viewsonic, but I would not say Viewsonic has "much" lower build quality compared to Apple. And Apple's range of display choices absolutely sucks. Making such a very limited range of display products at such very high pricing no doubt makes it easier for Apple to provide maximum build quality. Personally, I would love to have a pair of 32" matte Apple XDR displays on my desktop but I cannot afford $12,000 for displays. So I use the 16" MBP display with two 32" 4K Viewsonics above the MBP.
Note that personally I find zero value add having things like webcams and speakers in my external displays. To me such things are hardware waste; at any given price point manufacturers need to lower display quality to provide such gimmick features. What I want from external displays are only good image quality, VESA mounting capability and inoffensive visual presentation to the work space, nothing else. Good quality webcam and top quality speakers come from the MacBook Pro and if better WebCam or better speakers are needed I use the iPhone camera and the original 7" HomePods that are set up behind the desktop.
Last edited:
There's alot of monitor manufacturers that use firmware updates to improve / fix issues.
MacOS Scaling is not the same as resolution, scaling does not impact the resolution. I cannot imagine Apple wanting to show off a blocky version of MacOS @ 2.5k on their high end displays regardless of the refresh rate being achieved by doing so. Those same people that you mentioned are generally pixel peepers who would notice this immediately (hence buying a 5/6k display).
Apple will use a higher refresh when the technology is available, not a janky workaround that requires switching to a "low quality" mode.
Who's editing 120FPS videos except to reduce the frame rate? Most videographers are going to be using 24/25/30/60FPS, maybe it might benefit fast fluid scrubbing, but at the cost of reducing your preview resolution in half.
Artists have been successfully been "painting" on 50/60hz for years.
Who's editing 120FPS videos anyhow except to slow them down?* Most videographers are going to be using 24/25/30/60FPS, maybe it might benefit fast scrubbing.
*maybe there is a small use case e.g. ultra slow motion playback perhaps?
The Viewsonic "pro" VP Series displays that I buy have always been capable of good color printmaking accuracy. I have not used any of the lower end Viewsonic displays, the 27" Apple Studio Display is too small for me and at $5k-$6k the 32" Apple XDR Display is too expensive for me.
Last edited:
refresh rates higher than 60 are useful for more than gaming and this sort of mentality is part of the reason gaming on mac has lagged so far behind windows for so long.
I have found screen real estate to be huge value add for many years. I use multiple 4K external displays and scale the resolution setting depending upon what app windows are displayed on each display.
Last edited:
Well, since I‘ve had problems in the past finding the right monitor I‘ve made my investigation and it turns out that for the eyes the more ppi, the better. If this was not the case how could anyone handle 400+ ppi on your phone‘s screen? The size of the text has nothing with ppi to do, nor with resolution. The more ppi, the sharper the text.
Last edited:
I mentioned in a later post that it also had other niche uses but I guess you missed that. I even said in the comment you replied to that it’s what they’ve usually used for. I’d be willing to bet a month pay that the vast majority of high refresh rate desktop monitors are used for gaming.
I’m not sure how thinking that high refresh monitors are mostly for gaming is the reason Macs have lagged behind Windows computers for gaming. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that game developers don’t want to make the same game twice for two different operating systems.
I think you may be confusing things.
Pixel density matters, but it depends on the viewing distance, and it only matters up to a certain point. Once you go above that point, it's less critical. That's why iPhones have higher pixel densities than iPads, and why iPads have higher pixel densities than Apple desktop displays. The viewing distance for a phone is often lower than the viewing distance for an iPad, which in turn is shorter than the viewing distance to the Apple Studio Display. Also, pixel density numbers cannot be directly compared across different panel technologies because the pixel arrangement may be different.
As for text sizing on the Apple Studio Display, it is directly related to the scaling. Apple defaults to 2X scaling on that 5K display (5120x2880), meaning it "looks like" a 2.5K display (2560x1440). That provides the crispest text although if you choose a non-integer scaled resolution, it still looks very good although up close it may make text look slightly blurrier.
If you want to increase the text sizing without changing its relative size to other macOS screen elements, the way to do this is to lower the "looks like" resolution. The problem here is that Apple doesn't offer many screen resolution increments for non-integer scaling. On the Apple Studio Display, the next step down is 2048x1152, which would increase text sizing but too much so for most people, and it drastically reduces usable screen real estate.
A better increment for someone with older eyes or for someone who sits a touch further away from the screen might be something like 2304x1296, as that would increase text size somewhat, but wouldn't waste too much screen real estate. However, Apple does not offer this in macOS' settings. You can get it using third party workarounds, but it's not ideal.
You can change text sizing manually, without changing the "looks like" resolution, but that's on a per app basis, and it can be messy and screw up page formatting and what not.
So, that is why some people might prefer lower ppi screens instead. Instead of the 218 ppi with 2X scaling that Apple sells with the Apple Studio Display, a pixel density of 201 ppi would increase text size at 2X scaling, but not too much. A 5120x2880 screen at 201 ppi would be 29.2".
To put it another way in simpler terms, some people would prefer the 5K Apple Studio Display II to be say 29.2" instead of the current 27". It would give you the same "looks like" 2560x1440 screen real estate as the current 27" ASD, but with everything a bit bigger, including text, and it would still be "Retina" at distances of 17" or greater. The 27" ASD is "Retina" at 16" or greater viewing distance. Considering that ergonomically recommended seating distance is usually 20" or greater, a 201 ppi screen would still easily be "Retina" at those seating distances, with a big cushion too.
Last edited:
The Windows PC market is so much bigger that outside of Apple-specific products, Mac users are often along for the Windows 'ride' when it comes to 3rd party equipment. Yes, there are exceptions (e.g.: Mac-specific keyboards), but we're very fortunate we can use a lot of equipment designed with Windows PCs in mind.
It would be fascinating to see the sales figures on 27" 5K displays other than Apple's, to see what % of the sales are made to Windows vs. Mac users.
The 'sub pixel anti-aliasing' (IIRC) issue with Macs doesn't exist on Windows, and Mac users hotly debate the extent to which 5K offers much added benefit over 4K on 27" displays.
Taking all that together, this question naturally arises...
How many Windows PC users care about 5K on a 27" display? And are willing to pay for it?
If the answer is 'not many,' not only will 5K remain niche, but I'm surprised that a number of new entrants (e.g.: Asus, Viewsonic, BenQ) came in (Apple, LG and Samsung were already here) and are putting out product for us.
The answer also impacts how strong the market will be for 6K 32" displays (in other words, how strong the demand for 'retina' class displays).
On the other hand, if a lot of creative pro.s strongly prefer 5K displays for their Windows setups, there ought to be more of a market.
P.S.: regarding the matte discussion, from what I've heard elsewhere, not all 'matte' is created equal. Not sure how wide the variation is.
I'd wait and see what the "street price" is in a few months. Non-Apple stuff often ends up substantially discounted from the "list" price.
I doubt that the build quality is up to Apple's, but I wouldn't assume "much lower" just because the case is plastic.
The rest is a matter of priorities - clipping a webcam on top (and plugging it into one of the display's USB ports) is trivial. Yes, the Studio Display has great sound compared to other displays - but that's a pretty low bar. Many people using the Mac for serious audio/video will be getting proper external speakers, decent headphones, possibly an external audio interface - and if (like me) you prefer dual monitor setups you really don't want to pay for two built-in webcams and two speaker systems.
Then there are the missing features on the Studio Display: no proper adjustable stand, no extra video inputs and no way of switching to a VESA mount after the fact. For some, those could tip the balance.
I fully agree with you. But then what the author of that post meant is that his eyes cannot handle the FONT SIZE with default scaling settings on macos without setting it individualy in each app. And that is a totally different statement than „My eyes can‘t habdle 220 ppi“. Bit I guess this is just what he meant and I was too picky about the wording.
Well, I understood his point perfectly, as I have the same issue. 218 ppi at Apple's preferred 2X scaling makes default text sizing kinda small for older eyes or for those who sit a bit further away than average.
A monitor with 200 ppi at Apple's preferred 2X scaling would be easier on the eyes, because it would make default text sizing bigger, and it would still easily qualify as "Retina" at normal desktop viewing distances.
The LG 6K 32" looks reasonably well designed for example. But it likely won't be cheap either. It's got Thunderbolt 5 though.
iF Design - LG Ultrafine 6K Monitor(32U990A)
Slim and high-tech design for creative professionals The 32U990A monitor is equipped with a high-performance 6K Nano IPS black display for stylish, compact, and iconic arch design for aesthetics. The 4-sided borderless design increases immersion, maximize desk space efficiency. Users maintain a...
ifdesign.com
I use a stereo amp with bookshelf speakers. Better quality than ASD speakers. My web cam kinda sucks but I bought a low end one and I only use it for Zoom meetings maybe half-a-dozen times a year, and sometimes for FaceTime.
Last edited:
Scaling does not reduce the resolution, but the desktop interface.
Your 6k display for example will still be displaying everything at 6k. So you still get the benefit of high PPI you paid for, but the sizes of interface items, icons, taskbars etc are increased to a more comfortable working level without the drawback of reducing the actual display resolution.
While there certainly has been a race to the bottom among mass-market monitors, I think it's pretty funny to identify the early-2000s ViewSonic lower-end LCDs I'm talking about (VA1912w and friends) as "good old days quality". Those were corners-cut, budget monitors in their space even when they were brand new, and certainly nowhere near the high end of the market at the time. Not bargain-basement hardware, but certainly not built to last, either.
Anecdotally, we've been required to buy Dell monitors for maybe the last decade or so, and none of those have died, either. Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think we've had any monitor last less than a decade since the start of the 21st century.
Which doesn't mean that modern ViewSonic monitors are or aren't crap, although the portable 16" we've had kicking around for a while has taken quite a beating and is still fine, and the portable OLED sitting next to me right now is expensive (by modern standards) but absolutely gorgeous once I got past some software wonkiness.
It really annoys me that this screen was the talk of the town at CES, and looks like a real contender for those of us replacing higher-end 27" iMacs with a Mini/Studio + (?) setup, yet here we are coming up on six months later and they haven't even teased a price on the dang thing.
I'm sure it'll ship some day, for some price, but if you're going to show off a consumer monitor in January I expect at least a price range, if not an MSRP, by June.
HDMI 2.2: Will support 8k 240hz, and even 16k @ 120hz :-O But the specification was just published in January and no devices have been released yet.
Maybe the can't justify the manufacturing cost / Quality control vs price at this point.