Why is a "reference" display monitor so expensive, $43k for Sony and $5k for Apple's??

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Luba, Jun 4, 2019.

  1. Luba, Jun 4, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2019

    Luba macrumors 65816

    Luba

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    #1
    I don't know how to make sense of display monitor specs . . . what makes Apple's upcoming display so expensive? It will be 1000 nits bright, while a MacBook Pro laptop display is around 500 nits. That doesn't mean the upcoming display will be twice as bright. It doesn't seem display monitor specs are the same as for TV display specs. They are measured differently.
     
  2. t8er8 macrumors regular

    t8er8

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #2
    The thing that’s amazing is that in comparison to high end professional monitors (the 43k Sony one) it does so much more than it for a tenth of the price. Thats why they compared it to the Sony monitor. The consistent 1000 nits is just the tip of the iceberg when talking about what this monitor is capable of, the cost comes into the fact that it isn't meant for consumers and has insanely specific technical aspects to it that only professionals need.

    The reference monitor can be sold for such a high price because it hasn’t had industry competition and is selling to large companies like Pixar who see the value in it.

    I won’t act like I know what each spec this monitor has but I’ll tell you now that the price is more than justifiable.
     
  3. UBS28 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    #3
    1000 nits is nothing. My Samsung 4K TV QLED does much more.
     
  4. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #4
    pixel density for that size. I think Apple is talking about this Sony Ref monitor (https://pro.sony/en_FI/products/broadcastpromonitors/bvm-x300-v2 ( although can get it for high $30's if look around )

    that is a 30" and 4K Apple's is 31" and 6K ( it is also not a base panel design being used by anyone else. So low volume and at those prices will stay low volume for a time)

    The Sony is an OLED display. Apple is approximately that without using OLED. ( the backlight. Apparently there are fans in the Monitor ... there are lots of computations being done and power kicked off in separate zones. The later also means need to uniformly cool it also. )

    Punch and hold brightness. ( helps with HDR coverage)

    Color uniformity over wide field of view. ( group viewing where there is a number of color viewers critical of color. )

    Not really about the color but the stand + Monitor seem to weight about as much as the new Mac Pro does. ( so all that extensively milled aluminum . )


    they claim it can sustain 1000 nits. The peak, temporary brightness is even higher (1600) according to the tech specs. However, it is the ability to brightness this bring relatively near something that is much darker without the specular spot bleeding into the surrounding colors (zones and zone control of interaction between zones. )




    I don't think Apple wanted to put this up for the formal HDR classification otherwise they couldn't easily mark it as something beyond HDR ( Extreme Dyn Range )
     
  5. throAU macrumors 603

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #5
    The non technical version: because it is accurate in terms of colour reproduction.

    Most people have no need for a monitor of this caliber, and the ones who do (like, guys who work on multi-million dollar cinema projects or ultra high end design work for print, etc.) can likely afford it.

    That still doesn’t excuse the monitor stand pricing.
     
  6. x-evil-x macrumors 601

    x-evil-x

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #6
    doubt it does 1000+ CONTINUOUSLY...
    Small spurts around that sure. Apple display can run consistently at 1000
     
  7. UBS28 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    #7
    Samsung QLED TV’s can run at 2000 nits continually and hit peaks over 4000 nits ..... Really, 1000 nits is nothing.

    And the Samsung screens are really good, it makes my 2018 Macbook Pro and iPad Pro display look cheap.
     
  8. x-evil-x, Jun 5, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019

    x-evil-x macrumors 601

    x-evil-x

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #8
    I doubt most people have Samsungs 8k QLED panel but it does not do continuous 2000nits.
    Show me where you see this.
    Short bursts is different.
    https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q900-q900r-8k-qled
    According to Samsungs site these have a PEAK of 1500 nits. Continuous is well under 1000.
    https://www.samsung.com/hk_en/support/tv-audio-video/qled-tv-brightness-hdr/

    100% window is around 500 nits. for qleds

    Now for apple to have a display that do continuous 1000 nits is really really good. Im sure we will see some real world testing soon.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. edgerider macrumors regular

    edgerider

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2018
    #9
    actually you wouldn’t like to watch TV on a référence screen, it would be pale and grey.

    référence monitor are only about one thing : be as close as possible from reality. they are absolutely not ment to be looking good, they are ment to be true.

    the only down side i see to what they have done is the fact that they didn't include BNC connector for direct 12gsdi to camera with mosaics PIP.

    if they would have done that, that monitors would be every where on set!
     
  10. Luba thread starter macrumors 65816

    Luba

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    #10
    Hmm, so even if I could afford the upcoming Apple Display I don't want it as it won't look good watching movies.

    And even with Hollywood using the best cinema camera to film movies the cameras don't capture true colors? It has to be fixed afterwards.

    I don't have FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) as I can't afford a display that costs more than a top of the line iMac, but was wondering what I missing out on. I thought I would only notice a difference if I had super excellent color vision or was trained to look at colors, sort of like high end audio equipment in which only highly trained listeners or listeners with "golden ears" would notice a difference.
     
  11. edgerider macrumors regular

    edgerider

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2018
    #11
    you are right!
    just for the sake of example here is what footage look like graded vs ungraded.

    the aim of a reference monitor is to be able to see as much as possible what is in a raw cinema image, therefore they work in 10 bit per color and have a large image spectrum. 10 bit is alredy not right because it « represent » the true 12 bit per color that a cinema camera can capture in raw.

    High end digital back for commercial photography is even worst with 16 bit per color.

    this help a lot in the perception of what is really in the image in matter of color rendition. this has nothing to do with resolution or dynamic range.

    when you are on set what you will usually do is look at the picture on a reference monitor, and most of the time you have a guy called a DIT (digital image technician) that will aply a « profile » that would give you a quick preview of « how the picture will look like on a consumer tv » then the director will know if the set is indeed lighted correctly or if there is the right amount of contrast to begin with.

    that screen (and a reference monitor) also show you details in highlight and shadow that would just be plain white or plain black in normal tv or gaming monitor.

    they serve a totally different purpose :
    a gaming monitor or a digital tv is made to have bright , saturated and contrast image in various conditions, (everything has to look sharp and fresh either in your basement or in a bright day at the office) while a reference monitor is there to help you analyse the composition of an image and also have the hardware ability to show you what the picture will look like on your tv.

    actually with a calibration tool i could mesure your tv and aply its characteristics to the reference screen and simulate almost perfectly your screen on that reference monitor.
    if you put them side by side, they would then look identical.

    that is because a reference monitor car display far more different profile than you gaming monitor.

    just to let you know i still have a barco calibrator V crt 21 » 12 bit monitor because it is a true 12 bit hardware monitor that can display colors that no other monitor can. it is just the way they are built.

    it is the technics sl1200 of monitor.

    when you look at an image on this beauty the colors looks so real that you truly think you can touch the object.

    now it is very old so I only use it to do final proofing on major project.

    but it is fun to think that flat planel are just starting to catch up with 1995 technology !
     

Share This Page

10 June 4, 2019