YouTuber Compares Apple Pro Display XDR to $43K Sony Reference Monitor, Says It's a 'No Go' for Professional Colorists

[Glockworkorange]

I'm not going to continue to be gas lit.
[automerge]1581646292[/automerge]

Hey buddy, the ad-homs only diminishes your reply. This thread is an echo chamber. I am looking for a reference where Apple said their XDR monitor can replace the Sony for the most demanding colorist work. Comparing the attributes of two monitors , one which is $37K more than another (unless there is only gold in the Sony) means there are some functions and qualities that the Sony has that the XDR doesn’t have.

It seems the market position of the XDR is a fairly good monitor, whereby one doesn’t have to spend $43K if one isn’t doing the most demanding of work. Right tool for the right job, where the XDR is providing a less expensive option for less demanding work.

There is nothing wrong with Apple comparing the two if some attributes overlap. That doesn’t mean the XDR isn’t capable for the target market Apple has set out to sell into. Whether it’s successful is another story.

Here's what you said:

"I reread the pc mag article and it did not say Apple compared their monitor to the Sony." Emphasis added.

I showed you where they did compare them.

You now talk about "replacing."

Just take the L and move on.

 

[lec0rsaire]

Random person on YouTube. Let’s hold of for real reviews.

There’s no better display reviewer than him on Youtube. Even on the web as a whole he’s among the best. He’s not a random tech reviewer like hundreds of others out there. He’s a professional calibrator and knows about reference level equipment.

 

[code-m]

A monitor that costs 9x more is better? Wow.

12" DVD....aah....player

 

[I7guy]

I'm not going to continue to be gas lit.
[automerge]1581646292[/automerge]

Here's what you said:

"I reread the pc mag article and it did not say Apple compared their monitor to the Sony." Emphasis added.

I showed you where they did compare them.

You now talk about "replacing."

Just take the L and move on.

You did miss in my original rely that I did say that pc mag said Apple compared the xdr to the Sony.

Apple even had the timerity to use reference monitor. It seems this Sony monitor is one of the gold standards, but my point was that doesn’t diminish the XDR for what it is.

 

[code-m]

I mean the thing only has 576 dimming zones - it was never going to compete with something that has per-pixel dimming. Not sure what Apple was thinking with their marketing.

It's probably more than enough for a lot of people in various industries though, just not colorists.

While certainly a nice monitor, the marketing makes one seems that its worth the price which this professional calibrator reviewer says it is not.

Seems like another bold marketing claim like the one with the laptop a decade or so ago. It's like Apple learns nothing from these exaggerated claims.

 

[BlueTide]

Apple made a huge mistake by comparing their own display to reference monitors. The Pro display XDR was NEVER meant to compete with any reference monitors and yet they advertised as a reference monitor from WWDC 2019.

This is just a theory, but I think it was intentional and calculated. This kind of communication tactics are also seen in... populistic circles. Move the goalposts, have people talk about $43k displays in the same context with your product and observe how people are ignoring the real alternatives. The ones needing the real stuff would know better, but there are plenty of gullible who now see it as better value and in class of its own.

 

[code-m]

Everyone saying "of course" to this:
Who is the apple monitor for? What user needs a monitor that expensive BUT also not a colorists monitor?

PRO-ice products, the best Apple can offer in their opinion or whatever marketing bs the market will lap up.
[automerge]1581647975[/automerge]

This is just a theory, but I think it was intentional and calculated. This kind of communication tactics are also seen in... populistic circles. Move the goalposts, have people talk about $43k displays in the same context with your product and observe how people are ignoring the real alternatives. The ones needing the real stuff would know better, but there are plenty of gullible who now see it as better value and in class of its own.

I suspect a studio or a professional who can afford most equipment for the work to get completed would not opt for an affordable Apple option compared to the Sony. To a pro and a studio they reputation is more valuable for the work they create and deliver than a few thousands being tossed around as a viable option.

 

[AppelGeenyus]

Good point, surely there must be such a list, otherwise you couldn’t claim the XDR is the most overpriced.

Please do share the other monitors you compared to the XDR in order to pronounce it the “most overpriced” and “worst value display in history”.

Should be interesting.

PA32UCX can be had for as low as $3k USD, ~half the price of Apple XDR+stand. (if you think this doesn't compare on HDR, real work tests have shown it can do over 1300 sustained at 100% white and over 1500 sustained at 75%.

And coming very soon also at ~half the price or less:
- PA32UCG
- Thinkvision Creator Extreme P27
- Dell UP3221Q

Then you have all of the existing and upcoming top of the line OLED TV's from LG etc which are steadily becoming available in smaller and smaller sizes, and are already being used in studios for all sorts of pro editing, again for about half the cost of a single XDR display.

Don't forget to provide your counter list as well.

 

[jdoyle]

Apple did bring this on themselves by begging the comparison. Rather than asking why it's not as good as a 40k screen we probably should ask why is it not better than displays that are half the price or cheaper? At the end of the day the review says "the Pro Display XDR is just an IPS display with 576 full array local dimming zones "

 

[PickUrPoison]

PA32UCX can be had for as low as $3k USD, ~half the price of Apple XDR+stand. (if you think this doesn't compare on HDR, real work tests have shown it can do over 1300 sustained at 100% white and over 1500 sustained at 75%.

And coming very soon also at ~half the price or less:
- PA32UCG
- Thinkvision Creator Extreme P27
- Dell UP3221Q

Then you have all of the existing and upcoming top of the line OLED TV's from LG etc which are steadily becoming available in smaller and smaller sizes, and are already being used in studios for all sorts of pro editing, again for about half the cost of a single XDR display.

Don't forget to provide your counter list as well.

So on the basis of one available monitor—a 4K monitor at that—you pronounce the 6K XDR “the most overpriced worst value display in history”?

Like I said, that’s BS and you know it.

 

[AFDoc]

I don’t know squat about screens but the side by side is pretty amazing in the darker scenes. That Sony was freaking awesome.

 

[Bandaman]

A monitor that costs 9x more is better? Wow.

Apple is the one that first compared their monitor to other monitors of this price range. So ... this is on them.

 

[citysnaps]

And coming very soon also at ~half the price or less:
- PA32UCG

And with less than half the pixels.

 

[AppelGeenyus]

So on the basis of one available monitor—a 4K monitor at that—you pronounce the 6K XDR “the most overpriced worst value display in history”?

Like I said, that’s BS and you know it.

Having two high quality 4K monitors(with cash to spare!) beats a single 6K monitor all day, every day. Sorry I don't hold a database of every monitor in existence in my head. But having said that, one is still more than enough to prove my point. And it's also one more than you could provide of monitors priced similarly to XDR that would prove it isn't terrible value for $.

I also like how you completely ignored my point that more comparable monitors being release only months from now further destroys the value of buying an XDR today, and didn't address the use of significantly cheaper OLED TV's for pro work(probably because you didn't know).

Edit: removed bad math.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Having two high quality 4K monitors beats a single 6K monitor all day, every day. Sorry I don't hold a database of every monitor in existence in my head. But having said that, one is still more than enough to prove my point. And it's also one more than you could provide of monitors priced similarly to XDR that would prove it isn't terrible value for $.

I also like how you completely ignored my point that more comparable monitors being release only months from now further destroys the value of buying an XDR today, and didn't address the use of significantly cheaper OLED TV's for pro work(probably because you didn't know).

I’m still trying to get past your first point. You claimed the 6K XDR “the most overpriced worst value display in history”.

 

[Adult80HD]

He is not random, he is a known snake oil salesman from the TV world.

Ok, kidding, he's known in the enthusiast community who looks at screens with a magnifying glass and talks about 5% gray uniformity like it is essential to enjoying a good movie.

I believe the term used for people that do that is "measurebator"

 

[rkuo]

Nope, you're just falling into the same trap. "Correct" is not an objective term here, because if you can't see "correct" as defined by a $43k display on any other display in the world, then it doesn't matter. "Good enough" on the XDR display or even a 5K iMac is "correct" enough for all content that will be seen by all people in digital form.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about ... you're just running your mouth. Content is mastered to a higher grade all the time and then tone mapped down at the consumer device level, sometimes adjusted at the encoding level, to something that makes sense for the display's capabilities or the user's custom settings. Whether or not you understand the process doesn't change the facts of how it works.

 

[AppelGeenyus]

I’m still trying to get past your first point. You claimed the 6K XDR “the most overpriced worst value display in history”.

Explains why you're taking so long to prove me wrong. I've done my part. Waiting on you now.

 

[tambur123]

Random person on YouTube. Let’s hold of for real reviews.

Vincent is probably the best professional reviewer and calibrator to date.

 

[Simmias]

The Sony monitor used in the comparison is 4K, not 6K.

Exactly. The XDR has higher resolution and higher sustained brightness. No mention of those advantages in any of the reviews gleefully trying to skewer Apple for the comparison of the XDR to higher end reference monitors. They only focus on the disadvantages.

 

[bosozoku]

You just gave zero value back. Apple was in the market and development the same time Sony was, as in the fact that Trinitron was developed for the Mac Display back in the '80s. Then Sony worked with Steve again for the NeXTColor Displays and the OS which had the most advanced Graphics Drawing Engine around: Display Postscript.

Sorry, but Apple R&D is world class. SONY isn't a leader anymore. EIZO is big in Medical Displays. If you think they wouldn't have invented the XDR that Apple did then think again. EIZO has never captured large scale market appeal, in any sector of their monitor space. They make their money mainly on Medical Displays only.

Trinitron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1968 is the year Trinitron was introduced, sorry but Apple haven't existed at that time and Steve was a barefoot hippie.
Also, EIZO sells far more better than XDR Pro display - they also have gaming monitors, color grading monitors and many industry application monitors. The year of company establishment is also 1968!
Tell your stories to apple lemmings
So my final verdict: XDR Pro is a good IPS consumer monitor for rich hipster pros, true OLED Sony PVM/BVM is for real pro. Discussion is closed.

 

[blackadde]

Exactly. The XDR has higher resolution and higher sustained brightness. No mention of those advantages in any of the reviews gleefully trying to skewer Apple for the comparison of the XDR to higher end reference monitors. They only focus on the disadvantages.

There are no other 6k displays on the market. For video reference purposes, it makes no sense to use an XDR. You grade at the final output resolution, and you don't put GUI stuff on your reference display so 'extra room for UI' is not of assistance (if you're using Resolve, you're probably using a Blackmagic output card to bypass the OS color management and skip the GPU).

 

[iPaintCode]

$2999 and includes the stand, now that's an excellent value for what it offers. Like others have commented, Vincent didn't pull the Sony reference out of thin air that was Apple touting how it's the best "Pro" display at only $4999, without the $1000 stand.

 

[lilkwarrior]

Vincent is great and always fair in his thoughts as I follow him on his reviews. He also has a great sense of humor if you catch it.

But Apple gave themselves all the rope needed and the monitor does well, but the price is ridiculous for a monitor. The Sony is a perishable item and is meant for reference usage, but it is also what others are calibrated against.

Those saying otherwise, aren't into A/V...

Strongly disagree about the price; even the 4K PA32UCG (which handily beats this monitor with double the zones, HDMI 2.1 VRR, and far more ports + more standard calibration options) will cost as much if not more; it's current sibling, the Asus PA32UCG, is $4000.

4K Gaming monitors coming equivalent to the nits of this monitor (HDR1600) revealed at CES 2020 are $3500. Accordingly, the price is more than fair.
[automerge]1581655387[/automerge]

Everyone saying "of course" to this:
Who is the apple monitor for? What user needs a monitor that expensive BUT also not a colorists monitor?

Pretty much every creative professional not a colorist (they have multiple monitors anyway). I'd do research on professional monitors oriented for creative professionals from the likes of Asus Pro Art series, Dell, LG, & Vizio.

Portable professional monitors actually do use (21") cost around $4000.

 

[bosozoku]

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying apple XDR is BAD monitor, it is just not for that it's been advertised for. It still VERY GOOD to use with Mac Pro for sound engineers, hobby photographers, youtubers (video editing where quality is not critical), HDR content consumption (if you are rich enough), CAD Engineers, etc.
But for PRO level photo/video editing, not being able to show 24bit hardware LUT and having awful glares and non-uniform backlit, is not acceptable.