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

[PickUrPoison]

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

I don’t have to prove anything. You made a ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim. You haven’t even provided a single data point that backs up your statement. That 4K monitor is not a better value than the XDR, it has a pixel density only suitable for a 21.5” monitor. GUI elements would be too large, text would we jaggy and there would be no room for anything else on the display except the 4K frame. A poor value for use with the Mac Pro.

Pros are excited about the XDR and are buying it. That may be upsetting to you, but that’s a you problem. You’re entitled to your (wrong) opinion but it’s not particularly relevant to the pros that disagree and have bought/will buy it 🤷‍♂️

 

[lilkwarrior]

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.

I for the most part concur; I somewhat disagree about it not being acceptable for pro photo editing. I think we both probably are familiar with not having solely a monitor like this for pro work.

I don't remember a time I would depend on solely one monitor for grading & etc vs. a monitor/TV/device lab.

 

[JustinD09]

The one big concern I have is bloom, I’m using LG 5K now for photo work and I have no doubt that the XDR is better at color and contrast in every measurable way. I worry that bloom on complete black bakgrounds would throw me with editing whereas if the whole screen is blacklit my eyes can compensate and take that into account as I am editing.

 

[mannyvel]

Tube Amp generates harmonic distortion giving a more warm feel.

I remember reading something years ago that said that you could just add a bit of distortion into the signal and it would sound like a tube amp. But you can't get that amber glow from transistors, which is why we love them.

 

[Makosuke]

Saying that a $5000 monitor in reference mode is only useful for content consumption, not content creation, is silly. No one in their right mind is going to spend that much money for a reference monitor for consumption. What you're really saying is that it is useless as a professional tool.

Which I'm not entirely sure is true

Should the monitor be genuinely compared to a monitor Apple compared it to? Absolutely, they asked for it.

Could it not be sufficient for a high-end professional colorist who is willing and able to spend $43,000 on a monitor? Absolutely, if I'm that professiona..

This review answers those questions, and that's useful if I am someone who is able to spend $43,000 on a monitor and also has the job requirements for what that monitor does.

But if I'm not that person, the two questions I would be asking if I were in the market for it:

If you're a professional who is able to spend $5,000 for a monitor but not $43,000, is it better than other professional monitors in the same price range, and also enough better than a nice $1,000 consumer monitor to be worth it?

And, more generally, does it perform well enough and is competitively priced for a professional with less stringent needs, or in a different industry, or even a different industry bracket? Say a not-wildly-successful photographer, or an indie filmmaker.

Maybe just an IPS monitor with 500 high-output dimming zones is enough for what I need, and/or I don't have $43,000 to spend on a monitor. If so, I'd be asking if this is the right buy for me compared to other things in the same price bracket, or if I should be buying either a nice consumer $1000 monitor or a $5000 monitor from somebody else.

 

[Gasu E.]

Cinema standards are actual, verifiable, and objective targets that all displays (from garbage Best Buy Specials to cinema projectors) aim for - color gamuts, luminance values, white points, etc. The goal of your reference is to at least know that the problems later down the pipeline aren't your fault.

If you produce work that you can be sure looks correct, then you aren't compounding the issue later down the signal chain. If I try to adjust an image for an iMac, with a notoriously blue tint to its display, it'll be un-viewable on displays that drift in the magenta or green direction. You won't just be guessing at what might work if you have a known reference.

Not to mention - a lot of images are intended to stick around. Displays today may not be able to show full Rec. 2100, but displays 10 years from now may, and your work won't be all messed up if you just do it right the first time.

No different than how we don't master audio by first broadcasting it over AM radio. You can do a sanity check to make sure it isn't impossible to hear, but you aim high, not low.

That certainly seems correct. Moreover (and I'm just guessing, since I'm not in the business), if a super high grade monitor can display super accurately, and with a wider range of *whatever*, you should be able to simulate, via software, the distortions and imperfections common to consumer monitors, in order to see how your work will appear to the average home consumer.

 

[blackadde]

Maybe just an IPS monitor with 500 high-output dimming zones is enough for what I need ...

Who is this person, aside from a content consumer?

Here's something worth keeping in mind: a reference display either tells you the truth (provides a reference) or doesn't. There's not much in between. A consumer display, on the other hand, just needs to look good. By all accounts the XDR is a very good-looking display.

If you need color accuracy but don't need HDR, there are many professional monitors in this price range (NEC Spectraview, Eizo CG Series). They have excellent panel uniformity, are easily calibrate-abe, and offer very long warranties. They don't suffer from any FALD blooming because they don't half-ass HDR; they avoid it altogether. You don't have to worry about whether that faint glow over your reversed text on a black field is there or not like you might with a FALD display.

If you need color accuracy in HDR, you're in a bind. Real HDR grading monitors cost an arm and a leg, and there's no getting around it. Maybe you can get one of the better OLED TVs, calibrate it, and rent pro equipment for your final passes. The XDR does not quality as a mastering monitor in this context because, again, it's a FALD display. It can give you an approximation of what your work looks like (sometimes a very good one), but there are times you can't rely on it to 'tell you the truth'. Vincent's video shows this very well with some of the starfield clips. The glow is the panel, not the content, but without the Sony reference you'd never really know.

However - if you're a hobbyist or a content consumer who just wants to have a big screen that's 'good enough' then the XDR is probably really nice. It has a huge amount of real estate and fits into the Apple ecosystem neatly. You can live with a little blooming or a lack of uniformity because nobody's paying you to make sure that green looks green, and you aren't staking your reputation on it either.

For what it's worth, I think the ASUS FALD displays the XDR is often compared to are basically in this bracket as well. They're half-way-there devices for the prosumer market, or professionals trying to skate by and guess in corner cases where they don't quite cut it. HDR is in a tough spot on the desktop monitor front.

If you're a professional who is able to spend $5,000 for a monitor but not $43,000, is it better than other professional monitors in the same price range, and also enough better than a nice $1,000 consumer monitor to be worth it?

I'm actually *exactly* in this spot - I can afford about $5k for a new screen that has to last me 10 years. I'm looking at the new NEC 31" DCI4K panel, or maybe an Eizo CG279X. Both of them are excellent SDR displays and thankfully I don't need HDR for my work.

 

[AppelGeenyus]

I don’t have to prove anything. You made a ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim. You haven’t even provided a single data point that backs up your statement. That 4K monitor is not a better value than the XDR, it has a pixel density only suitable for a 21.5” monitor. GUI elements would be too large, text would we jaggy and there would be no room for anything else on the display except the 4K frame. A poor value for use with the Mac Pro.

Pros are excited about the XDR and are buying it. That may be upsetting to you, but that’s a you problem. You’re entitled to your (wrong) opinion but it’s not particularly relevant to the pros that disagree and have bought/will buy it 🤷‍♂️

You're the one one that disagreed with me. I provided evidence to counter your point, but you haven't. And now you say "I don't have to prove anything" like a 5yo.

Your comments about oversized GUI, jaggy text and lack of space because "you could only fit a 4k frame"(lol what?!) proves you know nothing about pro displays and how they are used or even displays in general. Pixel density is low priority for pro level displays and provides very little value. Yes it would be nice to have it everywhere, but outside of Apple every other screen on the planet is below 220ppi. Every movie, TV show and piece of print work you've ever seen to date was edited on what you consider a "low pixel density" display.

Whether a certain Apple product is or isn't selling well has no bearing on my emotional state. I can't think of any reason why you would assume I'm upset except to make yourself feel better about losing an argument, "that's a you problem".

Also please provide "data points that backs up your statement" on how many displays Apple has sold and how many "pros are excited about it".

 

[1147402]

Apple themselves have said that software developers make up the majority of their professional users. Yet they finally bring out a "Pro" display but its mostly out of the reach of most software developers.

Even if it has a justifiable price tag of + for what it does, if its too much monitor for software developers, yet doesn't cut it for true video / film professionals, who exactly is this thing for?

Feature-wise overkilled for software engineers? Yes. Budget-wise? Not really, especially those who works at big tech firms.

It's really not that expensive compares to many stuff. A round trip business class ticket from Asia to Europe could easily beat $5k, and all you got is a seat to lay down for 18 hours. I'd like to have a 218 ppi 32" display with 6k res when I have to look at a screen for 8 hours a day stright.

 

[Raj Char]

Apple charges $5,000 for its Pro Display XDR and has described it as a display designed for professionals, even claiming that it can match the performance of some professional reference monitors on the market that sell for much more.

Vincent Teoh, a TV reviewer at HDTVTest, recently tested Apple's Pro Display XDR claims, comparing it to Sony's BVM-HX310 reference monitor, which uses dual-layer LCD technology and costs over $40,000.

Prior to pitting the Pro Display XDR against the Sony HX310, Teoh does in-depth testing of Apple's display, measuring brightness, contrast, and color accuracy, with the testing demonstrating some of the faults in the Pro Display XDR.

There were problems with contrast and color accuracy at peak brightness along with "so-so" screen uniformity, leading Teoh to call the reference mode of the Pro Display XDR suitable for content consumption rather than content creation.

Teoh then compared the Pro Display XDR to the Sony BVM-HX310 reference display as the Sony display is the one that was mentioned when the Pro Display XDR was unveiled. The Pro Display XDR struggled to keep up with the Sony display, and Teoh said that it is not a viable cheaper reference monitor for professionals."I think the Pro Display XDR is a no go for any serious professional colorist," he concluded. "At the end of the day, the Pro Display XDR is just an IPS display with 576 full array local dimming zones that happens to carry Apple's logo and costs $5,000."

He questions whether it's fair to judge a $5,000 monitor against a $43,000 reference display, but points out that it was Apple that made that comparison first at WWDC. "The Pro Display XDR doesn't deliver anywhere close to the consistency and accuracy demanded of reference monitors."

Teoh's full video on the Pro Display XDR is well worth watching for those who want to see the full testing details prior to making a purchase.

(H/T Matthew Panzarino and The Loop)

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

Apple didn’t expect there are geniuses outside their marketing geniuses to compare the product this thoroughly.

 

[PickUrPoison]

You're the one one that disagreed with me. I provided evidence to counter your point, but you haven't. And now you say "I don't have to prove anything" like a 5yo.

Your comments about oversized GUI, jaggy text and lack of space because "you could only fit a 4k frame"(lol what?!) proves you know nothing about pro displays and how they are used or even displays in general. Pixel density is low priority for pro level displays and provides very little value. Yes it would be nice to have it everywhere, but outside of Apple every other screen on the planet is below 220ppi. Every movie, TV show and piece of print work you've ever seen to date was edited on what you consider a "low pixel density" display.

Whether a certain Apple product is or isn't selling well has no bearing on my emotional state. I can't think of any reason why you would you would assume I'm upset except to make yourself feel better about losing an argument, "that's a you problem".

Also please provide "data points that backs up your statement" on how many displays Apple has sold and how many "pros are excited about it".

You made the foolish statement “Fact is it's the most overpriced worst value display in history.” Until you either support that (non)fact or withdraw it, there’s really not much progress that can be made with you.

Your issue is you seem to be stuck on the XDR as a reference monitor for HDR color grading, working with 4K DCI content or mastering a Blu-Ray, for example. I stated way back in post #14 that it’s not suitable for such work, and in post #29 called out Apple as having oversold the XDR’s capabilities in that regard.

But if a professional doesn’t perform those functions, the fact that the XDR can’t replace a $43k reference monitor for that work isn’t particularly relevant, is it? That doesn’t translate to the XDR being “the most overpriced worst value display in history” either. It’s a ridiculous claim.

There are plenty of monitors needed by pros, and very few pros who need/use $43k reference monitors. And yes, professionals have weighed in on the XDR.

One is Lunar Animation, a UK-based studio which works on CGI and visual effects for films, commercials and games. They called the XDR a “real game changer,” which gave them “an ability that we previously didn't have in the studio”: a “phenomenally accurate visual representation of the content we were making,” which allowed them “deliver something we were truly confident in.”

Read about it here, and learn what actual pros think of the value of the XDR. (It has some interesting info on the Mac Pro as well.)

USING THE NEW MAC PRO AND PRO DISPLAY XDR — LUNAR ANIMATION | CG Animation & Visual FX Services

We recently had the pleasure of getting to know the new Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR over the last few months. We’ve had the opportunity to use it to create content for the recently released movie JUMANJI THE NEXT LEVEL . So let's see how it performed...

www.lunaranimation.com

You can be sure that I don’t give a crap what you think of this monitor; I put no stock whatsoever in your opinion, which you (mis)represented as fact. As I already said, I don’t have to prove a thing to you. I have no problem calling you out on your BS and letting you twist in the wind trying (and failing) to back it up 🤷‍♂️ Live and learn.

 

[arvinsim]

People who can't afford a colorists monitor but need something better than crappy office-grade sRGB displays. People like indie productions, YouTube and online, local commercials and TV...

There's a space between an 8K RED cinema camera at $80,000 and filming on an iPhone.

Dunno about that. Doesn't LG, ASUS and Dell have good monitors for that use case for around a 3rd of the XDR price?

 

[jwalesh96]

I was curious what Sony would do to survive. Pretty boring and predictable.
[automerge]1581630240[/automerge]

Whosoever, they do it for money

errr no offense but a company involved in movies and lots of content creation puts out a
extremely well calibrated and precise reference monitors is completely natural.
Apple puts out an iPhone every year and MacBooks is that boring and predictable? I wouldn't say so.

Look for most people the XDR is a fine monitor. However, it isn't close to a proper reference monitor and their marketing shouldn't have compared it to one as there are tons of other monitors in a nearer price bracket that are much better to compare to.

Seriously its not good to fanboy/fangirl too hard on a single company. Buy products from companies when they put out great products but call them out when they make false claims(or bad marketing) and put out bad products.

 

[joshellis625]

I'm colorblind so I'm just happy I can see what I can. I trust high end companies to give me a good color experience and I take what I can get. I'm not surprised at all that Apple's XDR Pro doesn't hold up to a $43k Sony reference monitor. I'm envious of y'all color normies that can take advantage of such technology!

 

[johannnn]

$43k monitor is better than a $5k monitor? SHOCKING.

 

[PowerMac G4 MDD]

There are professional displays that cost $25k and are objectively not as good as the $5k Apple display. That's still a huge savings.

 

[dutchyonabike]

I'm a bit confused. I get that as a creator you want the best you can do. Makes sense, you want that extraordinary lens flare, add it in and you'll see it on an expensive reference monitor. But us consumers that are going to just be watching what you did will never see that slightly increased flare because our panels generally are exponentially worse than what you just created it on. Didn't that happen with GoT? They can see all the dark details on their reference monitors, but when it hit consumers, we couldn't see squat. So what is it referencing to if the majority aren't even using what is considered a reference?

Exactly, Hollywood would be better off using everyday (insert brand name) monitors, as most people have consumer monitors/TVs.

 

[mouthster]

$43k monitor is better than a $5k monitor? SHOCKING.

Anticipating another 20 pages of this hot take...

 

[Codpeace]

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

C'mon, pay attention. You comment too much here to spout fake-ignorant but fully-misleading quips like this.

Apple started it, this guy finished it. You trying to discount his work only reflects a sad version of you.

 

[HandITOVER]

SMH.

 

[Coconut Bean]

No the argument is not falling apart. Ask PIXAR, Disney Studios, and thousands of others who are making Motion Pictures if they aren't ditching those Sony monitors for this monitor? The man is a TV tech reviewer.

Drag his ass into PIXAR and see how quickly he's dead wrong at what he's talking about.

By the way, in a year from now when those microLEDs arrive no one will ever buy that SONY monitor again. Ever. There is a reason Apple has the majority of patents on MicroLED. These panels are just the beginning of their foray into displays.

Then you have to realise that all these thousands of users, if they really switched from the $43k Sony to the $5k XDR probably just overspent the whole time. But guess what, reality is people are upgrading from their 4k 32-inch monitors, the segment the XDR actually is in.

 

[Biu_miu]

well Apple said it themselves soooo

True, they said it themselves.
At the same time, we get ONE guy saying it is bad and everyone takes his word for it, post it all over the internet, BIG NEWS, alarms going off, DO NOT BUY, messiah have spoken etc.
At the same time reviews saying that monitor is good and can be compared to more expensive monitors- meh, I guess they are fine, but no need to put them on Google first page and repost in forums.

 

[Successful Sorcerer]

Exactly -- because the Pro Display XDR was certainly not meant for me. I still want an "Apple 5K Thunderbolt 3 Display" with a built-in Thunderbolt-3 dock including 10 gigabit ethernet, HDMI, USB-A, USB-C, Firewire, Super-fast SD Card Reader, etc.... A thunderbolt 3 display with ONLY more USB-C ports is worthless since because.... the MacBook Pro already has those ports!

That has to do with bandwidth... 5K uses 22 gb/s, so that leaves 18 gb/s on a high speed 40gb/s thunderbolt 3 cable. So you can't use 5K + more thunderbolt cables + high-speed ethernet etc. at the same time on a single port. The ports on the 6K monitor are even slower since there's even less bandwidth left.

 

[smetvid]

I find this review ridiculous because there are a lot of pros that want to grade HDR but cannot afford a $43,000 monitor. So their alternative is the XDR or a crappy fake HDR monitor.

The vast majority of content creators even at the Hollywood level would still greatly benefit from the XDR vs a crappy wannabe HDR display.

This is like saying a crew might as well pack up if they can't afford a $3,000 shotgun microphone and have to use a $300 one instead. I would rather see the crew use the $300 vs not using anything at all or worse yet a $30 knockoff microphone.

Perhaps it isn't the absolute best implementation of HDR on the planet but its also vastly more affordable meaning its a realistic option for a lot more content creators.

Snobs can complain all they want but people will be creating award winning content on these displays just fine. Especially when you consider 0% of the population can watch HDR that looks that good.

 

[HandITOVER]

SMH.