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

[AppelGeenyus]

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.

I've provided proof regarding price and value to support what I said, if you want to repeatedly disagree then it's your turn to provide valid reason(s) why, otherwise stop disagreeing.

I'm not hung up on anything relating to "XDR as a reference monitor", where did you even get that? All I did was point out your spectacularly incorrect (and hilarious) statements about 4K monitors not being suitable as pro displays, and proved why. So far the only person making unrelentingly BS claims is you.

The comments in that article don't even support your argument. It doesn't matter if they like the monitor, they could have achieved the same results at half the cost. And you previously try to criticise me for mentioning only 1 example of a comparable monitor, now you yourself only provide only 1 article...

I can be sure you do give a crap what I think about this monitor(which I haven't really mentioned besides price/value), why else would you keep replying? Why mention that at all or even reply to me in the first place if you don't? Seems like a pretty big contradiction to your own statement.

 

[simonmet]

What does "professional display" mean? A Dell "professional display" is an office monitor that supports sRGB who's primary benefits is that it has a USB hub, DisplayPort and slots for a soundbar.

Apple themselves compared it to a Sony reference monitor costing 9 times as much and then went on to imply or claim it was as good or better.

As I said, a marketing fail. Did they honestly think people wouldn’t test these things? There was widespread skepticism within the professional colourist/grader market the moment it was announced; and that has been vindicated.

 

[Sodium Chloride]

OK, OK. A true professional may not use the XDR displays but how about the computer itself? Would a company like ILM buy MacPro to create special effects for Hollywood Movies?

 

[simonmet]

Apple brought this on themselves. They compared it to the Sony monitor. "Wow!", people said. But, when someone calls them out, and says that it actually doesn't compare..."of course it doesn't". "That's silly".
I think some people are getting their feelings hurt when they hear it's not as good as they were told.
It is a really nice monitor. But, Apple greatly overstated how good it is.

I agree. It’s hard to understand the psychology of hardcore Apple defenders on this forum and elsewhere. It’s very foreign to me. I can only imagine it’s a sort of cognitive dissonance that is similar to religious faiths; and is why some people describe hardcore Apple fans as cultish.

 

[jwalesh96]

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

I think some of the negative statements about the XDR here are a bit exaggerated, However, while Lunar animation is one smaller studio (which btw on their page say they can't afford 30k on a monitor) doesn't mean they won't use or rent other monitors either, but they also don't represent everyone. However, I think its good that it could mean more people getting a better display leading to better work overall with a final color check at the end on a reference monitor etc.

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.

Source link for your claim? Even if so, Display companies will just make MicroLED reference monitors no?
There are microLED based displays but they're so expensive already, but then again so are reference monitors. As the tech matures microLED reference monitors prob will come.

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

You(and others harping about reference monitors being unnecessary) can't be serious right, there are posts in this thread that detail why reference monitors are a great tool. Just because you don't need it doesn't mean others don't. Even more so for creators. By your comment the XDR isn't needed either, if nobody can see it why bother amirite?

 

[blackadde]

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.

The XDR doesn't do anything that those 'fake HDR monitors' aren't. It's just another FALD / IPS display with more pixels. It isn't in a separate, different product category that suddenly opens up the door to new work.

 

[Da_Hood]

Tube Amp generates harmonic distortion giving a more warm feel.

This guy. Do we stack more warmth on the source at output? Or should it be right from the start?
Kinda of the point of the reviewers summation.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I've provided proof regarding price and value to support what I said, if you want to repeatedly disagree then it's your turn to provide valid reason(s) why, otherwise stop disagreeing.

I'm not hung up on anything relating to "XDR as a reference monitor", where did you even get that? All I did was point out your spectacularly incorrect (and hilarious) statements about 4K monitors not being suitable as pro displays, and proved why. So far the only person making unrelentingly BS claims is you.

The comments in that article don't even support your argument. It doesn't matter if they like the monitor, they could have achieved the same results at half the cost. And you previously try to criticise me for mentioning only 1 example of a comparable monitor, now you yourself only provide only 1 article...

I can be sure you do give a crap what I think about this monitor(which I haven't really mentioned besides price/value), why else would you keep replying? Why mention that at all or even reply to me in the first place if you don't? Seems like a pretty big contradiction to your own statement.

1) You have not produced proof regarding price and value to support what you said. You cited one available 4K monitor which is less expensive than the 6K XDR. That doesn’t prove “Fact is it's the most overpriced worst value display in history.”

2) I never said anything about “4K monitors not being suitable as pro displays”. What I said was that the one available display you tried to use as proof of your claim about the XDR—“Fact is it's the most overpriced worst value display in history”—would be a poor value for use with the Mac Pro. At $4,000, it’s indeed a very poor value compared to the XDR.

If you don’t understand why a pro editor or cgi/vfx artist would rather have a 32” 6K display rather than a 32” 4K display, you’re beyond my help. Your one sad data point doesn’t support your (non)fact.

3) Pros say that at its price it’s a game changer. AppelGeenyus says it costs too much. Thanks, but yeah that’s ok. I’ll believe the pros. No offense AppelGeenyus.

 

[Val-kyrie]

This is consistent with pros I’ve heard from. Not good enough for a colorist or mastering.

However, there are other roles in the upstream pro workflow that this monitor can fulfill. Other uses outside video/film as well.

I really don’t understand whom Apple is targeting with this product and how it compares to similar products with a similar usage scenario. It would be interesting to see a review which compares Apple’s monitor to other monitors of similar price / caliber and/or which places Apple’s monitor within the continuum of high(er) end monitors.

 

[theluggage]

OK, OK. A true professional may not use the XDR displays but how about the computer itself? Would a company like ILM buy MacPro to create special effects for Hollywood Movies?

Only if they were already committed to using MacOS-only software, making the cost of changing their workflow, downtime and re-training more significant than the cost of the hardware. Now there are, undoubtedly, people in that situation so I’m not being dismissive there.

Otherwise, the MP is just an over-engineered Xeon tower with hugely limited config options c.f. Generic hardware that means supporting a different OS to the Windows or Linux running on your servers and render farms...

So, basically, at that level it’s about selling software and integrated “solutions”, and letting those sell the hardware.

Now, maybe there are teams of crack Apple salespeople out there pushing ProRes, FCP-X and others to their contacts in the industry in ways that us muggles never get to hear about. From the publicly available evidence, however, Apple are just trying to push tech porn to you tubers. Tellingly, all those benchmarks on Apples site are 28 core MPs vs. IMac Pro and trashcans basically proving that some workloads pretty much scale with the number of cores... not exactly going to sell it to generic PC hardware users who can already get 56 or 64 cores...

 

[V_Man]

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.

Way to change your point. This entire thread You have been saying that Apple never compared their monitor to the Sony.
Clearly they did. Stop being pedantic. No that it was proven to you that Apple did compare the two, you change your point.

 

[qwertzuiop.98]

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?

My iPad Mini Retina Diplay was good enough for seeing details in the shadows 😅
The high brightness also blended me sometimes.

 

[qwertzuiop.98]

This is what I'm saying. They just created an odd product. It's very expensive, quite good, but as we have seen in the video not good enough for the kind of work they mentioned in their presentation...

Who is gonna buy it? Pro photographers maybe? Prosumer videographers? ... they should have just released updated 27" 5K monitor for a reasonable price (under $2000).

I guess a high end youtuber should be able to afford a 6k monitor.

 

[4jasontv]

I didn’t see a car analogy, so here goes. If Apple released a supercar for $380,000 that only goes 300 mph it would be the best supercar in the world even though the Bugatti Chiron goes 304 mph. Price is a component of what makes something the best. They didn’t claim to have the most accurate color, or the fastest response time, or the most uniform display - they claimed overall it was the best.

 

[qwertzuiop.98]

Well, sure but if you care about movies or content in general and don't watch stuff on iPhones (like some individuals keep demanding) then your home tv system is calibrated.
In other words, if you have 55, 65, 75 or bigger inch tv at home and you didn't calibrate it then you either don't care and in that case it doesn't matter whey they throw at you or you are just plain silly.
So, Apple referencing their monitor to Sony reference one is because the target audience is professionals that care and Apple clearly overshot.
I feel that this should be made bigger as I'm never a big fan of marketing lies or misleading tactics.

Regardless, accuracy matters. My Sony 65" came in fairly accurate but after the calibration it was 10x better.
Sure, it costs a bit more ($350 in my case) but if you buy expensive tv it needs to be calibrated.

The best really depends on weighting feautures. 6k vs 20k/40k, silent vs loud, accurate even in extreme shots or not. Most video content is not as extreme as black background with white dots. Power consumption also would be interesting to compare. But when someone claims the best, it should be the best in every aspect.
[automerge]1581679511[/automerge]

This is what I was wondering. Thank you for posting.

So now that we know that there is a need for this product, does it really provide $5,000 in value? Could I get a monitor without the Apple logo for say $2,00 or $4,000 that performs just as well?

Not yet

 

[zhenya]

It looks to me like this monitor does exactly what Apple implied. Nowhere did they claim that this monitor would have better color quality, black levels, etc. when compared to the Sony monitor.

The comparison to the Sony was done for a couple of reasons:
- One - they needed to set the stage that monitors exist at these kind of price points. If they’d simply come out introducing a Pro monitor at $6k with no context, when most of the people watching are consumers used to buying $300 monitors and $500 tv’s, people would think (far more than they did, even with the context) that this was just another example of the “Apple Tax.”
- Two - it allows them to make the extremely valid point that while monitors like the Sony exist and are used in a very narrow use case, besides the cost, they have other real downsides as a day-to-day monitor.

Again - nowhere does Apple claim that this will replace the Sony or similar monitors for a very narrow use case. What this monitor is intended to do is fit in the space above consumer level monitors but below these obscenely expensive monitors designed for a very specific use case but not great as an every day monitor.

The 6k resolution is actually a big deal. The number of monitors available with more than 4k resolution is very small. The number of monitors with more than 4K resolution, with a high quality panel that is reasonably well calibrated from the factory, in a design that is pleasing to use at a regular desk 8 hours a day? I’m not sure, but it may well be one - this monitor - at the moment.

I’ve actually been shopping this market myself for the past few months. I’ve been on a 27” 4K monitor for the past several years, and would like something with a bit more resolution and a bit larger size but not outrageously expensive. There is virtually nothing in this market space at the moment. The Apple monitor is still a bit more than I’d like to spend, but unlike the majority here, I can clearly see why Apple is producing it.

This is exactly what Apple said in the keynote:

"There is one class of displays, it's commonly called reference monitors. And these do deliver true HDR along with these features(>27 inch screen, wide 10-bit color, precise calibration, HDR). But they're still missing these features(>4K res, retina pixel density, highly functional design, quiet operation) and they're incredibly expensive. This one(Sony) is $43,000.

"So our goal, it was simple. make a display that expertly delivers every feature that pros have asked for.

[lots of marketing fluff]

...It's the only display in the industry that delivers every feature on a pros wishlist, and more.

[more marketing fluff]

...making this the world's best pro display."

So there you go. It doesn't matter if they didn't specifically claim it can replace the $43K Sony. They very specifically positioned XDR as a reference monitor-class display and used the $43k Sony as an example. Then immediately claimed XDR not only compares to monitors in this class but can do even more. But in reality it falls very short of these claims.

And it doesn't matter if XDR is a really good display. Fact is it's the most overpriced worst value display in history. Deal with it.

 

[qwertzuiop.98]

The XDR doesn't do anything that those 'fake HDR monitors' aren't. It's just another FALD / IPS display with more pixels. It isn't in a separate, different product category that suddenly opens up the door to new work.

6k Resolution, 1600nits peak.

 

[ksec]

I think this is partially missing the point. One could argue that F1 technologies and usually the "halo car" of a brand's lineup will show off technologies that filter down to the consumer, but I don't think that is the majority of what is being spoken about here. They make it seem like real filmmakers could not use an Apple display to make a movie because it isn't accurate enough. Is that really the case? I think that extra 1-2% of accuracy would be offset by the majority of consumers inaccurately calibrating their display (which is in most cases ~$1,000 and not going to match the reference anyway). Are there any actual experts here that can shed more light on this topic?

LOL

What is missing the point? The Dual Layer LCD panel technology first used in Reference Monitor do get filtered down to other products. Not to mention only a few of the F1 R&D get filter down to consumer. They are tuned to look *exactly* the same in every reference monitor. And keep the difference to absolute minimum.

Your question is not technical, but you cant understand the "value". There is no point in a Ferrari if there is a Lexus, which is already better than your consumer Toyota. After all your car will be limited on 80 MPH high way anyway.

The top 1%, if not 0.1% will always be exponentially higher in cost in almost all catagories. Go and look up Studio Speakers, why paid 10 times higher when most consumer cant hear the difference. Because it matters.

Edit: Here is the Pantone Reference Library. Nearly $2000. https://store.pantone.com/uk/en/reference-library.html

 

[HandITOVER]

SMH.

 

[zhenya]

That's not the point as most people can buy an 8K display with better color accuracy if is going to cost $5000 and include a stand out of the box. Apple failed to deliver that reasonable package as an option and you can't blame the people who are bashing it.

How many 8k displays are currently on the market, actually available to buy? I’m aware of one - made by Dell. I suspect the Apple would fare much more favorably in direct comparison to that monitor in terms of color, etc.

 

[theluggage]

So now that we know that there is a need for this product, does it really provide $5,000 in value? Could I get a monitor without the Apple logo for say $2,00 or $4,000 that performs just as well?

AFAIK its the only 6k display on the market (and 5k still isn't common) - that on its own could command the $5000 price tag. The only close competitors on resolution are the 5k LG Ultrafine at $1200 and the $3000-ish Dell 8k - neither of which claim even fake HDR.

Really, the problems with the XDR seem to be:

• Apple's own claim that the XDR is comparable to a $40k reference display - if Apple hadn't made that claim in the first place, this whole thread would be a straw man. They did, so it isn't.
• The cost of the stand, which again is pure troll-baiting by Apple, the anti-glare coating and (possibly worst) the VESA adapter that should just be integral to any credible pro display.
• The fact that Apple doesn't make any less expensive displays that match the Mac styling.

 

[V_Man]

I didn’t see a car analogy, so here goes. If Apple released a supercar for $380,000 that only goes 300 mph it would be the best supercar in the world even though the Bugatti Chiron goes 304 mph. Price is a component of what makes something the best. They didn’t claim to have the most accurate color, or the fastest response time, or the most uniform display - they claimed overall it was the best.

They never claimed it was the best value. Apple directly compared it to the Sony’s performance not price value

 

[HandITOVER]

SMH.

 

[theluggage]

Your question is not technical, but you cant understand the "value". There is no point in a Ferrari if there is a Lexus, which is already better than your consumer Toyota. After all your car will be limited on 80 MPH high way anyway.

...but in the case of displays, something is either a "reference display" or it isn't. "90% as good as a reference display" is like saying someone is "90% pregnant". If the Film/TV industry ever come to the consensus that the XDR is good enough to be a reference display then a reference display it will be.

The top 1%, if not 0.1% will always be exponentially higher in cost in almost all catagories. Go and look up Studio Speakers, why paid 10 times higher when most consumer cant hear the difference. Because it matters.

...with studio speakers, most consumers would be able to hear the difference and probably wouldn't like the 'flat', warts-and-all response. They're designed for a different purpose than consumer speakers. Plus, of course, nowhere is the snake oil thicker than in the "audiophile" (air quotes) market - you can pay way more for "audiophile" speakers than studio speakers (yup. I'll take that $500 pair of studio monitors over that $600 pair of HomePods, thanks).

 

[jinnyman]

Just go back to the announcement thread and see how many people were making fun of sony and praised Apple for making a comparable monitor for almost 1/10 price. ( or 1/9 whatever).

Guess what? It seems Apple did make a nice looking and spec wisely good monitor, but unnecessarily at high price for its target market, and justify that by saying their target market is much different.

Now it's proven that Apple's claim was fake. It's still a good monitor, but not meant for glorious professional. Wait and see how it compares to $2,000 "professional" monitors and live up to its price tag.