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

threesixty360

macrumors 6502
May 2, 2007
305
362
I’m puzzled by what Apple has done here. No one has been able to use local dimming to improve blacks in a screen without creating a booming effect. I think Samsung has there Qled technology that works the same way and Has the same problems. The benefit is better brightness levels compared to OLED so it’s more suitable for daylight viewing, but this is all about consumers watching stuff at home, so thats an ok choice.

But for reference work it’s a strange choice. How on earth will professionals not notice the problem when using the Apple screen? To make it worse the choice to wow “some people” buy using local dimming kind of means there is no Uniformity to the picture in dark scenes at all. Which is worse than just using a normal well lit lcd panel.

its like they are trying to get to one place and have run out off gas and are stuck in no mans land!

the only thing I could say in apples defence would be the problems of accuracy seem to be about screens where there are lots of dark / black images where local dimming kicks in. Maybe with normal brighter content its fairs better?

it Feels a bit like the trash can mac again. over engineering to solve a problem at a price point and missing the whole point.... however, it will look sexy on the desk of some ad executive in their soho exposed brick office so maybe it’s me that’s missing the point!
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU and BlueTide

Duane Martin

macrumors 6502
Oct 15, 2004
356
704
Calgary, Alberta
I watched the video. My takeaway he doesn’t like the moniker reference as he says it’s just another ips display. Maybe yes for the masses maybe no. It falls short when comparing to a monitor that costs $37k more.

We’ve all seen how the world can be wrong when it comes to apples products.
Why are you quoting me and then not referring to what my comment was about? The point is that Apple compared its monitor favourably to a monitor that costs $37K more and the proof that Apple did make that claim is in the video embedded in the article. People were asking for a citation to the claim, I was providing the citation.

This thread is starting to read like a defence of a certain political leader by his followers:
Stage 1 "Apple didn't say that."
Stage 2 "If Apple did say that, they didn't mean that."
Stage 3 "If Apple did say that and they meant it then they must be right contrary to any other facts."

To be clear, I did not compare the Apple XDR Pro to the $43K Sony monitor. The reviewer did not randomly select the $43K Sony monitor to make a comparison to. Apple themselves made the claim that the Pro XDR was comparable to the $43K Sony Monitor and the proof they made that statement is in the video embedded in the article that everyone is referring to but apparently are not watching with their brains fully engaged.

So no, an IPS monitor with 576 dimming zones is not comparable to the $43K Sony monitor; nor is an IPS monitor remotely capable of a 1 000 000:1 contrast ratio; nor is the Apple XDR Pro the "World's best pro display"; but then I am not the one who claimed any of this was true. Apple did. Watch the video.
 
Last edited:

V_Man

macrumors 6502
Nov 23, 2019
346
443
Only if being "politically correct" will drive shareholder value. If you disagree, you don't know how public companies are run.
I understand that in business money rules all. Some think morality runs Apple. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonyRS

I7guy

macrumors Core
Nov 30, 2013
21,330
9,294
Gotta be in it to win it
...To be clear, I did not compare the Apple XDR Pro to the $43K Sony monitor. The reviewer did not randomly select the $43K Sony monitor to make a comparison to. Apple themselves made the claim that the Pro XDR was comparable to the $43K Sony Monitor and the proof they made that statement is in the video embedded in the article that everyone is referring to but apparently are not watching with their brains fully engaged....
Is comparable identical? Did Apple use the adjective comparable or did they say it compares to (In certain aspects)? Unfortunately the English that Apple used has to be parsed.
- - Post merged: - -

I understand that in business money rules all. Some think morality runs Apple. Lol.
Some think lies run Apple. Lol. Good thing there is plenty of room for all opinions, whether they hold water or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: V_Man

rkuo

macrumors 6502a
Sep 25, 2010
621
225
It's not at all binary. The number of people who work with a $40k display as their main display all day every day is infinitesimally small. However there are a significant number of professionals who want something between what Dell, Samsung, LG, etc. offer out of the box (4k, reasonable calibration, etc. but not great color, etc.) and those $40k displays. That's the market this is monitor is going after. 6k resolution, very high end (but not reference) color calibration, etc, in a design you would use 40+ hours per week.

Again, there is nearly zero other competition in the space this competes in.
The thing you may not understand is that the XDR is WORSE than a normal monitor for many professionals (such as any LG panel monitor like the ones used in iMac's) due to the local dimming issue, off axis viewing, and lack of ability to calibrate. So the niche you think it lies in is severely compromised.

Some of the above can be fixed in the future with software updates, in which case the XDR will slot more cleanly into the niche you are proposing.
 

WestonHarvey1

macrumors 68020
Jan 9, 2007
2,441
1,184
The fanboyism is strong here. When people balked at the price of the XDR the response was "It's not made for you, you idiot! It's a reference panel! Compare the prices of the competition, it's a bargain!"

Now it's "of COURSE it's not a reference panel! Did you really think it's going to compare to a $40k display, you idiot?"

So what is the value proposition of this monitor now? It's a large productivity monitor? More screen real estate + HDR? Who is this for?
 

organic bond

macrumors regular
May 5, 2007
172
124
Stage 1 "Apple didn't say that."
Stage 2 "If Apple did say that, they didn't mean that."
Stage 3 "If Apple did say that and they meant it then they must be right contrary to any other facts."
So very true! Unfortunately it happens all the time, some people defend Apple no matter what. Apple is ALWAYS right. I remember in "From Russia with Love" a guy working in the Soviet Embassy saying to Bond "our clocks are always right". Same story. Unbelievable.
 

Unregistered 4U

macrumors 6502a
Jul 22, 2002
865
466
and is canceled because, "no one bought it"?
In reality, though, no one buys them. The vast majority of systems Apple sells are MacBooks and MacBook Pros. That’s followed by iMacs and iMac Pro’s. I would doubt the mini ever pulls in more than a single digit percentage of all the Macs sold. I good chunk of change, probably, but when customers are overwhelmingly NOT buying something, that gives you an idea what to focus on.
I am not sure what Apple expected..
They expected folks to talk about it. Which they are AND at length. So, good job everyone?
Maybe with normal brighter content its fairs better?
I would say that since there’s been zero side by side pictures of normal content showing significant problems with the XDR monitor, your assessment is likely correct. I’m sure there’s a few people out there working on documentaries about “The Use of Sparklers in Egyptian Tombs” and “Darkroom Arc Welding” that wouldn’t be able to use them, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adult80HD

phpmaven

macrumors 68040
Jun 12, 2009
3,399
460
San Clemente, CA USA
This monitor is probably great for web-level stuff. 95% of the web people probably don't understand color calibration, color spaces, and creating images for the web. This is for them, to make sure that what they're making is sort of close to what their users might be seeing if their user has a good screen. And I suspect that most users have a decent screen these days.
Do you seriously think that somebody doing images for the web is going to spend $5K for a monitor? A decent 4K monitor is about as crazy as you would need to go.
 

waterfta

macrumors newbie
Jan 15, 2018
21
27
If you understand the Pantone Reference, the you should understand the reference monitor. Why would you want a close to $100K Red Camera [1] when a future $1K Samsung Smartphone can shoot 8K?
Even the handle of the Red Camera cost as much as an iPhone 11. And it is only a piece of plastic.

For Consumer, easy to digest video, you can check out Linus Tech on 8K Red Camera that is are easier to understand. Corridor Crew is another one with focus on real world professional VFX, there was another one on real Hollywood production Channel which I cant remember it at the moment. But you will open into a whole new world where million dollars are nothing in those categories.


[1] https://www.red.com
Well, it seems we are more or less getting to the same point here. These products are not for consumers, regardless of income. I would hardly say the Linus Media Group is a normal consumer, that's a full fledged company who shoots who knows how many hours of video each week as part of their main business. If you show me a link to a video where they are using reference monitors to then edit said videos, then you would be on the right track.

I can appreciate that with increasing budgets, there comes the desire to get closer to "perfect" in any space that you are working, so I know what you are getting at. For example, Billie Eilish recorded her album using a $100 microphone and obviously had success...however I think they have since upgraded to $1000 microphones after making money. Obviously they felt there was an area to improve and their budget afforded it. I just haven't yet heard from someone actually doing this type of work that can speak out and say "Yes, this Apple monitor is good, but for my job, it really isn't close enough". At this point we are all just speaking about some hypothetical person working at a movie studio. Regardless, at the end of the day, if people are paying for something, the market will continue to make it. Kudos for Apple for keeping the conversation relevant I guess.
 

I7guy

macrumors Core
Nov 30, 2013
21,330
9,294
Gotta be in it to win it
If you understand the Pantone Reference, the you should understand the reference monitor. Why would you want a close to $100K Red Camera [1] when a future $1K Samsung Smartphone can shoot 8K?
Even the handle of the Red Camera cost as much as an iPhone 11. And it is only a piece of plastic.

For Consumer, easy to digest video, you can check out Linus Tech on 8K Red Camera that is are easier to understand. Corridor Crew is another one with focus on real world professional VFX, there was another one on real Hollywood production Channel which I cant remember it at the moment. But you will open into a whole new world where million dollars are nothing in those categories.


[1] https://www.red.com
I had this very discussion with another poster regarding using iphones to make a movie. The poster said why would you use an iphone to make a movie when one could use a Red Camera. I said why use a Red Camera when one could get a better 1M+ imax camera.

This monitor discussion seems like it's a similar discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ksec and Adult80HD

BlueTide

macrumors regular
Feb 6, 2007
172
102
Silicon Valley, CA
I think it's probably best for photographers for print work. I wouldn't use it for HDR video.
Lol, no. Almost as good one as those comments that speak of 4K vs 6K in this context. Talk about not understanding the domains. Funnily enough, I am pretty sure many peeps do get this thing for purposes where it is far from optimal. Because it looks cool. Admittedly, I might do the same.

The thing you may not understand is that the XDR is WORSE than a normal monitor for many professionals (such as any LG panel monitor like the ones used in iMac's) due to the local dimming issue, off axis viewing, and lack of ability to calibrate. So the niche you think it lies in is severely compromised.
Just wanted to quote this, I don't think many peeps understand this and this needs repeating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppelGeenyus

postelnikov

macrumors newbie
Sep 22, 2019
4
18
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.
Dude, are you 12 years old? Please, read once again what you wrote. If you do not have money for xdr that is not reason for all the poison. Calm down.
 

KevinN206

macrumors regular
Jan 18, 2009
240
148
Is comparable identical? Did Apple use the adjective comparable or did they say it compares to (In certain aspects)? Unfortunately the English that Apple used has to be parsed.
- - Post merged: - -


Some think lies run Apple. Lol. Good thing there is plenty of room for all opinions, whether they hold water or not.
Is that like saying a Corolla is comparable to a Corvette? After all, the Corolla is way cheaper and drives comparable to a Corvette!
 

I7guy

macrumors Core
Nov 30, 2013
21,330
9,294
Gotta be in it to win it
Is that like saying a Corolla is comparable to a Corvette? After all, the Corolla is way cheaper and drives comparable to a Corvette!
A corolla may very well drive better than a ‘Vette in deep snow. But there are certain aspects of each vehicle that make the suitability to different tasks better. (Although on a nice warm day a convertible vette wins hands down)
 

AppelGeenyus

macrumors member
Nov 3, 2019
36
31
1) No, it doesn’t though. You saying you’ve proved it doesn’t make it true. Your list had one 4K monitor that sells for $4,000 as proof that “Fact is it's the most overpriced worst value display in history.” Monitors from the future have nothing to do with this, and OLED TVs? Show me a 32” TV with the performance of the XDR.

Just because something is cheaper doesn’t mean it is a better value. And just because the XDR is more expensive than the 4K monitor you think is so great doesn’t mean that the XDR is overpriced, or that the XDR isn’t a better value.

You haven’t proved that the XDR is the most overpriced or that it’s the worst value display at the present, let alone in history. And who knows what the future will bring. The fact that you won’t sack up and admit your statement is BS makes this entire exchange a waste of time.

2) I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say “So now you're saying when connecting that monitor to a PC it's totally acceptable, but when connected to a mac pro it's suddenly poor value?” This has nothing at all to do with Mac vs PC.

In any case, you don’t seem to understand the first thing about pixel density or resolution. You don’t even seem to realize that with a 6K monitor you can have a 4K image at actual resolution and still have room on the screen for other things. Think editing in Timeline View.

Maybe this will help:

View attachment 894115

I don’t have the time or inclination to teach you why a 4K monitor isn’t a better value just because it’s cheaper. Or why pixel density matters with respect to visibility of pixels. You don’t seem to understand the basic concepts.

3) We’re not talking about the future. In the future, I would hope you’ll understand how ridiculous your initial statement was, and how nothing you’ve said since has strengthened your case. But it’s apparent you currently don’t understand that less expensive doesn’t mean greater value, or that more expensive doesn’t mean overpriced. But clearly you’re not in the target market for this monitor, so you don’t understand why pros would find value in it, despite the fact it’s not sufficient for color grading or mastering.

You obviously will need to get in the last word, so feel free to respond with more blather. Have at it, and good luck in your future education.
Lol what even is this. 🤣🤣🤣

1) Future monitors have everything to do with this, your beef is with my statement on value. If you knew apple was going to release a brand new display tomorrow with way better specs would you buy an XDR today? Of course not(or maybe you would, I don't know, you do seem quite dense). So why would you totally disregard comparative monitors costing ~half the price being released as early as March?

You are completely disconnected with the concept of OLED TV use for creative work and why I even mentioned them. Please breathe and try to read more carefully.

..."And just because the XDR is more expensive than the 4K monitor..."
I don't think it is more expensive. It is more expensive. Twice as expensive. See attachments 1 and 2 for proof.

I know what the future will bring, I've even literally given you a list of some of what the very near future will bring.

2) You first said 4K 32" displays are not suitable(for non-sensical reasons), but then also agreed they're suitable for pro use. But then said using a 4K 32" display on a Mac Pro is poor value, so in order to make sense of your ramblings, one can only conclude you think they're good for PC's but not mac pros. It's really very difficult to understand what you have been trying to say on this point because you have flip-flopped so many times.

This next part is quite a doozy, your illustration is adorable, but sadly within the context of your argument, totally wrong(again). A second reminder that we're talking about value.

Firstly, I stated twice that two 4k monitors is better than one 6k, not one 4k vs one 6k. Because the cost of two of those monitors equals the cost of one XDR. I've already corrected you on making that mistake once, now you've done it twice...

Second, 32" monitors are easily usable at native 4K, so you would have 3840x2160 of usable screen space, plus an entire second 3840x2160 screen of usable space. XDR is not usable at native 6k, if you want to experience exactly what that would be like, set a retina MacBook or iMac to its non-scaled 1:1 resolution. Even at laptop viewing distance everything is painfully too small, and it would be even worse at a desktop viewing distance.

That's why all retina displays run in scaled mode. In the case of XDR(assuming the optimal @2x), the usable screen space is equivalent to 3008x1692. Yes I am aware you can still view a 4k frame at 1:1 mapping within that space, but your image is still completely wrong, and doesn't even include a second 4k screen. Not to worry, I fixed it up for you.

3.jpg


3) If a product can compete on specs performance and results at half the price of its nearest competitor, that product is much better value. Conversely, if a product with near-identical specs performance and results as its nearest competitor is twice as expensive, that product is poor value.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: throAU

HandITOVER

macrumors regular
Jan 13, 2020
123
39
It would be one thing if Apple has to pour in significant R&D resource to produce the display.

All they have to do is (1) take discontinued non-retina 27" Thunderbolt Display, (2) put the same 27" LCD panel from iMac, (3) update the ports a bit, and (4) slap higher price tag (than previous $999) to make it worthwhile.

I would, of course, prefer that Apple update the styling just a tiny bit, which they no doubt is doing at some point for iMac. Perhaps the display will be resurrected when redesigned iMac is launched?
It makes a lot of sense and the majority of mac devices only supported Thunderbolt 5K display.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,726
1,852
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?
While consumer displays are worse, you don't have an exact way to determine in what way they will be worse. There's no reasonable way to guess what it will look like on a consumer display, and consumer displays themselves have much higher variance both at the time they are manufactured and after they have been in use for a year or more.

The purpose of editing on a display designed for that purpose is to more to alleviate some source of bias. With older lcd displays, it was quite jarring how closely minor backlight bleed could resemble minor lens flare, and you don't want to compensate for something that isn't actually there. The display someone else views on may have a distinct but completely different issue.

As for people commenting on the price of the costly one, you typically pay an extraordinary premium for stuff like that, partly due to those being specialized products with very low volume. I don't have any sympathy for Apple on this. They bring it on themselves with the nonsensical over the top comparisons.
 

2Stepfan

macrumors newbie
Mar 19, 2019
3
9
Sheffield
Vincent’s a great reviewer with a long track record of expertise in displays.

Apple made the original comparison with $43k displays without much qualification so can’t complain when people call them out for not quite getting to that standard.

Since the announcement plenty of people in pro video have pointed out that people who really need a proper reference monitor at the end if the chain or at key colouring stages will still need one.

But this 6k monitor gives a lot of (but not all) the advantages of a reference display for many more people in the production chain for way less money. And again at 6k not 4k so very useful for editing, fx etc.

So it’s still a very useful pro video tool and quite disruptive at the price.
 

JM-Prod

macrumors regular
Apr 10, 2011
127
49
Is comparable identical? Did Apple use the adjective comparable or did they say it compares to (In certain aspects)? Unfortunately the English that Apple used has to be parsed.
Why don't you just watch the presentation, and you'll get the answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duane Martin

theluggage

macrumors 601
Jul 29, 2011
4,397
3,131
Is comparable identical? Did Apple use the adjective comparable or did they say it compares to (In certain aspects)? Unfortunately the English that Apple used has to be parsed.
...that's what the lawyers would say if anybody tried to sue them for false advertising.

Back in reality, that's fallacious sophistry. Whether or not the word "comparable" came out of anybody's mouth they compared it. Why would you compare things if you didn't think they were comparable? They said it was the "World's best pro display" and showed a picture of the $43k Sony HX - i.e. they were suggesting it is better than the Sony.
 

theluggage

macrumors 601
Jul 29, 2011
4,397
3,131
But this 6k monitor gives a lot of (but not all) the advantages of a reference display for many more people in the production chain for way less money.
Questionable - it gives super-high contrast at the expense of artefacts. The video gave the very good example of adding lens flare - how can you distinguish the dimming artefacts from the effect? The starfield example showed that once the starts passed a certain density the local dimming effect was turned off and it was no better than a regular IPS - the same thing is going to happen with any fine pattern of light and dark, the starfields and fireworks just make it so obvious that you can see it "second hand" when the screen is videoed...

If you want to do HDR on the cheap that looks "OK" then you'd probably be better off getting an OLED TV to preview on.

The USPs of this display are 6k and looking cool. A 32" 5k that looked cool and cost a lot less would have been better.
 

ksec

macrumors 65816
Dec 23, 2015
1,078
1,064
Well, it seems we are more or less getting to the same point here. These products are not for consumers, regardless of income. I would hardly say the Linus Media Group is a normal consumer, that's a full fledged company who shoots who knows how many hours of video each week as part of their main business. If you show me a link to a video where they are using reference monitors to then edit said videos, then you would be on the right track.
1. ProXDR is not for consumers.
2. Reference Monitor are not even for most Professionals. And most YouTube Video dont fit in to that category.

"Yes, this Apple monitor is good, but for my job, it really isn't close enough".
This thread is about a professional colourist, ( not a YouTuber as stated in.headline ) reviewing a tool he use. And you are asking the above.
- - Post merged: - -

I had this very discussion with another poster regarding using iphones to make a movie. The poster said why would you use an iphone to make a movie when one could use a Red Camera. I said why use a Red Camera when one could get a better 1M+ imax camera.

This monitor discussion seems like it's a similar discussion.
Which is why I am now giving up on this topic. Along with 5G, it is very clear people here only wants to argue, and not to learn anything. I guess that is the definition of trolling.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy