Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
YouTuber Compares Apple Pro Display XDR to $43K Sony Reference Monitor, Says It's a 'No Go' for Professional Colorists
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not saying video quality is not important, quite the opposite, but I'd say resolution, sustained brightness, peak brightness, contrast, color accuracy - are more important than "blooming" for a lot of people - that Vincent is somehow putting above a lot of things in his reviews. There are multiple criterion and he chose some over others. For example, if you took resolution as the main measure of quality, XDR is, in fact, better than reference monitors (I'm not saying resolution is as important, just giving an example).
For most content creators - XDR does in fact offer main features of reference monitors, while offering some bonuses too - for a fraction of the price. Apple's marketing claim (and it is just marketing) is not that unrealistic in that regard. But, of course, when the Anti-apple train gets going, of course, now blooming and 5% gray uniformity are the most important things for picture quality.
I've watched Vincent's videos for years. He knows his stuff. He is an expert. He also gives bad advice (if you listen to him, he will easily sell you a 5-10x more expensive screen because of some obscure uniformity you can only detect by measuring it with specialise equipment which is a service that, oh, btw, he offers for a price). He is obsessed with things that shouldn't matter to people, including professionals. And he misses the point. Of course a $5000 screen won't be able to match a $40000 screen in every aspect. Also, of course that modern marketing practices will focus only on the aspects that go in their favour. Like, Apple will say "MacBook Pro" is the best professional laptop even though there are workflows that have much better options. But so will Microsoft. And Samsung. And Lenovo. And Sony. And every company in the world. Samsung claims they make the best TVs in the world. So does Sony. And LG. Apple says they make the best pro display ever. And of course, people are now using it to prove something - like - imagine what, marketing is not really honest!
The truth is simple: Apple made an amazing monitor for $5000. For a lot - A LOT - of people, this is an excellent professional option that CAN replace a $40 000 reference monitor. For some, like JJ Abrams doing a lens flare scene (which is a bad example) a reference monitor will be better. His video is intended to offer entertainment for a group of people that will never consider either of the two screens, Apple or Sony one. And, of course, it is in human nature to like to watch big "greedy" corporations fail, and Vincent knows his audience well - so he focuses on the negative.
So, you people shouldn't really pay attention to marketing as much and focus on the products. XDR will be loved by a lot of professionals and they will make amazing things on it. Sony reference monitor will continue to be used by a lot of other professionals, and companies like Apple and Sony will continue to make hot take statements like "we make the best product for this and that". YouTubers will give their audience what they want. That's how it goes.
[automerge]1581849587[/automerge]
This is it, said it a lot better than me. Everything you say is true.
You fell completely into the trap of comparing this monitor to a 40000 dollar reference monitor instead of the LG 1300 dollar equivalent. Without the reference quality features, what work do you imagine this 5000 dollar monitor does to justify its existence vs a 1300 dollar UltraFine 5K?
Honestly, I don't know. I am not really familiar with LG monitors in that price range. Perhaps XDR is a bad deal. I do believe the reviewers who like it and say it's worth it, but I can't tell you if they are right. They say it's worth the price. I just know that Vincent's video told me nothing and I have no confidence in his conclusions, judging by his previous reviews where a 3x more expensive TV is worth it because the near black artefacts you see when you pause the image and magnify the area are slightly better. This looks exactly like that story - and sure, when you're a high end professional, these things may matter, but this seems (again, judging by reviews) like a great monitor for a lot of pros, and a real alternative to these reference monitors. Whether it's a better choice than a $1300 LG monitor - I really don't know.
[automerge]1581854360[/automerge]
I can see people buying a monitor for 5-10 years or writing it off as business expenses paying $3700 more for a subtle improvement in color accuracy. I don't see them paying $35 000 more to get less blooming in star-field scenes. So, maybe this difference in price is worth it for a lot of people who would pay 5k but wouldn't pay 40k.
I love how so many experts here are making point blank assertions and proclamations about "reference monitors," yet have most likely never used or even seen one, and until very recently (thanks to google search), never knew what they are or where and how they're used.
...and you know this because? We're not exactly knee-deep in contributions from professional HDR colour-graders here. The video that started this thread - from a professional display calibrator - is probably the closest we've got. As he says (after ~11:10 in the video) "(in reference to the comparison made at WWDC) I naively assumed that the monitor must be using dual-layer LCD technology."
The only reason anybody pays $40,000 for a HDR reference display is because they're colour grading HDR content and need one. The main reason those displays cost so much is that they are dual-layer displays with individually dimmable pixels - which is exactly where the XDR display has been shown to be lacking.
Might it be a better display for someone who doesn't need a reference display? Maybe, but that's not replacing and it doesn't justify Apple's own comparison.
Why is it a bad example? It's actually a very good example, but it's just one example that happens to be easy to demonstrate. Plenty of other situations where a video editor might want to apply blurring, haloing or - on the other side of the coin - extreme contrast/oversharpening for artistic effect. Then there's the other problem with regional dimming where you reach a point where all the regions have some bright content so the dimming is disabled and (as shown in the review) you're left with a truly mediocre contrast level. (If you don't like sci-fi, think of, say, a tree with bright green leaves against a shadowy interior). I.e.what you have is a display where the contrast response changes with the picture. As the video says - this technology is for content consumption, not content creation.
Better for what? The best reference monitor is the one that matches - or is an integer scaling of - the resolution that you're targeting - i.e. one of the 1080p, 4k or 8k standards.
If you want resolution, the $4000 (stand included!) Dell UP3218K 8K beats the XDR hands down and also claims to have 98% P3 colour accuracy, decent (for non-HDR) contrast ratio and viewing angle (something that the XDR has been marked down on). It would be interesting to see a side-by-side review that put this through the same paces as the XDR.
Thing is, Apple made an apples-to-oranges comparison: a $40,000 HDR reference display is not for anything other than HDR grading.
I have both the LG UltraFine 5K and a ProDisplay XDR, so I'm comfortable that I'm qualified to speak on this topic. The difference is HUGE. There is simply no comparing 27" and 32" displays, not the least of which is by price. A few observations:
- On the ProDisplay, blacks are BLACK. On the LG, they are gray. This is logical based on the difference in technology: FALD is superior to a regular screen when it comes to dynamic range and blacks, and the minor cases where blooming can occur are both vastly overstated and pretty uncommon in actual use.
- Uniformity is superior on the ProDisplay. My UltraFine is like most I've seen--the corners are all noticeably a bit brighter when the screen has any kind of dark scene to display. You can see the same in the iMac screens and most other IPS LCDs. It's just a function of the backlighting system.
- It should go without saying but apparently it has to be pointed out: 32" > 27". The extra screen real estate is wonderful.
- Color accuracy is superb. I use my ProDisplay for shooting color-critical objects. I can sit in the room with the item I have photographed in front of me, and the color on the ProDisplay looks remarkably accurate, and better than the UltraFine, even after I've calibrated the UltraFine. I'm not sure why Apple has delayed release of calibration in the ProDisplay, but it's coming, and it will no doubt make it even more accurate. Regardless, out of the box it's already better than my UltraFine.
- The whole blooming thing is so vastly overplayed it's ridiculous. I have only ever seen it when I've actively tried to make it appear. Even in those cases, it's much less visible to the naked eye than a camera makes it appear. For consuming HDR content the display is gorgeous. I can easily imagine that for HDR content creators it would be much better than a standard regular display and a vastly cheaper alternative than a high-end reference display. If your job mainly involves editing content/reviewing it and not doing critical adjustments of color (i.e., you're not a colorist) then this display would be a very nice option, and better than a normal non-HDR screen.
The vast majority of naysayers here have never used a reference display nor would they notice any difference when using one. I would venture to say that almost all of them have never even seen a ProDisplay in person. If you can't afford one or justify the cost for the work you do, that doesn't make the screen a "bad value," it just means it's not for you. This display does fill a niche where there's currently almost no other competition, and the limited competition that does exist isn't exactly cheap either (the 32" ASUS ProArt, for example).
Back to making popcorn and watching this thread.
Last edited:
Wait, he “naively assumed”? Even though... like, Apple shows a breakdown of the layers that go into the monitor, this “expert” was making naive assumptions?
Here you have it in between:
www.eizoglobal.com
Used by Netflix, color accurate and costs less that Sony PVM (only $30k lol)
[automerge]1581899769[/automerge]
ColorEdge Solutions for Post Production and 3DCG | EIZO
EIZO offers a wide selection of editing and reference monitors as well as calibration and quality control software to color manage them from a single location.
[automerge]1581899769[/automerge]
actually I am ok with my retina mbp display, completely ok.I have both the LG UltraFine 5K and a ProDisplay XDR, so I'm comfortable that I'm qualified to speak on this topic. The difference is HUGE. There is simply no comparing 27" and 32" displays, not the least of which is by price. A few observations:
One final unrelated observation: The display clearly seems to be selling very well for Apple. It's now over two months since release and there is still a backlog on deliveries. And before anyone jumps in with coronavirus, the delays have been in place since days after release. I love mine so much that I've ordered a second one--it's the first time I've used two displays in quite a few years.
- On the ProDisplay, blacks are BLACK. On the LG, they are gray. This is logical based on the difference in technology: FALD is superior to a regular screen when it comes to dynamic range and blacks, and the minor cases where blooming can occur are both vastly overstated and pretty uncommon in actual use.
- Uniformity is superior on the ProDisplay. My UltraFine is like most I've seen--the corners are all noticeably a bit brighter when the screen has any kind of dark scene to display. You can see the same in the iMac screens and most other IPS LCDs. It's just a function of the backlighting system.
- It should go without saying but apparently it has to be pointed out: 32" > 27". The extra screen real estate is wonderful.
- Color accuracy is superb. I use my ProDisplay for shooting color-critical objects. I can sit in the room with the item I have photographed in front of me, and the color on the ProDisplay looks remarkably accurate, and better than the UltraFine, even after I've calibrated the UltraFine. I'm not sure why Apple has delayed release of calibration in the ProDisplay, but it's coming, and it will no doubt make it even more accurate. Regardless, out of the box it's already better than my UltraFine.
- The whole blooming thing is so vastly overplayed it's ridiculous. I have only ever seen it when I've actively tried to make it appear. Even in those cases, it's much less visible to the naked eye than a camera makes it appear. For consuming HDR content the display is gorgeous. I can easily imagine that for HDR content creators it would be much better than a standard regular display and a vastly cheaper alternative than a high-end reference display. If your job mainly involves editing content/reviewing it and not doing critical adjustments of color (i.e., you're not a colorist) then this display would be a very nice option, and better than a normal non-HDR screen.
The vast majority of naysayers here have never used a reference display nor would they notice any difference when using one. I would venture to say that almost all of them have never even seen a ProDisplay in person. If you can't afford one or justify the cost for the work you do, that doesn't make the screen a "bad value," it just means it's not for you. This display does fill a niche where there's currently almost no other competition, and the limited competition that does exist isn't exactly cheap either (the 32" ASUS ProArt, for example).
Back to making popcorn and watching this thread.
What a brilliant idea. I have no idea why Toyota hasn't compared the Corolla to the Corvette at auto shows. It's comparable and even BETTER in snow! You can replace the Corvette with Porsche Macan or any high performance car.
Surprised you'd actually ask me to respond to anything again given that you've already been exposed as a complete poser.
In response to your Post #398 I would firstly say stop asking yourself super easy, obvious questions that have been answered a million times to appear credible.
And it's hard to provide any sort of counterargument when you haven't really said anything.
RE the 'plenty of pro uses where this display is going to be an upgrade...', this is super vague so I'm curious what you personally think these are. Be very specific.
RE 'I think Apple is going to sell a ton of these'. This is pure delusion. Being 6K, TB3-only and requiring recent Mac hardware with the latest MacOS to change preset modes it's already a niche product, and the astronomical price tag on top makes it super-niche. Your business sense is as bad as your understanding of basic technical knowledge.
RE 'What I see mostly in this thread is a lot of non-pros, who know little about who would use this monitor and why...'. That's you. Literally you. See all previous responses for proof.
RE XDR being 'very well-priced', explain very specifically how/why.
Re 'XDR is mainly for business, corporate and enterprise customers...' and 'Scientific, engineering, software developers, finance, even project managers... lots of users can benefit from a 32” Retina display...', give specific examples of how and why, finance and project managers in particular. Provide specifics on productivity and discuss ROI.
He literally explained why. Questioning Vincents credibility will only destroy your own.
I have both the LG UltraFine 5K and a ProDisplay XDR, so I'm comfortable that I'm qualified to speak on this topic. The difference is HUGE. There is simply no comparing 27" and 32" displays, not the least of which is by price. A few observations:
One final unrelated observation: The display clearly seems to be selling very well for Apple. It's now over two months since release and there is still a backlog on deliveries. And before anyone jumps in with coronavirus, the delays have been in place since days after release. I love mine so much that I've ordered a second one--it's the first time I've used two displays in quite a few years.
- On the ProDisplay, blacks are BLACK. On the LG, they are gray. This is logical based on the difference in technology: FALD is superior to a regular screen when it comes to dynamic range and blacks, and the minor cases where blooming can occur are both vastly overstated and pretty uncommon in actual use.
- Uniformity is superior on the ProDisplay. My UltraFine is like most I've seen--the corners are all noticeably a bit brighter when the screen has any kind of dark scene to display. You can see the same in the iMac screens and most other IPS LCDs. It's just a function of the backlighting system.
- It should go without saying but apparently it has to be pointed out: 32" > 27". The extra screen real estate is wonderful.
- Color accuracy is superb. I use my ProDisplay for shooting color-critical objects. I can sit in the room with the item I have photographed in front of me, and the color on the ProDisplay looks remarkably accurate, and better than the UltraFine, even after I've calibrated the UltraFine. I'm not sure why Apple has delayed release of calibration in the ProDisplay, but it's coming, and it will no doubt make it even more accurate. Regardless, out of the box it's already better than my UltraFine.
- The whole blooming thing is so vastly overplayed it's ridiculous. I have only ever seen it when I've actively tried to make it appear. Even in those cases, it's much less visible to the naked eye than a camera makes it appear. For consuming HDR content the display is gorgeous. I can easily imagine that for HDR content creators it would be much better than a standard regular display and a vastly cheaper alternative than a high-end reference display. If your job mainly involves editing content/reviewing it and not doing critical adjustments of color (i.e., you're not a colorist) then this display would be a very nice option, and better than a normal non-HDR screen.
The vast majority of naysayers here have never used a reference display nor would they notice any difference when using one. I would venture to say that almost all of them have never even seen a ProDisplay in person. If you can't afford one or justify the cost for the work you do, that doesn't make the screen a "bad value," it just means it's not for you. This display does fill a niche where there's currently almost no other competition, and the limited competition that does exist isn't exactly cheap either (the 32" ASUS ProArt, for example).
Back to making popcorn and watching this thread.
Thanks for your post - appreciate it. Nice seeing one from someone who owns the display, is knowledgeable, and uses it. Very informative as I'm considering the display.
He explained why he was naive enough to believe something that was not true even though Apple clearly stated it was NOT what he naively assumed it was? I’m not questioning his credibility, I’m questioning his truthfulness. Incidentally, as an internet no-nothing nobody, I have negative credibility, so I’ve got nothing to lose.
As an internet no-nothing nobody... that watched Apple’s presentation and that really should not know a darn thing about Vincent’s area of expertise (absolutely should not know more), I did NOT come away from Apple’s presentation thinking this was a dual layer LCD. So, that gives this no-nothing with negative credibility points over him. Which doesn’t reflect well on him.
Of course, this IS a YouTuber, so chances are, this statement was merely theatrics, which is absolutely par for the course for YouTubers.
“Provide specifics on productivity and discuss ROI.”
Yeah I’ll get right on that lol.
I expressed my opinion, unlike your foolish statement “Fact is it's the most overpriced worst value display in history.”
But ad hominem attacks aside, I’ll be glad to provide you a quick little lesson on just how easy it is to cost justify the XDR in the corporate/enterprise world.
Someone making a $100k a year costs the employer at least $150k a year fully loaded—and by that I mean direct and indirect costs. (Google it. In reality, easily 2x but I’ll use a factor of 1.5x.)
That means as an employer, it costs me $75/hr to put a butt in a seat. If I spend an extra $4,500 on an XDR, using a 5 year schedule that’s $75/month “extra” I spent because I want my employee to have excellent equipment, have a 6K/3K resolution monitor and be happy 🙂
That worker only needs an extra hour’s worth of productivity per month to cover the cost—less than three minutes a day. And yeah, I’ll spend $12k on that employee—$200/month—on a Mac Pro without even blinking... literally without a second thought.
Why? Because I’m not going to spend $12k+ per month to put a person in a seat and then be too stupid to spend $300 on their computer equipment. (Or much more for that matter, if that’s what they need to do their job most effectively.)
We can take a look at the creative world as well. For a graphic artist in Adobe CC (or whatever), an editor in FCPX or DaVinci Resolve, a music producer with Logic Pro, or a vfx artist using Maya, Foundry Nuke, etc. having a 6K/3K monitor makes them more productive. It lets them see more, have more UI elements/controls on screen, and keeps them from having to scroll around as much. It makes the XDR a no-brainer.
I don’t expect you to understand or accept any of the above, fine if you do, fine if you don’t. As you gain experience you’ll learn that price is different from value.
The 4K monitor that you were crowing about would be an extremely foolish purchase for any of the above use cases, whether it’s $4,000, $3,000, $500 or you gave me the damn thing for free. Thanks but no thanks. I’ll gladly spend $6k on the XDR, you can buy whatever you think best.
So basically it's a "Pro Display" that doesn't do the job well enough for the Pro market.
i.e., it's an overpriced prosumer display.
[automerge]1581922384[/automerge]
As per the article, Apple are selling it as a professional colour display. If you're willing to spend the ridiculous money Apple are charging for a Mac Pro, you may as well buy a display worthy of it.
All the afterburner cards and overpriced Xeons in the world won't help you do your highly paid movie editing job (where time is money, etc.) if you can't see what you're working on properly.
[automerge]1581922471[/automerge]
Especially when apple is doing it.
[automerge]1581922604[/automerge]
People who like to flash around that they have the latest apple widget, but don't actually do anything useful with it.
[automerge]1581922901[/automerge]
Maybe, but definitely (as a Prosumer) if you were to pair it with a PC instead of a Mac Pro, you could save say 50% off your compute cost (say, 4 figures for a decent mid-ish-spec Mac Pro vs. a PC of equivalent performance) and put it toward the better monitor.
Last edited:
If you’re talking about the Dell UP3218K, it uses two DisplayPort 1.4 links. Not supported on Mac, even in Catalina (unless something changed with the last update). iirc, you can run it with one cable at 30Hz though, it will work with windows under boot camp.
The dpi is 275, so not really suitable anyway. Only 400 nits brightness, and no local dimming so blacks are far from black.
If you’re running MacOS, the XDR with Thunderbolt 3 is the monitor for you.
Last edited:
...now try and collect on that notional "saved" money. Are you going to cut the employee's pay since they get the job don in fewer hours? Or, can you guarantee bringing in extra work to fill those extra hours? Then there are all those other demands on the equipment budget, like upgrading all the networking, which will save 5x as much time for every employee, or fixing the air con in the server room before it dies and you loose several days of business...
Ultimately, you have $4500 of real cash-y money that has to be spent this quarter vs. $maybe that you'll recoup over 5 years... In any business bigger than a mom & pop outfit, equipment and salaries are different budgets (even for a one-man-band 'sole trader' you have to account for them separately) and the bigger the company the less the person responsible for the equipment budget gives a wet slap about payroll vs. meeting their own target of shaving 10% from the equipment spend. ...and that is assuming rationality (my favourite was being told that I couldn't order a 19" display - back when that was big-ish - for a colleague doing extensive page layout work but that I could order two 17" displays because policy - no, don't look for any rationality in that one).
Yes, you are correct in general that equipment costs less than people and its stupid to nickel-and-dime on getting people the kit they need - but that isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card to rationalise wasting money on over-priced equipment because of some vaguely-defined promise of improved productivity. You need a really strong case as to why that 6k display is so much better than a 4k or 5k display - or even the 8k Dell that costs $3000-$4000.
Edit: Apparently the Dell doesn't work on the Mac. Maybe Apple should fix that rather than producing weird neither-fish-nor-fowl displays.
Last edited:
Questioning someones truthfulness and credibility are synonymous. To be fair he never said he actually watched the keynote at the time of announcement, why would you assume a TV reviewer/pro calibrator would watch a keynote for apples developer conference. Or maybe he just forgot given there was an 8 month gap between announcement and his review and remembered wrong because of the crazy high price tag. Seems much more likely than your theory of him being intentionally untruthful, or not knowing his stuff. And insinuating that someones credibility would be lacking in any way purely because they happen to also run a youtube channel in addition to their job is pretty silly.
That's great(well not really), but you didn't explain how using XDR specifically translates into time saved. Nor did you answer any of my other questions/requests for clarification. You've just re-worded the same vague statements and added some theoretical math to the top.
Your only attempt at an explanation is "...lets them see more, have more UI elements/controls on screen, and keeps them from having to scroll around as much." and that doesn't hold up at all. (Re)Read post #367. Almost every creative is already on 4K, you literally just argued against yourself. So according to your logic purchasing the most expensive desktop screen would result in reduced productivity for the sake of 218ppi eye candy.
It's another perfect example of you not know what you're talking about despite insulting everyone else by saying "What I see mostly in this thread is a lot of non-pros, who know little about who would use this monitor and why...". And you have the audacity to be the one complaining about 'ad hominem attacks' while also signing off every reply with some snooty 'I understand everything and you understand nothing' attitude when nothing could be further from the truth.
Last edited:
You're not really one to talk.
You still haven't addressed how your setup of two 4k monitors is supposed to work in practice. Do you run it at 1x, with awful legibility and low UI quality? Or do you run it at 2x, with relatively little screen estate? At $3k times two, I would expect a setup that works well, and a 138 ppi desktop monitor just won't work well in macOS no matter how you configure it.
Who is hating? The reviewer clearly said he likes the monitor. It's just not a reference display.....
Judgers are always going to judge!
I've got a 28" 4k sitting next to a 5k iMac - its actually a cheap and cheerful one and the colour accuracy isn't great, but its perfectly clear and sharp and we're talking about screen estate here - which is why I have it.
First, if my eyeballs were even 10 years younger, I could happily use it at 1:1 - and that's 28": a 32" or larger 4k display would be perfectly legible and usable at 1:1, especially as what you are mostly looking at while working is fully zoomable content that can be as big or small as you need...
Second, it runs perfectly well in "scaled" mode at "looks like 2560x1440" (i.e. 5120x2880 downsampled to 4k - 2560x1440p doesn't actually come into it unless you're running ancient pre-retina software) which is distinguishable from the 5k... if you climb on the desk with a magnifying glass. Frankly, if your golden eyeballs are bothered by the difference you're not going to have trouble reading text in 1:1...
Oh, and don't forget that if you want to look at 4k content, 8k or 1080p video content full-screen on your 6k wonder you'll have to use non-integer scaling too. Probably still won't notice the difference but, ew! non-integer-scaling! squick!
Yes, 6k is "better" than 5k, which is "better" than 4k, which is much better than 1440p which is incomparable to SVGA - but it is diminishing returns the higher you go, with disproportionate increases in bandwidth and GPU load.