MP 7,1 For those complaining about the Mac Pro 7,1 price/performance....

[Blair Paulsen]

I should have said Calibrate-able. The contrast ratio and gamut specs are impressive, so there's a decent chance that with proper setup - and a proper viewing environment - the XDR could serve as a reference monitor for most material. Exceptions stipulated, it can't check every box.
I'll be curious to see if any of the usual suspects have better displays in a similar price range at NAB. I'm used to having both a GUI monitor and a calibrated display but wouldn't mind if the XDR could pull credible double duty when convenient. FWIW, optimizing the viewing environment typically has a greater impact on human perception than subtle differences between quality monitors. YMMV.

 

[MGrayson3]

I mean, sure, I think there’s some kernel of truth to this claim. But if Canon puts out a 24-70 f2.8 for $2500 and Nikon puts out an optically inferior 24-70 f2.8 for $6000, Nikon shooters have a right to make some noise about it. For some people it may even be the straw the breaks the camel’s back - they may switch to Canon over it, even though they’ll miss X or Y feature and have to deal with migrating their whole kit.

Photographers of all stripes have to deal with realistic budgetary concerns too, and they’re all hoping to get the best value for their dollar same as anyone else.

Oddly, I have the Canon 24-70/2.8 and the Leica 24-90/2.8-4. The price difference is similar, and I use the Leica every time and the Canon gathers dust. The point being that there is a real difference between the lenses AND the systems they are part of. While I don't earn my living as a photographer, my brother-in-law Mark Mann does, and he is a Leica S and SL shooter, so this is not simply a "wealthy amateur toy" phenomenon.

 

[blackadde]

Oddly, I have the Canon 24-70/2.8 and the Leica 24-90/2.8-4. The price difference is similar, and I use the Leica every time and the Canon gathers dust. The point being that there is a real difference between the lenses AND the systems they are part of. While I don't earn my living as a photographer, my brother-in-law Mark Mann does, and he is a Leica S and SL shooter, so this is not a "wealthy amateur toy" phenomenon.

Many creative systems are absolutely not transparently interchangeable; they have benefits and drawbacks and require serious consideration if you want to move your pipeline over wholesale. I'm not saying that any given focal length is the same across manufacturers and you should run on price alone, or that one tempting lens makes a studio.

What I am saying is that price is a consideration, even for professionals. Photographers shooting fashion for a living still have to decide whether a 100MP Hasselblad back is worth taking out a business loan or not. Nikon shooters (like myself) have to contend with the fact that Sony is offering a lot of tempting advantages for the same amount of money going forward.

I'm not a photographer, but I do work full time in a related creative field. Like most people in my position, I really think hard about the tools I can afford and what doors they open/close for me.

 

[defjam]

It’s not just the default photos application. Even windows explorer is not color managed. where stems the issue. Also the apps mentioned in the linked post and a few other forums are garbage and must be used as a last resort.

another thread. Seems you need to use an older viewer hacked to make it work. Why Is this even an issue in 2019?

I'm still trying to understand why color calibration for Explorer is important. Explorer is not a photo viewing applications. Its only ability to display images is through thumbnails and a, relatively speaking, small preview pane (if enabled). If one needs to view / edit images Explorer loads it with whatever default image viewing / editing application is defined, typically Photos as it's the default.

As for the applications listed in the link the link is dated September 2015, so it's over four years old. When I look at the images (of the girl on the beach) I can definitely see a difference between the two (even on this small 12" laptop screen) but I wouldn't consider the one on the right so poor as to be an issue when browsing through files.

Perhaps it's because I am not working in this field that I don't see the issue. What I do know is if color calibration is important one should use an image viewing application which utilizes color calibration. I can image there have got to be several of them for Windows.

what is beautiful about the Mac is that the entire OS is color managed. I simply don’t need to care about color management anymore. I calibrated my displays and have not looked back since. Trust me, my photos look 99% the same when delivered to clients and I am very happy about it.

I get the impression you're mixing application and OS color calibration support. While I have no reason to disbelieve macOS itself is color calibrated I am certain I could applications could ignore it and do their own thing, it's just that they don't.

the HDR is a issue in windows indeed. My teammate who works and edits on windows hasn’t found a solution with either black magic or adobe. They both claim thats its due to poor HDR management in windows. They are willing to sell us expensive hardware and much more expensive monitors when that can be simply achieved by a windows fix. He forwarded me the link and I pasted it here. I don’t work HDR so am frankly not concerned

I did a little more reading on this and it looks as if it requires a lot of different factors to get HDR working properly. From display to GPU to drivers to cables (and connector type) to applications to OS support. Again this is another area outside of my experience so I cannot say whether or not Windows is the chief culprit or if other factors are (or a number of them).

What did become apparent to me was not that Windows cannot do HDR but rather a lot of things need to come together to get it to work. With the Mac Apple controls a lot of those components and therefore can better ensure it works with their equipment.

Therefore it may be easier on the Macintosh to use HDR than on the Windows platform as Apple has already done that work for the end user.

In the end this topic is outside of my area of expertise so I cannot state, one way or the other, the level of support for HDR.

 

[defjam]

As I'm sure you're aware, attempting to disparage evidence put forward, while failing to offer any countervailing evidence, is not an approach taken seriously in the real world.

Perhaps you have actual countervailing evidence?

While I generally agree with your line of thought I have to agree with the person you are responding to about Geekbench. I am amazed at how this program managed to position itself as to be so popular for benchmarking. IMO the only thing it is good for is determining how fast a system can run Geekbench.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

While I generally agree with your line of thought I have to agree with the person you are responding to about Geekbench. I am amazed at how this program managed to position itself as to be so popular for benchmarking. IMO the only thing it is good for is determining how fast a system can run Geekbench.

Oh, I make no claim that GB is an end-all/be-all; simply that it represents a widely available and consistent data point. And the other person has offered . . . nothing.

 

[defjam]

Oh, I make no claim that GB is an end-all/be-all; simply that it represents a widely available and consistent data point. And the other person has offered . . . nothing.

IMO Geekbench is essentially the same...nothing.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

IMO . . .

You're certainly welcome to your opinion.

 

[Kedbear]

I should have said Calibrate-able. The contrast ratio and gamut specs are impressive, so there's a decent chance that with proper setup - and a proper viewing environment - the XDR could serve as a reference monitor for most material. Exceptions stipulated, it can't check every box.
I'll be curious to see if any of the usual suspects have better displays in a similar price range at NAB. I'm used to having both a GUI monitor and a calibrated display but wouldn't mind if the XDR could pull credible double duty when convenient. FWIW, optimizing the viewing environment typically has a greater impact on human perception than subtle differences between quality monitors. YMMV.

The XDR is not calibrate-able currently without an as yet undeveloped LUT box. Out of the box it's about as trusteable as a macbook pro screen. It is also not sufficient as a reference monitor for professional grading due to issues with the tech which are Halos, blooming (worse than a $350 LG 4K monitor) poor off axis viewing, local dimming issues. It's a good consumer display but not a professional grading monitor. You can read up on thoughts from colorists at liftgammagain.

 

[Blair Paulsen]

If it can't even masquerade as a grading monitor, it's not worth $5K. I don't expect it to keep up with legit reference monitors from Dolby, Sony, etc but in my world, it needs to provide valid visual feedback for one light grades and auditioning LUTs.
Oh well, I've been schlepping 2 monitors this long...

 

[defjam]

You're certainly welcome to your opinion.

Thanks but I didn't need your validation to that effect.

 

[Adult80HD]

The XDR is not calibrate-able currently without an as yet undeveloped LUT box. Out of the box it's about as trusteable as a macbook pro screen. It is also not sufficient as a reference monitor for professional grading due to issues with the tech which are Halos, blooming (worse than a $350 LG 4K monitor) poor off axis viewing, local dimming issues. It's a good consumer display but not a professional grading monitor. You can read up on thoughts from colorists at liftgammagain.

This is wayyyy overstated and completely without basis. Is it a true reference display to compete with the $35,000 displays? No. But it's way closer than a standard monitor; your $350 LG comment is just ridiculous.

Stating it's not calibrated is patently false. It comes calibrated to a number of standards directly from the factory--more than can be said for the iMac and virtually any other monitor right now (excluding the Asus screens that are similar in specs). It will be user-calibratable shortly according to Apple.

There's now a couple of user reviews floating around out there, including at least one by a professional colorist and one by an animation studio that are extremely complimentary about this display and the niche it fills. That niche is those who don't want to or can't afford to drop $35K or more on a reference display and want a single display for GUI use and working with footage/images that need to be as color accurate as possible.

Like most things Apple, there's the very vocal "hater" crowd that seems to delight in trashing everything they produce, usually with little to no basis in fact.

 

[Kedbear]

This is wayyyy overstated and completely without basis. Is it a true reference display to compete with the $35,000 displays? No. But it's way closer than a standard monitor; your $350 LG comment is just ridiculous.

Stating it's not calibrated is patently false. It comes calibrated to a number of standards directly from the factory--more than can be said for the iMac and virtually any other monitor right now (excluding the Asus screens that are similar in specs). It will be user-calibratable shortly according to Apple.

There's now a couple of user reviews floating around out there, including at least one by a professional colorist and one by an animation studio that are extremely complimentary about this display and the niche it fills. That niche is those who don't want to or can't afford to drop $35K or more on a reference display and want a single display for GUI use and working with footage/images that need to be as color accurate as possible.

Like most things Apple, there's the very vocal "hater" crowd that seems to delight in trashing everything they produce, usually with little to no basis in fact.

With all due respect, i don't think you understand or know what a calibrated monitor is or looks like when calibrated. Stating that it comes calibrated is completely false and that is a fact. One look at Apple's Rec709 calibration on an XDR and you would immediately see that it is not accurate, it's not even close to the rec709 standard (rec709, 2.4 gamma, 100 nits). Run light illusions free lightspace CMS calibration test on an XDR and it will tell you all you need to know. What i am stating is facts, not opinions. I work as a professional colorist. The blooming IS worse than the monitor i mentioned, just check this out for yourself. I'm not saying it is not good as a GUI display, or for working with footage in general. But it is not currently suitable as a PROFESSIONAL GRADING monitor that you can trust, i could not use it and then charge for colouring services because i know it isn't accurate. If you want a reference monitor for grading there are plenty of good budget options such as Flanders Scientific's non HDR monitors (which is what i use personally), or an EIZO calibrated with a 3D LUT for example. I'm an Apple fan by the way, i'm typing this on my 2019 Mac Pro right now. But you'll quickly meet with facts if you want to pretend that the XDR is an accurately calibrated display.

 

[Adult80HD]

With all due respect, i don't think you understand or know what a calibrated monitor is or looks like when calibrated. Stating that it comes calibrated is completely false and that is a fact. One look at Apple's Rec709 calibration on an XDR and you would immediately see that it is not accurate, it's not even close to the rec709 standard (rec709, 2.4 gamma, 100 nits). Run light illusions free lightspace CMS calibration test on an XDR and it will tell you all you need to know. What i am stating is facts, not opinions. I work as a professional colorist. The blooming IS worse than the monitor i mentioned, just check this out for yourself. I'm not saying it is not good as a GUI display, or for working with footage in general. But it is not currently suitable as a PROFESSIONAL GRADING monitor that you can trust, i could not use it and then charge for colouring services because i know it isn't accurate. If you want a reference monitor for grading there are plenty of good budget options such as Flanders Scientific's non HDR monitors (which is what i use personally), or an EIZO calibrated with a 3D LUT for example. I'm an Apple fan by the way, i'm typing this on my 2019 Mac Pro right now. But you'll quickly meet with facts if you want to pretend that the XDR is an accurately calibrated display.

I think the confusion is one Apple created by comparing it to the X300 in their presentation. There are those who seem to have expected this to somehow be a reference display equal to the ones that cost 6-7x as much, and those who have not. When I watched the WWDC event I didn't expect it to be a replacement for a full reference display, but that's also not my needs. I suppose my "marketing filter" was set to a different level of expectations.

I can understand that if you were hoping to replace a reference display the XDR would be disappointing. On the other hand, if you're someone who wants a display with greater color accuracy, brightness and HDR capabilities than you can currently get from anywhere else, then it's a great option. The only competing option at the moment are the brand new Asus displays, which are also not cheap, and are only 4K (we don't know the price yet on the soon to be released 32" 4K Asus).

Apple probably should have tweaked their presentation to more clearly define who they were targeting. From my perspective this is a great display for professional photography/editing, and probably also for those doing editing/review work on video production, and not the color calibration work. It would be interesting to see this display compared to the Asus display, given that Asus is using 2x the FALD zones.
[automerge]1579639489[/automerge]

With all due respect, i don't think you understand or know what a calibrated monitor is or looks like when calibrated. Stating that it comes calibrated is completely false and that is a fact. One look at Apple's Rec709 calibration on an XDR and you would immediately see that it is not accurate, it's not even close to the rec709 standard (rec709, 2.4 gamma, 100 nits). Run light illusions free lightspace CMS calibration test on an XDR and it will tell you all you need to know. What i am stating is facts, not opinions. I work as a professional colorist. The blooming IS worse than the monitor i mentioned, just check this out for yourself. I'm not saying it is not good as a GUI display, or for working with footage in general. But it is not currently suitable as a PROFESSIONAL GRADING monitor that you can trust, i could not use it and then charge for colouring services because i know it isn't accurate. If you want a reference monitor for grading there are plenty of good budget options such as Flanders Scientific's non HDR monitors (which is what i use personally), or an EIZO calibrated with a 3D LUT for example. I'm an Apple fan by the way, i'm typing this on my 2019 Mac Pro right now. But you'll quickly meet with facts if you want to pretend that the XDR is an accurately calibrated display.

BTW, how are you checking the display with that software? My understanding is it's Windows only. If that's the case I'm wondering if the Windows display profiles for the XDR are off, given how tightly it seems to rely on Mac OS (to the point that it won't work properly even on 10.15 unless you're on 10.15.2).

 

[high heaven]

I think the confusion is one Apple created by comparing it to the X300 in their presentation. There are those who seem to have expected this to somehow be a reference display equal to the ones that cost 6-7x as much, and those who have not. When I watched the WWDC event I didn't expect it to be a replacement for a full reference display, but that's also not my needs. I suppose my "marketing filter" was set to a different level of expectations.

I can understand that if you were hoping to replace a reference display the XDR would be disappointing. On the other hand, if you're someone who wants a display with greater color accuracy, brightness and HDR capabilities than you can currently get from anywhere else, then it's a great option. The only competing option at the moment are the brand new Asus displays, which are also not cheap, and are only 4K (we don't know the price yet on the soon to be released 32" 4K Asus).

Apple probably should have tweaked their presentation to more clearly define who they were targeting. From my perspective this is a great display for professional photography/editing, and probably also for those doing editing/review work on video production, and not the color calibration work. It would be interesting to see this display compared to the Asus display, given that Asus is using 2x the FALD zones.

You still need to calibrate regularly. The factory calibration doesn't mean better. For color works, most people would use Eizo with a built-in calibration tool.

 

[Adult80HD]

You still need to calibrate regularly. The factory calibration doesn't mean better. For color works, most people would use Eizo with a built-in calibration tool.

Of course, but the point is its coming from the factory with some presets that *should* be close out of the box. After that, you'll have to adjust over time.

 

[blackadde]

Has anyone actually stuck a Klein probe to an XDR and measured it in Lightspace? Surely someone, somewhere, has done it.

I don’t doubt that the XDR is more accurate out of the box than the average Best Buy special, but I also wouldn’t trust any factory calibration from Apple (or Dell, or HP) without some hard data.

@Adult80HD - You have one, right? How are you calibrating it?

 

[Adult80HD]

Has anyone actually stuck a Klein probe to an XDR and measured it in Lightspace? Surely someone, somewhere, has done it.

I don’t doubt that the XDR is more accurate out of the box than the average Best Buy special, but I also wouldn’t trust any factory calibration from Apple (or Dell, or HP) without some hard data.

@Adult80HD - You have one, right? How are you calibrating it?

You can't calibrate it yet....waiting on Apple. A bit annoying that they released it without having the OS ready to calibrate it. Hopefully that's in 10.15.3?

Right now I can slide by with the factory presets; my work isn't so critical as a colorists'.

 

[Kedbear]

Has anyone actually stuck a Klein probe to an XDR and measured it in Lightspace? Surely someone, somewhere, has done it.

I don’t doubt that the XDR is more accurate out of the box than the average Best Buy special, but I also wouldn’t trust any factory calibration from Apple (or Dell, or HP) without some hard data.

@Adult80HD - You have one, right? How are you calibrating it?

Correct, no more accurate than a macbook pro screen. Unless a screen has been calibrated with a 3D LUT, a probe and something like lightspace it's highly unlikely it can be trusted. Many people don't have the experience of what a calibrated monitor looks like, or what accurate means. Just because Apple says 'rec709' or 'P3' people think that means it's calibrated. It isn't. rec709 has a standard of 100 nits, most people have no idea what 100 nits actually looks like - it's pretty dark! A calibrated rec709 display is therefore not sexy to look at because it's relatively dull, the complete OPPOSITE of what you'll see from an XDR set to rec709. DCI P3, another option on apple's display, is 2.6 gamma and 48nits! which is much darker than rec709 because it is the calibration spec for cinema where you're in a very dark environment watching an SDR screen, and therefore the brightness of the screen needs to be very low. Apple's P3 is more in reference to the fact the display is able to cover the gamut - show all the available colours in P3, not that it's actually accurately calibrated to the P3 cinema standard.

You can use the i1 display with lightspace to measure a screen as a budget but decent option. A general LCD GUI can actually be calibrated to give pretty accurate colour/gamma/nit value with an i1 display and their free software and looked very close to my Flanders, albeit the blacks were nowhere near black due to the limitation of the contrast ratio of the screen. Still not suitable for professional use with paying clients though. With the EiZO, the inbuilt calibration also can't be trusted, you have to use lightspace CMS etc, an i1 probe and generate a 3D LUT for something approaching accurate and useable for professional grading.

 

[Kedbear]

You can't calibrate it yet....waiting on Apple. A bit annoying that they released it without having the OS ready to calibrate it. Hopefully that's in 10.15.3?

Right now I can slide by with the factory presets; my work isn't so critical as a colorists'.

You will not be able to calibrate it accurately using any flavour of Apple's proposed in-house calibration methods so i would let that one go asap. Unless you calibrate with an accurate probe, a large colour patch set and software designed for calibration it will not be accurate. In the future the XDR may well be capable of being accurately calibrated, time will tell, but it will be via a probe and external 3D LUT box only. If you want to try getting a decent calibration now, try the i1 display pro plus (HDR version) and their free software. There are all sorts of print and video calibration standards that you can calibrate to. https://xritephoto.com/i1display-pro-plus

 

[Adult80HD]

You will not be able to calibrate it accurately using any flavour of Apple's proposed in-house calibration methods so i would let that one go asap. Unless you calibrate with an accurate probe, a large colour patch set and software designed for calibration it will not be accurate. In the future the XDR may well be capable of being accurately calibrated, time will tell, but it will be via a probe and external 3D LUT box only. If you want to try getting a decent calibration now, try the i1 display pro plus (HDR version) and their free software. There are all sorts of print and video calibration standards that you can calibrate to. https://xritephoto.com/i1display-pro-plus

I use the Pro, need to get the new one I suppose. What do you know about Apple's "proposed in calibration methods?" I haven't heard anything so I'm curious what rumors I might have missed!

 

[Kedbear]

I use the Pro, need to get the new one I suppose. What do you know about Apple's "proposed in calibration methods?" I haven't heard anything so I'm curious what rumors I might have missed!

Not heard anything, i just can't see how they could bring anything to the table that could be considered professional unless it's a hardware probe and calibration software. And i see no reason why they would want to get into that space considering the competition already does it so well. So they'll probably have some user calibration program where there's a load of patches that you match using your eyes or something that will make prosumers who do not understand calibration think they're calibrating accurately but the pro community won't go near it. Time will tell i suppose.

If you use the pro, in the i1 display software go to 'advanced workflows' then choose rec709 preset, then set it to 100nits, 2.4 gamma, then use the large patch set. After calibration have a look at it versus apple's factory version. What do you see?

 

[throAU]

I am willing to stipulate that the price delta ssgbryan notes above is a reasonable example to cite.
That said, the more cogent facet of this debate for many users in photo/video/imaging is the productivity equation. Let's start with storage including backups (often both RAW and RGB versions are archived) where TB3 is the best combination of cost/reliability/throughput I've used that is truly plug and play. The fact that clients/vendors can mount via the same physical port using USB-C 3.x (or just to the older 3.0 via crossover cable) - all without really needing to know what they're doing - is huge. Sure, some of them may end up reading the drives at USB 2.0 speeds without realizing it, but at least they can access the files.
Why the big tangent on TB3? It's just one example of how the oft derided "walled garden" has an upside as well.

For the cost differential between a high end thread ripper box and a high end mac pro you could afford a hundred plus terabyte storage array and 40 gigabit fibre network connection to it instead of some dinky little thunderbolt external drive. You could also pay someone to set it up.

I'm not even joking. These are the sort of things you are giving up for macOS and a shiny box that has worse performance in most applications anyway.

 

[Adult80HD]

For the cost differential between a high end thread ripper box and a high end mac pro you could afford a hundred plus terabyte storage array and 40 gigabit fibre network connection to it instead of some dinky little thunderbolt external drive. You could also pay someone to set it up.

I'm not even joking. These are the sort of things you are giving up for macOS and a shiny box that has worse performance in most applications anyway.

Well you'd have to, because there's no reliable TB solution on the AMD platform. This whole "buy a thread ripper and save a bundle" trope is getting very tiresome and it's irrelevant to keep bringing it up here to folks that have bought Mac Pros. No. One. Cares.

 

[AidenShaw]

No. One. Cares.

Apparently one person with a big investment in ATI stock cares....

(Apologies, they don't seem to be active on this thread.)