Thanks for the information! Happy to hear it is that good and a joy to use. I too plan to calibrate with Pallete Master and the i1 Display Pro.
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.
How much RAM for photography with Mac Studio?
- Thread starter badlydrawnboy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Doesn’t this suggest that 16GB isn’t enough for me? Photoshop was only using 6GB at the time and Bridge and Safari were the only other programs open.
That's not really how unified memory works. There's no separate pool of memory carved out for VRAM. If the data are in RAM, both the CPU and GPU can act upon it.
I guess I don't quite understand it. With an Intel-based Mac, 32GB of memory + 8GB of GPU memory is dedicated. Meaning the GPU won't use any of the CPU's memory. Are you saying that unified memory all memory is available for the CPU regardless of what the GPU is doing? I'm not saying that a set amount of memory is allocated to the GPU with unified memory (it's variable), but the GPU does use a decent amount of memory that the CPU can't use while the GPU is using it.
The problem is that Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop store different information in memory for their GPU rendering acceleration than they store in memory for editing processing of the photos. It is not as if the GPU rendering acceleration operates on the same data in memory as the CPU operates on, for LR and PS, unfortunately. Thus LR and PS use much more RAM on Apple Silicon that on Intel. (On Intel, the data for GPU acceleration for LR and PS are stored in VRAM instead). Perhaps Adobe needs to optimize their apps so they don't double-dip on memory usage on Apple Silicon.
This can be verified by disabling the GPU acceleration option in LR and PS. When this is done, they use about the same amount of RAM on Apple Silicon as on Intel.
Last edited:
The difference is that the data doesn’t have to be separately in VRAM and “regular” RAM. No doubt there are situations where the GPU needs something to be in-memory that the CPU has no immediate need to act upon, but very often it’s just one data set that both need to act upon. In those cases, there’s no “carve out” for GPU memory. It’s just data, in memory, that both the CPU and the GPU can access.
Interesting. I also wonder if there is an opportunity for Adobe to optimize for AS.
I might try this out sometime. If so, there is hope.
LR CC does not have near the capabilities of LR Classic, though. Like it cannot print
.
I know, being a Classic user myself I am not going to use CC anyway unless I need to do or present stuff via an iPad.I might try this out sometime. If so, there is hope.
LR CC does not have near the capabilities of LR Classic, though. Like it cannot print
But since we are on the topic of Adobe optimization, if there is indeed more of it done on the CC version then it is hopeful the improvements will be seen in Classic version at some point.
You have to remember that macOS tries to use as much memory as possible. If you have 64Gb of RAM, more memory will be used for the exact same workflow than if you have 16Gb of RAM.
The only way to really test it, is to try your workflow on a machine with 16Gb of RAM.
Based on your memory usage, you might get away with 16Gb, but 32Gb would just avoid any uncertainties.
The SW321 is AU$600 more expensive than the Studio Monitor in Australia. It may be worth more, but here at least it costs more.
I may still give the Studio Display a try. Looks like it's 10 weeks wait time right now.
I received the Sw321c yesterday, and while t looks amazing for any bright images, anything with dark edges including the evening Catalina background suffers from severe backlight bleed. It is even visible when the room lights are on. The bottom left and right corners (~3+ inches or 8cm) have a bronze / glare look if you sit in the middle of the display...I have to bend my body to the right or left to see those areas clearly and look at that section straight on. I initially thought it was glare or something, so I turned off all the lights and held up a black wool blanket to shade the area. If I sit 5 feet back from the display the viewing angle is better and the bronzing goes away, but then I can't reach my mouse!
Here is a black image I made in Photoshop viewed full screen:
And here's an image in Lightroom where I hit the F key to view it full screen. Yes, the image looks overexposed...I upped the iPhone pic exposure to match that what I was seeing on the sides of the display...not enough dynamic range on the iPhone to capture both:
So, despite this being a more "color accurate" display, so far, it isn't looking that great unless the image is bright and more in the center of the display.
LR CC does not have near the capabilities of LR Classic, though. Like it cannot print
"I don't understand. Why print when you can view it on your phone?," say the young.
So sitting here it's impossible to even guess what you are seeing IRL since the first pic is overexposed (based on the power button detail being consumed by "bloom".
The second pic looks exposed better based on the power button detail being visible, but the photo and the background lead me to suspect the brightness is just up way to high.
Also keep in mind, because you mention it, when at normal viewing distance on a display this large (or even the extra wide non-curved displays), the edges of the display are more "off-center" than you would experience with a smaller display, say 27" or so. In the extreme cirumstance of an all black or very dark image, it is not unusual of notice the same effect at the edges that you see if standing off to the side while looking over someones shoulder. That's LCD's...but for the vast majority of images it's not a problem. Well, at least for the work I do. YMMV.
Have you run a hardware calibration yet? Or measured the actual brightness level of the display? Out of the box mine came cranked up way to high (as almost every monitor and TV ever created do). Remember that in a calibrated photo workflow, particularly if you print at home, your display will only be set for brightness of 80-120 cd/m2.
Run the Pallette Master calibration using your i1 and save it to one of the custom presets. Use that with Adobe RGB as the starting point, or even better use Panel Native. It will save an ICC profile for your Display preferences pane, and also to one of the three custom profile slots on the display. Using this setup you cannot adjust contrast or brightness independently, which is actually what you want for consistency. FWIW, Art is Right (YouTube) has a good guide to follow for doing the calibration on this display.
After running the hardware calibration, if it still looks anything other than black, then by all means send it back. What you are showing here is not illustrative of what the display can do. After calibrating, you should find the result worlds apart from what you posted here, I do hope that is the case.
Thanks for your help. I agree it's hard to take a pic of with it looks like IRL. The first photo looks over exposed, and it is, because I was trying to get the screen to look similar to what I was seeing. I didn't measure the brightness, but had it next to my laptop that is calibrated to 115cd and turned down the BenQ until they appeared equal. A more accurate identical measurement probably wouldn't change this enough to make a major difference.
I have not run the hardware calibration yet. I figured for basic "seeing if the display is ok" the out of the box condition and calibration would be good enough. I plan to run Pallette Master tonight on panel native. The off-center viewing issue only seems to be a problem on the bottom left and right corners that cause the weird bronzing effect that almost looks like glare. It's unusable if the color is darker than the gray menu / settings colors in Lightroom.
I'm not expecting it to be zero, but didn't expect to notice it with the room lights on when not looking for it. How much bloom does your display have when compared to these photos? When you say, if it looks anything other than black, do you mean that yours doesn't show any bloom like this?
Thanks!
Agree with all that. Memory management over the years has been amazing and with the M1 processors it's become magical!
Sorry for the delayed (and lengthy) reply. I can say my display in use does not look like the photos you posted...that first one in particular looks closer to white than black? Do I experience the off-center viewing issue in the corners? Yes, I think that it just a fact of life with large displays. Whether it's to the degree you experience I won't try to guess.
I can say that in practice, when I'm editing, I never notice it. For one thing, the edges and corners are where the tools and panels are in any tool I use (Lightroom, DXO, Capture One). I'm generally paying attention to a relatively small area in or close to the middle of the screen. If I need to work more on the edges I tend to move that particular section to the middle. If I'm assessing overall aesthetics of a finished image, I back away from the screen so I can take in all the screen in my primary vision. At normal work distances, easily half the display is in peripheral vision.
I did test uniformity of the display yesterday, prompted partly by this conversation. I tested in the Panel Native calibration I created and Adobe RGB. DeltaE is mostly less than 2, in the worst combinations it's still under 4. White point is within 100-120 degrees across the screen. Luminosity varies less than 3% almost always, in 2 or 3 combinations of color mode and white/gray/dark gray measurements the absolute worst variance was 6%. If I had to output an image in a more critical than normal situation, I know I will need to pay attention to the top right corner as that is where the luminosity varied the most. I honestly don't know if I'll ever need to do that, though.
Oh...yeah...almost forgot. When I said if it looks anything other than black - I certainly didn't mean to imply I have OLED or mini-LED kinds of black. It's and IPS panel, and it does what all of them do. Is it to the degree in your photos? Not at all. I tried to take a photo...and found it impossible to get an image that accurately represents the I see IRL. Our eyes don't see what the camera sees - at least in the same way they do, and I guess this is an example. I did check the calibration report from Palette Master. The panel native calibration with luminance at 120 shows my blacks in the center are 0.19 nits...so "dark enough". I don't think 6% more than that amounts to much.
I hope you end up with settings that work for you, even if they are on a different display. There are lemons out there with any product, regardless of how costly they are.
Thanks for the lengthy reply. Much appreciated. I played around with all the setting as you suggested and it still shows significant bleed. You're right that the side menus tend to cover up a lot of it, but they are still visible in a darker room. Absolutely no stuck pixels and very uniform in the middle.
As for the IPS glow, I'm glad to understand that this is normal for a larger display, but in my opinion defeats the purpose of the large display if you are required to sit so far back to stop the glow.
I'm return it and may order and try out a Studio Display and then reevaluate whether I want to go back to the BenQ route.
Sorry to the original poster for hijacking this thread, but to keep it on topic, I was planning to get. Mac Studio with 64 GB Ram but now am thinking to get a 16" MBP instead with the same specs or just hold off for a while and keep my M1 Pro 14" with 16 GB Ram.
No problem. I'm the OP. I'm curious about the BenQ monitors as well as the ASD so I'm following with interest.
I've decided to pass on the Mac Studio because of concerns about the noise. I'll wait for the rumored M2 Pro Mac Mini. I think that will be perfect for me if the specs are as expected. I have the same M1 Pro 14" with 16 GB of RAM and it runs Lightroom and Photoshop faster than my iMac Pro with 64 GB of RAM. An M2 Pro Mini with 32 GB of RAM will be more than enough for me.
Glad this discussion is helping out. Agreed. My M1 Pro with 16GB Ram is much faster than my old 2019 i9 27" iMac with SSD and 40GB Ram for nearly every task except a large Lightroom panoramic merge which I rarely do. The one test where the iMac was faster created a 233 megapixel file, but it only beat the MBP by 30 seconds or so . The Topaz apps are so much faster on the M1 Pro. My apple gift card just came in a few minutes ago for the iMac trade, and I plan on ordering the ASD. It's an early June arrival date, so I have until then to take break from all this exhausting research. Like you said, by then, maybe we will have the M2 Mini to compare.
Are you getting a VESA mount or height adjustable stand? The wait time for the standard ASD is about 3-4 weeks for me.
And yes, I notice a huge difference with all of the Topaz plugins. But even clicking through photos in the Lightroom library is much faster. Instantaneous really.
Last edited:
I'm planning to go for the height adjustable. VESA is technically the same price since I'd have to buy a mounting VESA arm. The last thing I want to do is to be happy with the display but not happy with the height because I wanted to save a little. I plan to keep it for many years.