Displays have gotten so good, the incremental changes to most of us are just changes in technology. For example, with the high resolution retina display screens on phones, there's no human perceptible reason to increase the resolution or dpi more. Once you display 100% of the colors and true black, there's not much room for expansion to make the human eye happy. After that, it's all marketing.
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.
iPad Pro Not convinced iPad needs OLED
- Thread starter nStyle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For everyone who says “it’s already good enough”, congrats!
For everyone who says “it’s missing x, y, z technology to make it worthwhile”… the technologies cited are meant to address particular issues or concerns the manufacturers have identified and are generally intended to increase sales/margins.
Personally, I don’t need 120Hz, OLED, TrueTone etc… I need a magnificent display where I do not notice its tradeoffs. The mentioned technologies get me closer than other available ones. I notice that my iPad blooms, blurs, and has jarring changes with auto-dimming (so I turn that off). If those are noticeably improved, I will think on an update. And OLED is absolutely one of those techs that improve things a fair bit.
That said, my M2 iPP is substantially more processor than I need from it (browsing, occasional videos, emails) so I’m unlikely to update for a very long time indeed… unless they release an iPad that is much lower weight with a massively improved screen. I reserve the right to be a bit stupid with my money on occasion…
For everyone who says “it’s missing x, y, z technology to make it worthwhile”… the technologies cited are meant to address particular issues or concerns the manufacturers have identified and are generally intended to increase sales/margins.
Personally, I don’t need 120Hz, OLED, TrueTone etc… I need a magnificent display where I do not notice its tradeoffs. The mentioned technologies get me closer than other available ones. I notice that my iPad blooms, blurs, and has jarring changes with auto-dimming (so I turn that off). If those are noticeably improved, I will think on an update. And OLED is absolutely one of those techs that improve things a fair bit.
That said, my M2 iPP is substantially more processor than I need from it (browsing, occasional videos, emails) so I’m unlikely to update for a very long time indeed… unless they release an iPad that is much lower weight with a massively improved screen. I reserve the right to be a bit stupid with my money on occasion…
But is that not the entire point? Currently only OLED can display a zero luminance black. So it’s kind of a big deal. Micro-LED promises the same, but it’s far from a commercial reality right now. Mini-LED can in theory reproduce black, but only when there’s nothing else to show onscreen.
I don't have an issue with OLED, as long as it's optional. OLED has downsides such as screen burn in (remember the old CRT monitor days?). No thank you. But if people want it, I see no reason not to offer it as an option.
I dont notice blooming either around bright objects like in your example. My problem are mostly the faces of people in dark scenes. With full brightness they look like ghosts... really terrible. On my 16" Macbook i have to decrease the birghtness at least 4 bars to make it watchable. The last bars really increase the blooming, while the faces stay almost at the same brightness.
I use this iPad, daily, and in the real world. The blooming can be distracting and visible even in room lighting whenever there is significant black on the display. It's apparent from boot, with the white apple logo on black background. If you're a dark mode user I imagine it's worse.
Digital video has been SDR for the past 30 years. The BVM-X300 4K OLED Master Monitor which I was referencing has been used since 2016 and had a peak luminance in a 10% window of 1000 nits so it is also used for HDR.
The point I was making is that it was professionals that were early adopting OLED all these years even when it was dim (eg. not 500 nits). Regular consumers don't buy $10K OLED display—professional industries do.
There are other OLED monitors used that only max at 250 nits standard. Who were buying those? Professionals. Not regular consumers.
Obviously as OLED becomes brighter and cheaper and burn-in resilient, it will be more adopted by even more professionals because the category is quite varied and monitors do best when they are versatile in function.
Apple will be using newer generation OLED that supposedly solves burn-in. Theres also a new blue diode that is starting to be licensed this year, and I don't know if Apple's OLED manufacturer will be using it this gen, but it solves the fact that blue diodes have been 3x too power inefficient compared to the red and green diodes, which is why the blue diodes require 3x more voltage and so are so susceptible to burn in. So it seems we're on the precipice of solving burn-in. This is why Apple has been waiting and not using OLED all this time.
OLED is the only thing currently manufacturable that Apple can possibly put in their displays that shows true blacks, because the pixels are self-emissive, providing their own light, and their own darkness by literally turning off to provide blackness. OLED is virtually the same no matter the viewing angle, also important. Mini LED LCD displays cannot provide those two things.
Secondly, there is a ton of room to make the human eye (really, human brain) happy.
Increasing frame rate is a HUGE deal for the brain. It makes so much difference. And then brightness is incredibly important. From my reading, once we reach 10,000 nits peak brightness, and a certain frame rate, is when images will start to look indistinguishable from real life, like looking at a window, because in real life objects hit 10,000 nits all the time from reflecting the sun (like the highlights of a rock, or water), and that is what is required to fool our eyes to see images as they should be indistinguishable from real life—which is the end goal our brains want.
Apparently Dolby has screens that do this and its apparently amazing and the "end goal." Thats where we're headed.
So its not "all marketing." We still have a lot of ground to cover in terms of display technology. Not to mention making displays more energy efficient since battery technology isn't advancing at the rates we would like.
Last edited:
Okay I just went and watched it myself and you’re right, it’s pretty bad, so I stand corrected. I’ve personally never seen it that bad and it’s not as bad in person as what the camera would suggest, but it’s still not great.
I still don’t think OLED will ever reach the same peak brightness levels as MiniLED, resulting in a less impressive HDR scene. As you said yourself, brightness is a key component for best HDR quality. And there will always be the risk of burn-in, more-so than on a phone, but admittedly probably less than on a laptop/desktop. From what I’ve read and seen, brighter OLED pixels contributes to the risk of burn-in, so they will never allow it to get super bright for sustained periods of time. But I’m sure Apple is doing what they can to mitigate that risk.
Honestly I’d be more inclined to worry about degradation and uneven wear than burn-in. Ye olde OLED TV panels had a habit of disintegrating over time irrespective of image retention. Things have changed a lot in recent years, but nevertheless that would be my nagging doubt. Burn-in can be avoided by an astute user, but service hours are another matter.
I just watched that clip myself. Then I watched the piece in the actual show - episode 6 of "Severance" on Apple TV, about 28:25 into it - on my M1 12.9 Pro in a dark room with brightness at 100% and it looks nothing at all like that - it looks really good to me.
Certainly is a possibility. However there are likely 100's of posts worrying about burn-in but the number of posts actually reporting such a problem is miniscule. The worry factor is way overblown assuming you are sensible.
Cameras do a very bad job of showing blooming correct in real life, so yeah, I expected what you are seeing. Reviewers talking about blooming virtually always have to put an asterisk on the image saying "this is what the video is showing you" and "this is what I'm actually seeing in real life".
And those are not really peak brightness cause they aren't really cant sustain peak brightness which is unreliable. Being used does not mean reliable and trust worthy. Beside, burn-in is still an issue and that's why there aren't many OLED monitors. Even you cant show how many OLED monitors they are.
That other OLED monitor you mentioned is NOT even professional. What a joke. Dont be fooled by advertisement.
OLED is still far from replacing LCD professional markets. I guess you are not in the video markets after all.
That particular clip looks absolutely horrible and shouldn't be posted as an example. That scene looked excellent in the original on my M1 12.9.
What is your argument?
That industry professionals didn't buy and use the Sony BVM-X300 4K OLED Master Monitor for the last 8 years? Are you one of these "facts aren't real" people? I don't understand what your problem is accepting that dim OLED found early adopters with industry professionals.
A $4,000 OLED monitor that only does 4K 60Hz and 250 nits and 99% Adobe RGB is targeting industry professionals (eg. photographers) and not regular consumer markets that work in office lighting—that was my entire point.
"Don't be fooled by advertisement." ←what a silly comment. The failure to understand subtext of the example is all yours.
My argument was never that OLED is "far replacing" LCD in professional markets.
I said no such thing so I'm uncertain as to why you're arguing that now.
Summary of our disagreement:
- You claimed OLEDs aren't ready for professional markets because they are dim,
- and I was counter-claiming that professional markets were the first markets where OLEDs became available and sold as industry tools because video/photography are the one industry that uses dim monitors because of color science reasons. Which is true. I even included a popular example of dim OLED being used.
Last edited by a moderator:
like I said, the majority is using LCD based, not OLED based. For that price, they would use LCD based instead with way better specs. A reference monitor with 100 nit is too niche.
Literally dont be fooled by advertisement. LG makes a great panel but they never made professional monitors. Also, peak 250 nit does NOT mean it can be sustained at that brightness which is a con for OLED.
Not just dim, but also burn-in and therefore, not reliable. You claimed nothing especially with proofs. You keep ignoring the fact that OLED is still far from fixing burn-in which is ridiculous.
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course cameras capture dynamic range differently from human eyes, but it exemplifies the blooming I'm seeing by maybe 80 or 90%. Do you find that acceptable? I don't.
Here is the 16-inch MacBook Pro showing the same clip. Look inside faces, and the ghosting following the nanny.
If you don't see that—great for you—but don't deny that others see blooming. Make a google search if you don't think 12.9-inch iPad Pros don't have blooming issues; I'm not the only one to complain.
I've been here a long time and have never denied blooming exists but that ridiculous, awful-looking example looks absolutely nothing like what I see on my M1 iPad Pro. It proves nothing.
Yes, buyers of $10K Sony reference monitors do work in niche industries. Why are we stating obvious things?
Again...sigh...the point of the LG UltraFine OLED is that LG is targeting industry professionals BECAUSE they are the one market where dim displays have product-market fit. For god's sake man, understand that point before moving forward.
Why are you arguing. Just google for reviews. Here is one review that explicitly states that its for professionals and that it gets 260 nits as tested. No, OLED isn't perfect. That wasn't the argument. The argument is that despite the major shortcomings (eg. dim display) if there is one market segment willing to put up with dim OLED, its industry professionals that already use dim displays.
EDIT: Even our own MacRumors made a post and video review of the LG UltraFine OLED.
You're stuck—you think I'm arguing that OLED is 'perfect technology' for industry professionals, and that it has no shortcomings. I never said that. I do not think its perfect tech. I do think OLED has shortcomings. Yes, OLED has burn-in. Which especially happens when you push brightness due to higher voltage wearing down the organic diodes. That is why these OLED examples are 100 nits and 250 nits—not 500 nits—and why industry professionals could use them but on the other hand they made poor monitors for regular consumers.
I'm literally the only one here linking examples. I linked two. Do you want more examples of industry professionals adopting OLED? Here's an article outlining how Disney and Marvel Studios adopted LG OLED TVs for "video effects review and color finishing." And of course Disney, Pixar, Marvel Studios has Sony reference monitors all over the place.
Last edited by a moderator:
Even nStyle, the OP who was earlier disagreeing with me came around when they saw the scene for themselves. Here is what they say:
"Okay I just went and watched it myself and you’re right, it’s pretty bad, so I stand corrected. I’ve personally never seen it that bad and it’s not as bad in person as what the camera would suggest, but it’s still not great."
So there you go.Look, we're never going to capture in-camera what the eye sees because the eye experiences light dynamics differently from camera sensors. And then we can't account for the fact that everybody experiences contrast dynamics differently due to genetics, age, etc. Our eyes have cones and rods to pick up light rays in low light and higher light levels respectively, and then that gets processed by our visual cortex—which is what creates dynamic images we call vision—which varies considerably person to person. On top of that you have panel variability, and different environmental lighting conditions. So everyone with an iPad Pro is going to see that scene differently.
But the photo I'm providing is an excellent example of the problems of mini LED blooming. And if you think the photo is "ridiculous" are you going to deny the video footage too? Because both are undeniable demonstrations of how theres haloing inside human faces, actual characters, and ghosting as people move about. It proves nothing? Ok.
Last edited:
He saw an irrelevant scene that does not show reality - that's the problem. It's not a demonstration of anything.
Night time scenes are irrelevant to iPad Pro users?
Both examples in photo and video don't demonstrate blooming due to mini LED backlighting?
Funny how Apple will be replacing the mini LED on iPad Pros in a few weeks. It's almost like mini LED has flaws.
I didn't deny blooming, I just said that video should not be used to judge anything because reality looks nothing like it. I watched the source version of that scene on my M1 12.9 in a dark room and there is no similarity between them wrt blooming. None at all. I advise nstyle, the OP, not to take anything away from it.