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.
MP All Models XDR Pro monitor issue?
- Thread starter high heaven
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
FALD displays - even very good ones - have this issue. Apple should not have compared this to an actual HDR reference display in their initial presentation.
The Flanders monitor it's being compared to here has a second, monochromatic LCD display between the display cell and the backlight, which essentially means it has OLED level control over luminescence.
The Flanders monitor it's being compared to here has a second, monochromatic LCD display between the display cell and the backlight, which essentially means it has OLED level control over luminescence.
Correct, and the XDR is at an angle, where the blooming is much more noticeable *and* they are literally picking a worst-case scenario. It's a set up to try and make the Apple look bad. Never mind that the Flanders also costs $35,000.
I agree that the comparisons to the FSI screen are pretty unfair; the XDR is very much a high-end consumer display more than a low-end reference monitor, but Apple really did throw the first punch.
It was kind of like if Tesla tried to show off the Model S and started their presentation with a slide of the McLaren F1.
It was kind of like if Tesla tried to show off the Model S and started their presentation with a slide of the McLaren F1.
People are putting words in Apple's mouths. They showed a reference monitor to talk about high color accuracy for professionals and the type of displays the currently have HDR capability. They show the limits to those monitors including 4K only, high price, often noisy cooling systems. They then go through the ProDisplay specs, but they *never* say that the ProDisplay is the equal to the reference monitors in every way. They point out where it's better--6K vs. 4K, cheaper, better cooling for silent operation. They also point out where the ProDisplay is way better than a standard monitor. In other words, they clearly position it between the reference displays and typical consumer LCDs, just like where it's positioned price wise.
They don't but they do imply it.
First, there is the hype in labeling it beyond HDR as eXtreme Dynamic Range. If they had just stuck with HDR folks would not be giving them as much grief when they spun this as beyond HDR. That isn't expectation management in the slightest. That's just the Joe Isuzu sales pitch talk so we're suppose to filter that out.
Second, the $45K price is thrown out there absolutely on purpose. They trying to shift most non users of very high end reference monitor's price anchor off of the more mainstream (or even "high end" high Gamut monitor. e.g. most of the Eizo range ). Technically they don't say they are giving a one to one replacement, but they do sales pitch that can drop a notion that can now drop the "same color monitors" on more folks desk/location through the workflow.
Apple doesn't spin post production location here.
"...
On location.
From the start of a shoot, Pro Display XDR reveals the content you’re capturing with incredible accuracy.
Post-production.
Image reproduction remains consistent across every point of your workflow, ensuring that everyone is always on the same page .
..."
Pro Display XDR
Pro Display XDR. A new 32-inch Retina 6K display with extreme brightness, contrast, color accuracy, and HDR that transforms the way you work.
www.apple.com
There is a direct implied notion that everyone is on the "same page" because everyone is on the "same monitor".
The buzzsaw that Apple should have known they were going to run into is trying to "blow up" the previous purchases of those $30-40K monitors with the implication those could be replaced with these. Almost everyone with deep sunk cost here is going to sprint to find the worse case that the XDR doesn't do to justify the previous expenditure.
So far most of the exposures are a bit of a dual edge sword. It is showing that the XDR is far more exposed in a completely black/darken room on corner case images. What is still probably upside enough for Apple is that most people don't work in a completely black/darken room. ( shades of the GoT episode where the director of photography and the color adjustment change all insisted it was insane great night battle scene and large segment of those paying to see the episode at the end of the distribution chain with "regular joe" TVs substantively disagreed. )
So in part it is a reference of what. What folks actually watch or "princess and the pea" viewing rooms.
The XDR is going to do more than pretty well with the former and not quite as well with the latter.
More room for palettes is a slippery slope for hard core reference. If it is just the image output on a separate screen. Again one versus two.
6k I think actually makes their color control job harder. (and so more likely to use again 4K display which put more effort into luminance control).
again frame of reference shifting and it isn't so much cheaper as more deployment in more places along the chain. Fixed budget of $30,000 .
One stuffed at the toward the end of the chain.
Three or Four on set , edit , .... color , ...
I think they are shooting for more penetration in-between, but just like the marketing hype they posted and spun with Afterburner ... it is oversold as sweeping away all the adjacent cases too. ( no proxies (implicitly for any camera) versus no proxies for base ProRes material. ). Apple is trying to push the number of locations can put a "reference like" display.
The bulk of the XDR buys are probably going to come from folks who would never by the $30K displays anyway (because just past any rational budget for what they are doing most of the time. ). Folks spanning photo and video work for example. $30K reference monitors aren't pervasive in photo work.
[automerge]1578715120[/automerge]
This isn't a high end consumer display at all.
It is akin that only real pro drivers drive Formula One cars. And if drive any other kind of vehicle then not a "real pro". This display is out of the "consumer' zone or even rational "pro-sumer" zone. (there are folks who just want to throw away money, but that isn't really pro-sumer. ).
Last edited:
The XDR is better than what most video editors I know use professionally, but they're not colorists either. The price point is totally screwy as it's not reference, the backlight zoning is beautiful for video or full screen photos but inappropriate for the few remaining print guys or 2D illustrators. Its better to have a uniform backlight for those professions even if it means less contrast ratio.
I'm not sure who the target audience is as its priced beyond the scope of most professionals. I suppose its for the individual on a company card, as opposed a contractor. It's one thing to eat $6k on a workstation, but another double the price when you add just one display that may or may not meet your needs.
I'm not sure who the target audience is as its priced beyond the scope of most professionals. I suppose its for the individual on a company card, as opposed a contractor. It's one thing to eat $6k on a workstation, but another double the price when you add just one display that may or may not meet your needs.
Here's the problem. LG makes panels for Apple but those panels are also available for other brands including Acer and Asus. Asus ProArt PA32UCG has what the Pro display has such as maximum brightness, contrast ratio, color bit, color range, and more.
Those features and specs that Apple Pro displays have aren't' unique or special anymore as others can use those panels as well.
That may apply for the 5K display Apple uses, but it's not clear that anyone can have the same 6K panel Apple is using. The Asus is only 4K anyway, so no, it's not the same--it also has more zones and higher refresh rates, so in some ways it appears to be superior, at least on paper, but just the sheer number of zones doesn't guarantee better performance--much is in the implementation of the zones.
In terms of professional perspective, 6k isn't useful.
2019 Mac Pro - One Colorist's Thoughts After Switching Back To The Mac
What does a colorist think of the 2019 Mac Pro after switching back to Mac? Plus, learn his thoughts about optimal specs for color grading.
mixinglight.com
He mentioned that directly.
In terms of professional perspective, 6k isn't useful.
2019 Mac Pro - One Colorist's Thoughts After Switching Back To The Mac
What does a colorist think of the 2019 Mac Pro after switching back to Mac? Plus, learn his thoughts about optimal specs for color grading.mixinglight.com
He mentioned that directly.
He mentioned it was *his* opinion, and that he hadn't even seen one yet. In addition, he's referring to it as a reference display. I wouldn't expect many professional full-time colorists to use one anyway--if that's your job and how you make bank, you're already using a real reference display of the $30,000+ variety.
That's not the target market. The target is everyone else who wants some of the capabilities of a full reference display and a killer large real-estate GUI display for a lot less money.
Keep on trying to dump all over the XDR. You've been spewing negativity on any thread you can. Sour grapes that you can't afford one?
It's already a failure as Apple compared and advertised toward a reference monitor which isn't true at all. A lot of people thought Apple Pro display is a reference-grade display but it wasnt. But even at $5000 price range, there are several companies including Asus can also use what Apple displays used. Since you need to pay $1000 more just for the stand, it is very skeptical to see XDR's reputation. We are talking about facts here.
It's such a failure that it's in tight supply and backordered through late February? Riiighhhhttt.
And never realize how many XDR displays that Apple made? Right... Most of them dont even know about this issue anyway.
Enjoy your imaginary world of failure for the Apple products. I'll enjoy using them and watching Apple continue to be one of the most highly valued companies in the world...because they are one of the most profitable.
Good luck with the XDR display which is a failure in terms of advertisement. I would stick with my Eizo monitors and not wasting my money on XDR.
In terms of professional perspective, 6k isn't useful.
2019 Mac Pro - One Colorist's Thoughts After Switching Back To The Mac
What does a colorist think of the 2019 Mac Pro after switching back to Mac? Plus, learn his thoughts about optimal specs for color grading.mixinglight.com
He mentioned that directly.
Actually really doesn't say that once put into the context expressed. His whole separation of "church and state" setup appears to extend to the reference monitor too. It appears in his set-up that he only puts reference material on the reference monitor. No palettes/tools, no menus , no windows etc.
".. I would hold off on buying the XDR, unless you only want it as an excellent GUI/Gaming monitor. ..."
As a GUI monitor he is not dismissing this at all. Some folks don't rigidly separate everything. Either budget , workspace sprawl constraints , or several other reasons.
He also has installed one and only one program on his Mac Pro. How many folks who are actively grumbling about the XDR are doing that?
The criteria he is using is solely that the 6k of the display match a camera sensor or some standard presentation system. Yeah it doesn't make that exactly as a single purpose function.
Last edited:
Exactly. And despite what all of the naysayers claim, if you watch the actual Apple WWDC announcement, they do not try and claim it's a monitor to replace a reference display. They clearly position it has having some of the features of a reference display, and as superior to a standard 5K/4K display. I think they perfectly positioned it feature and price wise. Now a lot of the online publications and reviewers did make some hyperbolic projections, but that wasn't what Apple presented in their launch.
Can someone tell me why colorists need something better than an XDR? Are films ever projected or watched on anything that even relatively matches the specs of the XDR let alone a reference monitor?
Not saying they don't, I seriously don't know. It just seems like overkill.
Not saying they don't, I seriously don't know. It just seems like overkill.
In general you want things to be as perfect and accurate as possible when editing and creating the final product. That minimizes the negative downstream effect of anything else--compression algorithms, crappy phone screens, etc. I carefully calibrate my cameras and screens as I sell a product online where color is crucial. I know that most people are using crappy screens compared to the effort I put in, but overall the results are worth it--I'm regularly told by my customers how the products look identical to their photos, unlike many of my competitors.
Last edited:
The projector in your local cinema and your colorist’s reference display are calibrated towards the same target. So is your consumer TV and computer monitor, albeit probably less successfully.
Everyone is aiming for the same target. If you know you’re dead center, at least you won’t have crazy swings in color cast at the consumer end of things - for instance, if you try to correct for the overly bright / blue screens that Apple tends to sell, it means your work will be completely impossible to see on a dimmer screen with a magenta cast that some of your audience may be using.
The other thing is that just because people have a ****** screen today, does not mean that they may have a better (more accurate) screen tomorrow. Most color-sensitive work is intended to be archived in one sense or another.
This! Even the phone screens today are getting better and better at color accuracy, so best to aim for top-quality color to start with.
I think you are giving them a break. Here are some exact quotes from the transcript.
"...
The eye sees the highlights, really dark blacks, vibrant color and all the details in between. Std more and more devices can play HDR content so more and more pros who create that content, they need a great HDR display.
.... there there is one class of displays called reference monitors. But they are still missing these features, and they are incredibly expensive. This one is $43,000. ... "
so reference monitors don't do enough even though cost megabucks. [ but somehow Apple isn't trying to cover that space even though pointing out Reference monitors as falling short in HDR space. ]
so what is Apple going to do?
"
So our goal, it was simple. Make a display that expertly delivers every feature that pros have asked for. Like the MacPro, the design is stunning and every element is built for pros. And it's the most incredible panel we have ever made. It's a 32 inch LCD display with over 20 million pixels, and with two 18 pixels fer inch it's a 6K Retina display. "
'Every' feature ever asked for is not an expectation management approach.
which was followed later by
"... The images this display produces are truly stunning. With these capabilities, we have taken this way beyond High Dynamic Range. This is extreme dynamic range or XDR, and so we call this display the Pro Display XDR. (Applause). So now, we have delivered every feature on the pro wish list, but there is more. ..."
Beyond HDR is a clear implication that this Dynamic Range on 'warp drive' speeds while those others putter around on impulse drives. The literal name of the product is horrible at expectation management too. 'Pro Display HDR" would have worked just fine for the product name and dropped all of this 'extreme' handwaving. [ There may have been some 'HDR' trademark issue with that name and Apple is tap dancing around that but adding a hyperbolic cover story to spice the difference. ]
" ... We calibrate every single LED on every single display at the factory and .....then we use custom lenses and reflectors to actually shape and precisely control the light. ..."
Precisely control the light. Not just "shape and control" because it is an extreme dynamic range monitor. Again... expectation control almost non existent. ( this shape and control is in part to get them out of the blue light primary source and into a HDR range of colors that are not at the darkest extremes of luminance. )
"... It's the only display in the industry that delivers every feature on a pro's wish list and more. And now, all pros can use the same display across the work flow and have the same incredible XDR viewing experience with all of the features they need to create their life's best work making this the world's best Pro Display. ..."
Again revisiting the "every feature" theme as if had not over promised the first time ( "if say it often enough " maybe it rings like the truth). Only one in the whole industry. yeah that's expectation management.... not. Across the whole workflow (even past the colorist desks ). [ Again Workflow using a single monitor and some solutions spaces as opposed to this grand sweeping context brush they are using. ]
World Best ... that is suppose to mean "World's Best not quite a reference but best in the exact narrow space we are aiming at". That is a stretch. Not saying World's best would distance from trying to cover the reference monitor space and manage expectations.
Sure if you listen to the talk and ran it through the "Steve Jobs reality distortion field" removal filter. ( remove the hyperbole of how Apple is doing the bestest work ever by anyone" ) it was not quite a reference display. But the literal script.... P.T. Barnum would be proud.
Switched back the presenters and got this summary from them next.
" ... As for the Pro Display XDR, well, the reference monitors we talked about can cause tens of thousands of dollars and still not match the feature set. The Pro Display XDR will be $4,999 for the display itself. ..."
Can't match the feature set? Technically, yes can couch that as they are saying they have a different feature set than the reference monitors. But coupled to the unmanaged expectation setting context of "better than HDR", 'world's best' , and "every feature anyone can ask for", the natural implication is that it is a superset of features; not a different subset of features.
Apple doesn't make everything for everybody. So when they get into "every possible features" that probably isn't true. But when they are also talking to folks they didn't check all the boxes for, there is going to be a disconnect. The huge bucket of overpromising here is to compose a justification for the high prices they were about to throw at the audience. It worked to some extent. They had used it all up by the time they got to the stand though. A "just the facts ma'am" description of the product was not the primary object; not even close.
No, the baseline media was reporting was mainly just echoing the hyperbolic stuff that Apple was putting out. Some added more on top. Several got sidetracked on the stand's price.
Perhaps Apple was doing better at the "look but don't touch" demo spaces they set up at WWDC of dailing things back but the Keynote coverage for this product was in full on "dog and pony show" mode.
It was extremely well positioned for folks who ever never going to buy the $30K reference monitor anyway. It was not well positioned well at all for the folks who already made/driven those purchases a couple of times.
It would have helped if Apple had put some small , narrow "cap" on this monitor as what it was not going to do. They would have helped send a message that "we heard some of your features requests and can't get them into the product right now" . Rather than asserting that this was the full complete checklist from "everybody" ( "Pros" ). That just creates greater 'dust ups' as to who is in the "Pro" sphere and who isn't.
Last edited:
Trying to figure out if the adjustment you are making in black levels are due to the image itself or the limitations of your display? Is that blooming effect caused by the lens or my monitor? The same applies with color etc
Impressive amount of time spent typing up quotes, but none of what you point out changes what I said. You're simply taking typical marketing speak used by pretty much every person/company ever selling any product and trying to make that somehow an indictment of Apple. My point was simply that if you listen to the presentation--with the normal marketing hyperbole filters on that one should always have when listening to a product pitch--they never promise it will replace a reference display, which appears to be the main gripe being leveled here, and one that is being used to imply that if it isn't such a display, it's not worth the price. You seem to realize that when you note that was positioned for folks who are never going to buy the reference display--that's exactly the same point I was making.
They hyperbole isn't necessary, but it's never necessary with ANY marketing, and it's not like Apple is the only company who does marketing that way. It's EVERYBODY. That said, this monitor is packed with capabilities and features that currently no other monitor offers at this price point. Putting the pricey stand aside, the display itself is very competitively priced next to the few offerings (like the Asus and one or two other 4K displays) that are available.
Last edited: