And of course any PC that supports TB3 with a video card that push that resolution.
I was under the impression that Apple-branded displays and displays designed for Macs (LG UltraFine 4K / 5K) only work with Macs. Or is that incorrect?
Apple hopes that you’ll buy Apple hardware to match, sure, but at the end of the day, to be standards-compliant, it can’t say “Nope, I’m an Apple monitor that refuses to work with non-Apple hardware!”
TB3 is a standard all are allowed to use according to license terms, and Intel would love all computers to use it. The applicable video standards are the same sort of thing: open to licensing, ideally everyone would support them.
And of course any PC that supports TB3 with a video card that push that resolution.
I was under the impression that Apple-branded displays and displays designed for Macs (LG UltraFine 4K / 5K) only work with Macs. Or is that incorrect?
...are things like 'Jumanji' really the highest and best use for all this technology...?
The last one grossed nearly $1 billion worldwide in theater tickets and the newly released one is already over $320 million, and each is costing the studios $100–$150 million to make.
That quality monitor sounds like a no brainer for editing an expensive, popular, and high grossing feature film.
...I guess, and yet does virtual everything risk becoming a new effective populist reality as the planet burns...?
If you are “just” doing science (that doesn’t involve critical image accuracy) you have no reason to spend extra on this monitor. Kinda like how Nobel prize winning physicists can drive Honda’s instead of Ferraris. But don’t worry, I’m sure some of these will be sold to medical imaging experts or even climatologists.
Is there an HDR mastering display that costs less than £20k? Not yet.
On paper the new Apple monitor looks like it might be usable for HDR film/TV work, but like the ASUS PA32U (which looked excellent in the spec sheet) I can only comment when I've pointed a probe at it a profiled it using LightSpace. The things that seem amiss from the outset are;
1. It’s the wrong resolution; 4096 x 2160 is what’s needed, not 6k – remember how bad SD on HD looked when you split pixels across pixels?
2. It only supports SMPTE-2084 HDR natively; the website suggests that HLG may come as a software emulation, but as it’s only a 10-bit monitor this will not be acceptable; the PQ curve skirts close to the Barton-ramp as it is, putting a 3D LUT in line to emulate HLG will cause banding, no doubt,
3. No SDi or HDMI input – I know BMD have an external box coming but that’s a bit how-ya-doing!
4. It has P3 primaries (which is fine) but you really need a bit more than P3 as should you put a LUT in line you will have less than P3 and that ain’t going to fly; Eizo & Sony are typ. 84% of rec.2020; would be interested to see what proportion of rec.2020 this guy does?
1. It’s the wrong resolution; 4096 x 2160 is what’s needed, not 6k – remember how bad SD on HD looked when you split pixels across pixels?
The reason you have more pixels is so you can edit in full resolution, while your software tools are on screen. It’s not so you can stretch your image to fit the screen.
...are things like 'Jumanji' really the highest and best use for all this technology...?
The last one grossed nearly $1 billion worldwide in theater tickets and the newly released one is already over $320 million, and each is costing the studios $100–$150 million to make.
That quality monitor sounds like a no brainer for editing an expensive, popular, and high grossing feature film.
...I guess, and yet does virtual everything risk becoming a new effective populist reality as the planet burns...?
buddy, we can't all be half Japanese teenage genderfluid environmental/political activists.
And of course any PC that supports TB3 with a video card that push that resolution.
I was under the impression that Apple-branded displays and displays designed for Macs (LG UltraFine 4K / 5K) only work with Macs. Or is that incorrect?
That is incorrect.
although, I don't know that I'd want to see Windows in that much detail
It’s becoming more and more clear that the XDR monitor is a really good bargain for professionals. The overpriced meme simply doesn’t hold water. Not that the facts will stop the usual suspects from hammering away at it, though.
This reminds me of how Apple first infiltrated the graphic design business, and built a must-have product for a whole business that is still in effect today. People said (rightly at the time) that Macs were not up to the standards of high end typesetting systems or photo retouching workstations. What Mac offered in the late 80s was 80% of the high end professional systems with the added bonus of being user-administered. There was a lot of criticism about how a bunch of computer nerds who couldn’t even draw were trying to torpedo the design business, and there was a wave of bad DTP design that left a creative stain. But very soon real designers were taught the Mac in school and it became the default tool of the trade. The high end graphic workstation systems stuck around for a time, but as the Mac added capability, they were pushed higher & higher until they eventually fell over the railing at the top of the skyscraper of the design business.
If Apple plays the VFX production business the same way, perhaps they can carve themselves another niche of must-have-Mac users?
And of course any PC that supports TB3 with a video card that push that resolution.
I was under the impression that Apple-branded displays and displays designed for Macs (LG UltraFine 4K / 5K) only work with Macs. Or is that incorrect?
That would be some feat. Even at its most limiting, Apple has never been that limiting.
I think the point is that even though this XDR display is being sold for less than a reference monitor, it is still grossly overpriced. An example of this is the stand that is not even included in the box with the display. The display itself could probably be reduced in price by at least a few hundred dollars, and Apple would still be able to make a healthy profit from it.
Apple is not selling things based on the included technology, they are selling things at prices that they think customers would be willing to pay, even if it is grossly overpriced. Who wouldn't mind spending at least a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand) dollars less on something, especially if there is no reduction in quality or performance? Apple customers need to wake up to the reality that they are being fleeced, there is really no reason to rip us off like this. The new Mac Pro may be a good machine, and the XDR display may be a good display, but selling them for $52,000? Apple is playing everyone for stupid, and it needs to stop
I do appreciate Apple and that they want to make state-of-the-art technology available to the masses, but they need to do it at reasonable prices, and they need to stop violating their customers by selling this monitor and this stand separately, when they could just as easily sell them together and give customers at least somewhat of a bargain. This goes for the average Joe on the street, as well as production studios. Everyone can benefit from saving money
I think the point is that even though this XDR display is being sold for less than a reference monitor, it is still grossly overpriced. An example of this is the stand that is not even included in the box with the display. The display itself could probably be reduced in price by at least a few hundred dollars, and Apple would still be able to make a healthy profit from it.
Apple is not selling things based on the included technology, they are selling things at prices that they think customers would be willing to pay, even if it is grossly overpriced. Who wouldn't mind spending at least a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand) dollars less on something, especially if there is no reduction in quality or performance? Apple customers need to wake up to the reality that they are being fleeced, there is really no reason to rip us off like this. The new Mac Pro may be a good machine, and the XDR display may be a good display, but selling them for $52,000? Apple is playing everyone for stupid, and it needs to stop
I do appreciate Apple and that they want to make state-of-the-art technology available to the masses, but they need to do it at reasonable prices, and they need to stop violating their customers by selling this monitor and this stand separately, when they could just as easily sell them together and give customers at least somewhat of a bargain. This goes for the average Joe on the street, as well as production studios. Everyone can benefit from saving money
While all the things you say could be done, I think Apple is making a great business decision at the pricing they are offering now.
I retouch photos for a living. I specialize is higher end, art directed projects. I could see the other retouchers in the market as my competitors, many offer lower prices than I do. Instead, I often consider my real competition to be a potential new photo shoot: if I can take existing assets and create new photo compositions that save my client from orchestrating a $10000 shoot, why should I not charge $5000 even if the work only takes me a few days? It’s value added pricing. I’ve saved them money, sure, but also time & the overhead of managing photo crew, stylists & location/studio. That has value. Considering the alternatives in the pro editing display world, Apple has an opportunity to add value while allowing for healthy profits with the Pro Display XDR.
I think the point is that even though this XDR display is being sold for less than a reference monitor, it is still grossly overpriced. An example of this is the stand that is not even included in the box with the display. The display itself could probably be reduced in price by at least a few hundred dollars, and Apple would still be able to make a healthy profit from it.
Apple is not selling things based on the included technology, they are selling things at prices that they think customers would be willing to pay, even if it is grossly overpriced. Who wouldn't mind spending at least a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand) dollars less on something, especially if there is no reduction in quality or performance? Apple customers need to wake up to the reality that they are being fleeced, there is really no reason to rip us off like this. The new Mac Pro may be a good machine, and the XDR display may be a good display, but selling them for $52,000? Apple is playing everyone for stupid, and it needs to stop
I do appreciate Apple and that they want to make state-of-the-art technology available to the masses, but they need to do it at reasonable prices, and they need to stop violating their customers by selling this monitor and this stand separately, when they could just as easily sell them together and give customers at least somewhat of a bargain. This goes for the average Joe on the street, as well as production studios. Everyone can benefit from saving money
You said: “I think the point is that even though this XDR display is being sold for less than a reference monitor, it is still grossly overpriced.”
That is a nonsensical assertion. Since the Apple display is less costly and more capable than competing reference monitors, it is clearly an excellent value.
And of course any PC that supports TB3 with a video card that push that resolution.
Are there any?
A casual browsing of AMD and Nividia's latest suggest they support 8k displays
Well, what I meant was whether there were non-Apple video cards with TB3 outputs, as I didn't believe there were any. Listening to the ATP podcast tonight, though, led me to all sorts of info about how you can run DisplayPort cables out from a video card to a Thunderbolt 3 controller card which can then output TB3 with video to the display — and this is how you could potentially use a random PC GPU to drive this thing, whether in a Mac Pro or PC. And also this is avoided in the Mac Pro by way of the MPX module having its secondary interface which is how the Radeon 580 card in the basic model can drive the XDR even though it only has two HDMI outputs — the MPX connector takes the video signal and pushes it to the TB3 bus on the I/O card. This is all new info to me, I had no idea.
Still, I wonder if this means there will be non-Apple branded cards with TB3 outputs coming.
Apple customers need to wake up to the reality that they are being fleeced, there is really no reason to rip us off like this. The new Mac Pro may be a good machine, and the XDR display may be a good display, but selling them for $52,000? Apple is playing everyone for stupid, and it needs to stop
Nice lazy take. You know that half the price of a $52K build is 1.5TB of third party RAM, right? You can buy that separately from elsewhere for much less if you want (save $11K at OWC for example, even cheaper from elsewhere), but also almost nobody in the world needs that much RAM and those that do can easily afford it. Same for most of the other options you're using to come to this conclusion.
As far as the display/stand pricing, had they simply priced the display $1K higher and offered an option to subtract $800 from the price for the VESA mount instead, I doubt most people would be talking about it like it was a big deal. My guess is many studios they talked to were already using VESA mount setups where they'd be swapping out displays and didn't need the stand, and came up with this solution instead. Despite the whining by people like yourself, I don't think that's going to deter the people that want/need these from buying them as much as you think they're "stupid" and "being fleeced". I also don't think you're the target market for any of this stuff, whereas those "stupid" people are.
Waiting for haters like sjworld to chime (whine) in and tell us all why the XDR (and stand) is an overpriced POS.
No amount of real-world validations by actual pros will convince these wannabes that this will implode the $40k reference monitor industry.
You haven’t been reading properly. I am more than happy with the price of the monitor. The stand is still an overpriced POS though.
What an ignorant thing to say. Firstly, because we know you don’t have one and haven’t used it. Secondly, because as has been explained to you numerous times, there are much crappier monitor mounts in the hundreds-range. I have two of them. They wobble and aren’t excellent. The Apple offering is, by all youtube reviewer accounts, excellent. That’s worth a premium. And when buying a $5k monitor that outperforms $35k competing monitors, it’s rather insignificant.
But you keep getting mad at something you’ll never even need let alone purchase. This is...unusual behavior.
Comments
TB3 is a standard all are allowed to use according to license terms, and Intel would love all computers to use it. The applicable video standards are the same sort of thing: open to licensing, ideally everyone would support them.
Not ideal, but hey MBP has only TB3 ports, it has the same problem in reverse. 🤷🏻♂️
Is there an HDR mastering display that costs less than £20k? Not yet.
On paper the new Apple monitor looks like it might be usable for HDR film/TV work, but like the ASUS PA32U (which looked excellent in the spec sheet) I can only comment when I've pointed a probe at it a profiled it using LightSpace. The things that seem amiss from the outset are;
1. It’s the wrong resolution; 4096 x 2160 is what’s needed, not 6k – remember how bad SD on HD looked when you split pixels across pixels?
2. It only supports SMPTE-2084 HDR natively; the website suggests that HLG may come as a software emulation, but as it’s only a 10-bit monitor this will not be acceptable; the PQ curve skirts close to the Barton-ramp as it is, putting a 3D LUT in line to emulate HLG will cause banding, no doubt,
3. No SDi or HDMI input – I know BMD have an external box coming but that’s a bit how-ya-doing!
4. It has P3 primaries (which is fine) but you really need a bit more than P3 as should you put a LUT in line you will have less than P3 and that ain’t going to fly; Eizo & Sony are typ. 84% of rec.2020; would be interested to see what proportion of rec.2020 this guy does?
More here; https://lnkd.in/guYayv8
buddy, we can't all be half Japanese teenage genderfluid environmental/political activists.
although, I don't know that I'd want to see Windows in that much detail
That would be some feat. Even at its most limiting, Apple has never been that limiting.
Apple is not selling things based on the included technology, they are selling things at prices that they think customers would be willing to pay, even if it is grossly overpriced. Who wouldn't mind spending at least a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand) dollars less on something, especially if there is no reduction in quality or performance? Apple customers need to wake up to the reality that they are being fleeced, there is really no reason to rip us off like this. The new Mac Pro may be a good machine, and the XDR display may be a good display, but selling them for $52,000? Apple is playing everyone for stupid, and it needs to stop
I do appreciate Apple and that they want to make state-of-the-art technology available to the masses, but they need to do it at reasonable prices, and they need to stop violating their customers by selling this monitor and this stand separately, when they could just as easily sell them together and give customers at least somewhat of a bargain. This goes for the average Joe on the street, as well as production studios. Everyone can benefit from saving money
That is a nonsensical assertion. Since the Apple display is less costly and more capable than competing reference monitors, it is clearly an excellent value.
MBP does have TB3 so it does work with this display, and no, that's not the same thing in reverse (what?).
Well, what I meant was whether there were non-Apple video cards with TB3 outputs, as I didn't believe there were any. Listening to the ATP podcast tonight, though, led me to all sorts of info about how you can run DisplayPort cables out from a video card to a Thunderbolt 3 controller card which can then output TB3 with video to the display — and this is how you could potentially use a random PC GPU to drive this thing, whether in a Mac Pro or PC. And also this is avoided in the Mac Pro by way of the MPX module having its secondary interface which is how the Radeon 580 card in the basic model can drive the XDR even though it only has two HDMI outputs — the MPX connector takes the video signal and pushes it to the TB3 bus on the I/O card. This is all new info to me, I had no idea.
Still, I wonder if this means there will be non-Apple branded cards with TB3 outputs coming.
Nice lazy take. You know that half the price of a $52K build is 1.5TB of third party RAM, right? You can buy that separately from elsewhere for much less if you want (save $11K at OWC for example, even cheaper from elsewhere), but also almost nobody in the world needs that much RAM and those that do can easily afford it. Same for most of the other options you're using to come to this conclusion.
As far as the display/stand pricing, had they simply priced the display $1K higher and offered an option to subtract $800 from the price for the VESA mount instead, I doubt most people would be talking about it like it was a big deal. My guess is many studios they talked to were already using VESA mount setups where they'd be swapping out displays and didn't need the stand, and came up with this solution instead. Despite the whining by people like yourself, I don't think that's going to deter the people that want/need these from buying them as much as you think they're "stupid" and "being fleeced". I also don't think you're the target market for any of this stuff, whereas those "stupid" people are.
But you keep getting mad at something you’ll never even need let alone purchase. This is...unusual behavior.