Apple Hype Falls Flat - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 29Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 86 Old 12-13-2019, 02:23 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Apple Hype Falls Flat





Here is a review... The No blooming perfect viewing angle claims fall short.



It seems like they just have a really good display nothing groundbreaking. This is nothing new and nothing Samsung hasn't already done on their televisions. I was looking forward to this more as a proof of concept but this was more hype than anything else. 576 dimming zones so this would be the equivalent of roughly 2500 zones on a 65 inch television. It still has blooming despite all those zones and the secret sauce apple claimed was in this display. Their claims of no blooming and a million to one contrast ratio are unfounded at this time.



Don't get me wrong this is probably an amazing display but definitely not what apple claimed this to be. This is a clear indicator of where mini led is heading in a few years. So we can now confirm 2500 zones will still not be quite oled!
Panson likes this.
KD8118 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 86 Old 12-14-2019, 05:47 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 2
The XDR is not a Samsung television. For creating HDR content, the XDR is apparently a beast. Aside from Asus, there are no other affordable consumer true HDR monitors. Most professional reference monitors cost $35,000 and up, so what Asus and Apple have done is pretty much revolutionary. Jonathan Morrison posted an HDR video to YouTube that was graded with the XDR and it looks gorgeous on my LG OLED display. The XDR costs double what I paid for my ProArt PA32UCX, which only a few months ago was considered by many to be the best HDR monitor on the market until you reach Eizo, Sony or Flanders Scientific reference monitors costing tens of thousands of dollars. I expect color accuracy of the XDR to be nearly perfect. It runs completely silently. It is a work of art. If I’m watching TV at home, extreme viewing angles are a big deal. When I’m color grading, not so much. And for clients, studios often use OLED televisions to show off their work.
https://youtu.be/pmXA9IlTKDU
LG4k likes this.
jonpais is offline  
post #3 of 86 Old 12-14-2019, 10:44 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonpais View Post
The XDR is not a Samsung television. For creating HDR content, the XDR is apparently a beast. Aside from Asus, there are no other affordable consumer true HDR monitors. Most professional reference monitors cost $35,000 and up, so what Asus and Apple have done is pretty much revolutionary. Jonathan Morrison posted an HDR video to YouTube that was graded with the XDR and it looks gorgeous on my LG OLED display. The XDR costs double what I paid for my ProArt PA32UCX, which only a few months ago was considered by many to be the best HDR monitor on the market until you reach Eizo, Sony or Flanders Scientific reference monitors costing tens of thousands of dollars. I expect color accuracy of the XDR to be nearly perfect. It runs completely silently. It is a work of art. If I’m watching TV at home, extreme viewing angles are a big deal. When I’m color grading, not so much. And for clients, studios often use OLED televisions to show off their work.
https://youtu.be/pmXA9IlTKDU

Thanks for the reply. I am merely stating that this monitor doesn't do what apple initially claimed. There is no doubt in my mind that this is an amazing monitor that you can do real work on, but I am directly calling out the "No blooming" and perfect viewing angle claims.



I was just hopeful that those claims would come to fruition as the technology would eventually trickle down to televisions. This is basically an excellent barometer of the future. This is what Mini-Led will look like in a few years as zone counts go up. Yes it will look a lot better but matching Oled is simply not happening. I know a lot here already knew this but apple kinda misled with their claims. Dual layer Lcd is the only shot of LCD getting there and we now certainly know this.
KD8118 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 86 Old 12-14-2019, 04:12 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD8118 View Post
[...] 576 dimming zones so this would be the equivalent of roughly 2500 zones on a 65 inch television.
[...]
This is a clear indicator of where mini led is heading in a few years.
I don't think that follows. You sit much closer to a 32" monitor than you would to a 65" TV, so you would expect the blooming to look about the same at the same number of zones if the screens are occupying a similar proportion of your field of view.

I suspect Apple may have been hoping to get dual-layer LCD implemented in this monitor (they filed a patent on it a few years ago), but that it simply wasn't ready for prime time yet and they settled for a conventional FALD implementation instead. Given that development on dual-layer does seem to be progressing well (BOE, Innolux among others working on it), I wouldn't be surprised to see an XDR 2 in a few years that does implement it. That'll be the one to get.
ddw2525 and echopraxia like this.
subtec is offline  
post #5 of 86 Old 12-14-2019, 06:08 PM
Member
 
Audioguy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Hmm, strange. Apple's marketing is second to none, they've always done a good Jobs with that.

Cheers
Audioguy1 is online now  
post #6 of 86 Old 12-14-2019, 06:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
peterlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD8118 View Post
Their claims of no blooming and a million to one contrast ratio are unfounded at this time.
Where's the link documenting Apple claimed or is claiming the monitor has no blooming? Because all I can find is this claim on the Apple page for the monitor:





Nor do I see anything in the video you posted where he measured the contrast ratio. So far, every "review" of the monitor has been the typical YouTuber gushing over their newest toys without any actual data. I'll wait until some technically-oriented professionals start testing the monitor before concluding that the million-to-one contrast ratio claim is invalid or legitimate.
wxman and mik2h like this.

Last edited by peterlee; 12-14-2019 at 06:31 PM.
peterlee is offline  
post #7 of 86 Old 12-14-2019, 06:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,583
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5586 Post(s)
Liked: 3992
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterlee View Post
Where's the link documenting Apple claimed or is claiming the monitor has no blooming? Because all I can find is this claim on the Apple page for the monitor:


Doing simple research on the Apple web site can be difficult for some.

Last edited by wxman; 12-14-2019 at 06:42 PM.
wxman is online now  
post #8 of 86 Old 12-14-2019, 10:59 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterlee View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD8118 View Post
Their claims of no blooming and a million to one contrast ratio are unfounded at this time.
Where's the link documenting Apple claimed or is claiming the monitor has no blooming? Because all I can find is this claim on the Apple page for the monitor:





Nor do I see anything in the video you posted where he measured the contrast ratio. So far, every "review" of the monitor has been the typical YouTuber gushing over their newest toys without any actual data. I'll wait until some technically-oriented professionals start testing the monitor before concluding that the million-to-one contrast ratio claim is invalid or legitimate.
When this monitor was first announced it was touted as eliminating blooming. Everyone assumed this was going to be dual layer because of such a bold claim. As the release date got closer they quietly revised their wording. I actually made a post about this about a month ago saying they are now pushing back on some of those claims. Basically when this was announced this was no blooming a million to one contrast with perfect viewing angles.

This is all false. Although he didn’t physically test the contrast I would say the million to one contrast is the same type of claim the first edge lit led’s made stating they were in fact a million to one!
KD8118 is offline  
post #9 of 86 Old 12-15-2019, 03:57 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 2
There is no official, standardized way to measure contrast ratio for a system or its parts, nor is there a standard for defining "Contrast Ratio" that is accepted by any standards organization so ratings provided by different manufacturers of display devices are not necessarily comparable to each other due to differences in method of measurement, operation, and unstated variables. - wiki
jonpais is offline  
post #10 of 86 Old 12-15-2019, 04:10 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 2
That being said, there is no reason why the Pro Display XDR should not have a contrast ratio of at least 1000: 1. My lowly Asus PA32UCX measures a meagre 949: 1 according to rigorous testing by PRAD.de. When applying "local dimming", contrast values ​​of 1,000,000: 1 should absolutely be achievable in HDR mode.
jonpais is offline  
post #11 of 86 Old 12-15-2019, 04:42 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Nothing constructive can come of this thread when the whole point seems to be to prove that Apple are liars, or that this display is somehow a worthless piece of glass and aluminum whose only appeal is to hardcore Apple fanboys. Just a couple years ago, the only true HDR monitors available cost $35,000 and up. Now colorists at studios can grade HDR footage for commercial work without mortgaging their house. Those waiting around for micro LED monitors will have to stick around a long time because it is forecast that such panels will only account for 1.5% of worldwide market share in 2026 - about where OLED stands today. Micro LEDs will find their way to tablets, watches, phones and television sets long before they appear in a professional HDR monitor.
jonpais is offline  
post #12 of 86 Old 12-15-2019, 09:14 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonpais View Post
Nothing constructive can come of this thread when the whole point seems to be to prove that Apple are liars, or that this display is somehow a worthless piece of glass and aluminum whose only appeal is to hardcore Apple fanboys. Just a couple years ago, the only true HDR monitors available cost $35,000 and up. Now colorists at studios can grade HDR footage for commercial work without mortgaging their house. Those waiting around for micro LED monitors will have to stick around a long time because it is forecast that such panels will only account for 1.5% of worldwide market share in 2026 - about where OLED stands today. Micro LEDs will find their way to tablets, watches, phones and television sets long before they appear in a professional HDR monitor.
I actually agree with you and I apologize for making it toxic! I went for sensationalism in my headline to grab attention!

Again this is a great monitor with great improvements. My bigger point was that We now know the future of Mini-Led. TCL has a roadmap of how they will continue upping the zones In The coming years. After a few more iterations we will hit the saturation point. Basically we are almost at the pinnacle of what local dimming LCD can do. It doesn’t get much better than this!!!

Don’t get me wrong I’m happy with the technology and how it has matured but this is the end of the line. It is very good rivaling Oled but just not quite there. I blame these forums for making me this critical on black levels! Something that I would have never noticed before is so apparent!
KD8118 is offline  
post #13 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 07:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Stuntman_Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,905
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD8118 View Post
I actually agree with you and I apologize for making it toxic! I went for sensationalism in my headline to grab attention!

Again this is a great monitor with great improvements. My bigger point was that We now know the future of Mini-Led. TCL has a roadmap of how they will continue upping the zones In The coming years. After a few more iterations we will hit the saturation point. Basically we are almost at the pinnacle of what local dimming LCD can do. It doesn’t get much better than this!!!

Don’t get me wrong I’m happy with the technology and how it has matured but this is the end of the line. It is very good rivaling Oled but just not quite there. I blame these forums for making me this critical on black levels! Something that I would have never noticed before is so apparent!
I don't see how you can say it doesn't get much better than this when we're nowhere near the point where each Mini LED would be its own discrete zone. That's 25 times the light control of TCL's first iteration. And that's assuming that you can't fit more than the 25k Mini LEDs into a TV, that TCL currently has in their 75".

Stuntman_Mike is offline  
post #14 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 01:36 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 7
We have an imac Pro at work, and the 5k screen looks awesome to me. Color, viewing angles, blacks all look very OLED-like. Would love to find a large consumer/price version of that imac Pro display for a TV. Haven't really researched, Apple only says IPS Technology. But, blacks look black and not dark purple like other IPS displays.

(2)-Panasonic TC-P55VT30 / Yamaha RX-V3800 / Mirage Omni Speakers / Velodyne subs
(1)-Panasonic TC-P55GT30
jst333 is offline  
post #15 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 02:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
peterlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 62
The only nugget of info from Marques Brownlee video that I found interesting was his observations about viewing angle and the fallout in brightness as he turned the monitor. It's not terrible but it's noticeable. Color and contrast don't seem to be as affected. Will be interesting to see the brightness measured.

Jonathan Morrison posted a video that shows the different between the standard and anti-glare version. This is something I have been very curious about. It starts at 1:22 in the video.


Here are two screenshots showing the difference in glare. Ant-glare monitor on left, regular monitor on right:


image posting site


image posting site
Panson likes this.
peterlee is offline  
post #16 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 02:59 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post
I don't see how you can say it doesn't get much better than this when we're nowhere near the point where each Mini LED would be its own discrete zone. That's 25 times the light control of TCL's first iteration. And that's assuming that you can't fit more than the 25k Mini LEDs into a TV, that TCL currently has in their 75".

I am basing my Opinion on the fact that as the zones go up their effect will be less apparent. Even 50k zones will never be anywhere near pixel level dimming. I am also basing my opinion on time. There are some new technologies around the corner, I'm mostly excited for Self emissive quantum dots. By the time this roll out completes it probably wont matter anymore as a better more efficient technology will be available.



There is still a little headroom and zone counts will increase and provide a better picture but we are almost at the end in my opinion. I mean look at the Q90R with 480 zones its near oled, Lets say the Q90R had 5k zones it still wouldn't be oled, meaning we are heading into the land of diminishing returns. These televisions are very good and very impressive but I feel like we have squeezed all the juice there is out of them. Even 100k zones is nowhere near the 8 million Oled has. Most of the time this wont matter and it will be more than fine, but there will be times these zones simply wont be able to hang at all.
KD8118 is offline  
post #17 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 03:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Stuntman_Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,905
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD8118 View Post
I am basing my Opinion on the fact that as the zones go up their effect will be less apparent. Even 50k zones will never be anywhere near pixel level dimming. I am also basing my opinion on time. There are some new technologies around the corner, I'm mostly excited for Self emissive quantum dots. By the time this roll out completes it probably wont matter anymore as a better more efficient technology will be available.



There is still a little headroom and zone counts will increase and provide a better picture but we are almost at the end in my opinion. I mean look at the Q90R with 480 zones its near oled, Lets say the Q90R had 5k zones it still wouldn't be oled, meaning we are heading into the land of diminishing returns. These televisions are very good and very impressive but I feel like we have squeezed all the juice there is out of them. Even 100k zones is nowhere near the 8 million Oled has. Most of the time this wont matter and it will be more than fine, but there will be times these zones simply wont be able to hang at all.
I don't think you've thought this through lol. How could increasing zones be less apparent or diminishing returns, when the standard bearer (emissive) has over 8 million zones? It would only be diminishing returns if 1000 zones looked exactly the same as 8 million, which it obviously does not. Not even close. If we've seen anything, it's that zone count does matter. It's no coincidence that the LCD with the highest zone count ever, is also the LCD with the highest measured contrast ever.

Now if you are saying that you are more excited for Dual LCD, I totally get that and would agree. If you are saying that by the time someone unlocks all 25k zones, that some better tech will be out or directly on the horizon, I can hear that as well. What doesn't make sense is saying that 480 zones is as close to emissive PQ as a FALD can get, because the closest to emissive (4K specifically) that a FALD can get in terms of PQ is 8 million zones... And 25k zones, while it still may not look like an emissive TV, is still far superior at light control thn 480.

Stuntman_Mike is offline  
post #18 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 07:20 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 2
There is nothing OLED-like about the iMac Pro. It’s black levels are around .5 nits, which is dark gray. I think that comment was meant as some kind of joke?
Gillietalls likes this.
jonpais is offline  
post #19 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 08:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 370 Post(s)
Liked: 325
FALD can work for consumer TVs, but it is an absolutely terrible idea for a reference monitor.

Unless each pixel is individually capable of expressing the entire color volume independent of the state of adjacent pixels (so either an OLED, or just a regular LCD at the expense of black levels), even the best FALD algorithm in the world is still going to compromise the accuracy of the image being displayed, and no amount of color calibration can fix that, since it’s inherent in the design of FALD.

A reference monitor used for mastering content needs to be honest and accurate, above all else. Do not be so gullible as to buy this monitor thinking it will be as accurate for mastering HDR content as an OLED can be. It will be physically impossible for it to accurately present certain kinds of HDR content, particularly where adjacent pixels exhibit large contrast details (e.g. a starfield of bright stars on a black background is a common example).

What I don’t understand is, even if this monitor were perfect, what is the value proposition of this thing? Why not just use a calibrated LG OLED TV, if you want to get as close as possible to a “real” master reference monitor? That will surely get you closer, since it won’t crush either shadows or highlights like any FALD monitor necessarily must. And even if an OLED burns in over time, you could buy 2-3 replacements before you’ve paid as much as this thing costs.

And it’s obviously not perfect, as I described above. No FALD display can ever be. The problem is, even if this were the best FALD implementation ever, there will still be cases where it erroneously presents the content you’re trying to master. Small HDR specular highlights around the size of a few single pixels, for example. How are you supposed to use this monitor to correctly view and edit such things?

Maybe even as a primary work monitor, perhaps this could work. But not as master reference. And anyone in the industry who thinks this will work is ignorant of what FALD is, and is going to find themselves sorely mistaken with the quality of their work suffering as a result.

Neumann KH310A | Neumann KH120A | Ascend Sierra Towers & Horizon (RAAL) | Ascend Sierra 2EX | Revel F206 | Rythmik F18 x2 | Rythmik F12 | JL Audio E112 | SMSL M500 | Topping D10 | Sonos Amp | Marantz SR7012

Last edited by echopraxia; 12-16-2019 at 08:46 PM.
echopraxia is offline  
post #20 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 08:58 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Dual LCD and micro LED professional reference monitors are still years off. It’s all well and good to fantasize about upcoming developments in display tech, but studios needing to finish work for clients now don’t have the leisure to wait till 2026. hehe The new tech will find its way into televisions, tablets, watches, and phones long before it reaches professional reference monitors. And costs of first products will be higher, as usual. What many fail to understand is that, for example, OLED panels are not the same in monitors as they are in television sets and they’re produced in smaller quantities.

I own the Asus PA32UCX and am inclined to think that 0 nit blacks, 4,000 nits sustained brightness and 8 million local dimming zones are not necessarily an absolute requirement for content creation. For one thing, 1,500 nits is already uncomfortable to look at sitting a couple feet away from the monitor! In an age when reference monitors cost $35,000 and up, ~ $6,000 is a relative bargain. Off-axis viewing on my Asus is quite good and nobody in their right mind is grading footage at a 180-degree viewing angle. I would expect the XDR to meet or exceed the viewing angle of the Asus. For clients needing to see work in progress, studios can and do pick up 55” OLED TVs for as little as $1,500. As far as the number of local dimming zones goes, it remains to be seen whether double the zones means twice as good. It would depend on a lot of factors, including the implementation. Theoretically, the Asus should have deeper blacks than the XDR, as it has double the number of zones and 1,400-1,500 nits brightness. But I am inclined to believe that the differences will be negligible.
jonpais is offline  
post #21 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 09:11 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by echopraxia View Post
FALD can work for consumer TVs, but it is an absolutely terrible idea for a reference monitor.

Unless each pixel is individually capable of expressing the entire color volume independent of the state of adjacent pixels (so either an OLED, or just a regular LCD at the expense of black levels), even the best FALD algorithm in the world is still going to compromise the accuracy of the image being displayed, and no amount of color calibration can fix that, since it’️s inherent in the design of FALD.

A reference monitor used for mastering content needs to be honest and accurate, above all else. Do not be so gullible as to buy this monitor thinking it will be as accurate for mastering HDR content as an OLED can be. It will be physically impossible for it to accurately present certain kinds of HDR content, particularly where adjacent pixels exhibit large contrast details (e.g. a starfield of bright stars on a black background is a common example).

What I don’️t understand is, even if this monitor were perfect, what is the value proposition of this thing? Why not just use a calibrated LG OLED TV, if you want to get as close as possible to a “real” master reference monitor? That will surely get you closer, since it won’️t crush either shadows or highlights like any FALD monitor necessarily must. And even if an OLED burns in over time, you could buy 2-3 replacements before you’️ve paid as much as this thing costs.

And it’️s obviously not perfect, as I described above. No FALD display can ever be. The problem is, even if this were the best FALD implementation ever, there will still be cases where it erroneously presents the content you’️re trying to master. Small HDR specular highlights around the size of a few single pixels, for example. How are you supposed to use this monitor to correctly view and edit such things?

Maybe even as a primary work monitor, perhaps this could work. But not as master reference. And anyone in the industry who thinks this will work is ignorant of what FALD is, and is going to find themselves sorely mistaken with the quality of their work suffering as a result.
Nobody’s work is going to suffer using the XDR as a reference display. I’ve seen HDR footage graded on a $1,000 7” Shogun Inferno by the likes of Alister Chapman and Mystery Box that nearly matched the BVM-X300.
jonpais is offline  
post #22 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 09:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 370 Post(s)
Liked: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonpais View Post
Dual LCD and micro LED professional reference monitors are still years off. It’s all well and good to fantasize about upcoming developments in display tech, but studios needing to finish work for clients now don’t have the leisure to wait till 2026. hehe The new tech will find its way into televisions, tablets, watches, and phones long before it reaches professional reference monitors. And costs of first products will be higher, as usual. What many fail to understand is that, for example, OLED panels are not the same in monitors as they are in television sets and they’re produced in smaller quantities.

I own the Asus PA32UCX and am inclined to think that 0 nit blacks, 4,000 nits sustained brightness and 8 million local dimming zones are not necessarily an absolute requirement for content creation. For one thing, 1,500 nits is already uncomfortable to look at sitting a couple feet away from the monitor! In an age when reference monitors cost $35,000 and up, ~ $6,000 is a relative bargain. Off-axis viewing on my Asus is quite good and nobody in their right mind is grading footage at a 180-degree viewing angle. I would expect the XDR to meet or exceed the viewing angle of the Asus. For clients needing to see work in progress, studios can and do pick up 55” OLED TVs for as little as $1,500. As far as the number of local dimming zones goes, it remains to be seen whether double the zones means twice as good. It would depend on a lot of factors, including the implementation. Theoretically, the Asus should have deeper blacks than the XDR, as it has double the number of zones and 1,400-1,500 nits brightness. But I am inclined to believe that the differences will be negligible.
It’s not a bargain, it’s a massive waste of money. Because ultimately it’s just a tiny FALD TV masquerading as a reference monitor. No FALD display can hold a candle to the accuracy of an actual reference monitor, let alone even an off-the-shelf OLED in terms of pixel by pixel accuracy (not counting total brightness capability).

Even a regular LCD display with no local dimming will be more accurate for mastering than any sophisticated FALD LCD. (Though of course black levels will suffer without FALD).

Imagine for a moment you try use the Apple XDR in a dark room to tune a space scene with bright single-pixel stars on a completely black background. At best, you’ll be aware enough of the technical limits of FALD and stop yourself before editing anything based on what you see from this monitor. But if that’s not your first reaction, then something even worse will happen:

At worst (and more likely) those who buy this will fall for Apple’s lies and believe this is a reference class monitor. It is not. It’s just a very nice FALD HDR monitor.

But without knowing the dangers of mastering on an FALD display, you’ll end up screwing up your content by either boosting or decreasing the brightness of the stars incorrectly vs how you would have wanted on a proper monitor.

Which direction you err will depend on whether their FALD algorithm prefers crushing blacks or crushing highlights. But you WILL find yourself wanting to adjust the image incorrectly, since this monitor is not capable of representing this kind of local contrast accurately: it will either add bloom, crush blacks, crush highlights, or some combination of all three (most likely) and your attempts to compensate for this will screw up the quality of your content.

Neumann KH310A | Neumann KH120A | Ascend Sierra Towers & Horizon (RAAL) | Ascend Sierra 2EX | Revel F206 | Rythmik F18 x2 | Rythmik F12 | JL Audio E112 | SMSL M500 | Topping D10 | Sonos Amp | Marantz SR7012

Last edited by echopraxia; 12-16-2019 at 09:33 PM.
echopraxia is offline  
post #23 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 09:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 370 Post(s)
Liked: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonpais View Post
Nobody’s work is going to suffer using the XDR as a reference display. I’ve seen HDR footage graded on a $1,000 7” Shogun Inferno by the likes of Alister Chapman and Mystery Box that nearly matched the BVM-X300.
Does the Shogun Inferno employ local dimming? It seems not, and thus it looks like a properly implemented monitor to me. I see no reason you can’t get good results from that monitor, since if it does not employ FALD, it will be MORE accurate than the XDR — at the very least in terms of tiny local high contrast details.

Do you understand how dangerous it is to master HDR content on a display device that employs FALD algorithms? Read my prior post’s example about a star-field.

Unless you can completely turn off their FALD algorithm, there will be cases where it distorts the image in many cases where the panels native contrast can’t keep up with the local contrast of what you’re displaying. This defeats the whole point of a reference monitor. And if you CAN turn off FALD completely in some modes, then the contrast and HDR capabilities of this monitor will immediately become completely ordinary, and certainly would not justify the price tag.

Neumann KH310A | Neumann KH120A | Ascend Sierra Towers & Horizon (RAAL) | Ascend Sierra 2EX | Revel F206 | Rythmik F18 x2 | Rythmik F12 | JL Audio E112 | SMSL M500 | Topping D10 | Sonos Amp | Marantz SR7012

Last edited by echopraxia; 12-16-2019 at 09:36 PM.
echopraxia is offline  
post #24 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 09:55 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by echopraxia View Post
Does the Shogun Inferno employ local dimming? It seems not, and thus it looks like a properly implemented monitor to me. I see no reason you can’t get good results from that monitor, since if it does not employ FALD, it will be MORE accurate than the XDR — at the very least in terms of tiny local high contrast details.
You and others are all talking without having even used or seen the monitor in person.
Statements to the effect that you should be able to get better results from the Atomos or that it has better local high contrast than the XDR are pure fantasy.
Jon Pais is offline  
post #25 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 10:05 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by echopraxia View Post
It’s not a bargain, it’s a massive waste of money. Because ultimately it’s just a tiny FALD TV masquerading as a reference monitor. No FALD display can hold a candle to the accuracy of an actual reference monitor, let alone even an off-the-shelf OLED in terms of pixel by pixel accuracy (not counting total brightness capability).

Imagine for a moment you try use the Apple XDR in a dark room to tune a space scene with bright single-pixel stars on a completely black background. At best, you’ll be aware enough of the technical limits of FALD and stop yourself before editing anything based on what you see from this monitor. But if that’s not your first reaction, then something even worse will happen:
Again, pure fantasy. We have not even used the monitor or seen actual tests and already you are imagining single pixel stars, which is a scenario we're encountering daily, right? Also, you seem to be unaware of the differences between a television set and a monitor...
Nobody said this is identical to OLED, but the cost of an OLED reference monitor is six times greater, too. I'm quite certain that tests will show that this display has superb color accuracy and contrast.
To say that the XDR is a massive waste of money shows a complete bias, because what we can afford determines what gear we use. Many cannot afford a $45,000 Flanders Scientific or Eizo HDR reference monitor. Most of us are not grading for Netflix, but in fact, if they still maintained a list of approved monitors, I have no doubt that this one would be on it.

Do any of you have HDR video you've created and shared online that we can see? If so, I'm sure we can all learn a lot from you...
Jon Pais is offline  
post #26 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 10:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 370 Post(s)
Liked: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Pais View Post
Again, pure fantasy. We have not even used the monitor or seen actual tests and already you are imagining single pixel stars, which is a scenario we're encountering daily, right? Also, you seem to be unaware of the differences between a television set and a monitor...
Nobody said this is identical to OLED, but the cost of an OLED reference monitor is six times greater, too. I'm quite certain that tests will show that this display has superb color accuracy and contrast.
To say that the XDR is a massive waste of money shows a complete bias, because what we can afford determines what gear we use. Many cannot afford a $45,000 Flanders Scientific or Eizo HDR reference monitor. Most of us are not grading for Netflix, but in fact, if they still maintained a list of approved monitors, I have no doubt that this one would be on it.

Do any of you have HDR video you've created and shared online that we can see? If so, I'm sure we can all learn a lot from you...
I have a simple question for you: Do you understand how FALD algorithms work, and the effect they have when presenting small local details (within a single dimming zone) that span a contrast ratio greater than the LCD panel’s native contrast ratio?

It sounds like you do not.

Ordinarily, I’d be happy to explain how FALD must necessarily distort image content to achieve enhanced global contrast, in a way that is appropriate for TVs but NOT for any master reference monitor. But I do not have the time to try to educate you on a topic if you are not willing to listen or learn.

Neumann KH310A | Neumann KH120A | Ascend Sierra Towers & Horizon (RAAL) | Ascend Sierra 2EX | Revel F206 | Rythmik F18 x2 | Rythmik F12 | JL Audio E112 | SMSL M500 | Topping D10 | Sonos Amp | Marantz SR7012

Last edited by echopraxia; 12-16-2019 at 10:21 PM.
echopraxia is offline  
post #27 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 10:26 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD8118 View Post
I am basing my Opinion on the fact that as the zones go up their effect will be less apparent. Even 50k zones will never be anywhere near pixel level dimming. I am also basing my opinion on time. There are some new technologies around the corner, I'm mostly excited for Self emissive quantum dots. By the time this roll out completes it probably wont matter anymore as a better more efficient technology will be available.



There is still a little headroom and zone counts will increase and provide a better picture but we are almost at the end in my opinion. I mean look at the Q90R with 480 zones its near oled, Lets say the Q90R had 5k zones it still wouldn't be oled, meaning we are heading into the land of diminishing returns. These televisions are very good and very impressive but I feel like we have squeezed all the juice there is out of them. Even 100k zones is nowhere near the 8 million Oled has. Most of the time this wont matter and it will be more than fine, but there will be times these zones simply wont be able to hang at all.
I don't think you've thought this through lol. How could increasing zones be less apparent or diminishing returns, when the standard bearer (emissive) has over 8 million zones? It would only be diminishing returns if 1000 zones looked exactly the same as 8 million, which it obviously does not. Not even close. If we've seen anything, it's that zone count does matter. It's no coincidence that the LCD with the highest zone count ever, is also the LCD with the highest measured contrast ever.

Now if you are saying that you are more excited for Dual LCD, I totally get that and would agree. If you are saying that by the time someone unlocks all 25k zones, that some better tech will be out or directly on the horizon, I can hear that as well. What doesn't make sense is saying that 480 zones is as close to emissive PQ as a FALD can get, because the closest to emissive (4K specifically) that a FALD can get in terms of PQ is 8 million zones... And 25k zones, while it still may not look like an emissive TV, is still far superior at light control thn 480.
Yes I’m hoping for dual layer lcd because it will do what I hoped mini-led would do. Once the zone counts on these go up by another few thousand how much better will they continue to look? I mean say they get to 10,000 zones in 3 years, how much better will 15,000 zones look? I feel like when we get to 2,500-5,000 it will pretty much do the trick in how good fald will look for most content. Once you get to something tricky all bets are off, even if you had 100k zones there will be scenes that will render those zones nearly as ineffective as a much lower zone count.

I am happy where we are and where we are going with this technology in the very near future but I still believe we are at the end of the road with this. Not a bad place to be because it’s pretty good I just won’t expect too much more out of it.
KD8118 is offline  
post #28 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 10:31 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonpais View Post
Dual LCD and micro LED professional reference monitors are still years off. It’s all well and good to fantasize about upcoming developments in display tech, but studios needing to finish work for clients now don’t have the leisure to wait till 2026. hehe The new tech will find its way into televisions, tablets, watches, and phones long before it reaches professional reference monitors.
The Eizo CG3145, Sony BVM-HX310, and Flanders Scientific XM311K are all dual-layer LCD and available now.

I agree with echopraxia that FALD LCD is inherently incapable of producing accurate results, and therefore shouldn't be relied upon for any kind of reference work. Consider that on a FALD display, a bright highlight coming into close proximity to a dark object in a scene will change the luminance of the object, the highlight, or both - even when no change is intended.
echopraxia likes this.
subtec is offline  
post #29 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 10:35 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by echopraxia View Post
FALD can work for consumer TVs, but it is an absolutely terrible idea for a reference monitor.

Unless each pixel is individually capable of expressing the entire color volume independent of the state of adjacent pixels (so either an OLED, or just a regular LCD at the expense of black levels), even the best FALD algorithm in the world is still going to compromise the accuracy of the image being displayed, and no amount of color calibration can fix that, since it’️s inherent in the design of FALD.

A reference monitor used for mastering content needs to be honest and accurate, above all else. Do not be so gullible as to buy this monitor thinking it will be as accurate for mastering HDR content as an OLED can be. It will be physically impossible for it to accurately present certain kinds of HDR content, particularly where adjacent pixels exhibit large contrast details (e.g. a starfield of bright stars on a black background is a common example).

What I don’️t understand is, even if this monitor were perfect, what is the value proposition of this thing? Why not just use a calibrated LG OLED TV, if you want to get as close as possible to a “real” master reference monitor? That will surely get you closer, since it won’️t crush either shadows or highlights like any FALD monitor necessarily must. And even if an OLED burns in over time, you could buy 2-3 replacements before you’️ve paid as much as this thing costs.

And it’️s obviously not perfect, as I described above. No FALD display can ever be. The problem is, even if this were the best FALD implementation ever, there will still be cases where it erroneously presents the content you’️re trying to master. Small HDR specular highlights around the size of a few single pixels, for example. How are you supposed to use this monitor to correctly view and edit such things?

Maybe even as a primary work monitor, perhaps this could work. But not as master reference. And anyone in the industry who thinks this will work is ignorant of what FALD is, and is going to find themselves sorely mistaken with the quality of their work suffering as a result.
Wow! The unintended consequences of open and free discussion! Completely new insight to my brain!

I never thought of it this way! When I would think dimming zones I would strictly think of luminance... somehow it never occurred to me that this affects the color within the zone. I mean it makes perfect sense that I can’t even dispute!

Maybe I’m stupid that I never thought this way but this is a gem of information for me!
KD8118 is offline  
post #30 of 86 Old 12-16-2019, 10:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 370 Post(s)
Liked: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD8118 View Post
Wow! The unintended consequences of open and free discussion! Completely new insight to my brain!

I never thought of it this way! When I would think dimming zones I would strictly think of luminance... somehow it never occurred to me that this affects the color within the zone. I mean it makes perfect sense that I can’t even dispute!

Maybe I’m stupid that I never thought this way but this is a gem of information for me!
It’s theoretically possible to implement FALD in a way that doesn’t compromise color accuracy, at the expense of luminance accuracy: both blooming and shadow/highlight detail crush effects must be made much worse to achieve this. So, while FALD may mostly appear as luminance errors that crush details and add blooming, it depends on the implementation. But, even in the best implementation, it is theoretically impossible for FALD to be accurate in all cases (and not just in unrealistic, fabricated examples).

Another big problem is that in addition to FALD being inherently inaccurate, if the algorithm implementation is proprietary (and it always is), we will never even know the limit to how inaccurate it could become in various rare edge-cases.

Neumann KH310A | Neumann KH120A | Ascend Sierra Towers & Horizon (RAAL) | Ascend Sierra 2EX | Revel F206 | Rythmik F18 x2 | Rythmik F12 | JL Audio E112 | SMSL M500 | Topping D10 | Sonos Amp | Marantz SR7012

Last edited by echopraxia; 12-16-2019 at 10:56 PM.
echopraxia is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply LCD Flat Panel Displays

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off