matthewb
@matthewb
partly because the average user's needs don't need higher spec'd monitors for any practical purpose: - you can only use 10-bit colour with certain apps (e.g. Photoshop) + dedicated GPUs that support 10-bit output - 600 nits is already quite bright and does a decent job with HDR content, same as most high-end TVs. 1000+ nits is only needed for HDR grading where you need to be confident that the display is showing you accurate values despite very high brightness beyond SDR. - 27" @ 5k res is a good size for nearly everyone and plenty of res for everyday use. very little 8k content is available on YT and it's mostly cheesy commercial drone footage which is upscaled anyway. - 60Hz refresh rate is fine unless you are seriously into gaming or like the 120Hz smooth scroll effect (Apple's ProMotion), which also gives some people motion sickness.
1 reply
1 recast
5 reactions
matthewb
@matthewb
sure, I'd take a refreshed 32" XDR display with 8k res, 120Hz refresh rate, and 1000+ nits with local dimming. but it would cost $6-8k+ USD and the studio display already does everything you need unless you're using your monitor for a very specific (likely professional) use case. I spent 5+ years doing extremely colour critical photo retouching and used a clunky (and ugly) 32" DCI-4k monitor made by HP with true 10-bit colour and 100% sRGB / 100% AdobeRGG / 99% DCI-P3 coverage. it was expensive but I needed those specific features for the work I was doing at the time. imo, the bigger unlock for Apple would be figuring out a good anti-glare coating or material that doesn't make text blurry like their nano-texture glass. I'd pay big money for that instead of higher res or refresh rate.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
