411–420 of 438 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Apple still hasn't shipped a laptop with a higher refresh rate than 120hz when competitors have been shipping 144 or even 240hz for years (A 100% bigger value than 120hz!).
120hz is slow technology but those MBP displays are around the best you can get when you look the whole picture, notch aside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, but I don't see anyone going the way of dual-link ports ever again. It was clumsy enough the first time.
Displays using MST to achieve higher resolutions than a single link allowed worked out more or less fine. The problem there is MacOS doesn't support MST.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any evidence that such high refresh rates provide any value, or are even detectable by human eyes?
Yes, blind tests have shown that users are easily able to discern between 60 vs 144hz. This isn't really contested anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't feel that's a reasonable take, in this case. Apple's own marketing images show tons of these displays side-by-side with one-another. And that makes total sense; the M1 Ultra can run four of them IIRC. Apple customers, especially big businesses, will buy multiple of these just for the sake of them looking good next to one-another. Not unreasonable. But what's the point of having three webcams & microphones? 18…
It doesn't matter whether you think it's reasonable. It makes no sense for Apple to try to do this. You're entirely right that it makes no sense to have multiple sets of Dolby Atmos sound systems and cams and mics. But that doesn't mean it makes sense for Apple to do commodity displays. They're clearly betting that one 5K display will be enough in many cases. Stocking multiple SKUs of large displays just doesn't make…
They're already stocking six Studio Display SKUs in-store (if they decide to stock them all in-store, that is). Two variations of glass finish times three variations of stands. Yes, that's right: "Each stand or mount adapter is built in. They are not interchangeable, so it’s important to consider your workspace needs at the time of purchase." They're not a separate component, and not even easily swappable outside the factory.
Their profit margins are fine. They can charge whatever they want for it, its not relevant because, clearly, if they were concerned about being price competitive with other displays they would not be charging $1600 for this one. Even the LG 5K Ultrafine is $400+ cheaper. In one comment you assert that Apple isn't interested in being a commodity monitor manufacturer, and in another you assert that the profit margins are low; so, which is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Displays using MST to achieve higher resolutions than a single link allowed worked out more or less fine. The problem there is MacOS doesn't support MST.
Funny, I am typing this on a Mac connected to an MST Dell 5k display....MacOS supported this setup since at least 2015, when I bought my display.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Displays using MST to achieve higher resolutions than a single link allowed worked out more or less fine. The problem there is MacOS doesn't support MST.
Funny, I am typing this on a Mac connected to an MST Dell 5k display....MacOS supported this setup since at least 2015, when I bought my display.
The 5K Ultrafine (which I presume you are talking about) is connected via two separate DP links which are tunneled over a single cable using TB3.
That sounds like nitpicking, but is a crucial difference. MST provides daisy chaining of displays, but can not help you exceed bandwidth limits. Whereas the two DP links are completely independent and theoretically allow you to double the max bandwidth. (well 2xHBR3 exceeds the max TB3 bandwidth, so the 5K uses 2xHBR2)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter whether you think it's reasonable. It makes no sense for Apple to try to do this. You're entirely right that it makes no sense to have multiple sets of Dolby Atmos sound systems and cams and mics. But that doesn't mean it makes sense for Apple to do commodity displays. They're clearly betting that one 5K display will be enough in many cases. Stocking multiple SKUs of large displays just doesn't make…
This entire comment just screams "it is how it is, until it isn't". Whether or not they decide to do it has nothing to do with anything you've said. They're already stocking six Studio Display SKUs in-store (if they decide to stock them all in-store, that is). Two variations of glass finish times three variations of stands. Yes, that's right: "Each stand or mount adapter is built in. They are not interchangeable, so…
One small counterpoint to that part of what you said is that the 27" iMac has apparently now been pulled from the lineup, so, that should clear up some space in the stockroom.
As for the "which is it?" question, I don't feel those two points were mutually exclusive, so therefore I don't think your question is really valid. I think both of my arguments were true and valid; that's why I made them to begin with. You might disagree, of course. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TVs have techniques to deal with this, either motion smoothing[1] or black frame insertion. PC displays can't do the first for latency reasons but I think BFI is just down to expense, or because we don't have OLED/mini-LED displays yet. [1] it's not as bad as you think
All the tv frame interpolation I've seen is so bad. The Smooth Video Project gives such better results in my experience.
The first one people say you shouldn't turn on to respect the artist's vision, but I sure hope they don't mean it, because that'd mean they're respecting Harvey Weinstein. Clearly leaving it on is the moral option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the Android SDK older than iOS? Either way, it can't escape blurriness. There's bitmaps on this very page and if I zoom in the reply button misrenders. Actually it can't escape pixel cracks either, as I seem to remember OpenGL ES 1.0 including GL_LINES where the default width is 1px.
Androids pixels are display pixels, there's no post-render scaling. So no pixel cracks, no blurriness, etc... Density is instead handled mostly at layout, as it should be.