Like the other Mac displays, most of these panels are 8-bit + FRC, a way of emulating a 10-bit display. True 10-bit displays are not only more expensive on this specification alone, but are usually coupled with more advanced panel & firmware technologies, compounding the cost of the display, often putting you in the $3000+ range. True 10-bit displays - This is why that 5k iMac is the yummiest of Apple’s offerings. In the grand scheme of things, some things you’re still losing out on in this price range are: Remember that Level 1 still applies to all monitors that don’t include self-calibration hardware. I told you, this stuff just gets expensive really fast. Actually, I guess it got relative at Level 2. This is where “on a budget” starts to get pretty relative. These caveats might price you out or make a Mac less ideal, and you might look towards Level 3. This is where Macs have been losing for years now, with the most recent nail in the coffin being their abandonment & recent exclusion of the CUDA API in MacOS Mojave. This all falls by the wayside if you also need significant horsepower relative to cost, say, for motion graphics, brutal RAW-based video editing, heavy simulations in VFX (well, VFX in general), intense vectorized workflows, etc. Remember, you need some hope of running the footage as well. You can’t go too low on the rest of the hardware specs. Once you progress to this, the up-front significance of the Mac’s display (and thus the value proposition of buying it) will drop significantly. If you’re planning to work in Davinci Resolve, the ideal workflow is to send the video signal to an external monitor with separate color management. If you think you’ll be able to graduate to a superior display soon after buying the Mac, then the tight-budget value prospect of the Mac purchase goes down. I’d go 15” MBP or 27” iMac, or consider a different route. ![]() This is a large contributor to why the Macbook Pro is the current mobile companion to my PC workstation.īecause the display is a big part of your purchase consideration, it’s not really worth it if you go with the small screens. For you, this “overkill” is actually completely relevant! But for you? For you, this is a well-above-average display with a computer attached. Mac displays are measured at about the same performance as an Eizo CS2420 - a nearly $1000, 1200p, 24” monitor - with higher resolution to boot… 2.8k (1800p) on the Macbook Pro, 5k on the iMacs!Ĭheck out these in-depth reviews of the Macbook Pro and iMac displays.įor a lot of other users on a budget, this is complete spec overkill and they’d be needlessly burning money that should go to (much) more powerful hardware. Other Mac displays are “8-bit + FRC,” a method of emulating the often much more expensive 10-bit displays. I’m not aware of any other comparable screens on the market above 4k, but if I were to guesstimate overall value: well over $2000. The 5k iMacs are 10-bit displays, making them a particularly tasty offer. You see, a generous chunk of the cost of an iMac or Macbook Pro is the screen - a wide-gamut, 100% DCI-P3 display.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |