Between the microscopic pixel density and the rich, deep blacks that rival some OLED panels, almost anything looks better when being shown on this display.Īlso: Best video streaming services: Netflix, Hulu, Disney+ and more If you're not a creative professional, or even if your particular color references and standards are more freeform, you should know that the display looks flat-out stunning on a basic level. The default MacOS wallpapers look as pretty as they ever have on the Studio Display, but those pesky reflections do spoil them a bit. This is a testament to not only the quality of the panel used in the Studio Display but also to its ability to work so well alongside Apple's own systems and MacOS. Everything looks razor sharp, even notoriously hard-to-render text that can look jagged on even the best displays. This puts it above the more standard 4K resolution many professional monitors run at and, at its 27-inch screen size, produces the kind of pixel density you're probably more used to on smartphone displays. PerformanceĪpple's Studio Display runs at a 5K resolution (5120 x 2880). I'm just not convinced a more traditional, cheaper display coating material wouldn't have done just as good of a job. I'm sure the nano-texture process does wonders for the reflectivity of the Studio Display. To, presumably, achieve that same level of reflection rejection, Apple requires a $300 upcharge for its "nano-texture glass." The company claims the quality of its glass, when combined with the nano-texture, can be a "great option if you're in a workspace with bright light sources," while also helping to avoid "the "lower contrast" and "unwanted haze and sparkle" some matte finish displays supposedly produce.Īlso: The 10 best large monitors for work and play The sticking point is that I've already been pretty satisfied with matte-finish displays' ability to reject reflections. Unfortunately, it was hard to see this while the mid-afternoon sun was coming in the nearby window. The viewing angles on the display were incredible, with almost no detectable color shift. If you see inaccuracies in our content, please report the mistake via this form. If we have made an error or published misleading information, we will correct or clarify the article. Our editors thoroughly review and fact-check every article to ensure that our content meets the highest standards. Our goal is to deliver the most accurate information and the most knowledgeable advice possible in order to help you make smarter buying decisions on tech gear and a wide array of products and services. ZDNET's editorial team writes on behalf of you, our reader. Indeed, we follow strict guidelines that ensure our editorial content is never influenced by advertisers. Neither ZDNET nor the author are compensated for these independent reviews. This helps support our work, but does not affect what we cover or how, and it does not affect the price you pay. When you click through from our site to a retailer and buy a product or service, we may earn affiliate commissions. And we pore over customer reviews to find out what matters to real people who already own and use the products and services we’re assessing. We gather data from the best available sources, including vendor and retailer listings as well as other relevant and independent reviews sites. ZDNET's recommendations are based on many hours of testing, research, and comparison shopping.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |