New Mac Studio with M1 Ultra chip, 64GB or 128GB?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Before we start shelling out obscene amounts of money on the chase for absolute colour accuracy we should consider a few things:

1. Colour does not exist. It is the result of light of a given spectral composition reflected (or transmitted) by an object in a discontinuous manner, as captured by the RGB system of our eyes and processed by our brain. 
2 In photography we switch between additive and subtractive colour rendering which we see differently. 
3 The light by which you see -and remember! - your subject will be different from the light by which you see your print and your brain will attempt to correct the colour to what it thinks it should be. 
So what does it mean for our colour workflow? It should be consistent, thus calibrated, but should it be 100% accurate, assuming this were possible, which not ( see above). ? For photographic applications this is not only impossible to achieve but there is absolutely no need to either. The colour should match the intention of the photographer, and can never match reality. A high end monitor like Eizo , NEC or BenQ with basic Xrite calibration will easily meet that need. 
 

Fun fact:  You may not be able to see it or even to measure it, but photographing a car driving away from you will have a red shift on the car.

[elgenper]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

... a car driving away from you will have a red shift on the car.

OH!  So those flashing blue lights on the police cars coming up from behind is just the Doppler effect? 😜

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

I have always treated them as such   If you speed up, they disappear

[Guest]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

.. It should be consistent, thus calibrated, but should it be 100% accurate, assuming this were possible, which not ( see above). ? A high end monitor like Eizo , NEC or BenQ with basic Xrite calibration will easily meet that need. 

I recently replaced my 11 year old MacPro 5.1 with an Ultra Studio .... while updating all the software and plugins ... found that my even older GretagMcbeth/Xrite spectro was no longer supported by Xrite and I now need to update to a newer version in order to calibrate my monitor. Forced obsolescence is really a poor practice on the part of the manufacturer ... I agree that external calibrator may be better in that it can be used with any decent monitor .... until the expiration date passes. 😞

Edited July 23, 2022 by docmoore

[verwackelt]

It is really annoying. My good "old" Wacom intuos4 worked fine on my mac mini. Now on my new MacStudioUltra it does not work anymore. Not compatible they say. Have to buy a newer wacom tablet for almost 500€ without benefit. It is not better than the old one. It is just "compatible"…
That is really 😡

[jaapv]

I don't think it is really forced obsolescence. The problem is that Silicon chips have a basically different architecture, which makes updating older appliances impossible in some cases - we had a similar fight to get twin monitor setups to work when the M1 came out - or indeed some older single screens.  That Apple was very slow to inform developers of the new requirements did not help either. BTW, often using Rosetta2 helps to get "incompatible" software to run.

[egrossman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you read this thread below, you'll see that I started out with a pair of Studio Displays, returning those for a pair of Eizo CS2740 monitors, only to return those (I didn't like that they were only 4K) to buy the Pro Display XDR.

The XDR is a very expensive proposition, one that I can only justify amortizing over a 10 year use period. Furthermore, the premium for this monitor is less when you consider that I was budgeting for a pair of Studio Display or Eizo monitors. The XDR premium (with VESA mount), was about $1,000 more. A single 6K monitor, for me, was a better choice than 2 5K monitors.

Erik