1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:15,800 I can't believe I have this sitting in front of me. 2 00:00:15,800 --> 00:00:20,760 This is the upcoming Samsung Viewfinity S9 and it's one of the tech products I'm most 3 00:00:20,760 --> 00:00:27,120 excited about this year. When it goes on sale in mid-August, it promises to be the only viable alternative to Apple's 4 00:00:27,120 --> 00:00:30,980 $1,600 studio display. 5 00:00:30,980 --> 00:00:34,640 It's not even that the studio display is bad, we're not even close. 6 00:00:34,640 --> 00:00:39,240 It's just that it's been really hard being a Mac user looking for a monitor. 7 00:00:39,240 --> 00:00:44,040 But along with Dell's new 6K monitor, the Viewfinity signals that the industry is no 8 00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:51,760 longer ignoring the one feature that, until now, you could only find on Apple's displays. 9 00:00:51,760 --> 00:00:55,200 And the feature I'm referring to is pixels. 10 00:00:55,200 --> 00:01:01,840 These monitors have the right amount of pixels per inch, 218 pixels per inch to be precise. 11 00:01:01,840 --> 00:01:07,400 And this is important if you use macOS, because it's what Apple considers retina for a desktop. 12 00:01:07,400 --> 00:01:11,320 There are now two monitors outside of Apple's lineup that are blessed with this density 13 00:01:11,320 --> 00:01:15,400 and they're rumored to be less expensive than Apple's studio display and Pro display 14 00:01:15,400 --> 00:01:19,280 XDR. But what happens if you don't go for one of these? 15 00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:25,400 And to explain, I gave our thumbnail designer, Maria, a 27-inch 4K ASUS ProArt display. 16 00:01:25,400 --> 00:01:28,600 That has a pixel density of only 163ppi. 17 00:01:28,600 --> 00:01:33,640 Hi Maria, I'm wondering if you can help us out with something. 18 00:01:33,640 --> 00:01:39,400 I want to swap your monitor out with something else, with two monitors, and I just want to 19 00:01:39,400 --> 00:01:42,400 see if you notice any differences between them. 20 00:01:42,400 --> 00:01:47,640 Great. We're going to come back later and see if she actually notices a difference. 21 00:01:47,640 --> 00:01:51,600 Since Apple has included displays on most of the Macs they have sold over the years, 22 00:01:51,600 --> 00:01:56,120 they haven't had to care about optimizing for different display sizes and resolutions. 23 00:01:56,120 --> 00:02:00,000 Therefore, when they designed OS X 20 odd years ago, they designed it to work best with 24 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:04,880 the pixel density of their displays at the time, around 100ppi. 25 00:02:04,880 --> 00:02:09,440 That meant that text, buttons, and interface elements were rendered in their perfect physical 26 00:02:09,440 --> 00:02:15,920 size in displays of that density. When they added the retina screen to the iMac, which was 1440p at the time, all they did 27 00:02:15,960 --> 00:02:22,840 was double the density of the panel and the assets in macOS, hence the 218ppi we have now. 28 00:02:22,840 --> 00:02:31,560 I actually agree with this way of looking at monitors. We tend to focus on resolution, 1080p, 1440p, 4K, when talking about monitor specs. 29 00:02:31,560 --> 00:02:35,560 But that's an incomplete picture, because how it looks is dependent on how far away 30 00:02:35,560 --> 00:02:39,840 the monitor is from you, and how big it is, and then the pixel density and all that. 31 00:02:39,840 --> 00:02:43,040 This is what Steve was talking about when he announced the retina screen on the iPhone 32 00:02:43,040 --> 00:02:49,360 4. So I think the trifecta of panel size, in area, pixel density, and aspect ratio together 33 00:02:49,360 --> 00:02:55,000 are far more descriptive. If you go out to the store and buy an inexpensive monitor that doesn't fit with an Apple's 34 00:02:55,000 --> 00:03:01,520 exacting ppi, like this 27 inch 1080p screen, well, that means everything's just going 35 00:03:01,520 --> 00:03:06,840 to be bigger. It means there's no usable difference between this and a smaller 1080p screen, because they 36 00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:13,240 fit the exact same amount of content. When Apple introduced the retina screens, they made an accommodation for that problem 37 00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:16,360 with their display scaling feature. 38 00:03:16,360 --> 00:03:21,960 So though this monitor I gave Maria is 4K, and therefore would render a big 1080p sized 39 00:03:21,960 --> 00:03:26,880 desktop, we can actually set it to zoom out and render a 5K desktop instead, giving her 40 00:03:26,880 --> 00:03:31,400 more space for her Adobe interface. But that creates a problem. 41 00:03:31,400 --> 00:03:36,240 When you scale down a 5K image to a 4K display, the pixels won't line up. 42 00:03:36,240 --> 00:03:39,760 That means things like text and buttons will appear a little fuzzy. 43 00:03:39,760 --> 00:03:44,160 It also affects performance because the graphics card has to render more pixels and then calculate 44 00:03:44,160 --> 00:03:48,600 the best way to scale them down, which requires more computation resources. 45 00:03:48,600 --> 00:03:54,360 That's why we see this warning. If you get a screen with the right ppi in the first place, you don't have to worry about 46 00:03:54,360 --> 00:04:02,520 that. So let's check back with Maria. Alright Maria, you've used both the ASUS ProArt and the Samsung Viewfinity. 47 00:04:02,520 --> 00:04:06,240 What differences did you notice between them? 48 00:04:06,240 --> 00:04:12,600 I mean, it's hard to tell because the response time, for example, of all of them, it's really 49 00:04:12,600 --> 00:04:23,920 similar, if not quite the same. This one, the Samsung and the Apple monitor, the images look sharper than the ASUS. 50 00:04:23,920 --> 00:04:30,120 So the actual thing I was wondering if you would notice is the sharpness, in fact, because 51 00:04:30,120 --> 00:04:35,120 the ProArt is a 4K display and that's a 5K display, so it's interesting you notice that. 52 00:04:35,120 --> 00:04:40,160 How important is that sharpness for your work? 53 00:04:40,160 --> 00:04:46,960 I mean, details look way better in that way. 54 00:04:46,960 --> 00:04:55,440 That's like, yeah, I think in details is the thing that I can really notice a difference. 55 00:04:55,440 --> 00:05:03,360 For example, when I'm editing Linus or pictures of people, I can see faces look really, really 56 00:05:03,360 --> 00:05:06,720 sharp. Yeah, I don't know how to explain. Okay, fair enough. 57 00:05:06,720 --> 00:05:09,720 You want to know the price difference between the two? It's $1,000 different. 58 00:05:09,720 --> 00:05:18,200 Oh my God. Yeah, I mean, for $1,000, maybe I'll choose the ASUS if I want to save some money because 59 00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:23,600 it's not like, has to be. It's not entirely worth it. 60 00:05:23,600 --> 00:05:31,760 Yeah, exactly. Dell's new 6K model is the U32-24KB and on paper, it looks to be the perfect alternative 61 00:05:31,760 --> 00:05:38,000 to the person who wants a screen as big and as crisp as the $5,000 plus pro display XDR. 62 00:05:38,000 --> 00:05:42,320 In fact, this monitor has even more pixels. 63 00:05:42,320 --> 00:05:48,080 It doesn't, however, have the HDR mini LED magic, maxing out at 700 nits of brightness 64 00:05:48,080 --> 00:05:54,760 in our tests. And while there's local dimming, there's a total of 12 zones, so no. 65 00:05:54,760 --> 00:06:00,760 However, the Dell uses LG's new IPS Black technology. 66 00:06:00,760 --> 00:06:07,200 This improves the contrast ratio to the 1800 to 1R demo model managed to display. 67 00:06:07,200 --> 00:06:10,920 Even with that, it's not quite as accurate as Apple's displays, showing slightly higher 68 00:06:10,920 --> 00:06:15,080 Delta E readings in all the color spaces we tested it in. 69 00:06:15,080 --> 00:06:19,440 But it's still good enough for most creatives. The Dell also looks kind of peculiar. 70 00:06:19,440 --> 00:06:24,640 What they did is essentially stuff the 6K panel in their existing video conferencing 71 00:06:24,640 --> 00:06:30,880 monitor. That means there's this huge forehead for the speakers in giant 4K webcam, as well as 72 00:06:30,880 --> 00:06:34,000 call and mute buttons. 73 00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:37,920 The speakers are decent, especially compared to the pro displays, which don't exist. 74 00:06:37,920 --> 00:06:42,160 But they are lacking in bass compared to the studio displays, which do. 75 00:06:42,160 --> 00:06:46,380 The best thing about it is the 140W Thunderbolt 4 connector. 76 00:06:46,380 --> 00:06:51,360 It means that there's a downstream Thunderbolt port for daisy-chaining more devices and monitors, 77 00:06:51,360 --> 00:06:55,640 countless USB ports, and even a 2.5G Ethernet port. 78 00:06:55,640 --> 00:07:00,840 The pro display, on the other hand, has three inconvenient and slow USB-C ports. 79 00:07:00,840 --> 00:07:06,240 Now, let's talk about the display that's more relevant to most people. 80 00:07:06,240 --> 00:07:12,480 This new Samsung Vuefinity S9 looks a lot closer on the outside to Apple's studio display. 81 00:07:12,480 --> 00:07:19,240 The design is really nice. It's just as silver and minimal, but more bolt upright. 82 00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:24,800 There are some really nice touches, like this magnetic webcam module, which if you watched 83 00:07:24,960 --> 00:07:30,080 our early Apple should make a TV video will know is my idea. 84 00:07:30,080 --> 00:07:34,360 Even the cable management makes sense, as the power and input cables go right through 85 00:07:34,360 --> 00:07:40,520 the stand in the back here. Though this is where the hub of USB-C downstream ports are hidden too. 86 00:07:40,520 --> 00:07:47,960 We're so close, guys, I swear. Also, I wouldn't prefer an HDMI port over this mini-DisplayPort. 87 00:07:47,960 --> 00:07:53,200 Despite what Samsung advertises, we measured an 1800 to 1 contrast ratio, which is pretty 88 00:07:53,200 --> 00:07:56,960 good because, like the studio display, there's no local dimming. 89 00:07:56,960 --> 00:08:02,200 That said, it can get very, very bright. We measured almost 800 nits. 90 00:08:02,200 --> 00:08:08,120 I feel like you can use this outside. Though, with the bright highlights will come great shadows. 91 00:08:08,120 --> 00:08:14,320 And while it does cover 100% of the P3 and SRGB color gamuts, the accuracy is not quite 92 00:08:14,320 --> 00:08:17,760 up to snuff with the other monitors in this video. 93 00:08:17,760 --> 00:08:21,760 On the color management front, we recommend staying with the graphic or custom picture 94 00:08:21,760 --> 00:08:26,480 modes. Or, better still, you should calibrate the display yourself for the color space you can 95 00:08:26,480 --> 00:08:30,960 work in. Which is what they're hoping to let you do, even with your iPhone. 96 00:08:30,960 --> 00:08:35,320 Despite the silver appearance, and even metal on here, it's not exactly built like the 97 00:08:35,320 --> 00:08:42,280 studio display. There's a bit of wobble here and there. But I'm actually fine with it, especially if that means the display will cost less. 98 00:08:42,280 --> 00:08:49,000 Because this actually demonstrates that anyone can make an attractive looking monitor. 99 00:08:49,000 --> 00:08:52,280 What I'm less fine with is the fact that this runs Tizen. 100 00:08:52,280 --> 00:08:56,760 I'm not entirely sure how much I care about being able to watch the Netflix app on a screen 101 00:08:56,760 --> 00:09:00,040 I intend to use as my computer monitor. But it's here alright. 102 00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:04,120 Worse still, the speakers on here are not very good, and the only way to hook up external 103 00:09:04,120 --> 00:09:08,920 speakers is through Bluetooth, if it works. 104 00:09:08,920 --> 00:09:14,240 To my eye, text looks ever so slightly different on the Samsung display versus the studio display. 105 00:09:14,240 --> 00:09:19,240 It feels like there's some sort of sharpening filter added here, which is wholly unnecessary 106 00:09:19,240 --> 00:09:26,400 at this resolution. Right now, I've had to set the sharpness between 5 and 7 to get close to Apple's displays. 107 00:09:26,400 --> 00:09:31,160 Minimum brightness, we measured at 84 nits, which is a little too high for dark environments. 108 00:09:31,160 --> 00:09:34,880 The sRGB standard for instance specifies only 80. 109 00:09:34,880 --> 00:09:41,760 And lastly, the monitor does not like plugging into 2019 Max with AMD graphics for some reason. 110 00:09:41,760 --> 00:09:46,640 Both these screens have a matte finish, which is very common, but with Apple's displays 111 00:09:46,640 --> 00:09:51,120 you have to pay $300 or $1000 to etch the glass. 112 00:09:51,120 --> 00:09:55,440 Not everyone likes matte screens though, and these aren't available with a glossy finish, 113 00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:59,560 which is something Apple does extremely well. 114 00:09:59,560 --> 00:10:05,320 So neither of these displays is perfect, but that's fine if it's a good fit for you at 115 00:10:05,320 --> 00:10:13,120 the right price. Well, the Dell in fact costs $3,200. 116 00:10:13,120 --> 00:10:18,440 It's not exactly cheap, but it is a full $2,000 less than a pro display with only a 117 00:10:18,440 --> 00:10:22,440 vase amount. 118 00:10:22,440 --> 00:10:26,400 So the Samsung, I'm sure you're just as excited as me to find out how much they're going to 119 00:10:26,400 --> 00:10:32,680 be asking. Well, when this goes on sale, the MSRP will be $1,600? 120 00:10:32,680 --> 00:10:38,560 What? That's the exact same price as the studio display. 121 00:10:38,560 --> 00:10:44,200 Brightness, height adjustment, matte finish. Buy this if you need those. 122 00:10:44,200 --> 00:10:51,200 Thanks for upping the resolution of this Mac Address. If you're as pedantic about pixels as I am, give this video a like. 123 00:10:51,200 --> 00:10:59,680 And if you don't care, well, you might as well subscribe. I'm curious in the comments below if running macOS at the native resolution is that important 124 00:10:59,680 --> 00:11:02,880 to you, or if not, and if so, or not, explain why.