Greg Benz Photography

A Photographer’s review of the Apple Studio Display XDR

Apple just announced the Studio Display XDR, and it is a game changer for HDR photography. This incredible 27″ monitor outperforms the legendary Pro Display XDR on almost every dimension but size, and yet costs only half as much. This sends one of the clearest signals yet that we are quickly moving towards HDR be a mainstream technology for computer monitors (laptops / tablets are moving even more quickly and HDR is already the default for phones and TVs).

The new Apple Studio Display XDR features:

• Excellent HDR support: 2,000-nits mini-LED with 2,304 dimming zones
• Up to 5.4 stops of HDR headroom
• Full coverage of both P3 and Adobe RGB gamuts
• 27″ display with 5K resolution
• 120Hz ProMotion
• Powerful image processing: A19 Pro chip + 128GB SSD + 12GB RAM
• Support for single-cable charging thanks to:
  • One upstream Thunderbolt 5 port (120Gb/s) with 140W charging
  • One downstream Thunderbolt 5 port (you can even use this to daisy chain a second Studio Display XDR and still only need a single cable to connect to your laptop)
  • Two USB-C ports (up to 10Gb/s)
• Dual ambient light sensors dynamically adjust display brightness and black point (plus white point with True Tone enabled) based on surrounding lighting conditions to maintain visual consistency.
• No fan noise (the fans run at 16dB, which is essentially inaudible)
• High-fidelity six-speaker system with support for Spatial Audio / Dolby Atmos
• 12MP Center Stage camera with Desk View
• “Studio-quality” mic
• Optional nano-texture glass to minimize reflections

Note that a separate (non-HDR) Studio Display is offered for $1,599. This is the same price as the previous model launched in March 2022, but now offers upgraded Thunderbolt, deeper bass, and desk view from the webcam (otherwise, it offers the same mostly SDR experience).

TLDR: The Studio Display XDR is hands-down the best 27″ HDR display on the market for Apple users (and likely Windows, see discussion below on support). It has unmatched performance and accuracy for both HDR photos and making SDR prints. The only major limitations here are its premium price (though it offers outstanding value and is well worth it) and lack of a 32″ size option. Keep reading for full details on how to get the most from this incredible monitor.

This launch is notable for several reasons:

• It cuts the cost for a premium HDR monitor from Apple in half.
• It fills a significant void as the only 27″ monitor offering this level of HDR performance and accuracy
• It breaks new ground as the first 2,000-nit prosumer HDR display, supporting up to 5.4 stops of HDR headroom.
• It adds a wide range of capabilities which were lacking on the Pro Display XDR (audio, webcam, and much faster downstream ports).
• Apple’s white paper notes use advanced mini-LED techniques to keep haloing extremely minimal (ie much more than just a high zone count)
  • Machine learning (AI) is used to minimize halos based on the content displayed.
  • The timing controller uses calibration data for each of the 2304 LED zones.
• The processor has been bumped to the A19 Pro (even the base non-HDR model got a huge bump from A13 to A19 chip).
  • This is a better processor than the brand new MacBook Neo laptop uses (which uses A18 Pro), and both have a display, webcam, and audio.
  • The monitor needs heavy processing power for supporting optimized mini-LED backlighting, 120Hz refresh rates, and 5K image processing with near zero latency.
  • It also needs to support center stage camera, desk view, audio, and perhaps Thunderbolt 5 (I don’t know if any of these features are processed with separate/dedicated chips in the monitor).
  • Presumably, Apple is using such a powerful processor to leave room for future firmware updates for a product which is likely to have a long life cycle.
• It includes 12GB of LPDDR5X RAM.
  • That’s also more than the new MacBook Neo or standard iPhone 17 (which both have 8GB RAM).
• It includes a whopping 128GB of internal SSD storage.
  • That’s double the prior Studio Display. The storage is likely used for Storage its iOS-based software and would need extra space to accommodate firmware updates and likely protect for a larger code base as feature may get improved over time.
• You can ensure perfect color accuracy over time via “full calibration” using the Calibrite Display Plus HL (Apple did not previously support HDR calibration with such an affordable colorimeter).
• Utilizes a new color matching function (Apple CMF 2026) to improve on known mismatch limitations of the CIE 1931 model, and are working with the CIE to help create an industry-wide standard.
  • This is likely intended to help different display better match neutral values (i.e. to reduce observer-metamerism issues on modern wide-gamut displays with narrow or peaky spectra).
• It offers a new “HDR photography (P3-D65)” reference mode.
• It also offers two new DICOM reference modes and Apple has submitted a new Medical Imaging Calibrator for FDA approval.
  • This is a medical imaging format (such as for viewing CT / MRI scans). Apple says this supports “medical imaging for diagnostic radiology”.
  • This is not directly relevant to photography, but shows that Apple has designed this monitor to support extremely high standards for display uniformity, stable luminance performance, grayscale calibration, etc. Apple notes that their headroom above the reference white in these modes helps maximize display lifetime (all displays dim over time and this offers significant buffer to a calibrated display to meet strict targets as it ages).
  • In DICOM modes, the black level is raised based on ambient light to account for reflections and disables local dimming to ensure best possible uniformity and eliminate any blooming.

[Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links. I rarely endorse other products and only do when I think you would thoroughly enjoy them. By purchasing through my on this post, you are helping to support the creation of tutorials like this at no cost to you (and Apple service / warranty is the same when you buy through B&H or Amazon).]

Image quality and performance:

The Studio Display XDR is without a doubt the best 27″ HDR monitor on the market. The HDR specs are best in class and both image quality and accuracy (even without calibration) are outstanding.

HDR performance is outstanding. It not only delivers true 2000-nits, it also supports up to 5.4 stops of HDR headroom (see setup details below, you’ll need to create a custom preset to get above 4).

Color volume is excellent. Apple has expanded beyond the P3 color gamut to additionally cover Adobe RGB. This is ideal for photography as the monitor is optimized for both electronic display (which is typically P3) and prints (the extra Adobe RGB coverage supports printable cyan and green colors outside the P3 gamut). Tests with CalMAN show gamut coverage of 99.7% P3 and 99.5% AdobeRGB, and 81% Rec2020. This is the ideal gamut for photographers and greater coverage of Rec2020 would be of limited value for your art.

The XDR presets may sound confusing as they offer “P3 + Adobe RGB”. Your monitor of course only has one gamut – Apple just means that using this mode unlocks the full monitor gamut. In practical terms, that means the green primary is near Adobe RGB and red primary near P3 such so that the the monitor natively covers both gamuts. Like all HDR monitors, communication with the display would be in Rec2020 values (both P3 and Adobe RGB are fully inside the Rec2020 space).

I have previously shared detailed testing of various XDR displays using a lab-grade spectrophotometer and found that most photographers do not need to calibrate XDR displays. That remains true with the Studio Display XDR, which offers excellent color accuracy with the factory calibration for both SDR and HDR with no need to calibrate. Using CalMAN and a lab-grade CR-250 spectrophotometer, I found the factory calibration showed average deltaE of 0.9 (max 1.6) for the HDR Video (P3-ST 2084) preset. The “Photography (Adobe RGB-D65)” showed an average deltaE of 1.0 (max 1.4), though there is no need to switch to an SDR-only mode for print work (which is just as accurate while in the HDR mode). I then created custom preset to test it the complete range. I found average deltaE was 1.3 when measuring P3 with full HDR range (100 nits SDR, 2000 nits HDR) and an average deltaE of 1.4 for a similar test of Adobe RGB. I couldn’t test for the P3 + Adobe gamut via CalMAN, but given both were accurate, I feel comfortable that the full gamut is sufficiently accurate to meet the needs of most photographers without calibration.

These results are somewhat outside the ideal 0.5 to 1.0 deltaE, which means there are minor errors which are visible to expert users. The main issue was a bias towards color white balance in bright neutrals.To ensure the highest levels of accuracy, see the section below on how to calibrate the display with the Calibrite Display Plus HL.

After using “fine tune” calibration alone (with my CR-250 as Calibrite hasn’t updated their software yet for this XDR), average deltaE was reduced to 0.8 for both my P3 and Adobe 100 SDR / 2,000 HDR custom presets (pictured below). So a very simple white point measurement is enough to ensure you have ideal accuracy across the full 2000 nit range (including SDR work) and P3 + Adobe RGB gamut. This process requires a little bit of manual work and will need a Calibrite update (or Apple automating the test) to use it with a consumer colorimeter.

After using “full” calibration alone with the Calibrite colorimeter (which Apple supports), average deltaE was reduced to 0.9 for both my P3 and Adobe 100 SDR / 2,000 HDR custom presets. They showed even better color error at 0.4 for P3 and 0.5 for Adobe RGB. This is great news, as this fully automated test improves accuracy to ideal results with a consumer colorimeter. See calibration details below.

Those measurements are based on standard 10% test windows. Those values can be misleading, as real image content fills the full screen and HDR monitors (nearly all OLED) will dim in real use which is not captured by those tests. The sustained brightness of mini-LED will give you an enormous advantage in real-world accuracy for editing HDR photographs. Apple specs claim that it can sustain 1000 nits of full-screen brightness indefinitely at temperatures up to 25°C (77°F). My tests show that understates the capability. I measure 1970 nits in a 25% test window, 1700 nits at 50% and 1200 nit at 75, and 980 at 100%. No reasonably edited image will come close to these limits, which means your content will never be dimmed and this monitor offers perfect accuracy even when using the full 2000 nits. You won’t come anywhere that level of accuracy with any OLED on the market (other than Apple’s Tandem Stack OLED iPads, which are only sold in 11 and 13″ sizes).

Given high accuracy across the full range, you can setup your monitor to support everything you do (HDR, prints, and normal productivity work) and never have to change anything. Just turn on “automatically adjust brightness” and switch to “Apple XDR (P3 + Adobe RGB-2000 nits)” in settings and it will do everything including adapting to changing in ambient light. Or if you have controlled ambient lighting, you can create a custom reference mode to ensure maximum consistency in your workflow. This is a great advantage for using Apple’s approach to HDR, your display will be very predictable and accurate (unlike HDR under 3rd-party monitors or Windows, where you cannot target specific reference brightnesses and the EOTF is unspecified).

Blacks are much more clean than the Pro Display XDR, which already performs much better than most mini-LED. There is almost no haloing in real content. When viewing my quality test #4 on Studio Display XDR, Pro Display XDR, and iPad M4 Pro all in the same reference mode, the Studio Display is much closer to the OLED than it is the Pro Display. The images below are iPhone shots of the Studio Display XDR (which shows no haloing anywhere but the brighter cursor) vs the Pro Display XDR. Note that the photo makes haloing look much worse than it does in real life, but you can see there is a significant improvement due to both higher zone count (smaller radius of blooming) as well as software control (zero halos around most content).

You will still see the OLED clearly win in fireworks, star fields, or a brutal comparison like this on Blur Busters (moving HDR squares large enough for full brightness set against black). Those scenes do show up in movies (watched in rooms dark enough to see the difference). But photographs rarely show such scenes and are less often viewed in a room dark enough to see that detail. Apple’s mini-LED offers superior accuracy for content creation and the tradeoffs for halos are nearly irrelevant. Using their Tandem Stack OLED for a monitor would be exciting, but would be only a modest benefit (and may cost a fair bit more for 27-32″ sizes).

Another way to consider black performance is contrast ratios. CalMAN’s sequential contrast ratio (black screen vs white patch) shows values from the CR-250 averaging around 600,000:1 (peak being 2043 nits white and black being truly zero as no backlights are used).

A more useful test is intra-frame contrast. This is a black and white checkerboard, which means haloing will lift blacks (especially near the white borders). The whites are also affected, as peak white will be reduced in smaller checkerboard patterns even with the same number of total pixels (as the center of the white patches is closer to black and blooming considerations will come into play). CalMAN’s Patterns generator for MacOS does not appear to support the automated test, so I created the same pattern manually and measured a couple of patches. For a 4×4 grid, average white was 1475 nits and black was 0.092 for a contrast ratio of 16,000:1. With a tighter 4×4 grid, white is lowered and blooming impacts black more. In that case we see 1339 and 0.149 nits for a 9,000:1 contrast ratio. We cannot test like this down to the pixel level, but you can get the idea that micro contrast is ultimately where OLED may have the greatest benefit over haloing in a monitor like this. It’s a more subtle concern than haloing, as you really can’t assess it without comparing the same image to an OLED display. 

Refresh rate:

The new 120Hz support is very welcome. However, the benefit here is not the same as a 120Hz OLED. When you view the 120Hz line at Blur Busters, the UFO is softer than I would expect. The GtG (“gray to gray” time) is likely too high to fully appreciate the refresh rate. In other words, the pixels are being requested to update quickly, but the physical response time is not quite keeping up. It’s better than 60Hz, but this is an area where OLED would likely have an advantage.

Nano-texture:

The nano-texture is amazing for reducing reflections, and I highly recommend it. It significantly improves your ability to see the display without reflections. When you look carefully (especially when the display is near black or just off), you’ll find even rooms with no significant lights or bright objects typically have a lot of reflections on a glossy display. I see much more upside than downside.

Keen observers will notice a slight loss of sharpness in black text on a white background as the nano-texture does smear the white (like a halo). I snapped photos with my iPhone and zoom in to compare my nano-texture Studio XDR to my Pro Display XDR (which has no nano texture and should be comparable as the actual pixel density is the same given screen + 5K/6K offsetting each other and halos cannot be controlled at the pixel level). I see see the same text in the same browser renders 3 pixel wide black lines in text. Blacks are lift in both (due to backlight). The uncoated display is mostly at the deepest levels across all three pixels, while the nano-texture shows a black level about 1 stop brighter for about half of the first and half of the last pixel. On the flip side (for white text on black), there is significant red and blue fringing on the uncoated pixels which is much more subtle on the nano-texture (which blends the sub-pixels better). I would rate the coated display to be as readable as the uncoated one, but there is faint visible loss of sharpness for text with nano-texture. When viewing dark image detail in a room with no bright/widow lights, the nano-texture is a winner for me. When there is brighter light, it’s a benefit in a broad range of images. So if you are sensitive to small changes in sharpness and work in a room with almost no reflections, you may prefer to skip it or evaluate yourself before purchase. But I would recommend nano-texture for most people.

I have also found it easy to clean with the included Apple cleaning cloth (I have heard many stories about the challenges of cleaning the nano-texture on the old Pro Display and Apple seems to have improved the coating significantly over the years). I put my CR-250’s rubber hood directly on the screen for measurement and it left marks which are obvious when the display is off and I was able to remove them easily with the cloth (without needing 70-percent isopropyl alcohol). In my opinion, it is well worth the $300 to upgrade. Note that the nano-texture display comes with a polishing cloth which should be used when you need to clean the display.

Other aspects of the monitor:

It offers compatibility with:

• all Mac models featuring Thunderbolt 3 or later ports.
  • 120Hz requires newer Macs. 60Hz is the maximum supported on the base M2 / M3 systems and all levels of M1.
  • If using this monitor connected to an iPad, you’ll need the M5 iPad Pro or later for 120Hz.
  • Apple silicon Macs additionally offer advanced color management in macOS for seamless reference mode switching.
• Windows and Linux (per Apple’s white paper, but I have been unable to confirm this, please see the section on bugs below)

It offers the ability to easily connect a laptop with a single cable:

• The upstream Thunderbolt 5 port offers 140W charging.
• It offers one downstream Thunderbolt 5, which can be used to daisy chain another Studio Display XDR, hub, or other high speed accessories.
• It also offers two 10Gb/s USB-C connections.

The included stand is excellent. You wouldn’t expect to marvel at something simple like this, but it is incredibly well done. Adjusting up and down is very smooth – and yet it will not alter the angle of tilt (which you can adjust, it’s just that it keeps it as you move the display up and down).

However, the does not rotate 90 degrees for portrait orientation like the Pro Display XDR stand (so get the VESA mount if you need to turn the Studio Display). When you rotate 90 degrees clockwise (leaving the ports toward the bottom), the display will automatically switch to a portrait orientation (ie there is a tilt sensor and it works in one direction).

The fans are inaudible, operating at up to 16 dBA in typical room conditions. This is the same rating as the Pro Display XDR, and I have never heard those fans once in years of operation.

It includes a 12-megapixel web cam with “studio-quality” mic. They are perfect for Zoom calls. While I could making YouTube videos with this mic, the quality cannot truly compete with a studio mic. The key limitations are more about physics than the quality of this mic (perhaps some future AI processing might close the gap). The monitor’s mic is too far from my mouth and resulting in capturing a bit of room echo, as well as a lack of a shock damper which makes the sound of the keyboard, mouse, and my arms on the desk much more audible.

If you’re going to use your own, you should be aware that there appears to be a slight delay in the audio to keep it synced with the video. As a result my video is slightly off, as the editing software I used does not support sub-frame audio slipping (the timing misalignment is less than the length of one frame of video). I could likely do better,

It offers a high-fidelity six-speaker system with spatial audio and Dolby Atmos. Unlike most monitors, the included speakers have pretty good audio quality. It offers more volume and somewhat better quality than the MacBook Pro. You’ll still get better results with external speakers, but these are great and should be more than enough for many people.

What could be better?

This is an outstanding display and it’s hard to find any fault. The main concerns or complaints I expect to hear will relate to the things it does not attempt to offer:

• It isn’t cheap. This is built to be the best 27″ HDR prosumer or professional monitor for years to come. The price will be out of reach for many, but the value is excellent for who need a high level of HDR performance with excellent accuracy.
• There is no 32″ version of monitor. I hope that changes in the future, as there will certainly be many interested users. But the specs are so high, that the pricing would likely put it into a niche category like the Pro Display XDR which was just discontinued.

If these are deal-breakers, that’s understandable and this simply isn’t a display designed for you. I have suggested alternatives for all of these below and on my recommended monitors list.

Why is there no 32″? Perhaps Apple will release one later, but I’m not holding my breath. I suspect the main reason is there probably is not sufficient demand for one at the even higher price tag it would inevitably have. Beyond that, there may be technical concerns. Jumping from 5K to 6K means a 38% increase in the bandwidth required to support the display. That’s a serious concern even for Thunderbolt 5. When you add up the demands of 10-bit (HDR) and 120 frames per second, you would need to use Display Stream Compression to support two 6K 32″ monitors. And that’s without considering the extra bandwidth you’d want to protect for web cam, audio, downstream devices like fast drives, etc – plus a margin of safety to account for the fact that real bandwidth won’t hit advertised Thunderbolt rates on all cables. So a 6K 32″ display might end up being a very pricy display with a lot of caveats for multi-monitor users about dropping to lower refresh rates or connecting the monitors through separate cables. As much as I would be thrilled with a single 32″ Studio XDR, I can appreciate the rationale for why we may not see one.

There would be room to improve on these results with a Tandem Stack OLED. The iPad XDR has some clear advantages for motion (better results at 120Hz) and perfect blacks mean zero halos and better micro-contrast. However, that OLED does not cover Adobe RGB or get to 2000 nits, so it is not better in every way and cost could easily be a challenge turning that 11-13″ display into a 27″ monitor. There are diminishing returns on these benefits for photography, but there is room for a future display to push further over even the Studio Display XDR’s class-leading performance.

There are some other small things which could improve the Studio XDR experience:

• MacOS calibration is nice, but could be improved:
  • Fine tune calibration is manual. It is a tedious, error-prone process which requires 3rd-party software to get the reading. When using a supported measuring device, fine-tune should just be automated like full calibration is.
  • There is no report on the accuracy of the display. Ideally, there would be a validation mode to get a report with deltaE to determine how accurate your display is, whether calibration improved it, and monitor performance over time (so you can decide how often to calibrate).
• MacOS has some limitations affecting all HDR monitors:
  • The brightness slider for XDR displays should show the SDR / reference white in nits. This would be very helpful to get into a pseudo reference state in the variable brightness mode (such as targeting ~100 nits for evaluating work to print).
  • It would be very nice if MacOS were updated to make the “fine tune” calibration easier to use. It should let you easily pre-fill the target numbers with 100 or 203-nits D65 (for speed and to avoid mistakes). And ideally, it should show a white target and support the most popular colorimeters. You can do all this on your own, but it would be easier and more approachable for less tech savvy users.
• For those who buy two of these 27″ displays to daisy chain together, it would be very nice if the speakers could be set up as a stereo pair across them.
• The included mic isn’t truly studio grade and it is difficult to sync an external mic with the web cam
  • I prefer to use an external mic (see 4:45 mark of the video above for a demo of audio quality).
  • When I use my own mic with the monitor’s camera and found there is a slight latency issue resulting in visible lip sync issues. The internal video/audio has a lag which is around one frame (at 24fps), but not quite.
  • I wasn’t using I’d probably need to use sub-frame audio slipping to properly correct it. I need to give it some thought, but it would be ideal if Apple offered a way to delay any fast audio paths to keep them in sync enough that you would not notice in a video. I partially corrected it in the video on this page, but was not using an editor with sub-frame audio slipping.
  • I don’t typically record like this and welcome any feedback in comments if you know a better solution.

How to set up the Studio Display XDR for best results?

If you simply connect your laptop to the Studio Display XDR, it will support outstanding HDR by default. I recommend using a high-quality Thunderbolt 5 cable to ensure best support for any downstream connections (Thunderbolt, USB, another monitor, etc).

There are no options you need to configure and you do not need to calibrate. However, there are several controls which will be useful for those with the most demanding needs.

I recommend going to System Settings / Menu Bar / Display and making sure it is both check and set to “always show”. This will create an icon at the top of MacOS you may use at any time to change reference modes, which is very convenient. It also offers a slider for brightness (which more precision than just clicking the F1/F2 keys), as well as toggling dark mode and night shift / true tone (though I do not recommend using those modes for any photography editing or evaluation).

The following reference modes are useful for photographers:

• Apple XDR Display (P3-2000 nits)
  • This default mode supports variable brightness, and will adapt HDR tone mapping based on ambient light.
  • It will also adapt brightness and white point if automatic brightness adjustment and true tone options are enabled in system settings.
  • The SDR range uses gamma 2.2, making it a great option for both print and HDR work.
  • Uses Apple CMF 2026 (all the fixed brightness modes use CIE 1931).
  • It should be a great option for most photographers and would limit your color gamut to only show values available on other Apple and Android devices.
• Apple XDR Display (P3 + Adobe RGB-2000 nits)
  • This is similar to the previous mode and expands the gamut to support Adobe RGB, which offers printable green/cyan/blue colors which are outside the P3 gamut.
  • I believe this is the best choice for many photographers, as it gives you the full color gamut and allows you to adapt to your ambient light if needed.
  • However, you should take care to know what brightness achieves 80-120 nits for print work and set ambient light to use that for such work. Alternatively, you could set a custom XDR preset to achieve similar parameters with fixed brightness.
• HDR Photography (P3-D65)
  • Uses a fixed 203 nits SDR and sets peak HDR to 1624 (ie HDR headroom is 3.0 stops)
  • Gamut is limited to P3.
  • I’m not sure I appreciate the need for this preset. It is built around the reference standards for HDR and might be used to soft proof the typically brighter displays used by consumers. However, there is very little you can predict about the brightness and I don’t see the need for this. You can realistically edit the same images for HDR just as well at 80-120 nits. More importantly, you’ll be able to work with the full Adobe RGB gamut and a reference which which is much better for print-related work.
• HDR Video (P3-ST 2084)
  • This tracks the PQ EOTF and is a ideal for editing video under reference lighting conditions (dim ambient light).
  • However, it will clamp peak HDR to 1000 nits. This ensures nearly perfect EOTF tracking even when using extremely bright content. Personally, I would create a custom preset to allow mastering with the full 2000 nits if you’d like an extra stop of HDR support in your video (of course this comes with the tradeoff that there will be greater tone mapping, and HDR video lacks the great controls we have for photos with the use of gain maps).
  • I would not worry about the sustained brightness limit, you’d only hit it if your editing a transient frame or two which is very bright (such as an explosion) which is rare and likely won’t need to be accurate. Such a scene is not applicable for photography (no properly edited HDR photograph should ever hit the 1000-nits sustained limit).
• I would skip the following modes:
  • “Photography (P3-D65)” or “Photography (Adobe RGB-D65)”- SDR only. The above modes should cover this need, or you could create your own custom XDR preset to achieve this mode while retaining HDR support.
  • Anything marked with D50. Photographers should use a D65 white point.

You can create your own custom XDR reference modes to ensure consistency and use the full capabilities of the display (including support for headroom up to 5.4 stops, as the variable brightness mode is limited to 4). Just look for “customize presets” at the bottom of the dropdown to create your own.

I recommend the following custom preset setup for photographers:

• color gamut: P3 + Adobe RGB (gives you the full gamut)
• white point: D65
• SDR Transfer Function: Pure Power 2.2 (ie gamma 2.2)
• Enable PQ for HDR content
• SDR luminance = 80-120 (based on what is most comfortable for your ambient lighting).
  • At 80 nits, you will have 4.3 stops of HDR headroom.
  • You can set SDR as low as 48 nits, which is usable in a dark room and will give you 5.4 stops of HDR headroom.
• HDR luminance = 2000 (to allow maximum HDR headroom)
  • Note that using the full 2000 nits will prevent use of fine tune calibration if the display needs to get brighter (you’ll see a warning by the target luminance with a tooltip showing the allowed range). The only way to improve peak white balance is to turn down one or more channels, so you’re leaving no room for this if you try to achieve the full range.
  • Limit HDR to 1800 or 1900 as needed to give yourself room to calibrate.
• Display optimization: Higher Quality

Custom reference modes are stored in the display and are made available to any computer you connect to it.

New in the Studio Display XDR: a Reference Status Indicator in the menu bar will indicate when the display is unable to sustain the desired brightness required by the image content in the currently selected reference mode.

How to calibrate the Studio Display XDR

Apple XDR monitors are very accurate out of the box, but any display can change over time. I have an M1 MacBook Pro with an aging display which is dimmer than target (deltaE 2.5) without calibration. But by using that colorimeter with the full and fine tune calibrations in MacOS, I’m able to get it back to perfect (deltaE 0.5). You do not need to do this, but if you want the best possible performance you calibrate the display with the colorimeter I recommend about every 6-12 months (the drift I see suggests there is no need to check more often).

Apple recently added support for “full” calibration of XDR displays using the Calibrite Display Plus HL (you need this specific model, the cheaper ones are not supported by Apple). This is incredible news, as it allows for perfect calibration using an affordable consumer colorimeter. And this method of calibration supports all XDR modes (including the variable brightness modes). Other than ASUS, no one has a monitor offering remotely similar HDR accuracy at this time as there is no ICC standard for profiling HDR displays. This full calibration mode requires an update to monitor firmware v26.4 (see below).

To perform full calibration:

• Leave your laptop clamshell open and not in a mirrored mode (you should not need a second display, but in my testing with macOS 26.4, calibration would abort if the Studio Display XDR was the only active display). This isn’t true for other XDR monitors and will hopefully be fixed in a future update. If you run into this, you will see the computer go to sleep / lock near the start of the test (no bright white warmup) and there will be an error message “error during calibration cause by user log out, fast user switch, or manual system sleep”.
• Go to System Settings / Display / Studio Display XDR.
• Select “Calibrate display” at the bottom of the list of presets dropdown.
• Make sure you have connected the supported colorimeter, opened the cover so that the glass measuring aperture is visible, and point it at the center of the display (tilting the monitor backwards makes it easier to keep it flush and in place).
• Click begin. The whole process is automated and should complete in under 90 minutes. 

The other method of calibration Apple supports is “fine tune”, which is available while using any of the fixed brightness modes or your custom XDR presets. With this method, you must make your own measurement of the white point, but this is easy to do with that same colorimeter or anything you already have.

To perform fine fune calibration:

• Go to System Settings / Display / Studio Display XDR
• Choose the reference mode you wish to calibrate (ideally a custom mode as recommended above).
• Let your display warm up for 30 minutes if it hasn’t already (just a best practice to ensure you are measuring with a stabilized display).
• Measure your SDR white manually. With the Display Plus HL, use Calibrite PROFILER (go to Utilities / Monitor Quick Check and select the monitor / mini-LED).
• Go back to the Studio Display XDR settings and look for “Calibrate display” at the bottom of the list of presets.
• Click “fine tune“.
• Enter the measured x, y, and luminance values (ie nits or cd/m^2).
• Enter the target values.
  • For D65, you’ll have x = 0.3127 and y = 0.3290.
  • The luminance is the SDR luminance from your custom preset (or 100 nits if you use the included HDR video preset, or 203 nits for HDR photo).

For the new XDR preset modes using Apple CMF 2026 (the modes where you can change brightness), you should be aware that the x,y values are different for D65. It’s still the same D65 illuminant, but the observer math apparently results in different x,y values in that model for D65. This should not impact your calibration workflow as the only place this shows up are in modes where “fine tune” calibration is not an option, but you’ll see it if trying to validate accuracy in those modes. But this may show up if you try to test the monitor manually in those variable brightness modes.

• Apple CMF 2026 (variable brightness modes):
  • x = 0.3144, y = 0.3302
  • Note that under the new observer model, the white perceived as neutral is represented by a point that sits a bit warmer (and slightly greener) than the old CIE 1931 D65 coordinate
• CIE 1931 (other reference modes):
  • x = 0.3127, y = 0.3290

See Apple’s support article and color test patterns for more info.

Note that CalMAN (Ultimate version) now supports a new Apple CMF 2026 workflow. It can help validate the calibrated results (Apple’s native calibration solutions do not report deltaE or other measurements of final results).

Bugs in Studio Display

It has been my experience that Apple generally releases new products with few bugs, but I have encountered a few in the Studio Display XDR. All of them struck me as things which can be resolved through software updates and I would assume Apple will address these relatively quickly. Issues I have seen:

• Lack of support under Windows (not fixed in firmware 26.4).
  • Apple’s white paper notes support under Windows and Linux (with some limitations such as as the expanded Adobe RGB gamut, custom XDR modes, and calibration not being supported). This would be consistent with support on the Pro Display XDR, which works very well for me on both of my Windows laptops.
  • However, with the Studio Display XDR, one laptop fails to recognize the monitor at all (though it will charge) and the other offers only 60Hz SDR-only 1080p support. So it would appear that Windows support is unavailable or unreliable at this time (I would assume Linux is a risk, but have not tested it).
  • Given the white paper and Pro Display support, I assume the Studio Display XDR will likely gain support through some update. I have not seen any support article from Apple on this, and I do wonder if any update may require connecting a monitor to a MacOS computer to get a firmware update before it might support Windows. My Pro Display used to not work for me under Windows years ago – yet now it does, so I presume it (or perhaps Windows 11) got some update to enable that use.
  • I do not recommend buying this monitor yet if you need support for a non-Apple computer. Hopefully that is addressed or Apple clarifies minimum requirements for 3rd-party HDR support, as this is an outstanding display and have support similar to the Pro Display would make this an excellent monitor for Windows users.
•  Halos in the variable brightness presets (not fixed in firmware 26.4).
  • You can see this by viewing my quality test #4. Click the image to view full screen while viewing in a dark room to see deep shadow detail clearly.
  • Halos are very well controlled in fixed XDR presets (as noted above).
  • However, this is not the case when using the variable brightness XDR presets (including both the default mode). When using that preset, halos are significantly worse than the Pro Display XDR (disabling automatic brightness adjustments does not help).
  • As the fixed modes show the hardware clearly supports outstanding results, my assumption is that we will likely see this fixed by some Apple update. Even in its current state, most users will never notice this (which might explain how it wasn’t caught earlier in testing).
• The display may blackout or reject some mode changes (with firmware 26.3, may be fixed now)
  • I have seen this when changing the display preset to other modes (especially the new Adobe RGB mode). I have seen this on three separate systems (my own display and in two different Apple stores).
  • Changing refresh rate or reconnecting the display both reliably address blackouts. When the mode change was rejected, it changed to the default (variable brightness P3-only) mode without any error message.
  • I have seen one review report 85% Adobe RGB coverage and strongly suspect they attempted the mode change and the display reverted to P3.
  • When I create test patterns in Photoshop, I clearly see much more vibrant green and cyan colors in Adobe RGB than P3. I believe the monitor likely truly delivers a wider gamut, but a software bug may be preventing its use in some cases.
• “static” in the display or crashes (with firmware 26.3, may be fixed now)
  • I have not seen this, but here is a video of the concern and someone reported an experience to me which which sounded consistent with this.
  • Suggested workarounds: update MacOS, make sure you use a high-quality cable (the one that comes with the monitor), and set refresh rate to 60Hz.

Note: The original firmware (v26.3, build 23D8128) had some issues which may have been fixed in monitor firmware version 26.4 (Build 23E246). This update also added support for full calibration. To get it, update to MacOS 26.4 (not the beta), and then MacOS should offer an option to update the firmware. You can discover which firmware you have by going to the Apple menu at top left / System Settings / System Report and looking under Graphics / Displays.

None of the the issues I have personally experienced are serious concerns for Apple users and I would expect all these concerns likely get resolved fairly quickly. The reported crash issue sounds serious but there appear to be workarounds and this is likely to only affect a small number of users. None of these affect my personal use of the display and I suspect most people wouldn’t see anything other than potentially some blackouts during initial setup if you wish to customize modes.

However, I would hold off buying this monitor for Windows / Linux use until support is confirmed as you may not be able to use it yet (and I can imagine support may require existing hardware to be connected to an Apple computer for a software update to gain support). I will keep this post updated over time. Please check back for the latest information if any of these are a concern for you.

How does the Apple Studio Display XDR compare to the Pro Display XDR?

The Pro Display XDR had been the best HDR monitor on the market since it launched in 2019. To be the clear leader for over six years is a testament to the extremely high standards and capabilities Apple offers in their XDR displays. It has been discontinued without a 32″ replacement, but it has been the gold standard for the past six years and continues to be an important reference point for any premium monitor. The new Studio Display raises the bar on almost every dimension but size, and yet costs half as much.

Advantages of the Studio Display XDR over the Pro Display XDR:

• Roughly half the cost: $3.3k vs $6k with stand (or $3.6k vs $7k with nano-texture and stand)
• 1.4 stops greater HDR headroom
  • The Studio Display hardware natively supports 0.3 stops more than the Pro Display, but software limitations of MacOS result in a 1.4 stop advantage for the Studio Display.
  • While the Pro Display technically supports up to 5.0 stops of HDR headroom in custom presets, you cannot use more than 4 stops in a browser, Lightroom or Adobe Camera RAW as MacOS reports a clipped 4.0 stops value.
  • Studio Display supports up to 5.4 stops in custom presets and MacOS will pass on this information for full support in browsers and Adobe software.
• 120Hz refresh rate vs 60Hz for the Pro Display
  • This is a significant benefit for scrolling, panning, and video.
  • Note that M1 or base M2/M3 systems only get 60Hz support
• Much faster downstream ports for daisy-chaining displays or connecting hubs or other high speed devices.
  • Pro Display has 3 USB-C ports (up to 480Mbps USB 3.2 Gen 1)
  • Studio Display has one Thunderbolt 5 port  and two USB-C ports (up to 10Gb/s)
• More powerful charging – the Studio Display offers 140W charging for the upstream connection vs 96W for Pro Display.
• Very good speakers, mic, and web cam (vs none in the Pro Display)
  • This allows single-cable connection to a laptop, even if you also connect downstream accessories or a second display.
• Improved HDR performance:
  • Less haloing (better blacks) thanks to 4x higher zone count (and perhaps updated processing)
  • 2,000-nits peak (vs 1,600 nits). This is only one third stop more HDR headroom, but does mean you still have a full 4 stops of headroom even if you need 120-nits for SDR.
  • Adds an “HDR photography (P3-D65)” reference mode.
• Improved SDR performance:
  • Wide gamut expanded to now cover Adobe RGB, which is advantageous for print-related work.
  • 1,000 nits vs 500. This is a minor benefit but helpful if you have some short term need to work near bright window light, though cuts HDR benefit to one stop and indicates the ambient light needs to be better controlled for serious photography work. Note that (like recent MacBook Pros), the Studio XDR will only use the full 1,000 nits for SDR when the ambient light sensor determines it is necessary.

Advantages of the Pro Display XDR:

• 32″. This larger display is the only compelling advantage
  • It is unfortunate the new Studio Display does not offer a 32″ size option. I would happily pay more to get these updates in a 32″ display and know many other photographers who would as well.
  • However, you can connect two 27″ Studio Display XDRs for roughly the same cost and do so with a single Thunderbolt cable thanks to the upgraded ports.
• 6k. This isn’t really a benefit over 5K at 27″, it just ensures the same “retina” pixel density on the larger screen.
• Stand supports 90 rotation to portrait orientation (however the new Studio Display XDR can also support this using a VESA mount).
• Compatible with old Intel-based Macs.
• See my review of the Pro Display XDR for more details.

Note that both displays support outstanding HDR performance, retina resolution, and the option to use either a stand or VESA mount.

How does the Apple Studio Display XDR compare to the 3rd-party HDR monitors?

Apple offers both excellent HDR headroom and highly accurate displays. The only 3rd-party monitors which offer comparable performance are ASUS ProArt monitors, which offer HDR calibration in the hardware (ICC profiling is not supported for any HDR monitor). ASUS has two very compelling reasons to consider them over Apple: 32″ size options and much lower prices.

You should also be aware that XDR monitors offer a great HDR experience under Windows, but need MacOS and more recent Apple hardware to unlock the full specs of this monitor. Under Windows or Linux, you won’t be able to use the reference modes, Adobe RGB gamut (just P3), and you won’t have options for fine-tune calibration. Even with those limitations, it still offers a premium experience.

The best ASUS monitors for HDR photography are:

• ASUS ProArt PA27UCDMR (~$1,300)
  • This is the only other 27″ monitor with great HDR performance and high color accuracy and a very good option. It has a considerable cost advantage, but Apple offers a clearly superior HDR experience which justify its much higher price.
  • Pros for ASUS:
    • $1,800-2,000 lower cost than the Studio Display XDR.
    • OLED offers superior blacks, which may be appreciated when viewing movies in a dark room but will have little or no benefit for most photographers over Apple’s excellent mini-LED performance.
    • 240Hz. This is very beneficial for gaming. It is also beneficial for scrolling text or panning/zooming photos as 120Hz will offer faster display updates than 120Hz in mini-LED (see the discussion above on refresh rate).
    • Supports multiple inputs to switch between multiple computers without changing cables.
  • Pros for the Studio Display XDR:
    • Significantly better HDR capability
      • 2,000 nits (vs 1,000). This means one full extra stop of HDR headroom and the ability to ensure four stops of headroom under ideal editing conditions.
      • As a mini-LED, offers superior EOTF tracking in real use thanks to its sustained brightness. It will not suffer from  OLED’s automatic brightness limiter will cause significant dimming in brighter content, which will bias photographers towards making their images too bright for other more accurate displays (including OLED phones).
    • Setup is significantly easier than any 3rd-party display under MacOS. Just plug it in and get outstanding HDR support automatically. The ASUS displays require some setup, though I’ve described the key steps in my linked reviews.
    • Higher resolution (5K vs 4K).
    • Offers an optional nano-texture anti-reflective coating.
    • Calibration is not required for Apple XDR displays (though color accuracy is very good on the ASUS after using the included colorimeter).
    • Much higher quality audio.
    • Includes a high-quality web cam and mic.
    • No fan noise (ASUS firmware updates have made fan noise fairly minor).
    • Offers XDR reference modes for predictable EOTF tracking and reference white point, which is ideal for professional use.
• ASUS ProArt PA32UCDM (or PA32UCDMR-K to get the kit with a colorimeter).
  • See my full review for details.
  • Pros for ASUS:
    • 32″ size (this is the key benefit)
    • $1,100-1,600 lower price (or possibly more during big sales). Be sure to budget $200-300 for an HDR-capable colorimeter like the Calibrite Display Plus HL if you don’t buy the kit with ASUS colorimeter.
    • Same OLED and refresh rate benefits as the PA27UCDMR
  • Pros for the Studio Display are the same list as above for PA27UCDMR
• ASUS ProArt PA32UCXR
  • See my full review for details
  • Pros for ASUS:
    • 32″ size (this is the key benefit).
    • Lower price (often $500, potentially $800+ during big sales).
    • Supports multiple inputs to switch between multiple computers without changing cables.
  • Pros for the Studio Display:
    • Setup is significantly easier than any 3rd-party display under MacOS. Just plug it in and get outstanding HDR support automatically. The ASUS displays require some setup, though I’ve described the key steps in my linked reviews.
    • Higher resolution (5K at 27″ vs 4K at 32″).
    • Offers an optional nano-texture anti-reflective coating.
    • Calibration is not required for Apple XDR displays (though color accuracy is very good on the ASUS after using the included colorimeter).
    • Much higher quality audio.
    • Includes a high-quality web cam and mic.
    • No fan noise (ASUS firmware updates have made fan noise fairly minor).
    • Offers XDR reference modes for predictable EOTF tracking and reference white point, which is ideal for professional use.

If none of these monitors fit your budget, see my list of recommended HDR monitors for more recommended options.

Conclusions

The new Apple Studio Display XDR (available via B&H or Amazon) breaks important new ground by offering a level of HDR performance, accuracy, and ease of use never before available at this price point. It fills an important gap in the thinly covered 27″ monitor segment for HDR monitors. And it offers numerous substantial improvements over the previous gold standard for HDR, the Pro Display XDR.

Overall, this further strengthens Apple’s position as the clear leader in HDR photography. I highly recommend the Studio Display XDR if you are able to budget for it. You will likely not see a monitor with similar or better performance for many years to come, as Apple has set the bar very high for capability, performance, and ease of use.

The only significant limitations here are: there is no 32″ option and the premium pricing (though the value is excellent and there is nothing like it). Due to bugs noted above, Windows users may wish to hold off purchasing for a little while to confirm support.

If you need lower-priced alternatives or a 32″ size, I recommend the ASUS displays listed above or looking for a used Pro Display XDR.

If size is your concern, you might also consider working with two Studio Display monitors (perhaps one without XDR support to reduce costs). You can connect them with a single cable from the laptop thanks to daisy chaining with the new ports (ie you’d have a cable from the laptop to one display and then a cable from it to the next display). Getting two XDR displays would cost roughly the same as the old Pro Display XDR – but with much more screen real estate and numerous other benefits.

The latest HDR displays at CES 2026

I just got back from a couple of exciting days at CES 2026. If you aren’t familiar with the Consumer Electronics Show, it is one of the largest trade shows in the world (148K attendees) and is where new monitors and TV are often announced. I’ve attended the last three years to see the latest HDR (high dynamic range) displays on the market.

The trends continue to look very good for the future of HDR photography. There were several notable trends, especially significant expansion of 1,000+ nit monitors, much greater choice for 27″ HDR, numerous TVs (and even a monitor) offering 100% Rec 2020, and brighter displays (up to the full 10,000 nit HDR target). That ultimately means a larger range of outstanding HDR displays, likely price competition, and a clear signal that there is significant ongoing investment in the space. With these changes and recent price drops, I’ve updated my list recommended HDR monitors. page.

Before we get to the details, it’s probably helpful to provide some background. Here are a few key things to know:

• HDR here refers to new display technology, not the old “HDR” many of you know (which was just a software trick to offer a different result on limited “SDR” or standard dynamic range monitors). SDR displays offer only 8 stops of dynamic range, while HDR displays offer up to 12 stops (and the latest premium TVs offer just over 14 stops). That compares very well with the 14 stops of dynamic range humans can see in static condition, and the 14+ stops of dynamic range our cameras have long offers. One of the key reasons we typically say “the picture doesn’t do it justice — you had to be there” is that we’ve been using terrible monitors. That is quickly changing.
• OLED is a popular category of HDR technology. Each pixel emits its own light, which means it offers perfect blacks (no haloing). However, it’s very hard to make a single pixel very bright, but the latest generation of OLED displays are quickly improving on that front.
• Mini-LED is the other popular category of HDR technology. Each pixel is created by an LCD layer blocking light from a shared backlight. It’s very easy to make this larger backlight bright, but it makes it more challenging to ensure perfect blacks in pixels near brighter ones. Modern mini-LEDs tend to do an excellent job managing halos (thanks to high zone counts and advanced software/dimming to control them).
• Rec 2020 (aka BT.2020) is the ultimate color gamut target for HDR. It includes all of the P3 and Adobe RGB colors. It also includes a significant range of printable colors not offered by either of those gamuts, offering the potential for stunning electronic display and more accurate soft proofing of prints (especially in the green/cyan/ blue/magenta color range).

1,000+ nit monitors (to provide 3+ stops of HDR headroom):

There are several considerations when buying an HDR monitor, but the most critical is the peak brightness. That’s what gives these displays excellent contrast, highlight detail and color, and gets translated into “HDR headroom” (a measure of how much HDR capability the display offers). At 1,000 nits or more, you have 3+ stops of HDR headroom and a display that offers significant wow factor. There were numerous companies announcing 1000+ nit displays around this year’s CES.

The biggest trend was around bright OLED monitors, but there were also several new mini-LED displays as well. There was even the first RGB mini-LED monitor, which offers 100% coverage of Rec2020.

ASUS:

ASUS is always a leader, especially with their unique ProArt lineup (the only monitors supporting HDR calibration other than Apple).

• P16 laptop (the premium model: H7606WX):
  • 1,600 nits peak (Display HDR 1000 true black)
  • This is the first PC which I would consider a true Windows alternative to the excellent MacBook Pro (Lenovo also has an excellent HDR display, but options to upgrade specs beyond the display are limited)
  • PANTONE Validated, Anti-reflection display, 120Hz refresh rate, 100% DCI-P3
  • Touch screen with stylus support
  • Unlike ProArt external monitors, I am told the laptops offer no similar software calibration.
• Zenbook Duo 2026 (UX8407)
  • This unique laptop offers TWO 1,000 nit displays
  • Each are 14-inch 3K OLED touchscreens, with a very small gap between (this year’s hinge mechanism is smaller than the 2025 model).
• PA32UCDMR-K and PA27UCDMR (OLED)
  • These are similar 32″ and 27″ 4K displays.
  • 1,000 nits (DisplayHDR 400)
  • ΔE < 1
  • 240Hz make these potentially very interesting for gamers who also demand serious color for photography, as well as better scrolling/panning than the Pro Display XDR (which is limited to 60Hz).
  • The 32″ model with a “-K” suffix means it also includes an external colorimeter, which in this case is their new ProArt CaliContrO MCA02. It can measure up to 10k nits, control the on screen display of the ASUS monitor, and be used to control apps (including Adobe software).
• PA279CDV
  • 1,000 nits (I expect likely to be Display HDR 400 True Black, but not specified yet)
  • 27″ 4K
  • 120 Hz
  • KVM (lets you share a display with multiple computers by switching keyboard/video/mouse.
  • ΔE < 2
• Gaming displays:
  • PG27UCWM
    • 27″ 4K RGB stripe tandem OLED
    • 1,000 nits (DisplayHDR 400)
    • 240Hz (or 480 at half)
    • 99%P3,
    • ΔE < 2
    • This is one I hope to try in person. The specs are very interesting, however I was unable to show content on it at CES for me to evaluate it for photography.
  • ROG Swift PG34WCDM
    • DisplayHDR 400, 1300 nits peak
    • 34″ curved display with 3440 x 1440 resolution. This is not an optimal form factor for photography.
    • 240Hz
    • Uses Samsung’s next-generation 5th gen QD OLED = RGB stripe (clear text), No white sub-pixel for better color volume

The rest of these displays are generally gaming oriented. Many of them may be excellent choices for HDR photographers on more of a budget, but won’t offer the same level of color accuracy photography as an ASUS or Apple display.

LG:

• LG 27GM950B 5K
  • 27” 5K mini-LED with 2304 zones
  • 1250 nits (DisplayHDR 1000)
• 32GX870B
  • First 32″ 4K Tandem WOLED Monitor
  • 240Hz (up to 480 at 1080p)
  • VESA DisplayHDR™ True Black 500
  • 4K, 240Hz

TCL:

• TCL 27R94 ($800 at Best Buy)
  • DisplayHDR 1400
  • 27″ 4K
• TCL 32R84 ($750 at Best buy)
  • 1,500 nits (DisplayHDR 1400 w/ 1400 zones)
  • 32″ 4K, 165Hz, deltaE<2

Note on optimal settings for these TCL monitors: reduce game mode / dark part brightening (blacks too bright), go to color / user for RGB gain control to get more neutral white balance (or use standard)

Samsung:

Samsung had no monitor announcements at CES. However, their displays power numerous 1,000 nit OLEDs and it is very likely they’ll have something interesting to show later in the year.

This isn’t even a complete list, with other offerings from AOC, the RGB mini-LED detailed below, and more. With all these announcements in just the first month, 2026 is shaping up to be an excellent year for HDR monitors.

100% Rec2020 (via RGB mini-LED and “super quantum dots”)

A very clear theme at this year’s show was expansion to cover “100%” of the Rec2020 gamut. I have that in quotes as truly covering every little corner probably requires the display to emit pure spectral colors. A laser projector can do that, but these new displays aren’t quite that precise. Regardless, these displays clearly have a much wider gamut than almost anything out there, and 100% is not a crazy marketing claim (if there’s a gap, it’s likely trivial). We also need to see how they hold up to closer inspection with controlled tests (to ensure we won’t have concerns with metamerism), but each and every one looked fantastic to me in person with the demo content at the show. This is a very exciting development and the entire industry seems to agree.

The main technology behind this is RGB mini-LED (confusingly marketed by some companies as “micro RGB”, but these still use a shared backlight and are not comparable to exotic and super expensive micro LED displays we might see several years from now). This is similar to mini-LED but now each zone has separate red, green, and blue backlights (instead of white). This allows more more pure color for a much wider gamut. This approach will be used by all of the top 5 TV brands. There was also a computer monitor with support, which bodes well for this technology trickling down to computers.

TCL (the 3rd most popular brand globally) is taking a two track approach. They are launching an RGB mini-LED, and additionally offering an even higher tier option with what they call SQD mini-LED (“super quantum dots”). This uses a mini-LED backlight where each zone is and then converts that to the final red, green, and blue sub-pixels via quantum dots. Like RGB mini-LED, it offers a massive increase in gamut and some additional benefits. It avoids the risk of “color cross talk”, which just means that any halos with this kind of mini-LED now have a potential color bias (though I saw very little issue in the RGB mini-LEDs at the show). It likely helps enable higher peak brightness as it’s easier to create brighter backlights and high zone counts when you only need the backlight to generate one color instead of three. This is the most impressive technology I’ve seen in a TV you can buy now (I will be giving serious consideration to buying the TCL X11L).

RGB mini-LED monitors:

One monitor has already adopted RGB mini-LED: the HKC Monitor M10 offers:

• mini-LED with 1596 local dimming zones (4,788 RGB dimming zones)
• 1600 nits peak (DisplayHDR 1400)
• 32″ 4K
• 100% Rec2020
• 165Hz refresh rate (330 at 1080p)
• Availability outside China TBD, but I think we should anticipate Chinese companies help push the envelope for both pricing and capability globally in the years to come.

RGB mini-LED TVs:

• Samsung “Micro RGB” will be offered in 55, 65, 75, 85, 100 and 115-inch models.
• LG MRGB95: expected to offer 3,000+ nits peak brightness, 1,000+ luminance dimming zones (sizes: 75, 86, 100 inches).
• TCL Q10M Ultra offers ~9,000 nits, 2,912 luminance dimming zones (8,736 RGB dimming zones), Dolby Vision 2 (sizes: 85, 98, and 115 inches).
• TCL Q9M offers~2,000+ nit, 960 luminance zones (2,160 RGB zones).
• Hisense UR9 & UR8 offer Dolby Vision 2 (sizes: 55, 65, 75, 85, 98, and 100 inches).
• Sony announced last year they will offer an RGB mini-LED this year (likely announced March-April). This is expected to be branded as the Bravia 10 and be positioned as their top TV (above OLED). They may called it “True RGB” (a term they’ve trademarked).

Manufacturers have not shared all specs, so I’m only listing what I’ve been able to find.

Note that zone counts vary by display size, so I tried to use the number for 85″ models. 

SQD mini-LED:

The TCL X11L stole the show for me with an impressive list of specs:

• 10,000 nit peak brightness
• 20,736 luminance zone count (these are true zones, this is not an RGB backlight where you might divide the number by 3).
• While it has 100% Rec2020 coverage like the RGB mini-LEDs above, there is no color bias to the backlight and therefore no color cross-talk.

This means it can in theory cover the entire target HDR specification, which is the 10,000 nit (PQ) and Rec2020. With its incredible zone count, it should offer almost no detectable halos for a very OLED-like performance. In reality, we’ll have to see how quickly ABL (automatic brightness limiting) kicks in with real content (these peak values are achieve for 2% of the display). As a mini-LED, it should hold up well and I suspect it will remain quite accurate with real content. In a well edited image, only a minority of pixels should exceed SDR white and even fewer should get to the brightest levels. That means it may be practical for accurate display of HDR images up to 6.6 stops (need to test with real content edited properly). While we won’t see computer monitors do that in the foreseeable future, I’m personally excited to try it and get first hand experience as to the value of HDR photos going beyond the 4 stop limit of XDR displays (I’m not even sure MacOS will allow this on an external display, but Windows and Adobe software will).

Putting aside HDR photography (where we can provide the content), there are some limits to the benefits here in the near term. There are some Hollywood movies where HDR content is mastered with Rec 2020 and 10,000 nits. Many of those may not use that full color volume or only in very limited scenes (which is artistically ideal, you only want to use the extremes when called for). More practically, a lot of HDR content is mastered for P3 at 1,000 or 4,000 nits. That means the extra color gamut may not show until more movies are remastered. However, the full 10k nits should be very useful even for 1k and 4k masters as the content may be brightened via Dolby Vision 2 when ambient light levels call for it. These movies are graded in a dark cave – so if you watch in a room with windows, you may well need to boost the brightness to preserve as much of the same look and feel as possible.

These brightness levels may sound absurd if you are used to setting your SDR display to 100 nits (which is ideal in a controlled room). 10k nits is roughly the brightness of a fluorescent tube. The Dolby research behind the 10,000 nits PQ curve is substantial and based on both theory and validation with human studies. It showed benefit up to 10k nits when assuming 100 nits SDR and a very dark ambient surrounding (5 nits). Keep in mind brightness is perceived by humans in stops (powers of 2), so the jump from 4k to 10k is actually smaller than going from 1k to 4k, etc. There is real value at this level. If you see HDR which looks too bright, then either the display is not properly adapted for the ambient light (SDR brightness too high) or the content itself is too bright (the brightest values should only be used in a small percentage of pixels).

Frames to display HDR as wall art:

With the success of the Frame TV, there seems to be growing interest in offering TVs meant to look like art on the wall when not being used for video. I’ve seen Sony show their Bravia 9 (4000 nits mini-LED) in wooden frames, which would be a great use for that set. We don’t yet have an easy option to show the photos on a TV without a computer, but hopefully a set top box like the AppleTV may soon be updated to enable it (the hardware is clearly capable). There were a couple of notable sets for displaying art at CES.

One of the true darlings of CES this year was the LG W6, offering:

• Only 9mm thick! That’s thinner than your finger.
• Excellent HDR: “3.9× brighter than conventional OLED”, but no detailed specs (speculation is 2500-3000 nits peak).
• It looks stunning in person. It has only a power cable. You send the video signal wirelessly via the LG Zero Connect Box.

The Samsung S95H was similarly interesting and features:

• included metal frame to look wall art
• 2700 nits (10% window)
• It can display SDR photos from their Art Store or via USB stick (I see no reason they could not support HDR with a firmware update – and you could show HDR photos over HDMI now as with other TVs).

Other HDR news out of CES:

Dolby Labs have long been associated with the highest quality HDR experiences for movies and TV. Their DolbyVision already offers superior adaptation of HDR content over HDR10 or HDR10+, and they’ve just announced huge updates with DolbyVision 2. It features “Content Intelligence” to adapt based on the content and viewing environment, “Precision Black” for better shadow detail, “bi-directional tone mapping” where both the content and display participate in determining the optimal way to render the content, “Authentic Motion” to control motion smoothing on a scene by scene basis, and more. In a nutshell, it’s designed to adapt to any display in the most optimal way in order to offer the experience most closely matching what the content creator envisioned, regardless of your display or ambient lighting.

TVs with an ambient light sensor can utilize a premium Dolby Vision 2 Max, which will help optimize brightness of the display across day and night viewing conditions. Both versions requires new hardware, so this isn’t something you’ll be able to add with an older TV via firmware update.

TCL, Hisense, and Philips have already announced support for Dolby Vision 2 (and we’ll see if Sony jumps on board this year soon, as they hold a separate event outside CES to launch new products). NBC will support streaming live sports with Dolby Vision 2 on Peacock.

Samsung TVs will use their newly announced HDR10+ Advanced. It offers many similar sounding promises to Dolby Vision 2, but appears to rely more on AI and less on the content creator to determine results. As an open standard (no royalty costs) promoted by the #1 TV brand, it could certainly dominate in the long run, but Dolby Vision likely remains the leader for at least the next several years.

See my CES 2025 recap if you’d like to learn more about the history of this show.

Do you need to calibrate Apple XDR monitors?

Photographers need accurate monitors. If you are viewing a display with inaccurate color temperature, crushed shadows, etc, you are likely to be frustrated with your prints and your online audience probably won’t see your image as you intend. This is why we prefer high quality monitors and profiling tools. Things get a bit more complicated with HDR photography, as we do not yet have an ICC standard for profiling in HDR mode (if you create a profile, the HDR values will clip to SDR white).

As I’ve written on my recommended HDR monitors page, you only have two good options for HDR now: calibrate in hardware or buy a monitor which is accurate out of the box. There is no standard yet for ICC profiling in HDR mode. The only monitors on the market which support HDR calibration are ASUS ProArt monitors or Apple XDR displays (which includes MacBook Pro, iPhones, and many iPads). It’s great to have the option, but are these premium displays accurate enough out of the box?

I do extensive monitor testing, so I decided to get lab-grade test equipment (the CR-250-RH spectrophotometer) to calibrate and test five Apple displays with the highest possible accuracy. In this post we’ll take a deep look at a critical question: how accurate are Apple displays without calibration / profiling?

TLDR:

• Apple displays with the “XDR” branding are outstanding. They are extremely accurate out of the box, and even several years after purchase. Unless you are both a professional who demands extremely high levels of color accuracy (such as a Hollywood colorist), you do not need to calibrate XDR displays.
• If you want to ensure the highest accuracy as the display ages, I recommend using the Calibrite Display Plus HL to perform both “full” and “fine tune” calibration. This is the only consumer colorimeter Apple supports for the full calibration (be sure to use the links here to get the correct model from B&H or Amazon, the cheaper variants are not supported by Apple).

To understand the basis of my conclusions and learn much more about how calibration/profiling works, keep reading…

[Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links. I rarely endorse other products and only do when I think you would thoroughly enjoy them. By purchasing through my links on this post, you are helping to support the creation of my tutorials at no cost to you.]

What does an accurate display mean for photographers?

Everyone’s level of tolerance for error will vary, but there are some fairly clear targets and expectations for photographers.

The most important targets to ensure accuracy for photography are:

• Color accuracy.
  • Overall, a color deltaE (ΔE) of 2 or less is ideal. If you are above 5, you too much error for photography (and high error is common for gaming monitors).
  • Accuracy in neutral gray values is most important (its not only most easily noticed, gray is most of user interface surrounding your image and therefore biases your decisions while editing).
  • The target white point for photography is D65. This is a specific white (measured as 0.3127x, 0.3290y).
  • Your measurement software may report a “correlated color temperature” (CCT) such as 6500K. This is not a specific white: D65 is a 6500K value, but there are a wide range of 6500K values which are not D65. CCT specifies only the blue/yellow balance (not magenta/green).
• Gray tracking (aka tone response / EOTF, the Electro-Optical Transfer Function).
  • Overall, a gray deltaE of 1 or less is ideal (with a 10% test window – peak luminance will vary for HDR monitors as noted below, so we just do our best).
  • This ensures proper shadow detail, contrast, etc.
  • For SDR, your target is gamma 2.2. For HDR, the signal to the monitor is PQ (“perceptual quantizer”). However, the effective EOTF target for HDR is undocumented / unclear unless you are using an XDR monitor in a reference mode. Neither Windows or MacOS specify how they are trying to drive the display when you use brightness sliders. You can test an external monitor with a pattern generator, but would only confirm good calibration in the hardware and not tell you how the operating system is trying to adapt shadow values, etc.
  • Apple XDR displays uniquely offer several reference modes and the ability to create custom user presets (including control over the EOTF in the SDR range).
• Peak luminance
  • This is the most critical metric for HDR performance, as it determines how many stops of headroom you have at a given brightness.
  • This is not a fixed value in a monitor. Peak brightness depends on several factors – most commonly how bright the display is overall. OLEDs (other than Tandem Stack OLED iPads from Apple) are far more likely to be subject to dimming than mini-LED.
  • It is ideal to have a display offering 1000+ nits peak for great HDR. It is also ideal to have a sustained / full screen capability of 400+ nits (as this ensures accuracy is retained even while viewing bright content).
•  Uniformity
  • This means consistency across the entire display. Lower quality displays may often show less accurate results near the edges of the display.
  • Some solutions (such as ProArt calibration) offer ways to improve uniformity, but this is most commonly something you cannot improve. An ICC profile affects all pixels equally, it has no mechanism to correct the edges of your display.
• Wide gamut
  • Real world color is much more vibrant than sRGB. A wide gamut monitor doesn’t just show more vibrant color – it shows more detail. A limited gamut won’t show the full texture of sunset clouds. A flower petal may look flat when the gradient of colors gets clamped. A wall lit by a colored light may even look like an artifact or blown pixel when the colors get clipped.
  • A wide gamut display will let you enjoy much more beautiful images, and give you an edge in creating them (and there is no downside in editing with wide gamuts like P3 – preemptively clamping the colors in your edit won’t produce a better final result on less capable displays and you can export sRGB from any source).
• Black levels
  • This refers to the deepest black the monitor can produce and is also critical for HDR to ensure shadow detail and avoid halos.
  • This is mostly a function of monitor hardware, but may be influenced by OSD options (such as for backlight and black level). An ICC profile cannot make the deepest black any darker.

This is only a partial list of the most important monitor capabilities. Other factors like anti-reflective coatings, zero fan noise, and simple operation are often also important (Apple performs extremely well on these other considerations too).

Performance for some of these goals (such as color accuracy) may be improved if you are able to “calibrate” or “profile” your display (we’ll discuss that those terms mean below). Your ability to do either will depend on your monitor, budget (for test equipment/software), technical skills, and support.

What’s the difference between profiling and calibration?

These terms get thrown around very loosely. Often times photographers will say they “calibrated” their monitor, when in fact they profiled it.

Calibration is a process of making the monitor itself more accurate. In other words, when you ask for a specific RGB value you get something very close to it. This may be done in some monitors by changing settings in the OSD (such as RGB gain values) or by using special software tools to write lookup tables in the monitor (such as with ASUS ProArt).

Profiling is a process of making the overall system response more accurate by hacking the signal that goes to the monitor. If your computer knows that requesting a red value of 230 actually produces the result you would expect for 227, then the computer may send a request for something like 232 instead in order to get a result closer to the desired value. This is very well supported for SDR mode thanks to ICC profiles, but not yet for HDR (though Apple’s “fine tune” options for XDR offer a limited option for a basic white point correction).

If you do both, calibration must be done first (otherwise the profile is based on the wrong assumptions about how the monitor will behave). The ideal scenario is a high quality monitor with both a good calibration and profile.

How accurate are Apple XDR displays?

I tested my five XDR displays: the Pro Display XDR, an M1 MacBook Pro, an M4 Max MacBook Pro, an M4 iPad Pro, and an iPhone 17 Pro. Using a spectro for these tests has given me a level of confidence I’ve not previously had (as the quality of color matching functions has always been a question for me).

While these are all XDR displays, they very in both technology and options for profiling / calibration. As you can see in the SPD below, the panel technology in the older Pro Display XDR and M1 is extremely similar if not potentially identical in many ways other than size. The M4 MBP improved by changing from a red KSF phosphor film to QD (quantum dot) mini-LED. The M4 iPad uses a “Tandem Stack” OLED and is therefore inherently different (note that the peaks are closer together in the iPad). The iPhone uses a different OLED, showing more of a blue spike.

Apple offers a few mechanisms to improve display accuracy (all found under System Settings / Displays / Preset dropdown at the bottom):

• “full” calibration
  • Calibrates the white point, primaries, luminance, and gamma response.
  • This option requires a supported spectrophotometer (the CR-250-RH I bought is the least costly – note that “RH” means “rubber hood” and is the one you would want). See the last section below for more information on why spectros are more accurate than a colorimeter.
  • The test is very simple to use. You point the spectro at a target on the screen and click a button to run. There are no options to configure (nor any final report when done). It’s very simple and effective.
  • The test runs for just under 90 minutes. If you have multiple monitors, you can view the progress in the dialog box if you didn’t leave it on the display being tested. It will show “performing stabilization” during warmup and then show progress through 96 measurements.
  • When you calibrate the Pro Display XDR, it is written in the monitor and therefore will benefit other Apple computers you later connect to that display.
• “fine tune” calibration
  • This provides a minor correction based on a single measurement (x, y, and luminance values of a known white). You can do this manually with any colorimeter or spectro.
  • This is a great option for those who don’t have a spectro to run full calibration. And even if you do, this offers a much faster way to test and tweak performance on a regular basis after full calibration.
  • You may only initiate this while in one of the system preset XDR modes, so use “HDR video (P3-ST 2084)” to measure its D65 reference white.
  • On MacOS, it affects performance in all XDR presets in MacOS (even ones where you cannot start fine tune).
  • On an iPad, fine tune only shows benefit while reference mode is enabled.
• “visual fine tune” calibration
  • Do not use this, you are more likely to reduce than improve accuracy.
• XDR presets:
  • These presets don’t make the display more accurate – they give you more control over the target (such as a specific SDR luminance or EOTF).
  • For XDR displays under MacOS:
    • You can choose from a list of system presets. “HDR video (P3-ST 2084)” offers predictable HDR results.
    • Or better yet you can easily create a custom profile with SDR brightness adapted for your ambient light (80-120 is ideal under controlled lighting), gamma 2.2 for SDR range (ideal for print work), 1600 nits HDR peak (to use the full capabilities of the display),  and P3 primaries.
  • For XDR iPads:
    • You may only choose “reference mode” (under System Settings > Display & Brightness > Advanced). When enabled, this is the same as “HDR video (P3-ST 2084)” on the computer – it provides a predictable/fixed response and disables options which reduce accuracy (such as true tone and night shift).
    • It would be nice for home use if there were a way to add a toggle for reference mode to control center so that you could switch between accurate viewing in controlled lighting – vs otherwise normal use (brightness adaptation is key when outdoors or near a window, and many may like to use true tone / night shift. Apple’s rational for the iPad is likely just so that pros in Hollywood can review “dailies” on an iPad with sufficiently high accuracy under reasonable controlled ambient light – toggling this setting probably doesn’t appeal to that audience.
  • The XDR iPhone (ie 11+):
    • Offers no reference mode nor options for any calibration. You cannot improve on the factory default results. The iPhone is too small for normal Hollywood use, and I wouldn’t see much value for home use without the toggle I mentioned (try turning off brightness adaptation on your phone and using for a day, it’ll be unusable in some parts of the day or night – we need adaptation here).
    • (Third party tools support profiling, but only in their apps and not systemwide – which makes them of very limited value).

I tested my various XDR displays under several conditions:

• Factory settings (ie “out of the box” performance). This will show the minimum performance you should expect.
• Full calibration only. This shows the benefit of Apple’s advanced calibration (ASUS ProArt is the only other display offering a similar capability).
• Fine Tune calibration only. This reflects the only calibration most photographers can perform (ie the best possible result until there is a standard for ICC profiling).
• Full calibration + Fine Tune. This may be expected to show the best possible results.
• [ Note that I did not use any ICC profiling with any of these displays as they are not supported in HDR mode nor iPad / iPhone for any profile systemwide. There would be nothing further to gain above the excellent results I’ve achieved. ]

For MacOS testing, I used XDR set to HDR Video mode (which is the only option to measure HDR with a predictable EOTF), a CR-250-RH, CalMAN targeting P3 PQ, and MacOS Patterns using full range encoding (HDR10 enabled in CalMAN). For iPad, I used reference mode. For iPhone, I could only measure white point (the EOTF is undocumented and hard to reliably control with a brightness slider).

Note: I manually evaluated actual data points, but the average and max deltaE values below are skewed high as CalMAN automatically includes several test patches which are clipped (ie it over-weights the brightest value, which is often one of the least accurate). So actual performance is better than the average values below suggest, but I didn’t bother to manually exclude extra readings to re-calculate the average.

What can you reasonably expect after calibration / profiling?

While calibration and profiling are important tools which can improve the accuracy of your display, they are not magic solutions that can fix everything. In fact far from it, especially when working with HDR. These issues come up in SDR editing too (finding that your prints are dark even after you’ve profiled your monitor is a very common example – as your display can be both perfectly accurate and still the wrong brightness for your working conditions).

To set expectations, here are a few things to know about the limits of accuracy with an HDR display even if you get great results from calibration and profiling:

• Calibration and profiling cannot improve capabilities
  • If your monitor can only hit 1200 nits or only has 97% P3 gamut, that’s the best you can get.
  • In fact, your capability will probably decrease (very slightly) after calibration and profiling because the least accurate values are at the extremes and they will be eliminated.
  • For example, peak nits are likely to drop after calibration and profiling. The only way to correct white balance issues for the brightest values is to turn down the maximum red, green, or blue sub-pixels a bit until we find the brightest white where the three channels add up to an accurate white.
• Calibration does not mean that two different displays will match perfectly!
  • Different displays have inherently different SPD (“spectral power distribution”), which is discussed below. As a result there are inherent limits to how closely two different panel types can produce any given color – and matching all colors across your gamut is nearly impossible.
  • To achieve the widest modern gamuts, many monitors have very tight ranges of wavelengths emitted for red, green, and blue (measured as FWHM or “full width at half maximum”). These more precise colors for the sub-pixels allow creation of very saturated colors – but they also increase the risk of “observer metamerism” (ie different people may perceive some colors from the display slightly differently).
  • You don’t need to worry about metamerism, but it may come up when a display with very high coverage of the Rec2020 gamut is involved (ie with newer technologies such as RGB mini-LED and laser projectors). This could result in two people disagreeing about whether a calibration looks “neutral”, whites appearing slightly greener or redder to different people, skin tones differing subtly between viewers, or blue highlights varying more than expected.
  • The only time you should expect a very close match is when both display use the same panel technology (ie backlight, phosphers, etc), are in good condition, and warmed up. So if you use multiple displays, it is beneficial to use the same model for color matching. Apple does a very nice job even across different technologies.
• HDR luminance is dynamic and impossible to fully characterize or control.
  • No monitor (other than $30k reference monitors) offer the ability to hit peak brightness across all pixels at the same time. Due to power consumption, thermal design limits, monitor burn-in risks, etc your pixels may dim significantly – sometimes even with just SDR content. This dimming is typically known as ABL (automatic brightness limiting).
  • As a result, calibration and profiling are typically done with a 10% window (ie covering 10% of the pixels in the center of the display). If you were to run your tests with a 2% or 50% window, you would see very different results!
  • For example, an OLED might achieve 1000 nits in a 2% window, but only 200 nits in a 50% window (Apple “tandem stack” OLED iPads uniquely avoid this and are able to offer full screen or “sustained” values of 1000 nits – and consumer phones are less prone to this).
  • For this reason, today’s mini-LED displays are generally more accurate than OLED in real world use. You may well see a great test result for an OLED (based on that 10% window) – but when you start viewing real photographs, you are likely to find that the OLED has dimmed and is therefore less accurate (potentially causing you to edit the image in a way which will look too bright on a display which does not suffer as much from ABL).
• deltaE only tells you how well the display performs against a target value – it says nothing about whether those targets are suitable for photography!
  • The display needs to not only be accurate, it also needs to be set for the brightness appropriate for the level of ambient light in the room. The accuracy of your laptop does not change when you turn the lights in the room on or off, but you’ll certainly struggle to get good results if you don’t adapt the brightness when the ambient light changes.
  • Your display may also be configured to target different EOTFs (“electro-optical transfer Function”). In SDR, gamma 2.2 is the correct standard for photography. For HDR, there isn’t a clear standard (you can’t even tell what the operating system is trying to do – other than when using an XDR display in a reference mode).
  • As an example of the impact of EOTF: When viewing my dark shadow detail test in a dark room, I can see down to the 0.1% level when I have the display set to the HDR Video Preset or a custom preset using gamma 2.2 and 100 nits for the SDR range. But when using the variable brightness preset with brightness is set to the same 100 nits SDR white, I can only see down to 0.25%. I assume these are all accurate (Apple doesn’t publish their target for the default variable brightness preset, but unless there is a bug in MacOS it would be expected to leverage the same calibration data). These are just different EOTF targets and it affects the shadow detail.
• Low deltaE values may not tell the whole story:
  • What does it mean when a manufacturer claims “deltaE <1”? Did they test HDR or just the SDR range? Which gamut did they test?
  • A deltaE claim of <1 suggests the monitor should be decent, but take these claims with a pinch of salt.
  • Note that there are also different deltaE values. In photography, we typically mean ΔE00 (CIE2000) when we simply say “deltaE”, but there are others. For example, CalMAN can optionally report ΔEITP, is based on the ICtCp space and is designed to help better reflect human perception in the HDR range, better handle wider gamut, and helps separate color error from luminance error.
• Performance varies across the screen:
  • Corners are often darker and less accurate than the center (ASUS ProArt offers some way to compensate, but performance here is often just based on the quality of your hardware).
  • With mini-LED, each pixel is dependent on its neighbors due to the shared backlight. For example, this may cause halos visible in dark areas next to bright content.
• Performance varies across time:
  • A display may vary a fair bit in the first 30 minutes it is turned on or if temperature varies in your environment (which is why it is recommend to let the monitor “warm up” before testing).
  • It may also change as the display ages (as you’ll see in my M1 results below).
• Your monitor may include several important settings outside the scope of calibration
  • Many OLED monitors include a setting to limit peak brightness, and it may be enabled by default (such as in the ASUS PA32UCDM). This likely won’t change test results, as a monitor which is accurate at 1000 nits will likely be just as accurate when forced to never exceed 400 nits. And while the typical 10% test patch won’t trigger ABL during the test, limiting HDR may improve EOTF accuracy with real world images which trigger ABL.
  • Some mini-LED displays include options to control local dimming. This creates complex behaviors where pixel-level accuracy varies with neighboring content and changes over time.
  • There may be additional controls for sharpening or other factors outside the scope of our testing.

These considerations are an important part of the reason why Hollywood professionals often pay $35,000 for a “reference monitor” (which more or less means one which is as accurate as possible vs the intended standard, such as mastering content for 4000-nits P3 D65 – though it also typically includes support for special features like built-in vectorscopes or SDI input ports).

Apple has done an outstanding job addressing these concerns with their XDR displays:

• They are all held to a very high standard. There is not a single “XDR” branded display which is not outstanding.
• Sustained luminance values are very high (even in the OLED XDR), so ABL is not a problem affecting accuracy.
• Everything works great by default, and there are easy to use controls in MacOS for experts who wish to customize performance.

Summary of key findings for the XDR displays:

• My 5-year old M1 MBP achieved excellent results after fine tune calibration, but was slightly out of spec when relying only on factory performance.
  • With the factory calibration, deltaE was 2.8 average (max 4.9). That isn’t tragic, but falls below expectations. Color was accurate, but the display was about 15% dimmer than expected across the range (tested peak of 835 nits vs expected 1000).
  • I consider this factory result good enough for most photographers (who would work in the default variable brightness mode and would have compensated by increasing brightness one tick). However, a Hollywood colorist would not accept the factory results. The most color critical users should test to validate accuracy rather than assuming full + fine tune achieves target on aging hardware.
  • Using fine tune calibration (used 1,000 nits D65 test), results were excellent. Peak brightness overshot at 1066 vs 1000 target, color was dead on. Average deltaE 0.4 (max 1.0). CCT measured 6407 at peak.
  • We’ll consider this result in greater depth further below.
• Excellent deltaE scores for color and gray tracking even with factory settings. These results would meet the expectations of the vast majority of photographers.
  • M4 Max achieves outstanding scores with the factory calibration:
    • deltaE 0.7 average / max 1.7 (peak error near brightest whites – achieving 968 nits vs 1000 nits target).
    • Running CalMAN’s ColorChecker test against P3 targets with the factory calibration showed average 0.5 deltaE (max 0.8). Color was excellent across the range.
    • 99.8% P3 gamut coverage (68.1% Rec2020 coverage)
  • My ~5 year old Pro Display XDR still very good scores with just the factory calibration:
    • 1.3 average deltaE / max 2.6. Color balance was very good across the range. Peak white was 987 vs 1000 target.
    • Running CalMAN’s ColorChecker test against P3 targets with the factory calibration showed average 0.6 deltaE (max 1.4). Color was excellent across the range.
• Accuracy could be further improved using Full calibration and/or Fine Tune.
  • M4 after full calibration
    • deltaE 0.4 average (max 1.2)
    • This is a measurable improvement, but at a level so trivial that most photographers wouldn’t even notice if you could view them side by side.
  • XDR using only fine-tune calibration:
    • When tuning from a 1,000 nit sample results improved to 0.8 deltaE (max 2.3). White balance was notably better across the range and peak luminance hit 996 vs 1000 target.
    • When tuning from a 100 nit sample, results showed 1.2 average deltaE (max 2.6). White balance was better across the SDR range but not over HDR. Peak luminance hit 1007 vs 1000 target.
    • Comparing the two, the 100 nit sample unsurprisingly showed improved accuracy over the SDR range (but worse HDR), while the 1000 nit sample showed nearly perfect HDR measurements and failed to benefit SDR.
    • Compared to factory calibration, fine tuning at 100 offered the most benefit to the SDR range (but degraded HDR), while fine tuning at 1000 improved HDR significantly and very slightly improved SDR.
  • XDR after full calibration:
    • 0.8 average deltaE / max 1.8. Peak 994 vs 1000 target.
  • These results would meet the expectations of even the most demanding photographers, but are optional and full calibration is likely not an option unless you know someone or can hire a TV calibrator to use their spectro with your display.
  • Fine tune is not worth the effort if you are not using a reference mode / custom XDR preset (ie if you wish to use brightness controls on your display).
• Excellent gamut, with the M4 Max showing 99.9% coverage of P3 in HDR mode (bright HDR colors can be difficult to achieve, so this is outstanding).
• Excellent uniformity on all displays (including that M1).
• Halos are well controlled for the mini-LEDs, but visible and the OLED iPad is clearly superior in extremely dark detail.
• EOTF tracking remains excellent even in a very large test window due to 1000 nits sustained performance. This is a huge advantage for photographers working with HDR, as it means that the actual performance with real images will track these test results closely (unlike most  non-Apple OLED displays which will likely dim quite a bit with larger test windows).

Aside from the accuracy, perhaps the most notable benefit is that XDR displays are extremely easy to use. Great results are the default, you literally don’t have to do a thing. HDR works automatically, SDR content looks great, and the display is very accurate (there is also zero fan noise). XDR-branded displays from Apple are excellent and are clearly the way to go for serious photography.

The Pro Display XDR is perhaps the best investment I’ve ever made in photography gear (the Nikon D850 is right up there too). It gave me capabilities far beyond anything I could previously do and was far more affordable than you would expect. Yes, it costs $6000 (plus tax) new for the monitor with stand. However, I bought mine used in like new condition with warranty remaining for only $3000. I could likely sell it today for a net $1000 – $3000, so I’ve risked almost nothing to pick up one of my favorite products of all time.

For reference, I also tested an M1 MacBook Air. It does not have an XDR-branded display, which means it offers no options for calibration or fine tuning. It also has very little HDR capability (400 nits peak and no local dimming to ensure deep blacks). The out of the box color was notably less accurate at 7185K, though acceptable for a general audience. As this device is primarily intended for SDR use, a custom ICC profile would be a good option and should easily get much closer to the ideal 6500K white point. 

My M1 MBP results:

As noted above, my M1 MBP fails to achieve ideal results when relying entirely on the factory calibration. Specifically, it is off by less than 1/3rd of a stop at the peak (15% dimmer in nits, but linear values are overstate how this would be perceived by humans). This is still very good for most photographers. If you use the default P3-1600 nits mode (ie you use the keys to adjust brightness), you would never know the difference. Furthermore, the results were excellent after fine tune calibration (which can be done with a standard colorimeter, no fancy spectro required). 

I have no serious concerns here for several reasons:

• If you are using the default (variable brightness) preset, there is no loss of capability. You would just turn up the brightness and see nearly the same results even without calibration. 
• Fine tune calibration can be easily performed to bring it back into the target range.
• Even without calibration, it outperforms nearly every HDR monitor on the market. The ASUS P16 laptop is the only other one supporting calibration and 1600 nits. The rest of the options out there will have lower accuracy, less HDR headroom, and in all probability higher rates of quality issues with less generous support.
• As a mini-LED, it will likely outperform most OLED in real use by avoiding ABL.

The best way to profile / ensure accuracy for your XDR monitor:

As you can see, there is no need to calibrate / profile XDR displays, though it may be helpful in some cases (outliers / old monitors) and you should definitely disable options which alter white balance. Here is a quick summary of the best way to ensure accuracy with your Apple XDR displays:

• For any Apple display: Disable true tone / night shift (both are found under Settings / Display in iOS / iPadOS / MacOS)
• iPhone:
  • You cannot improve further. There is no reference mode nor options for any calibration or profiling iPhone (third party apps can offer this within their own app only, which makes it fairly pointless).
• iPad
  • Accuracy may be improved by using reference mode (same as HDR Video preset for XDR computer displays). It is found under under System Settings > Display & Brightness > Advanced
  • In the same area is “fine tune” calibration.
  • Only use reference mode when working under controlled ambient light (as it fixes SDR white to 100 nits, which will make the display too dim in bright ambient light).
• Computer XDR :
  • Accuracy may be improved by using “full” calibration with the Calibrite Display Plus HL (do not get the cheaper Pro model, as Apple does not support it).
  • Accuracy may be improved by using “fine tune” calibration using manual measurements of reference white with any colorimeter. This calibration was key for addressing dark EOTF tracking on my aging M1 display.
  • You
• To perform fine tune (for MacOS or iPad):
  • Enable reference mode in the target display (required at least temporarily to get a predictable SDR white to test, as well as to use the fine tune calibration):
    • For an XDR computer, switch to the “HDR Video (P3-ST 2084)” preset for MacOS (via the preset dropdown under System Settings / Display).
    • For iPad, just turn on the reference mode toggle as noted above (there are no other options for iPad).
  • If you have previously set a fine tune calibration, reset it before proceeding to test the display.
  • Connect a colorimeter to your computer
    • I recommend Calibrite Display Plus HL colorimeter (which is the only consumer colorimeter supported by Apple for full calibration). These may be used with the included PROFILER software for manual measurement for fine tune.
    • When testing an iPad, you will connect the colorimeter to your computer (required to use the colorimeter), but will point the colorimeter at your iPad instead of the computer’s display.
  • Use Calibrite PROFILER to measure SDR white
    • Go to Utilities / Monitor Quick Check
      • select your Calibrite colorimeter
      • set the dropdown to OLED (M4+ iPad Pro) or mini-LED (all Apple computer displays and gen 5-6 iPad Pro)
      • click “next”.
    • Run the test:
      • At this point, you should see a screen with a target saying to “position calibrator in the circle”. If that’s on the display you are testing, just click next.
      • Otherwise, if you are running PROFILER on a display other than the one you are testing (such as for an iPad), you need to first show an SDR white test patch on the target display. You may open this page on that display and click the “show SDR white test patch” button below to show an SDR white test patch. This is the same target you’d see from the PROFILER software, but gives you a handy way to test a screen that isn’t running that software. Note that I have not bothered creating a 10% window here, as all XDR displays offer full screen brightness vastly exceeding SDR white without dimming (800 nits for iPhone 16e, and 1000 nits for other XDR displays).
    • The luminance and xy values shown here are what you need to enter manually into the Apple Fine-Tune dialog.
  • Open Apple’s fine tune calibration to enter the values you just measured:
    • in MacOS, go to System Settings / Display / Preset dropdown / Calibrate / Fine-tune calibration.
    • on an iPad, you’ll find it next to reference mode.
    • for the left hand target values, type in the values for 100 nits D65 white, which are:
      • luminance: 100 nits
      • x: 0.3127 (click to copy, then cmd-V to paste)
      • y: 0.3290
    • enter the values you measured with PROFILER in the right hand column and click enter.
  • Once you are done,
    • your MacOS computer will be more accurate in all modes – even if you switch back to the default “Pro Display XDR (P3-1600 nits)” preset where you can use the keys to change brightness.
    • your iPad will now be more accurate whenever reference mode is enabled (but it won’t help when reference mode is off)

Show SDR White Test Patch

What could be improved with XDR displays?

Apple has the best HDR displays on the market. They are very accuracy and easy to use. Yet there is always room for improvement and I’d love to see the following:

• The Pro Display XDR is excellent, but beyond the budget of most photographers. The key opportunity would be some kind of prosumer-oriented HDR monitor (ie a 27″ Studio Display updated for serious HDR use). Specs similar to the MacBook Pro (ie 1600 nits / 1000 sustained) would be ideal so there is no compromise when docked.
• I’d gladly welcome a refreshed Pro Display XDR. It’s still arguably the best HDR monitor for photography, but after six years it would be ideal to push the boundaries even further and add features commonly found on premium displays. A webcam, 120Hz refresh rates for smoother scrolling / panning, pass-through Thunderbolt for single-cable laptop connections, increased rec2020 coverage, and a higher zone count / dual-layer LCD / OLED to reduce or eliminate local dimming halos would all be great updates. I’d also love to see 3,200 nits peak to support 5 stops HDR (and get close to 4000 nits video mastering), but I’m not holding my breath there.
• Better mirroring. Even when you connect two identical XDR displays, the one which is not “optimized for” will show degraded results with reduced HDR headroom. This problem affects any display under MacOS, but XDR displays should be much easier to support here.
• An option in custom XDR presets to allow 1600 nits with clipping rather than ABL would be nice. The current design forces you to choose between accuracy and use of the full range. In practice, most content hitting 1600 nits won’t be bright enough across the whole screen to require dimming. It would be ideal to simply clip to something between 1000 (the full screen limit) and 1600 (the peak limit) as required when the display limit is reached for bright content. This would satisfy hardware requirements with less impact to practical capabilities for real use.
• It would be very helpful if the fine tune input had an option to just choose D65 values. These will almost always be the target, and typing manually is both cumbersome and creates risk of user error.
• For those with supported spectros, offer an automated option to measure / implement fine-tune calibration. The manual test setup and typing could be eliminated.
• For pros using “full” calibration, it would be ideal to get a summary of results (ie deltaE values). This is important for any calibration/profiling to confirm success or failure, and eliminates the need for a complex validation tool like DisplayCAL (or CalMAN, which is costly and requires another computer running Windows or a virtual machine).
• Simpler custom XDR preset management. You cannot hide any of the system presets and likely don’t need many of them. There is no simple way to edit an existing preset (or even open it to confirm the settings). And deleting presets is very slow (the screen blacks out for ~15 seconds when you delete any preset, even if it isn’t the one in use).

While some photographers would probably love to see a reference mode on the iPhone, I’m not sure it’s needed nor practical (as phones need to adapt brightness constantly throughout the day).

There will certainly also be photographers who’d love to see the full calibration support extended to colorimeters. However, that’s not a trivial effort given the need for color matching functions for each colorimeter + display pairing. As the potential gains are small, this doesn’t seem like a great use of resources now. This seems like a task better suited to vendors like Calibrite when we have an ICC standard for profiling HDR. I’d rather see Apple invest in things like HDR support on AppleTV, iMessage, and iCloud.

How do these results compare to other options?

Apple has a very solid lead in HDR display capabilities, ease of use, and accuracy. But everyone’s needs are different. Here are some thoughts on the alternatives:

• External monitors:
  • You can also achieve great HDR results with an ASUS ProArt monitor (or a 42″ TV), but setup is required, calibration is likely required (out of the box accuracy is not as high), and there are no reference modes – though ASUS is the only option for Windows, is much cheaper than a Pro Display XDR, and has some other advantages such as pass-through USB support.
  • For SDR-only work, there are great and very popular alternatives to the Studio Display from Eizo and BenQ. But once you dive into HDR, there’s really no going back to SDR – everything else looks flat by comparison.
• Laptops:
  • There are a few very good HDR PC laptops now. But in general, most fall well short of the MacBook Pro’s display. Windows support is also lacking: there are no reference modes, HDR content brightness slider can cause clipping issues, bugs are more common, and pre-installed 3rd-party tools may cause incorrect results.
  • I did limited testing on the Lenovo Yoga, which had very good reference white color balance at 6250K. As CalMAN Client3 cannot generate HDR test patterns for a PC laptop and Windows does not document its EOTF target (which varies under its SDR content brightness slider), I cannot comment on how well it tracks a target EOTF – but I believe most photographers would be very happy with this display’s factory results.
  • The only PC laptop supporting calibration is the new ASUS ProArt P16.
• Tablets: I have yet to see any tablet offering HDR performance remotely similar to the Tandem Stack OLED offered by Apple. The M4+ iPad Pro has the best consumer computing display I have ever seen.
• Phones are generally very accurate and well supported for HDR:
  • Pixel Pro 7+ is outstanding. My Pixel Pro 8 measures 6530K at around 100 nits, very accurate white balance.
  • Samsung S23+ has excellent HDR hardware, but are not supported by the Android version of Adobe Lightroom and has historically had some strange HDR software quirks.

Conclusions

Apple has a commanding lead in HDR with its XDR-branded displays. There is simply nothing else like it for editing and viewing HDR photos on a computer display or tablet (Android phones do well). Both the level of HDR capability and accuracy are unsurpassed. The monitors and laptops run dead silent in normal use. And perhaps most critically, they are so easy to use. With zero effort, you get a great HDR (and SDR) results by default.

Key points:

• There is no need to calibrate / profile these XDR displays for photography.
  • My results met or exceeded typical photography standards with or without full / fine-tune calibration.
  • Even my worst case M1 MBP was within good ranges after fine tune – and approaching excellent if you use the variable brightness mode (or create your own custom XDR preset with an offset to the SDR luminance). Tt still outperforms all HDR displays other than the ASUS ProArt (thanks to its support for hardware calibration). I also suspect this is an outlier and that most XDR displays probably show even less aging.
• If you want to ensure the highest accuracy (especially as your display ages), occasional use of the fine tune calibration is all you need
• Full calibration is unnecessary for photographers. It probably only improves results by 0.5 deltaE (an undetectable change for most photographers).

Side note – what’s the difference between a colorimeter and spectrophotometer?

For those who want to better understand why I’m using such an expensive piece of lab equipment for this testing…

Visible light is a mix of wavelengths. Humans can see from roughly 380 nanometers (violet) to 750 nanometers (red). Unless you are viewing a laser, the color you see is almost always a broad mix of wavelengths. Human vision is based on sensitivity to short, medium and long wavelengths. This isn’t the same as seeing red, green, and blue – but that’s not terribly far off the truth (and is the reason we have RGB monitors).

Each monitor has a unique SPD (“spectral power distribution”). This refers to the overall mix and intensity of specific wavelengths of light the monitor emits to make white. You can see examples below which show how red subpixels in the M1 and M4 MacBook Pros are extremely different. Though a human mostly won’t notice, these differences in SPD from one display to the next are the reason that you will almost never get a perfect match between two different monitors  – even if they are both perfectly calibrated and profiled. You can get close, but it is simply not possible to get every possible color to match when the underlying RGB spectra are not the same.

The graphs above show the wavelengths of light emitted for 100 nits D65 white from the Pro Display XDR (which has a red KSF phospher) vs the M4 MacBook Pro (which changed to quantum dot). Both look like very similar whites to a human, but there is a limit to just how well you can get these two displays to match each other even after calibration or profiling.

We can turn up or down the level of blue, green, or red sub-pixels by changing the voltage. That’s the nature of calibration / profiling – altering the mix of red, green, and blue used to produce a given color.

However, the characteristic shapes are just scaled as we change those voltages. We can make the red sub-pixels in the Pro Display XDR brighter or darker, but they will always have that odd triple peak. The PSD is an inherent property of the hardware. Calibration and profiling can’t change the fact that the Pro Display XDR has a super-peaky red or that the M4’s blue is shifted about 10nm towards wavelengths we see as cyan – but our tools try to do the best they can.

These shapes are the foundation of the monitor’s gamut too – having narrower peaks means more pure colors to increase gamut.

There are several underlying technical reasons for these differences in SPD, such as light source (backlight, OLED emitters), phosphors, color filters, quantum dot films, etc. The results may a function of cost considerations and technical targets. An ideal SPD probably has well defined peaks with minimal overlap for red, green, blue (to produce wider gamut), controls the blue spike (minimize eye strain), etc.

To measure and improve the accuracy of monitors, we have two fundamental types of measurement tools:

• Spectrophotometers
  • These are very expensive devices (typically $2,000 – $50,000), so they are typically only used by serious professionals with a massive budget, certified TV calibrators, scientists, or display manufacturers.
  • These are very accurate and can measure specific wavelengths (with precision down to the 1-4 nanometers being common). In other words, they can see the actual PSD as shown in the graphs above.
  • My CR-250-RH has a a spectral bandwidth of 4 nm (covering the 380 – 780 nm range). This is the minimum performance needed for Apple’s full calibration (for example you cannot use the $2k i1 Pro 3, as it only measures down to 10 nm precision).
  • This is not a device any photographer needs. I purchased one for some very specific reasons. I wanted to educate myself (factory results vs best possible, better understand various HDR display technologies, etc) and to facilitate better reviews of HDR monitors (as I test them frequently and often find color matching functions for colorimeters are missing or unclear even in CalMAN for the display I wish to test). As you’ll see below, it is very easy to use and does improve the accuracy of even Apple’s XDR displays. So if money is truly no object, go for it – but the gains are modest.
• Colorimeters
  • This is a relatively low cost device (often $100-500 for consumer / prosumer grade devices).
  • They most commonly have 3 colored filters to detect light (though they might use 2-10).
  • This makes them relatively analogous to human vision, but their sensitivity to specific wavelengths is different and varies quite a lot from one device to the next.
  • They cannot tell you the PSD of the display, they are don’t have nearly that level of precision. My colorimeter collects 3 data points per color (while my spectro collects 100).
  • As a result, they are only useful when you make some assumptions about the SPD of the display you are testing. That is why you would typically be asked which type of display you are measuring (mini-LED, LCD, OLED, etc).
  • That gets you in a reasonable ballpark, but limits accuracy. My spectro automatically knows the difference between the PSDs for the monitors above and anything else I might test – but my colorimeter can’t tell the difference and the only hint it gets is me choosing the generic “mini-LED” to interpret the data it collects.

You certainly don’t need the accuracy of a spectro for photography, but it’s helpful for making more definitive evaluations of displays like this. Apple’s XDR displays hold up very well under scrutiny with lab-grade measurement tools.