I've seen 70" HDTVs already on the market that are only 1080p which means you have to sit over 9.2' away to get the Retina Display affect so we're already getting to a point where we need a higher resolution in our HDTVs.
How big a market do you think 70" TV screens are though? With the average home size getting smaller rather than bigger, I think most living rooms are going to struggle to make a TV greater than 50" in size fit.
So take the small market of 70"+, then double is resolution (bearing in mind they've only just found the technology to make a retina display slightly smaller than 10"), then provide compatible content for said system... Followed by a fraction of a market where the average profit margin is around 5%... Is this really the way for Apple to go?
Also - Retina makes sense for still graphics, reading crisp text etc. When watching TV and high-speed movement, are you really going to be able to tell a difference? It's going the way of the HD audio debate... I can't imagine someone watching 1080p vs 4K on a 47" TV from a respectable watching distance would be able to tell the difference, unless it was just plain text on a white background. And that sounds like one boring TV programme.
DPI: Dots Per Inch. In printing there are thousands of dots per inch.
PPI: Pixels Per Inch. On screens we use pixels. The new iPad has 264 pixels per inch.
Being a the owner of a printing company I have to disagree with you. 133-150 lip was once the standard. With the newer, laser imaging technology it is possible to achieve 175-200 and even 250 lpi, It is very difficult to print (offset) with a line screen (dpi) higher than 300 lpi. When printing with an inkjet process it is possible to achieve much higher but that is achieved using an FM (stochastic screening) process.
Any higher than 300 dpi/lpi, the size of a 1 or 2% image dot would be smaller than the surface grain (texture) of an aluminum printing plate and would, therefore, not even print.
So i guess this is how Apple wants to differentiate themselves from PC world. I really don't understand the retina on a mac, though. You're sitting far away that you don't see pixels. Isn't it retina already?
At nearly two feet away from my 20-inch Cinema Display, I can still clearly make out pixels. On a larger 27-inch iMac at a similar distance, they are also noticeable.
Still, your summation is incomplete as there are practical reasons for an increase in resolution. Not only does it allow new levels of video and gaming to take place, it also enhances UI elements, allowing more real estate for timelines, window or object management/layout and easier manipulation of 3D graphics and 2D images.
How big a market do you think 70" TV screens are though? With the average home size getting smaller rather than bigger, I think most living rooms are going to struggle to make a TV greater than 50" in size fit.
So take the small market of 70"+, then double is resolution (bearing in mind they've only just found the technology to make a retina display slightly smaller than 10"), then provide compatible content for said system... Followed by a fraction of a market where the average profit margin is around 5%... Is this really the way for Apple to go?
Also - Retina makes sense for still graphics, reading crisp text etc. When watching TV and high-speed movement, are you really going to be able to tell a difference? It's going the way of the HD audio debate... I can't imagine someone watching 1080p vs 4K on a 47" TV from a respectable watching distance would be able to tell the difference, unless it was just plain text on a white background. And that sounds like one boring TV programme.
The future of entertainment will be advanced 3D projection methods, not box viewing.
As I recall, there was some difficulty with the ability to manufacture the retina display as "large" as the ipad screen. That's probably why iPad 2 didn't have it, even after all the speculation that it would. I can imagine that high a resolution built by replicating that small a pixel perfectly over a large area is difficult to extrapolate to the format of, say, an iMac and maintain the necessary uniformity and quality control across the entire screen.
Now imagine if perfecting a mass manufacturing process to move the retina screen from the iPhone to the size of an iPad was difficult, how much more difficult it will be to duplicate that process for a 24"-27" screen of an iMac.
Then imagine the leap of difficulty in creating a mass manufacturing process to create a 42 or 50 inch retina display for a typically sized large screen TV that people are now use to. I can imagine that would make for a TV with a whopping big price-tag until the process is perfected.
Sounds like an expensive engineering/manufacturing issue to solve. I wonder where Apple will get that kind of money for R&D. You're spot-on.
Getting to the point that they have to upgrade all the other iMac pieces to make it worthwhile. Would you upgrade your iMac just for a display? "Web surfing" is clearly adequate with any model, and the parts are all just great. How many of us have external HDs and all they really need is a thunderbolt/usb3/esata, and a retina display? ("need" being relative, of course..)
Some folks were content with black & white televisions. I'd say the overall marketplace spoke much louder than this complacent few.
Generic PC makers will continue to market outdated tech for those who are happy with "adequate".
I never thought of this before - the whole maximum resolution for an eye thing - it's really interesting. I'm kind of confused by your logic though. You're basically saying that 27" is the biggest monitor you could use at a 20" distance? Experimenting with my monitors, I can focus on any point on a 114 deg horizontal range and 104 deg vertical range without moving my neck - remarkably close to Wikipedia's 120 and 100 respectively. At 20" distance that works out to a monitor that's 69.3" wide and 47.7" tall. Obviously that's a bit ridiculous but you could definitely go larger than 27".
Also interesting is that the human field of vision has a 16:11 aspect ratio, not 16:9. I wonder if at some point in the distant future we'll see a shift in monitor aspect ratio...
Slightly off topic but again interesting, the resolution of the average human eye is 7200x6000, but this doesn't map directly to a monitor because the eye is spherical and a monitor is planar. The difference is really important as you start to get into peripheral vision.
Some folks were content with black & white televisions. I'd say the overall marketplace spoke much louder than this complacent few.
Generic PC makers will continue to market outdated tech for those who are happy with "adequate".
If I recall correctly Sony was slate comer to the color TV market because the color sets, hike having the benefit of colour for the few shows at the time that were filmed in it, we're of poor quality that Sony decided to wait until the technology was available that made it viable for their quality product line. That sounds a lot like Apple and the Sony Steve Jobs admired.
If I recall correctly Sony was slate comer to the color TV market because the color sets, hike having the benefit of colour for the few shows at the time that were filmed in it, we're of poor quality that Sony decided to wait until the technology was available that made it viable for their quality product line. That sounds a lot like Apple and the Sony Steve Jobs admired.
I am sure you're correct in that regard, but some of the insinuations on this thread seem to skew toward, "I'm content, why make things better, ever?"
It does seem to me that Apple has been putting an ever increasing emphasis on display tech over the last few years as well, so we may see them accelerate things in this sector, if only to leverage 4k content for a future TV set. Otherwise, with the amount of cash holdings they have, there is no reason for them to not be more aggressive if the product is indeed as great as it should be, is there?
Yes and no. If we're just talking about pixels that the human eye can discern (assuming 20/20 or 6/6 vision) and ignoring everything else then going far past Retina Display quality is pointless. However, it's my understanding there are more factors to consider than just that one metric, especially when it comes to video. As we know video is just a series of still photos that trick the eye into perceiving motion.
There is also the issue of size. Today's HDTVs are getting large enough that at a normal viewing distance they are no longer considered Retina Display. 46" at 6' just makes the cut but how many who are thinking about buying a new HDTV are considering sizes much larger than that? How about in a couple years?
A 3840x2160p (2k) HDTV at 56" has a PPI of 79. That would mean it would be Retina Display quality at 3.6'. In 5 years will 56" be somewhat small? If that's an 80" HDTV then the PPI is only 55. That means you've have to sit more than 5' away to be considered Retina Display quality.
I've seen 70" HDTVs already on the market that are only 1080p which means you have to sit over 9.2' away to get the Retina Display affect so we're already getting to a point where we need a higher resolution in our HDTVs.
Equation: 1 ÷ (x ÷ 3438) = y, where x is the PPI and y is the minimum distance in inches you have to be from the display.
You're right, and there's also the matter of IMAX (or IMAX-esque) aspect ratios, which personally, I would love to be able to enjoy at home.
It does seem to me that Apple has been putting an ever increasing emphasis on display tech over the last few years as well, so we may see them accelerate things in this sector, if only to leverage 4k content for a future TV set. Otherwise, with the amount of cash holdings they have, there is no reason for them to not be more aggressive if the product is indeed as great as it should be, is there?
I made a bet in 2010 or 2011 that Apple would release Macs with HiDPI displays by Summer 2012. It's looking like I may win that bet.
MS has has a quasi-resolution independence set up since at least WinNT. It's better than what Apple had but we still haven't seen any true HiDPI displays coming from consumer based PCs. It's unfortunate that the whole industry has to wait for Apple to act before it responds.
We've been stuck at about 110 PPI for standard displays and 130 PPI for HiRes for way too long. I don't expect an exact doubling like with iOS-based devices but I do exact a significantly higher PPI for the MBPs by Summer. I hope I'm correct, and not just because of my bet.
I made a bet in 2010 or 2011 that Apple would release Macs with HiDPI displays by Summer 2012. It's looking like I may win that bet.
MS has has a quasi-resolution independence set up since at least WinNT. It's better than what Apple had but we still haven't seen any true HiDPI displays coming from consumer based PCs. It's unfortunate that the whole industry has to wait for Apple to act before it responds.
We've been stuck at about 110 PPI for standard displays and 130 PPI for HiRes for way too long. I don't expect an exact doubling like with iOS-based devices but I do exact a significantly higher PPI for the MBPs by Summer. I hope I'm correct, and not just because of my bet.
Well, Apple has little reason to invest much in the way of OS level software engineering until the hardware scale of economy is profitable. That's what Retina Display for iOS devices is all about.
Well, Apple has little reason to invest much in the way of OS level software engineering until the hardware scale of economy is profitable. That's what Retina Display for iOS devices is all about.
If my hypothesis is correct Apple will be focusing on Macs heavily in 2012 and 2013. I think they see MS's effort with Metro as undesirable and will using their leverage of HW expertise and iOS familiarity to focus on pushing Mac sales in a way we've never seen. I see an opportunity for Apple to exploit.
I wouldnt be surprised to see a new Mac campaign arriving with the new MBPs.
again, narrow the gap between the mobile iOS software and OS X.Mountain Lion brings Messages, Notifications, Reminders and a baked-in Twitter client a la iOS 5.The consumer version of the OS is likely to go on sale this summer, with a new range of MacBooks likely to be in tow. Will they be Retina-ready? The odds are looking good
Comments
I've seen 70" HDTVs already on the market that are only 1080p which means you have to sit over 9.2' away to get the Retina Display affect so we're already getting to a point where we need a higher resolution in our HDTVs.
How big a market do you think 70" TV screens are though? With the average home size getting smaller rather than bigger, I think most living rooms are going to struggle to make a TV greater than 50" in size fit.
So take the small market of 70"+, then double is resolution (bearing in mind they've only just found the technology to make a retina display slightly smaller than 10"), then provide compatible content for said system... Followed by a fraction of a market where the average profit margin is around 5%... Is this really the way for Apple to go?
Also - Retina makes sense for still graphics, reading crisp text etc. When watching TV and high-speed movement, are you really going to be able to tell a difference? It's going the way of the HD audio debate... I can't imagine someone watching 1080p vs 4K on a 47" TV from a respectable watching distance would be able to tell the difference, unless it was just plain text on a white background. And that sounds like one boring TV programme.
I don't know if they make a house under 3k square feet anymore in Collin county.
These terms are often mistaken for each other.
DPI: Dots Per Inch. In printing there are thousands of dots per inch.
PPI: Pixels Per Inch. On screens we use pixels. The new iPad has 264 pixels per inch.
I assume you mean PPI, not DPI?
These terms are often mistaken for each other.
DPI: Dots Per Inch. In printing there are thousands of dots per inch.
PPI: Pixels Per Inch. On screens we use pixels. The new iPad has 264 pixels per inch.
Being a the owner of a printing company I have to disagree with you. 133-150 lip was once the standard. With the newer, laser imaging technology it is possible to achieve 175-200 and even 250 lpi, It is very difficult to print (offset) with a line screen (dpi) higher than 300 lpi. When printing with an inkjet process it is possible to achieve much higher but that is achieved using an FM (stochastic screening) process.
Any higher than 300 dpi/lpi, the size of a 1 or 2% image dot would be smaller than the surface grain (texture) of an aluminum printing plate and would, therefore, not even print.
So i guess this is how Apple wants to differentiate themselves from PC world. I really don't understand the retina on a mac, though. You're sitting far away that you don't see pixels. Isn't it retina already?
At nearly two feet away from my 20-inch Cinema Display, I can still clearly make out pixels. On a larger 27-inch iMac at a similar distance, they are also noticeable.
Still, your summation is incomplete as there are practical reasons for an increase in resolution. Not only does it allow new levels of video and gaming to take place, it also enhances UI elements, allowing more real estate for timelines, window or object management/layout and easier manipulation of 3D graphics and 2D images.
How big a market do you think 70" TV screens are though? With the average home size getting smaller rather than bigger, I think most living rooms are going to struggle to make a TV greater than 50" in size fit.
So take the small market of 70"+, then double is resolution (bearing in mind they've only just found the technology to make a retina display slightly smaller than 10"), then provide compatible content for said system... Followed by a fraction of a market where the average profit margin is around 5%... Is this really the way for Apple to go?
Also - Retina makes sense for still graphics, reading crisp text etc. When watching TV and high-speed movement, are you really going to be able to tell a difference? It's going the way of the HD audio debate... I can't imagine someone watching 1080p vs 4K on a 47" TV from a respectable watching distance would be able to tell the difference, unless it was just plain text on a white background. And that sounds like one boring TV programme.
The future of entertainment will be advanced 3D projection methods, not box viewing.
I'm starting to think a Retina display is how Apple plans to 'resolutionize' the TV market.
Although I'm not sure how they would get the jump on Sharp and LG with that, since those companies are also Apple's screen suppliers.
iTunes + iPod
I mean, App Store + TV
As I recall, there was some difficulty with the ability to manufacture the retina display as "large" as the ipad screen. That's probably why iPad 2 didn't have it, even after all the speculation that it would. I can imagine that high a resolution built by replicating that small a pixel perfectly over a large area is difficult to extrapolate to the format of, say, an iMac and maintain the necessary uniformity and quality control across the entire screen.
Now imagine if perfecting a mass manufacturing process to move the retina screen from the iPhone to the size of an iPad was difficult, how much more difficult it will be to duplicate that process for a 24"-27" screen of an iMac.
Then imagine the leap of difficulty in creating a mass manufacturing process to create a 42 or 50 inch retina display for a typically sized large screen TV that people are now use to. I can imagine that would make for a TV with a whopping big price-tag until the process is perfected.
Sounds like an expensive engineering/manufacturing issue to solve. I wonder where Apple will get that kind of money for R&D. You're spot-on.
Getting to the point that they have to upgrade all the other iMac pieces to make it worthwhile. Would you upgrade your iMac just for a display? "Web surfing" is clearly adequate with any model, and the parts are all just great. How many of us have external HDs and all they really need is a thunderbolt/usb3/esata, and a retina display? ("need" being relative, of course..)
Some folks were content with black & white televisions. I'd say the overall marketplace spoke much louder than this complacent few.
Generic PC makers will continue to market outdated tech for those who are happy with "adequate".
I never thought of this before - the whole maximum resolution for an eye thing - it's really interesting. I'm kind of confused by your logic though. You're basically saying that 27" is the biggest monitor you could use at a 20" distance? Experimenting with my monitors, I can focus on any point on a 114 deg horizontal range and 104 deg vertical range without moving my neck - remarkably close to Wikipedia's 120 and 100 respectively. At 20" distance that works out to a monitor that's 69.3" wide and 47.7" tall. Obviously that's a bit ridiculous but you could definitely go larger than 27".
Also interesting is that the human field of vision has a 16:11 aspect ratio, not 16:9. I wonder if at some point in the distant future we'll see a shift in monitor aspect ratio...
Slightly off topic but again interesting, the resolution of the average human eye is 7200x6000, but this doesn't map directly to a monitor because the eye is spherical and a monitor is planar. The difference is really important as you start to get into peripheral vision.
I like the way you think, sir.
Some folks were content with black & white televisions. I'd say the overall marketplace spoke much louder than this complacent few.
Generic PC makers will continue to market outdated tech for those who are happy with "adequate".
If I recall correctly Sony was slate comer to the color TV market because the color sets, hike having the benefit of colour for the few shows at the time that were filmed in it, we're of poor quality that Sony decided to wait until the technology was available that made it viable for their quality product line. That sounds a lot like Apple and the Sony Steve Jobs admired.
If I recall correctly Sony was slate comer to the color TV market because the color sets, hike having the benefit of colour for the few shows at the time that were filmed in it, we're of poor quality that Sony decided to wait until the technology was available that made it viable for their quality product line. That sounds a lot like Apple and the Sony Steve Jobs admired.
I am sure you're correct in that regard, but some of the insinuations on this thread seem to skew toward, "I'm content, why make things better, ever?"
It does seem to me that Apple has been putting an ever increasing emphasis on display tech over the last few years as well, so we may see them accelerate things in this sector, if only to leverage 4k content for a future TV set. Otherwise, with the amount of cash holdings they have, there is no reason for them to not be more aggressive if the product is indeed as great as it should be, is there?
I am sure you're correct in that regard, but some of the insinuations on this thread seem to skew toward, "I'm content, why make things better, ever?"
Sure, I'm all about progress.
Sure, I'm all about progress.
I know. You're probably my favorite user on this forum. Also, I edited my previous post.
Yes and no. If we're just talking about pixels that the human eye can discern (assuming 20/20 or 6/6 vision) and ignoring everything else then going far past Retina Display quality is pointless. However, it's my understanding there are more factors to consider than just that one metric, especially when it comes to video. As we know video is just a series of still photos that trick the eye into perceiving motion.
There is also the issue of size. Today's HDTVs are getting large enough that at a normal viewing distance they are no longer considered Retina Display. 46" at 6' just makes the cut but how many who are thinking about buying a new HDTV are considering sizes much larger than that? How about in a couple years?
A 3840x2160p (2k) HDTV at 56" has a PPI of 79. That would mean it would be Retina Display quality at 3.6'. In 5 years will 56" be somewhat small? If that's an 80" HDTV then the PPI is only 55. That means you've have to sit more than 5' away to be considered Retina Display quality.
I've seen 70" HDTVs already on the market that are only 1080p which means you have to sit over 9.2' away to get the Retina Display affect so we're already getting to a point where we need a higher resolution in our HDTVs.
Equation: 1 ÷ (x ÷ 3438) = y, where x is the PPI and y is the minimum distance in inches you have to be from the display.
You're right, and there's also the matter of IMAX (or IMAX-esque) aspect ratios, which personally, I would love to be able to enjoy at home.
It does seem to me that Apple has been putting an ever increasing emphasis on display tech over the last few years as well, so we may see them accelerate things in this sector, if only to leverage 4k content for a future TV set. Otherwise, with the amount of cash holdings they have, there is no reason for them to not be more aggressive if the product is indeed as great as it should be, is there?
I made a bet in 2010 or 2011 that Apple would release Macs with HiDPI displays by Summer 2012. It's looking like I may win that bet.
MS has has a quasi-resolution independence set up since at least WinNT. It's better than what Apple had but we still haven't seen any true HiDPI displays coming from consumer based PCs. It's unfortunate that the whole industry has to wait for Apple to act before it responds.
We've been stuck at about 110 PPI for standard displays and 130 PPI for HiRes for way too long. I don't expect an exact doubling like with iOS-based devices but I do exact a significantly higher PPI for the MBPs by Summer. I hope I'm correct, and not just because of my bet.
I made a bet in 2010 or 2011 that Apple would release Macs with HiDPI displays by Summer 2012. It's looking like I may win that bet.
MS has has a quasi-resolution independence set up since at least WinNT. It's better than what Apple had but we still haven't seen any true HiDPI displays coming from consumer based PCs. It's unfortunate that the whole industry has to wait for Apple to act before it responds.
We've been stuck at about 110 PPI for standard displays and 130 PPI for HiRes for way too long. I don't expect an exact doubling like with iOS-based devices but I do exact a significantly higher PPI for the MBPs by Summer. I hope I'm correct, and not just because of my bet.
Well, Apple has little reason to invest much in the way of OS level software engineering until the hardware scale of economy is profitable. That's what Retina Display for iOS devices is all about.
Well, Apple has little reason to invest much in the way of OS level software engineering until the hardware scale of economy is profitable. That's what Retina Display for iOS devices is all about.
If my hypothesis is correct Apple will be focusing on Macs heavily in 2012 and 2013. I think they see MS's effort with Metro as undesirable and will using their leverage of HW expertise and iOS familiarity to focus on pushing Mac sales in a way we've never seen. I see an opportunity for Apple to exploit.
I wouldnt be surprised to see a new Mac campaign arriving with the new MBPs.