or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple rumored to launch 2880x1800 Retina Display MacBook Pro in Q2 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rumored to launch 2880x1800 Retina Display MacBook Pro in Q2 2012

post #1 of 105
Thread Starter 
Apple is rumored to be preparing a new MacBook Pro for launch in the second quarter of 2012 with a Retina Display resolution of 2,880 by 1,800 pixels.

Citing sources in Apple's upstream supply chain, DigiTimes reported on Wednesday that Apple's new Retina Display MacBook Pro lineup is expected to set off "a new round of competition for panel specifications in the notebook industry." A resolution of 2,880 by 1,800 would be exactly twice that of the 1,440-by-900 display currently found on the 15-inch MacBook Pro.

"While the prevailing MacBook Models have display resolutions from 1680 by 1050 to 1280 by 800, the ultra-high resolution for the new MacBook Pro will further differentiate Apple's products from other brands," the report said.

Only the 2,880-by-1,800 display was specifically cited in the report in reference to a new MacBook Pro "lineup." Given that Apple's different MacBook Pro screen sizes sport different resolutions, it's likely that the 13- and 17-inch models would sport double-pixel resolutions of 2,560 by 1600 and 3,840 by 2,400, respectively.

Rumors of Retina Display MacBook Pros from Apple in 2012 have reportedly already spurred the competition to work on their own higher resolution displays for notebooks. Acer and Asustek are said to be preparing high-end Ultrabook models with display resolutions of 1,920 by 1,080, an improvement from the 1,366-by-768-pixel displays found on current models.



More evidence of Macs potentially gaining Retina Displays came in September, when Intel revealed that its next-generation Ivy Bridge processors will support the 4K display resolution, at up to 4,096 by 4,096 pixels per monitor. A 4K resolution with a 16-by-9 ratio would be screen resolution of 4,096 by 2,304, or a pixel density of 174 pixels-per-inch.

Apple introduced its Retina Display branding with the iPhone 4 in 2010, featuring a resolution of 960 by 640, packing 326 pixels-per-inch. Recent reports have suggested that Apple also plans to increase the resolution of its next-generation iPad in early 2012.
post #2 of 105
This would certainly be a good way to distinguish the "pro" models from the air models.
post #3 of 105
They're going to have to, if they want the MBP's to remain relevant as iPads and other iOS devices go retina.

It would be silly for somebody to buy an expensive MBP that has a much worse screen than somebody else buying a much cheaper iPad.

Display resolutions have long been stagnant and it's about time that displays begin to catch up to the other improvements in technology that has been happening for a long time now. CPU's and GPU's can handle it no problem, so bring it on!

When I take a picture with my digital camera, I want to see every pixel on the screen, something that is not possible today. I want everything to look sharper and better. I want to cram more stuff onto my desktop.
post #4 of 105
Unless Apple makes it possible to increase the size of the text in menus, the retina displays will be hard to use for many. Even now, the high resolution displays in the 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros have menu text that is too small for some people.
post #5 of 105
A high-res 17" model would be very popular I think. It would make that laptop even more of a "portable desktop" than it already is.
post #6 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

Unless Apple makes it possible to increase the size of the text in menus, the retina displays will be hard to use for many. Even now, the high resolution displays in the 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros have menu text that is too small for some people.

So true (for me at last!)
Impossible to use even higher res on a 17" screen! Maybe time to do something with a vector based resolution independent interface? (PLEASE!)
post #7 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

Unless Apple makes it possible to increase the size of the text in menus, the retina displays will be hard to use for many. Even now, the high resolution displays in the 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros have menu text that is too small for some people.


You are working on the assumption that text size has to shrink. iPhone4/4S (Retina) and iPhone3G/3GS have the same menu/text size, but the iPhone4/4S series have much higher resolution. This is because they decreased dot pitch -- the screen pixels are closer together -- that's where the extra resolution is going.

This is the same reason big 17" 'laptop hunter' screens are so poor quality. The screen size is larger, but the manufactures kept the resolution the same by increasing dot pitch.
/which explains why your pr0n is all dotty.



This is AWESOME. I've been waiting for a Retina display laptop since I first experienced it on iPhone4. I. AM. STOKED. Go Apple!
post #8 of 105
...actually sounds like July 4th, but...

a 17" MacBook Pro with 3840x2400 (or even better 4096x2400) display
dual Thunderbolt
quad-core Ivy Bridge with Intel's HD 4000 + a nice top-of-the-line nVidia discrete GPU
512GB SSD, 16GB RAM
No optical drive (in lieu of bigger battery)...give me a real 8 hours
3 USB 2.0 ports
4 pounds

$2999

I will pre-order that today, and I'll take an updated 11" Air with Ivy Bridge, 8MB RAM and a 512GB SSD on the side to replace my current Air for travel time.

It's nice to have a camera with 8MP (and some have 23MP or higher). It's even nicer to be able to edit those high-res pictures or even (gasp!) RED video on a laptop with no scaling.
post #9 of 105
An iTunes SD movie would look kinda silly playing at it's native size. Even a 720p won't be so great. But there were rumors a while back that Apple were negotiating with the studios for 1080p.
post #10 of 105
After flirting with the implementation of resolution independence several years ago, Apple allowed this ability to decouple the size of displayed items from the underlying pixel density to languish mostly unused in OS X. But as pointed out above by Srice, iOS takes this in its stride (at least for predefined display density multiples).

If Apple is to introduce very high density displays then it will have to get real with Mac resolution independence support. Frankly that would be welcome even for those of us not using high density displays.
post #11 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Srice View Post

You are working on the assumption that text size has to shrink. iPhone4/4S (Retina) and iPhone3G/3GS have the same menu/text size, but the iPhone4/4S series have much higher resolution. This is because they decreased dot pitch density -- the screen pixels are closer together -- that's where the extra resolution is going.

This is the same reason big 17" 'laptop hunter' screens are so poor quality. The screen size is larger, but the manufactures kept the resolution the same by increasing dot pitch.
/which explains why your pr0n is all dotty.



This is AWESOME. I've been waiting for a Retina display laptop since I first experienced it on iPhone4. I. AM. STOKED. Go Apple!

Well explained. This complaint always comes up and so many fail to grasp this.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #12 of 105
Just to show the math here, the highest density will be on the 17" screen w/the proposed resolutions. This is assuming the screen sizes remain exactly as they are currently.

13.3" 2560x1600 226.98
15.4" 2880x1800 220.53
17" 3840x2400 266.37

EDIT: If they cut off the fractional inches and go with 13 and 15" screens, here is the difference in PPI:

13" 2560x1600 232.22
15" 2880x1800 226.42
post #13 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Srice View Post

This is the same reason big 17" 'laptop hunter' screens are so poor quality. The screen size is larger, but the manufactures kept the resolution the same by increasing dot pitch.
/which explains why your pr0n is all dotty.

Or they'll keep a nice high-resolution but sacrifice picture quality. Just look at the Asus Ultrabook - big res in a 13" screen but the contrast, colour reproduction, brightness, black-levels (pretty much everything) is 1/6th of the MacBook Air and 1/10th of the MacBook Pros.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #14 of 105
i can't help but to think battery life is going to suffer big time from an upgrade like this. I hope i am wrong....
post #15 of 105
I wish they would sort out some more serious issues before introducing new ones. The viewing angle on my Macbook Pro is atrocious for a supposedly hi-end laptop. With the horribly reflective screen, tilting it to where the reflections are not blinding, means the screen still looks awful because of the now less than optimum angle.

If Samsung introduce a laptop with good build quality and a super AMOLED screen, I think I will go Hackintosh as I am not happy with the low quality/high price Apple delivers.
post #16 of 105
Why doesn't Apple bring a 19 or 20" MacBook Pro? That would the ultimate desktop replacement.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #17 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

They're going to have to, if they want the MBP's to remain relevant as iPads and other iOS devices go retina.

Abject nonsense.

Quote:
It would be silly for somebody to buy an expensive MBP that has a much worse screen than somebody else buying a much cheaper iPad.

"So… why shouldn't I buy this computer?"

"The iPad has a better screen!"

"How much more powerful is the iPad than this computer?"

"It's a couple orders of magnitude less powerful, actually."

"… I'm buying the computer. You're a moron."

Quote:
CPU's and GPU's can handle it no problem, so bring it on!

We don't actually know that.

Quote:
When I take a picture with my digital camera, I want to see every pixel on the screen,

Why? There's no point jamming a gorgeous landscape into a 15" screen. I'd rather be able to project it onto a wall–the image growing to 15'x15'-at these retina resolutions.

Now THAT'S…

Quote:
…something that is not possible today…

… by consumer standards.

Quote:
I want to cram more stuff on my desktop.

That won't be happening. Resolution independence will see to that.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #18 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I wish they would sort out some more serious issues before introducing new ones. The viewing angle on my Macbook Pro is atrocious for a supposedly hi-end laptop. With the horribly reflective screen, tilting it to where the reflections are not blinding, means the screen still looks awful because of the now less than optimum angle.

If Samsung introduce a laptop with good build quality and a super AMOLED screen, I think I will go Hackintosh as I am not happy with the low quality/high price Apple delivers.

Ludicrous.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #19 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Ludicrous.

I think he's just making a joke without a sarcasm tag.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #20 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I wish they would sort out some more serious issues before introducing new ones. The viewing angle on my Macbook Pro is atrocious for a supposedly hi-end laptop. With the horribly reflective screen, tilting it to where the reflections are not blinding, means the screen still looks awful because of the now less than optimum angle.

If Samsung introduce a laptop with good build quality and a super AMOLED screen, I think I will go Hackintosh as I am not happy with the low quality/high price Apple delivers.

if you truly believe in what you wrote (you are mistaken or blind. maybe both, but whatever..) what are you doing here/waiting?
post #21 of 105
better display is always fun... you cant lose
post #22 of 105
Just some thoughts.

1. There was supposedly not enough capacity to produce retina displays for iPad 2, so where will all these millions of big panels be coming from? Who will make them? Surely Apple will use as much capacity as they can muster to supply the iPad3 first.

2. I don't believe current graphic cards can handle that much resolution efficiently (maybe I'm wrong). Ones that could would surely be expensive and drain lots of power, along with the power drain the extra pixels would draw.

3. The rumor sites are having a hard time coming up with rumors, so they're really clutching for straws.

Maybe I'm wrong about all that. I hope so, since I too would love to own such as beast.
post #23 of 105
While I'd appreciate a higher resolution on my current 13" MBP (1280x800 leaves a lot to be desired), I don't understand the logic in a retina display on such a monitor. With the iphone and ipad, we are likely much closer in viewing distance. 2560x1600 is the res of my 30" monitor at home. At a proper seated/working distance the pitch is fine and it's plenty clear. If you were to pack all of that into a 13" display, I'd go bonkers trying to utilize it and I doubt it would yield an increase in clarity I would appreciate.
post #24 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twelve View Post

...actually sounds like July 4th, but...

a 17" MacBook Pro with 3840x2400 (or even better 4096x2400) display
dual Thunderbolt
quad-core Ivy Bridge with Intel's HD 4000 + a nice top-of-the-line nVidia discrete GPU
512GB SSD, 16GB RAM
No optical drive (in lieu of bigger battery)...give me a real 8 hours
3 USB 2.0 ports
4 pounds

$2999

I will pre-order that today, and I'll take an updated 11" Air with Ivy Bridge, 8MB RAM and a 512GB SSD on the side to replace my current Air for travel time.

It's nice to have a camera with 8MP (and some have 23MP or higher). It's even nicer to be able to edit those high-res pictures or even (gasp!) RED video on a laptop with no scaling.

I think you're overly optimistic on several items - particularly the weight and price. That display probably wouldn't be cheap - and I don't expect SSD to drop all that much in price before next summer.

And wouldn't you like a little more RAM in your MacBook Air?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #25 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovejoyOne View Post

3. The rumor sites are having a hard time coming up with rumors, so they're really clutching for straws.

Yeah, the HDTV nonsense has run its course, so they're on to the next big thing.

Why aren't they just going back to their old standbys, I wonder? Those iPhone nano rumors aren't going to disseminate themselves! That's only because they're also crap, but you have to start somewhere.

Not that I don't believe this will happen, of course. This has been half a decade coming. The timeframe now just doesn't seem right, particularly with no indications from the panel manufacturers themselves that they're even trying to make higher-resolution displays.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #26 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretzelburg View Post

So true (for me at last!)
Impossible to use even higher res on a 17" screen! Maybe time to do something with a vector based – resolution independent –interface? (PLEASE!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM View Post

After flirting with the implementation of resolution independence several years ago, Apple allowed this ability to decouple the size of displayed items from the underlying pixel density to languish mostly unused in OS X. But as pointed out above by Srice, iOS takes this in its stride (at least for predefined display density multiples).

If Apple is to introduce very high density displays then it will have to get real with Mac resolution independence support. Frankly that would be welcome even for those of us not using high density displays.

You guys must have forgotten HiDPI in Lion , Apple is no longer going resolution independence but rather 2x modes just like the iOS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

i can't help but to think battery life is going to suffer big time from an upgrade like this. I hope i am wrong....

How did the battery life go from iPad 1 to iPad 2? You can use that as guideline I guess. EDIT: I meant iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4, but yes, the bigger the screen the more likely it's going to impact battery life.
post #27 of 105
I have been waiting for decades now for screens to catch up to printed text quality. iPhone screen is such a tantalizing and taunting experience. Once you use it, you want all your screens to be this good.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #28 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgbwnet View Post

How did the battery life go from iPad 1 to iPad 2? You can use that as guideline I guess.

I disagree here. There was no 4X increase in pixels between the iPad 1 and iPad 2.
post #29 of 105
I'd rather see an IPS panel first rather than an increase in resolution
post #30 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

They're going to have to, if they want the MBP's to remain relevant as iPads and other iOS devices go retina.

You're assuming the retina display iPad will be a commodity item priced like the current models and not higher end product/true laptop replacement/overpriced status symbol.
post #31 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

They're going to have to, if they want the MBP's to remain relevant as iPads and other iOS devices go retina.

Who says that the iPad is ever going to go Retina.

The point of the whole RD thing on the iPhone was to have super sharp visuals to offset the tiny screen that would cause folks to zoom in to text etc. THe iPad doesn't have that issue and neither do the computers.

Oh and I'm fairly sure that that graphic is a bit off and isn't showing what the caption claims at all.

Not to mention that there's not wide scale 1080p video out on the market, Apple isn't rumored to be adding Blu-ray to their machines and there's pretty much no 4000p video to support. So this rumor is total nonsensical.
post #32 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

While I'd appreciate a higher resolution on my current 13" MBP (1280x800 leaves a lot to be desired), I don't understand the logic in a retina display on such a monitor. With the iphone and ipad, we are likely much closer in viewing distance. 2560x1600 is the res of my 30" monitor at home. At a proper seated/working distance the pitch is fine and it's plenty clear. If you were to pack all of that into a 13" display, I'd go bonkers trying to utilize it and I doubt it would yield an increase in clarity I would appreciate.

Whether it's next year or not, it's going to happen. Apple has tried to offer true vector display resolution since at least Tiger or Leopard they even listed it as a feature of the upcoming OS early on before removing it but that didn't pan out. Now they are going with resolution doubling so they can represent each pixel by 4 like on the iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4.

That much I'm sure we all know but did you know that Lion has HiDPI display modes included in the OS so it shouldn't be completely unexpected that Apple is planning on upgrading the Mac display HW within Lion's lifetime. OF course, this still could be in the early stages within the OS or there could be HW issues like production yields, cost, graphic performance, power usage, et al. that could continue to push it back. Personally I'm betting on this rumour being true.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #33 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Who says that the iPad is ever going to go Retina.

The point of the whole RD thing on the iPhone was to have super sharp visuals to offset the tiny screen that would cause folks to zoom in to text etc. THe iPad doesn't have that issue and neither do the computers.

Sure it does. The iPad doesn't have nearly the text crispness as the iPhone 4/4S. This display will get double the resolution so it will be 264ppi and be Retina Display quality from a standard usable position.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #34 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Abject nonsense.

We shall see. Times are a changing. Back in the old days, people would buy new laptops because CPU's were generally weak and people were always looking for more power, so a new model that was a little more powerful was a good enough incentive for people to ditch their two year old Powerbook and get a new one, because people were desperately needing more power. I know that I was back then.

Today, for the average person, processor power has reached a point were it's not really necessary to keep upgrading as often, as the power is already adequate for most tasks. For most people, the power of the lowest Macbook AIr is good enough for them, for people just looking to do everyday tasks.

CPU power is not a selling point for me anymore. I need some new exciting feature that is going to make me lust after a new Macbook Pro.
post #35 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretzelburg View Post

Maybe time to do something with a vector based – resolution independent –interface? (PLEASE!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM View Post

After flirting with the implementation of resolution independence several years ago, Apple allowed this ability to decouple the size of displayed items from the underlying pixel density to languish mostly unused in OS X. But as pointed out above by Srice, iOS takes this in its stride (at least for predefined display density multiples).

For how many years has Apple said "Resolution Independence is coming"? They had rudimentary support for this all the way back in Tiger, if I remember correctly. What's happened since then? We've gone backwards. Leopard was close, but Snow Leopard actually regressed. Scroll down to the Resolution Independence section and you'll see what I mean.

Arbitrary scalability is gone in Lion (HiDPi only supports 2x and 4x resolutions), but the mechanism to change this is still buried in the Developer Tools. This probably means it's not finished, but compared to some of the other technical issues they've solved, this one is EASY.

It's just depressing...
post #36 of 105
One big downside of this will be games running at 2fps... or having to run them at a non-native resolution which will mean blurry graphics. With these uber-high resolution displays, the trick is to be able to run at a high resolution for desktop work, but drop down to a much lower resolution for gaming without losing image quality compared to a native display at that resolution.

Even on 1680*1050, the laptop GPUs struggle with older games.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #37 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I wish they would sort out some more serious issues before introducing new ones. The viewing angle on my Macbook Pro is atrocious for a supposedly hi-end laptop. With the horribly reflective screen, tilting it to where the reflections are not blinding, means the screen still looks awful because of the now less than optimum angle.

If Samsung introduce a laptop with good build quality and a super AMOLED screen, I think I will go Hackintosh as I am not happy with the low quality/high price Apple delivers.

Hilarious!

You start off writing as if you want us to believe you know something about screen quality then you recommend an AMOLED screen instead? Very funny.

Apple usually has the best quality screens in the business and always has had over almost the entire life of the company. Even back in CRT days, Apple was using Trinitrons when everyone else was using 1024x768 "whatever" monitors.

There are a few times when you can get a better one here or there for less money and most of the time you can get a better screen by spending a heck of a lot *more* money, but overall (and over time), Apple usually has the brightest, sharpest screens with the best colour reproduction and the fewest defects.

To argue otherwise is to be ignorant of the entire history of Apple and what their main priorities are.
post #38 of 105
My dad has a 2004 17" PB still running like a champ, and I'll have to say it is refreshing to look at a display with an old-school DPI.
post #39 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Who says that the iPad is ever going to go Retina.

A bunch of rumors so far, like always with Apple.


Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Not to mention that there's not wide scale 1080p video out on the market, Apple isn't rumored to be adding Blu-ray to their machines and there's pretty much no 4000p video to support. So this rumor is total nonsensical.

Except in the land of the Pro video customer. Would really be something for the professional video market, cuz who has a laptop even close to supporting 4k resolution? Using the resolutions from the article, the 17" MBP is very close to the 4k resolutions listed below in nearly all versions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

Digital film standards[1]
Standard \tResolution \tDAR \tPAR \tPixels
Full Aperture 4K \t4096 × 3112 \t1.32:1 \t12,746,752
Academy 4K \t 3656 × 2664 \t1.37:1 \t9,739,584
Digital cinema 4K \t4096 × 1714 \t2.39:1 \t7,020,544
Digital cinema 4K \t3996 × 2160 \t1.85:1 \t8,631,360

Post-production digital working resolutions
Standard \tResolution \tDAR \tPAR \tPixels
Full Aperture 4K \t4096 × 3112 \t4:3 \t1:1 \t12,746,752
Academy 4K \t3656 × 2664 \t1.37:1 \t1:1 \t9,739,584




Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This display will get double the resolution so it will be 264ppi and be Retina Display quality from a standard usable position.


I'll quote my earlier post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Just to show the math here, the highest density will be on the 17" screen w/the proposed resolutions. This is assuming the screen sizes remain exactly as they are currently.

13.3" 2560x1600 226.98
15.4" 2880x1800 220.53
17" 3840x2400 266.37

EDIT: If they cut off the fractional inches and go with 13 and 15" screens, here is the difference in PPI:

13" 2560x1600 232.22
15" 2880x1800 226.42
post #40 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I think you're overly optimistic on several items - particularly the weight and price. That display probably wouldn't be cheap - and I don't expect SSD to drop all that much in price before next summer.

And wouldn't you like a little more RAM in your MacBook Air?

Yeah, I guess 8MB would be a little be tight for running VMWare...

It's definitely an optimistic configuration. Honestly, I'd even go to $3999 or $4499 for such a machine.

I'm finding that, with the exception of being memory constrained, my 11" 1.8GHz Core i7 Air (which turbos to 2.9GHz) with a 256GB SSD is actually faster than my mid-2010 15" MacBook Pro with a 2.53GHz Core i5. Both have 2 cores and 4 threads. If Apple offered a MacBook Pro with 4 cores and 8 threads, plus a Retina display, plus SSD, I would have a smile from ear to ear while placing my order. For video editing and software development, you never have enough display space, power or portability.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple rumored to launch 2880x1800 Retina Display MacBook Pro in Q2 2012