Sorry. After seeing the Macbook Pro retina...the 27 inch iMac display/resolution pales.
Lemon Bon Bon.
All the arguements here about retina are nonsense as there is more to perception than being able to resolve features or lines on the screen. Sit the average person down in front of a 27" retina and non retina screen and I'm willing to bet they will be able to pick out the retina machine every time. Well given normal eye site anyways.
Are you serious? A $2000 display AND flash storage? Would you really buy a $5000 AIO desktop?
It is expected that we will NOT get a retina display thus the price would not be that high. As for your question, no I would not buy a $5,000 AIO desktop. While the iMac is a nice machine, I prefer the Mac mini's design.
It's certainly nice to see that Apple is virtually forcing the "PC industry" to increase the quality of their products, while always staying ahead of the pack.
I don't think they get enough credit for that. No matter what they do, it's always described as overpriced because of superficial additions. Here's a classic example:
"can anyone persuade me why I should pay more than double to have it wrapped in Apple's shiny metal casing?"
When you compare like for like, Apple is actually fairly competitive. Ultrabooks, IPS tablets, capacitive screens and so on simply wouldn't exist if 'PC' companies didn't have to compete with Apple. You just need to look at the rut the mobile phone industry was in.
I think they will at least match the 27" to the rMBP resolution - they might be able to mirror things properly that way even with the rMBP scaling e.g 2880 x 1800 mirrored to both but it is scaled down to 1080p on the rMBP so the mouse tracking is the same.
I don't think the new iMacs will be retina, but what is Apple doing that is taking so long?
What is going to happen with the i7 in the 27" since Apple's usual selection from the processor line-up is the 3770 which is clocked at the same 3.4 GHZ as the current Sandy Bridge i7 in the 27" iMac.
Is Apple working with Intel to get a new i7 in the line-up for the high end? Will Apple use the 3770k (unlocked) @ 3.5 GHZ or higher? Or will the just ship the 3.4 GHZ 3770 Ivy Bridge.
While clock speed doesn't mean everything in CPU performance, Intel and OEMs spent decades focusing on clock speed, so it counts significantly to Joe Public.
Apple, can we at least get 2TB HD standard on the high end 27" iMacs?
The 1TB to 2TB up-sell fells a little insulting on a $2000 computer in 2012.
The top end iMac should come with a 3TB HD as standard, and an SSD boot drive. The up-sell on the SSDs is the most outrageous of all, except perhaps, for Apple's comedy RAM prices.
Retina will come in time, when it becomes practical. (A higher-res conventional—non 2x—display would be awful: tiny print!)
Now, please...
Make the keys and mouse black.
The iMac has not been white for years. Make the keyboard and mouse match! They’d also match the laptops better that way.
White cables? Sure—that’s a signature detail of Apple’s, and you don’t even see any cords on most iMac setups. But white keys and mouse? Time to lose that. An all-black-and-aluminum setup would look great!
YOU are talking that. But that's not Retina. There is very specific math, as shown by Apple, that is used for their definition. And that math shows that a 27 inch iMac does not require doubling the current highest resolution in order to get to Retina.
Yeah, that'd deffo be over 4K, which would make it a pain in the ass to manufacture, BUT all the companies making 4K movies and TV shows and shit, would buy one for sure.
Companies are filming 4k but that is mainly for data for image stabilizing. Same with bumping the FPS to have yet more data for removing image shake (although many action movies leave it in thinking it looks cooler).
But they are not released to the public in 4k cause the compression isnt there. Especially for downloading which is what Apple will be benchmarking against rather than discs. Until it is possible to have viable 4k downloads in the iTunes store they won't be looking to use screens for that format. 'Retina' will be fine since it more than covers the current 1080p offerings.
I guess it's the new lamination process that is holding the iMac up.
Or not. We don't have proof there is a new process. They could be holding for the release of some other part. They could be holding because BTS is notebook season, not desktop. So focus on what is more likely to sell.
But they are not released to the public in 4k cause the compression isnt there.
HEVC.
Until it is possible to have viable 4k downloads in the iTunes store they won't be looking to use screens for that format. 'Retina' will be fine since it more than covers the current 1080p offerings.
I'd prefer skipping 4k entirely and going straight to SHV. Get this whole thing over with.
I'd prefer skipping 4k entirely and going straight to SHV. Get this whole thing over with.
I suppose over time, 8K will become common in production but I don't see any urgency to go beyond 1080p for consumer distribution. 8K/SHV/UHD will be suitable for IMAX.
For large TV screens like 80" or more, higher resolutions will offer some benefit but people's houses aren't getting much bigger so I don't see many people hauling a TV like this into their homes:
[VIDEO]
How do you justify a move from even 1080p (pretty much 2K) to 4K? I don't think enough people will see a benefit. I don't think TV production companies would want to even contemplate dealing with 8K footage as standard. The amount of storage required would be nuts. For films it makes sense as they are shown in IMAX but not for the vast, vast majority of video content. I could see Blu-Ray moving to 4K with HEVC but I doubt 8K is going anywhere near the consumer market, 4K limited to films and 720p/1080p for most disposable content.
How do you justify a move from even 1080p (pretty much 2K) to 4K?
1080p should be on screens 32" and below. Most televisions are already above that. The most I've seen at Best Buy (terrible, stupid store, so my definition of "mainstream") is an 80" from Sharp, so that's a huge range of GIGANTIC pixels.
I'm telling you, I saw pixels on that thing from 25 feet away. It was disgusting.
? 32": 1080p
32-60": 4k
? 60": SHV
At least initially. Eventually everything will be SHV.
Companies are filming 4k but that is mainly for data for image stabilizing. Same with bumping the FPS to have yet more data for removing image shake (although many action movies leave it in thinking it looks cooler).
It seems like they intentionally destablize the camera. I think it's very irritating.
Measure the distance between your eye balls and the screen of your 27" iMac. Is it more than 80cm? If it is, then unless you have super human eyes, then you're already looking at a 'retina' display.
If the resolution was doubled, then by all means feel free to sit 40cm away from the screen, just to soak in all the detail. I suspect you might find that rather uncomfortable after a while though.
How did you arrive at that figure as a normal viewing distance? I've seen figures that place the iMac something like 20% below Retina, certainly not at Retina. Detail is going to be wasted, but that's the point, you want the amount of detail to be just beyond perceptibility, not at or near perceptability.
I don't have super human eyes. Better than normal, with correction. I'd like to see a doubling so vector objects look like vector objects rather than have stairstepping.
That's not a prediction, it's just what the guy wants to see Apple do. Every analyst says the same things - Apple should just make everything cheaper to drive demand. Under $1300 puts it just $100 over the current entry model with a 256GB SSD, retina display and possibly/likely a dedicated GPU. They will be taking out the optical but the $400 increase that is seen in the 15" is likely so $1599, maybe $1499 as the volume is higher and 13" displays cheaper but that will have the CPU of the entry $1199 model.
I expect them to keep the same resolution this year but I don't see how it would be so hard. At the viewing distances the iMac is at, they could probably get away with 2880 x 1620, although I'd prefer a move back to 16:10 and have the exact same resolution as the 15" MBP. That would qualify as retina at iMac viewing distance. Obviously people will immediately stick their faces right up to it and claim they can see the pixels.
The lamination will reduce the yields because there have to be no defects between the glass sheet and the panel - no smudges, no hairs, no cracks. That's on top of the possible defects on the panel itself. This also means they can't have the same design because the glass sheet is currently held in by magnets and they couldn't do that with the panel. They will have to screw it in the bottom so no chin. The Cinema Display design is nice and it could easily go that way without the optical drive wasting space.
Also, Retina MBP shipping times are now listed as 'in stock' so the backlog must be clear. An update for the iMac/Mini could even happen this week sometime.
I agree with you more than usual today, but I disagree on the addition of dedicated graphics and ssd sizing. If you have a 256GB ssd in a $2200 model, it's very possible you'd see a 128 here, although the costs in producing these may involve more than the NAND. I don't see them going back to 16:10. Newer panels keep trending toward 16:9. If they are going with something entirely custom rather than modifying an existing reference panel design, it could happen. I just doubt it. As to the gpu, I don't personally expect to see a 13" until these things can run in a stable manner via integrated graphics. The problem isn't solely one of pixels. The entirety of their notebook line can drive 2560x1600 on the thunderbolt display. It may have some issues in programming. The use of hardware blending within the ui via pixel shading or whatever they're using likely complicates the matter, especially when combined with scaling. I see this as something that will likely require another hardware generation from intel to be truly ready. As to the analysts, I regard many of their words more as musings. If they are so sure of this, they could bet on options :P.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Another way to look at this is that 4k displays are just around the corner. I don't know what Apple will put in the iMac and I don't really care, however I won't say Retina is impossible this year.
I'd give it five years or so before these start to look remotely mainstream. Some of Apple's other devices have sort of resurrected prior engineering problems that were overcome at lower resolutions. Image persistence comes to mind here. It's likely very difficult to design something that can be manufactured within a reasonable fault tolerance at such a resolution, and with something really new it's difficult to know how it will work when manufacturing goes beyond the point of kicking out prototypes to manufacturing millions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
Measure the distance between your eye balls and the screen of your 27" iMac. Is it more than 80cm? If it is, then unless you have super human eyes, then you're already looking at a 'retina' display.
If the resolution was doubled, then by all means feel free to sit 40cm away from the screen, just to soak in all the detail. I suspect you might find that rather uncomfortable after a while though.
This has come up before, but that math was just to the point where you would no longer perceive the presence of pixels. It doesn't mean there's no advantage beyond that point in terms of perceived realism given that perception of gradation in a repetitive at lower frequencies isn't an all or nothing kind of thing, but I get what you were pointing out. The person you responded to was making a mindless statement based on their acceptance of corporate marketing tools.
I think they will at least match the 27" to the rMBP resolution - they might be able to mirror things properly that way even with the rMBP scaling e.g 2880 x 1800 mirrored to both but it is scaled down to 1080p on the rMBP so the mouse tracking is the same.
There's nothing inherently aligned with the mac pro. Some users will buy an Apple display to accompany their mac pro, but that is one of many options, and not always the best one. Their take on displays overall has been switching over to more of a docking station kind of design. The idea being plug in one cable and you have access to your stationary devices, which include a large display. I've mentioned that it doesn't work for everyone and some of the other flaws with the idea. If you're not mixing in too many non Apple things and you are served by what is offered there, it works reasonably well.
Forget 4k, anyway. Super Hi-Vision. That's the only kind of television (dumb screen-based) I'd accept or expect from Apple. It's retina! After that, no more stupid marketing about resolutions because you physically can't see any higher. And audio, my stars.
What your eye can resolve isn't this one dimensional. It varies with wavelength and brightness range, and it is not an all or nothing thing. In terms of being practical for marketing purposes, you're right. For that purpose it's essentially the limit. Apple wasn't the only one to chase this. They just used the term "retina", because they think it sounds cool. Others that came up used the term "print quality" which usually revolved around making the 300 dpi mark (although printed media can go higher than that).
Measure the distance between your eye balls and the screen of your 27" iMac. Is it more than 80cm? If it is, then unless you have super human eyes, then you're already looking at a 'retina' display.
If the resolution was doubled, then by all means feel free to sit 40cm away from the screen, just to soak in all the detail. I suspect you might find that rather uncomfortable after a while though.
Sorry. After seeing the Macbook Pro retina...the 27 inch iMac display/resolution pales.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Exactly. Just like the iPhone 4 ruined my iPad experience until the iPad 3, both of which continue to blow my mind almost every time I use them, because those displays are so insanely gorgeous. And now that we've got the 15" MBP screen done, all that remains is the 27" size.
@kotatsu, you're probably trying to talk people out of 4K HDTV's, too, as anything greater than 1080p has some algorithm that makes it unnecessary, right? haha...right. And by the way, after 4K will have become ubiquitous, there will be 8K, which Sony is already working on. ;-)
There is already 4K content on Youtube so it's likely that H.265 will allow 8K streaming:
4K/8K content puts a lot of strain on storage though and storage isn't really improving in leaps and bounds any more. There's only so many people that can deal with 1GB for each second of footage.
I think more films will be done in 8K/70mm like Batman recently so they can be shown in IMAX. This can be put out on Blu-Ray at 4K/8K at a lower bitrate but if Blu-Ray drives can't use a new codec, it won't happen. People simply won't upgrade everything again to go from 2K to 4K and streaming will mostly sit at 1080p with a few exceptions.
Never said that doubling equals retina. It'll have to at LEAST double to get close.
From desktop viewing distances, 25% higher is enough to qualify as Retina. While it's cool to be able to wipe your nose on the glass and not be able to see pixels, it's not a requirement for the Retina label.
What part of "Retina" DON'T (most of) you people understand?
It is: a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance.
Exactly how close are you people sitting to a 27" iMac may I ask?
Funny you should ask. The rare low vision person like me, is sitting 6 ~ 8 inches from an HP AIO with an 18.5 inch screen running 1366 x 768. It doesn't help that AI uses micro fonts when replying to a thread. The majority of 27 inch screens are 1920 X 1080, unless you have deep pockets, then you can have the resolution of the 27 inch iMac, from various providers, even Dell. The fonts on the current 27 inch iMac are hard for many normally sighted folks to use. I will bite and ask, "What are the specs for a retina display for a 27 inch iMac?" I see the value of a retina display for movie and photo editing, but what about just surfing the Internet?
Question for Marvin: I asked and you replied before, about the 27 inch iMac running at exactly half the current resolution with Mountain Lion, and maybe the pixels would align without a blurry result. Perhaps someone could try that and let me know. I realize 720 is too low for almost all users, and 1080 should be the lowest resolution for most Macs, but I am just curious. I want my Mac Back!
Comments
All the arguements here about retina are nonsense as there is more to perception than being able to resolve features or lines on the screen. Sit the average person down in front of a 27" retina and non retina screen and I'm willing to bet they will be able to pick out the retina machine every time. Well given normal eye site anyways.
It is expected that we will NOT get a retina display thus the price would not be that high. As for your question, no I would not buy a $5,000 AIO desktop. While the iMac is a nice machine, I prefer the Mac mini's design.
I don't think they get enough credit for that. No matter what they do, it's always described as overpriced because of superficial additions. Here's a classic example:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151222/is-the-apple-led-cinema-display-27-flat-panel-worth-the-money
"can anyone persuade me why I should pay more than double to have it wrapped in Apple's shiny metal casing?"
When you compare like for like, Apple is actually fairly competitive. Ultrabooks, IPS tablets, capacitive screens and so on simply wouldn't exist if 'PC' companies didn't have to compete with Apple. You just need to look at the rut the mobile phone industry was in.
Remind me where the Mac Pro is on this page:
http://www.apple.com/displays/
I think they will at least match the 27" to the rMBP resolution - they might be able to mirror things properly that way even with the rMBP scaling e.g 2880 x 1800 mirrored to both but it is scaled down to 1080p on the rMBP so the mouse tracking is the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
I don't think the new iMacs will be retina, but what is Apple doing that is taking so long?
What is going to happen with the i7 in the 27" since Apple's usual selection from the processor line-up is the 3770 which is clocked at the same 3.4 GHZ as the current Sandy Bridge i7 in the 27" iMac.
Is Apple working with Intel to get a new i7 in the line-up for the high end? Will Apple use the 3770k (unlocked) @ 3.5 GHZ or higher? Or will the just ship the 3.4 GHZ 3770 Ivy Bridge.
While clock speed doesn't mean everything in CPU performance, Intel and OEMs spent decades focusing on clock speed, so it counts significantly to Joe Public.
Apple, can we at least get 2TB HD standard on the high end 27" iMacs?
The 1TB to 2TB up-sell fells a little insulting on a $2000 computer in 2012.
The top end iMac should come with a 3TB HD as standard, and an SSD boot drive. The up-sell on the SSDs is the most outrageous of all, except perhaps, for Apple's comedy RAM prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
Retina will come in time, when it becomes practical. (A higher-res conventional—non 2x—display would be awful: tiny print!)
Now, please...
Make the keys and mouse black.
The iMac has not been white for years. Make the keyboard and mouse match! They’d also match the laptops better that way.
White cables? Sure—that’s a signature detail of Apple’s, and you don’t even see any cords on most iMac setups. But white keys and mouse? Time to lose that. An all-black-and-aluminum setup would look great!
Well, black is cool but it seems ordinary!
YOU are talking that. But that's not Retina. There is very specific math, as shown by Apple, that is used for their definition. And that math shows that a 27 inch iMac does not require doubling the current highest resolution in order to get to Retina.
Companies are filming 4k but that is mainly for data for image stabilizing. Same with bumping the FPS to have yet more data for removing image shake (although many action movies leave it in thinking it looks cooler).
But they are not released to the public in 4k cause the compression isnt there. Especially for downloading which is what Apple will be benchmarking against rather than discs. Until it is possible to have viable 4k downloads in the iTunes store they won't be looking to use screens for that format. 'Retina' will be fine since it more than covers the current 1080p offerings.
Or not. We don't have proof there is a new process. They could be holding for the release of some other part. They could be holding because BTS is notebook season, not desktop. So focus on what is more likely to sell.
Originally Posted by charlituna
But they are not released to the public in 4k cause the compression isnt there.
HEVC.
Until it is possible to have viable 4k downloads in the iTunes store they won't be looking to use screens for that format. 'Retina' will be fine since it more than covers the current 1080p offerings.
I'd prefer skipping 4k entirely and going straight to SHV. Get this whole thing over with.
I suppose over time, 8K will become common in production but I don't see any urgency to go beyond 1080p for consumer distribution. 8K/SHV/UHD will be suitable for IMAX.
For large TV screens like 80" or more, higher resolutions will offer some benefit but people's houses aren't getting much bigger so I don't see many people hauling a TV like this into their homes:
[VIDEO]
How do you justify a move from even 1080p (pretty much 2K) to 4K? I don't think enough people will see a benefit. I don't think TV production companies would want to even contemplate dealing with 8K footage as standard. The amount of storage required would be nuts. For films it makes sense as they are shown in IMAX but not for the vast, vast majority of video content. I could see Blu-Ray moving to 4K with HEVC but I doubt 8K is going anywhere near the consumer market, 4K limited to films and 720p/1080p for most disposable content.
Originally Posted by Marvin
How do you justify a move from even 1080p (pretty much 2K) to 4K?
1080p should be on screens 32" and below. Most televisions are already above that. The most I've seen at Best Buy (terrible, stupid store, so my definition of "mainstream") is an 80" from Sharp, so that's a huge range of GIGANTIC pixels.
I'm telling you, I saw pixels on that thing from 25 feet away. It was disgusting.
? 32": 1080p
32-60": 4k
? 60": SHV
At least initially. Eventually everything will be SHV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nope. Never said that.
Here comes the truth....
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs
It doesn't have to be double the current resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Sure it does.
Anything else to say, "global moderator"?
It seems like they intentionally destablize the camera. I think it's very irritating.
How did you arrive at that figure as a normal viewing distance? I've seen figures that place the iMac something like 20% below Retina, certainly not at Retina. Detail is going to be wasted, but that's the point, you want the amount of detail to be just beyond perceptibility, not at or near perceptability.
I don't have super human eyes. Better than normal, with correction. I'd like to see a doubling so vector objects look like vector objects rather than have stairstepping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's not a prediction, it's just what the guy wants to see Apple do. Every analyst says the same things - Apple should just make everything cheaper to drive demand. Under $1300 puts it just $100 over the current entry model with a 256GB SSD, retina display and possibly/likely a dedicated GPU. They will be taking out the optical but the $400 increase that is seen in the 15" is likely so $1599, maybe $1499 as the volume is higher and 13" displays cheaper but that will have the CPU of the entry $1199 model.
I expect them to keep the same resolution this year but I don't see how it would be so hard. At the viewing distances the iMac is at, they could probably get away with 2880 x 1620, although I'd prefer a move back to 16:10 and have the exact same resolution as the 15" MBP. That would qualify as retina at iMac viewing distance. Obviously people will immediately stick their faces right up to it and claim they can see the pixels.
The lamination will reduce the yields because there have to be no defects between the glass sheet and the panel - no smudges, no hairs, no cracks. That's on top of the possible defects on the panel itself. This also means they can't have the same design because the glass sheet is currently held in by magnets and they couldn't do that with the panel. They will have to screw it in the bottom so no chin. The Cinema Display design is nice and it could easily go that way without the optical drive wasting space.
Also, Retina MBP shipping times are now listed as 'in stock' so the backlog must be clear. An update for the iMac/Mini could even happen this week sometime.
I agree with you more than usual today, but I disagree on the addition of dedicated graphics and ssd sizing. If you have a 256GB ssd in a $2200 model, it's very possible you'd see a 128 here, although the costs in producing these may involve more than the NAND. I don't see them going back to 16:10. Newer panels keep trending toward 16:9. If they are going with something entirely custom rather than modifying an existing reference panel design, it could happen. I just doubt it. As to the gpu, I don't personally expect to see a 13" until these things can run in a stable manner via integrated graphics. The problem isn't solely one of pixels. The entirety of their notebook line can drive 2560x1600 on the thunderbolt display. It may have some issues in programming. The use of hardware blending within the ui via pixel shading or whatever they're using likely complicates the matter, especially when combined with scaling. I see this as something that will likely require another hardware generation from intel to be truly ready. As to the analysts, I regard many of their words more as musings. If they are so sure of this, they could bet on options :P.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Another way to look at this is that 4k displays are just around the corner. I don't know what Apple will put in the iMac and I don't really care, however I won't say Retina is impossible this year.
I'd give it five years or so before these start to look remotely mainstream. Some of Apple's other devices have sort of resurrected prior engineering problems that were overcome at lower resolutions. Image persistence comes to mind here. It's likely very difficult to design something that can be manufactured within a reasonable fault tolerance at such a resolution, and with something really new it's difficult to know how it will work when manufacturing goes beyond the point of kicking out prototypes to manufacturing millions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
Measure the distance between your eye balls and the screen of your 27" iMac. Is it more than 80cm? If it is, then unless you have super human eyes, then you're already looking at a 'retina' display.
If the resolution was doubled, then by all means feel free to sit 40cm away from the screen, just to soak in all the detail. I suspect you might find that rather uncomfortable after a while though.
This has come up before, but that math was just to the point where you would no longer perceive the presence of pixels. It doesn't mean there's no advantage beyond that point in terms of perceived realism given that perception of gradation in a repetitive at lower frequencies isn't an all or nothing kind of thing, but I get what you were pointing out. The person you responded to was making a mindless statement based on their acceptance of corporate marketing tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Remind me where the Mac Pro is on this page:
http://www.apple.com/displays/
I think they will at least match the 27" to the rMBP resolution - they might be able to mirror things properly that way even with the rMBP scaling e.g 2880 x 1800 mirrored to both but it is scaled down to 1080p on the rMBP so the mouse tracking is the same.
There's nothing inherently aligned with the mac pro. Some users will buy an Apple display to accompany their mac pro, but that is one of many options, and not always the best one. Their take on displays overall has been switching over to more of a docking station kind of design. The idea being plug in one cable and you have access to your stationary devices, which include a large display. I've mentioned that it doesn't work for everyone and some of the other flaws with the idea. If you're not mixing in too many non Apple things and you are served by what is offered there, it works reasonably well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusj0015
What resolution would the iMac 27' need to be Retina?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Double it, 5120x2880, and you get 217 PPI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nope. Never said that.
I obviously must have misread. Sorry.
Originally Posted by Andysol
I obviously must have misread. Sorry.
Never said that doubling equals retina. It'll have to at LEAST double to get close. In the case of the 27", it's a fair bit further than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Forget 4k, anyway. Super Hi-Vision. That's the only kind of television (dumb screen-based) I'd accept or expect from Apple. It's retina! After that, no more stupid marketing about resolutions because you physically can't see any higher. And audio, my stars.
What your eye can resolve isn't this one dimensional. It varies with wavelength and brightness range, and it is not an all or nothing thing. In terms of being practical for marketing purposes, you're right. For that purpose it's essentially the limit. Apple wasn't the only one to chase this. They just used the term "retina", because they think it sounds cool. Others that came up used the term "print quality" which usually revolved around making the 300 dpi mark (although printed media can go higher than that).
Exactly. Just like the iPhone 4 ruined my iPad experience until the iPad 3, both of which continue to blow my mind almost every time I use them, because those displays are so insanely gorgeous. And now that we've got the 15" MBP screen done, all that remains is the 27" size.
@kotatsu, you're probably trying to talk people out of 4K HDTV's, too, as anything greater than 1080p has some algorithm that makes it unnecessary, right? haha...right. And by the way, after 4K will have become ubiquitous, there will be 8K, which Sony is already working on. ;-)
There is already 4K content on Youtube so it's likely that H.265 will allow 8K streaming:
4K/8K content puts a lot of strain on storage though and storage isn't really improving in leaps and bounds any more. There's only so many people that can deal with 1GB for each second of footage.
I think more films will be done in 8K/70mm like Batman recently so they can be shown in IMAX. This can be put out on Blu-Ray at 4K/8K at a lower bitrate but if Blu-Ray drives can't use a new codec, it won't happen. People simply won't upgrade everything again to go from 2K to 4K and streaming will mostly sit at 1080p with a few exceptions.
From desktop viewing distances, 25% higher is enough to qualify as Retina. While it's cool to be able to wipe your nose on the glass and not be able to see pixels, it's not a requirement for the Retina label.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
I just wanted to say the same thing.. and add:
What part of "Retina" DON'T (most of) you people understand?
It is: a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance.
Exactly how close are you people sitting to a 27" iMac may I ask?
Funny you should ask. The rare low vision person like me, is sitting 6 ~ 8 inches from an HP AIO with an 18.5 inch screen running 1366 x 768. It doesn't help that AI uses micro fonts when replying to a thread. The majority of 27 inch screens are 1920 X 1080, unless you have deep pockets, then you can have the resolution of the 27 inch iMac, from various providers, even Dell. The fonts on the current 27 inch iMac are hard for many normally sighted folks to use. I will bite and ask, "What are the specs for a retina display for a 27 inch iMac?" I see the value of a retina display for movie and photo editing, but what about just surfing the Internet?
Question for Marvin: I asked and you replied before, about the 27 inch iMac running at exactly half the current resolution with Mountain Lion, and maybe the pixels would align without a blurry result. Perhaps someone could try that and let me know. I realize 720 is too low for almost all users, and 1080 should be the lowest resolution for most Macs, but I am just curious. I want my Mac Back!