What the hell is the point of so many pixels in such a small screen?
They could have just made a 4k iMac and no one would have been able to see a difference.
I think it's important to distinguish between screen resolution and content resolution. Screen resolution can be gigapixels and content can remain megapixels and the display would simply interpolate between the data points.
"4K comes very close to what the human eye can fully resolve in a cinema screen at average viewing distances. Obviously, many people sit in the front row, and they’d definitely appreciate higher resolution. Which is why we are moving towards:
8K and UHDTV
A 30 to 70 feet screen at 8K (8192 horizontal) gives me from 9.75 ppi to 22.8 ppi. This resolution beats what the eye can resolve at these distances. The future belongs to 8K."
""To get to the point where you can't see pixels, I think some of the speculation is you need about 8K per eye in our current field of view [for the Rift]," he said. "And to get to the point where you couldn't see any more improvements, you'd need several times that.""
The determining factor is viewing distance. For immersive visuals like VR, the resolution of the eye here is noted as being 576 megapixels (32000x18000):
For non-immersive/handheld distance, it's 74 megapixels. 8K is about half that but there's also lens resolution to factor in on cameras and the fact that not everyone's eyes are perfect. There's a database of camera lenses that ranks lens resolving power:
The top one there has a resolving power of 36 megapixels, which 8K wouldn't exceed but would suffice for. You could use multiple lenses and multiple sensors but it's not very practical, especially if you need stereoscopic.
The aim is to recreate what's real in digital form and this will be the limit of technology. It will fall short because it takes too much resources to capture everything. You could imagine a movie scene being a retina scan from every possible angle allowing you to walk around actors and sit somewhere in the scene with them but filmmakers won't all want people doing that because they're the ones who frame their story and you simply can't put that many cameras around the scene because they'd be in view of the other ones.
It makes sense to have displays to be able to view and edit those. Displays can go higher than 8K if they wanted to but it doesn't mean content has to follow. People can't even tell the difference between 1080p content upscaled to 4K displays from 4K content but 4K displays look sharper than 1080p displays. That's why it's not urgent for devices like the Apple TV to support 4K as they can output 1080p to a 4K display, which will upscale it and you probably won't tell but obviously when 4K or higher content is available then it makes sense to avoid relying on interpolation and show the actual data.
When will people get that resolution is a surface metric. Twice the resolution has twice as many pixels, by the very definition of what resolution means.
Double the dpi means quadruple the resolution and quadruple the resolution.
Learn math before posing as tech journalists...
A cinema display refresh is overdue, 8k along with a refresh of the MacPro would sound more like it...
Except that resolution has never been an areal density in any optical or display usage - it has always referred to the ability to distinguish detail in a linear dimension. Going back to the original optical and photographic uses, it was typically measured as the ability to distinguish line pairs, and was quoted in line pairs per mm.
What is the mathematical argument that you allude to for it being an areal, rather than linear, density?
it better also support USB Type C which is becoming the defacto standard. Not sure if it can drive this monitor but both Thunderbolt and USB-C need to co-exist in the short to mid-term.
Which begs the question - Will Thunderbolt suffer the same fate as Firewire?
Which begs the question - Will Thunderbolt suffer the same fate as Firewire?
That's a bit like saying will it suffer the same fate as USB A. USB A connectors will eventually no longer be used. Firewire is a protocol that works over Thunderbolt and so does the USB protocol. Thunderbolt is just merging PCIe (multi-protocol) and Displayport. USB C is merging USB (single protocol) and allows Displayport and other formats over an alt mode. If USB C can allow PCIe over the alt-mode then it can replace TB.
Intel originally wanted to use USB for TB but they weren't allowed to. With the alt-mode, Intel may be able to put PCIe over the USB C alt-mode, which essentially would be TB because it would be PCIe + Displayport.
With all the MacPro owners screaming for an Apple branded 27"-32" stand along monitor, I'd think that would be a priority. I don't understand why, if they can produce a 5K iMac, they couldn't have released a stand alone monitor at the same time.
They are likely in no rush due to the crap sales of the current models. Yes this is stupid but it seems to be a common practice at Apple. Look at iPod Touch, no body in their right mind would buy that outdated technology yet poor sales are apparently why Apple refuses to update the line. I don't think their mentality is any different when it comes to video monitors, they will refuse to update the monitor and then in a few years kill the line up due to poor sales.
The thing I see here as a real problem is that Apple does need to be able to offer a complete Apple solution when it comes to a Pro computer. In their eyes a Sharp monitor is probably as good or better than what they could build themselves. The problem is it isn't what many consumers look for. In a way the demand for Apple branded monitors is a bit odd, you don't see people demanding Ford branded tires for example. Still people want the security of buying Apple branded components even if it doesn't make sense.
I'd be quite surprised if this was true. The amount of firepower offered by dual AMD FirePro D700, each with 6GB of GDDR5 VRAM, 2048 stream processors, 384-bit-wide memory bus, 264GB/s memory bandwidth, and 3.5 teraflops performance is unlikely to be beaten by an <span style="line-height:1.4em;">AMD Radeon R9 M290X with 2GB video memory, even by offering a slightly more modern motherboard.</span>
You need to learn to read for content, it is the bandwidth of the TB port that can't handle the resolution. As for AMDs cards they are well known for having very good serial ports on their GPUs that can run far beyond industry standards. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that AMD's high speed ports are why AMD was chosen for inclusion in the iMac.
Which means people would have to wait for Thunderbolt to catch up again in order to use 8K external monitors, if Apple is still using Thunderbolt by that time.
When will people get that resolution is a surface metric.
Err no! Resolution is the result of linear measurement and is the smallest unit that can be recorded. Thus resolution is (at least in the USA) the number of pixels per inch. A thousand pixels per inch has a higher resolution that 100 pixels per inch.
Twice the resolution has twice as many pixels, by the very definition of what resolution means.
I think your definition is screwed up. Twice the resolution in a square pattern leads to four times as many pixels.
Double the dpi means quadruple the resolution and quadruple the resolution.
Dpi by definition is resolution!
Learn math before posing as tech journalists...
Learn some physics or atleast understand measurement systems. Result ion in this sense does not imply an areal value.
A cinema display refresh is overdue, 8k along with a refresh of the MacPro would sound more like it...
Well that may be true but Apple could just completely leave the monitor space. Beyond that Apple seems to have its fingers deep into their LCD manufacture.
It's unlikely that we'll see a large number of 8K panels in the next year or two anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Garon
With all the MacPro owners screaming for an Apple branded 27"-32" stand along monitor, I'd think that would be a priority. I don't understand why, if they can produce a 5K iMac, they couldn't have released a stand alone monitor at the same time.
Apple wanted to use a non-standard resolution to make use of pixel doubling without changing the size of its elements on a 27" display. To do this they had to use some amount of customization in the imac, because 5K is unsupported by both thunderbolt 2.0 and displayport 1.2. At the time the displayport 1.2 specification was written, no 5K panels were in development. Apple used this one to accomplish a specific goal, but using something non-standard made it impractical as a standalone display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
When will people get that resolution is a surface metric. Twice the resolution has twice as many pixels, by the very definition of what resolution means.
Double the dpi means quadruple the resolution and quadruple the resolution.
Learn math before posing as tech journalists...
A cinema display refresh is overdue, 8k along with a refresh of the MacPro would sound more like it...
That is unlikely. 8K won't run on any current standard. Even displayport 1.3 is unlikely to show up fully implemented this year.
The obvious question is which video cards will power this fabled 8K iMac.
Graphics power will have to be upped substantially, and I'm not sure how this will pay for itself. Just about no one is shooting 8K movies for home and prosumer use.
They are likely in no rush due to the crap sales of the current models. Yes this is stupid but it seems to be a common practice at Apple. Look at iPod Touch, no body in their right mind would buy that outdated technology yet poor sales are apparently why Apple refuses to update the line. I don't think their mentality is any different when it comes to video monitors, they will refuse to update the monitor and then in a few years kill the line up due to poor sales.
The thing I see here as a real problem is that Apple does need to be able to offer a complete Apple solution when it comes to a Pro computer. In their eyes a Sharp monitor is probably as good or better than what they could build themselves. The problem is it isn't what many consumers look for. In a way the demand for Apple branded monitors is a bit odd, you don't see people demanding Ford branded tires for example. Still people want the security of buying Apple branded components even if it doesn't make sense.
Poor sales of current models? According to who?
iPod has been replaced by the iPhone. There is less of a need to update it.
The obvious question is which video cards will power this fabled 8K iMac.
I would imagine Apple will stay with AMD.
Graphics power will have to be upped substantially, and I'm not sure how this will pay for itself. Just about no one is shooting 8K movies for home and prosumer use.
Graphics power can be handled by dual chips. In a 30" iMac power requirements won't be a problem. As far as 8K videos that really has nothing to do with the usefullness of a Mac with an 8K screen. Realistically there isn't even 4k content yet.
Graphics power can be handled by dual chips. In a 30" iMac power requirements won't be a problem. As far as 8K videos that really has nothing to do with the usefullness of a Mac with an 8K screen. Realistically there isn't even 4k
Quote:
Graphics power can be handled by dual chips. In a 30" iMac power requirements won't be a problem. As far as 8K videos that really has nothing to do with the usefullness of a Mac with an 8K screen. Realistically there isn't even 4k content yet.
A 30 inch iMac where power requirements won't be a problem..? You tease me, Mr. Wizard. I find the 8k scenario unlikely. But so was the 5k. We'll have to see. But given it took the best part of ten years to support normal hi-def and 4k is just out the gate. It will be a while before we're into mainstream 4k content. Let alone 8k monitors/tv. But if Apple want to support a dual gpu sli AMD set up in a 30 inch iMac...so right ahead. An iMac 'pro' even though the 5k one already 'is.'
I've already played with the 5k iMac. Beautiful. I'll await sky lake before pulling the trigger. More cpu and gpu power on a '2nd gen' machine will give more oomph. I wonder if we'll have any 6 or 8 core cpus on a high end 14nm iMac?
Congrats on your Macbook Pro 13inch(?) purchase. It must seem very fast compared to the 2008 one you had?
I remember reading an amazon review with someone saying you don't want to go lower than 32 inch for a 4k display and that is a 'native' size for the pixel density.
The 27 inch retina iMac seems razor sharp to me. It's a real beauty! I'll def' get a monitor that can rotate a 4k screen e.g. BenQ IPS display (or better) £699 sounds fine to me. That can run alongside it and I can view art in portrait a3 size!
Comments
I think it's important to distinguish between screen resolution and content resolution. Screen resolution can be gigapixels and content can remain megapixels and the display would simply interpolate between the data points.
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/
"4K comes very close to what the human eye can fully resolve in a cinema screen at average viewing distances. Obviously, many people sit in the front row, and they’d definitely appreciate higher resolution. Which is why we are moving towards:
8K and UHDTV
A 30 to 70 feet screen at 8K (8192 horizontal) gives me from 9.75 ppi to 22.8 ppi. This resolution beats what the eye can resolve at these distances. The future belongs to 8K."
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/virtual-perfection-why-8k-resolution-per-eye-isnt-enough-for-perfect-vr/
""To get to the point where you can't see pixels, I think some of the speculation is you need about 8K per eye in our current field of view [for the Rift]," he said. "And to get to the point where you couldn't see any more improvements, you'd need several times that.""
The determining factor is viewing distance. For immersive visuals like VR, the resolution of the eye here is noted as being 576 megapixels (32000x18000):
http://clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html
For non-immersive/handheld distance, it's 74 megapixels. 8K is about half that but there's also lens resolution to factor in on cameras and the fact that not everyone's eyes are perfect. There's a database of camera lenses that ranks lens resolving power:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings/Optical-Metric-Scores
The top one there has a resolving power of 36 megapixels, which 8K wouldn't exceed but would suffice for. You could use multiple lenses and multiple sensors but it's not very practical, especially if you need stereoscopic.
The aim is to recreate what's real in digital form and this will be the limit of technology. It will fall short because it takes too much resources to capture everything. You could imagine a movie scene being a retina scan from every possible angle allowing you to walk around actors and sit somewhere in the scene with them but filmmakers won't all want people doing that because they're the ones who frame their story and you simply can't put that many cameras around the scene because they'd be in view of the other ones.
Cameras already capture above 4K:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/31/nhk-flaunts-8k-ultra-hd-compact-camera/
It makes sense to have displays to be able to view and edit those. Displays can go higher than 8K if they wanted to but it doesn't mean content has to follow. People can't even tell the difference between 1080p content upscaled to 4K displays from 4K content but 4K displays look sharper than 1080p displays. That's why it's not urgent for devices like the Apple TV to support 4K as they can output 1080p to a 4K display, which will upscale it and you probably won't tell but obviously when 4K or higher content is available then it makes sense to avoid relying on interpolation and show the actual data.
When will people get that resolution is a surface metric. Twice the resolution has twice as many pixels, by the very definition of what resolution means.
Double the dpi means quadruple the resolution and quadruple the resolution.
Learn math before posing as tech journalists...
A cinema display refresh is overdue, 8k along with a refresh of the MacPro would sound more like it...
Except that resolution has never been an areal density in any optical or display usage - it has always referred to the ability to distinguish detail in a linear dimension. Going back to the original optical and photographic uses, it was typically measured as the ability to distinguish line pairs, and was quoted in line pairs per mm.
What is the mathematical argument that you allude to for it being an areal, rather than linear, density?
it better also support USB Type C which is becoming the defacto standard. Not sure if it can drive this monitor but both Thunderbolt and USB-C need to co-exist in the short to mid-term.
Which begs the question - Will Thunderbolt suffer the same fate as Firewire?
That's a bit like saying will it suffer the same fate as USB A. USB A connectors will eventually no longer be used. Firewire is a protocol that works over Thunderbolt and so does the USB protocol. Thunderbolt is just merging PCIe (multi-protocol) and Displayport. USB C is merging USB (single protocol) and allows Displayport and other formats over an alt mode. If USB C can allow PCIe over the alt-mode then it can replace TB.
Intel originally wanted to use USB for TB but they weren't allowed to. With the alt-mode, Intel may be able to put PCIe over the USB C alt-mode, which essentially would be TB because it would be PCIe + Displayport.
They are likely in no rush due to the crap sales of the current models. Yes this is stupid but it seems to be a common practice at Apple. Look at iPod Touch, no body in their right mind would buy that outdated technology yet poor sales are apparently why Apple refuses to update the line. I don't think their mentality is any different when it comes to video monitors, they will refuse to update the monitor and then in a few years kill the line up due to poor sales.
The thing I see here as a real problem is that Apple does need to be able to offer a complete Apple solution when it comes to a Pro computer. In their eyes a Sharp monitor is probably as good or better than what they could build themselves. The problem is it isn't what many consumers look for. In a way the demand for Apple branded monitors is a bit odd, you don't see people demanding Ford branded tires for example. Still people want the security of buying Apple branded components even if it doesn't make sense.
You need to learn to read for content, it is the bandwidth of the TB port that can't handle the resolution. As for AMDs cards they are well known for having very good serial ports on their GPUs that can run far beyond industry standards. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that AMD's high speed ports are why AMD was chosen for inclusion in the iMac.
TB isn't going anywhere!
Well that may be true but Apple could just completely leave the monitor space. Beyond that Apple seems to have its fingers deep into their LCD manufacture.
It looks like 8K will need Displayport 1.4:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/199128-vesa-steams-ahead-with-displayport-1-4a-allows-for-8k-scaling
8K would be supported on 1.3 but according to Anandtech, they'd be downgrading color data:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8533/vesa-releases-displayport-13-standard-50-more-bandwidth-new-features
DP 1.4 includes some lossless compression:
http://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-finalizes-requirements-for-display-stream-compression-standard/
It's unlikely that we'll see a large number of 8K panels in the next year or two anyway.
With all the MacPro owners screaming for an Apple branded 27"-32" stand along monitor, I'd think that would be a priority. I don't understand why, if they can produce a 5K iMac, they couldn't have released a stand alone monitor at the same time.
Apple wanted to use a non-standard resolution to make use of pixel doubling without changing the size of its elements on a 27" display. To do this they had to use some amount of customization in the imac, because 5K is unsupported by both thunderbolt 2.0 and displayport 1.2. At the time the displayport 1.2 specification was written, no 5K panels were in development. Apple used this one to accomplish a specific goal, but using something non-standard made it impractical as a standalone display.
When will people get that resolution is a surface metric. Twice the resolution has twice as many pixels, by the very definition of what resolution means.
Double the dpi means quadruple the resolution and quadruple the resolution.
Learn math before posing as tech journalists...
A cinema display refresh is overdue, 8k along with a refresh of the MacPro would sound more like it...
That is unlikely. 8K won't run on any current standard. Even displayport 1.3 is unlikely to show up fully implemented this year.
The obvious question is which video cards will power this fabled 8K iMac.
Graphics power will have to be upped substantially, and I'm not sure how this will pay for itself. Just about no one is shooting 8K movies for home and prosumer use.
Poor sales of current models? According to who?
iPod has been replaced by the iPhone. There is less of a need to update it.
Graphics power can be handled by dual chips. In a 30" iMac power requirements won't be a problem. As far as 8K videos that really has nothing to do with the usefullness of a Mac with an 8K screen. Realistically there isn't even 4k content yet.
40" monitors.
Cheap lines like Macbook will have standard retina.
And then the MacBook Pro will have Retina 5k.
And I'll finally have my 18" MBP Retina 5K!
Wonderful.
And yes, It's a nice dream.
iMac 32 incher?
Sure. Why not.
I remember reading an amazon review with someone saying you don't want to go lower than 32 inch for a 4k display and that is a 'native' size for the pixel density.
The 27 inch retina iMac seems razor sharp to me. It's a real beauty! I'll def' get a monitor that can rotate a 4k screen e.g. BenQ IPS display (or better) £699 sounds fine to me. That can run alongside it and I can view art in portrait a3 size!
Lemon Bon Bon.