PDA

View Full Version : No Retina Display in Next-Generation iMac?




Pages : [1] 2 3

MacRumors
Jun 22, 2012, 03:36 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/22/no-retina-display-in-next-generation-imac/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/04/imac_2011-150x161.jpg

Earlier today, Instapaper developer Marco Arment published his thoughts (http://www.marco.org/2012/06/22/predicting-mac-desktops) on a potential timeline for upgrades to Apple's iMac and Mac Pro lines, initially suggesting that the need for an ultra-high resolution 5120x2880 Retina display (either inside the 27-inch iMac or as a standalone display) is likely the most significant hurdle to major updates for those lines.

With ABC News having reported in May (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/15/retina-displays-also-coming-to-next-generation-imac/) that Apple was planning to bring Retina displays to its next-generation iMac line and suggestions of updated models (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/13/imac-update-might-be-coming-sooner-rather-than-later/) potentially being right around the corner, anticipation has been high for new Retina iMacs. But shortly after publishing his speculation, Arment is now hearing that while the next iMac update will come later this year, it will not include Retina displays. I've now heard from multiple sources that while an iMac update is indeed coming this fall, it will not have Retina displays.Arment describes some of the issues surrounding Retina displays at the size needed for the 27-inch iMac, including production yield and insufficient bandwidth, but it is unclear why Apple would wait until the fall to update the iMac if those issues will prevent Retina displays from being included in that revision. Even without a Retina display, updated iMac models could take advantage of Ivy Bridge processors, improved graphics chips, and USB 3.0, and those upgrades could be included in a new model any time now.

As we noted earlier today (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/22/vacation-blackout-hints-at-late-july-release-for-os-x-mountain-lion/), vacation blackouts at a third-party technical support firm are hinting at a release of OS X Mountain Lion in late July, and it seems possible that Apple could follow last year's trend of a simultaneous hardware/software launch by introducing new Ivy Bridge iMacs and perhaps Mac minis alongside Mountain Lion. That speculation is, however, yet to be supported by any specific rumors or evidence.

Following the keynote at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference earlier this month, company representatives were initially quoted (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/apple-spokesperson-confirms-new-mac-pro-and-imac-designs-likely-coming-in-2013/) as saying that updated Mac Pro and iMac designs were due "later next year", but the company moved to clarify those remarks as applying only to the Mac Pro, suggesting that iMac updates will come ahead of that timeframe.

Article Link: No Retina Display in Next-Generation iMac? (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/22/no-retina-display-in-next-generation-imac/)



nfl46
Jun 22, 2012, 03:37 PM
No retina, no buy for "me".

neiltc13
Jun 22, 2012, 03:38 PM
If it was anything like the MacBook Pro one, then it wouldn't be worth it anyway. OS dumbed down to the point where you can't even select the display resolution you want.

Verita
Jun 22, 2012, 03:42 PM
I'm sorry, but do we really need a retina iMac now? I hope nobody sits close enough to distinguish individual pixels. Maybe a 20-30% pixel boost would be perfect (although scaling would be an issue), with more attention to desktop performance internals, rather than borrowing from the mobile lineup. Make my iMac fatter :eek: but make it faster!

AppleDApp
Jun 22, 2012, 03:43 PM
I'd prefer an iMac without retina before the fall.

smithrh
Jun 22, 2012, 03:45 PM
I'm sorry, but do we really need a retina iMac now? I hope nobody sits close enough to distinguish individual pixels. Maybe a 20-30% pixel boost would be perfect (although scaling would be an issue), with more attention to desktop performance internals, rather than borrowing from the mobile lineup. Make my iMac fatter :eek: but make it faster!

Agreed - "retina" across a 27" screen would be insane. I'd be happy with a pixel bump and a spec bump.

BuffyzDead
Jun 22, 2012, 03:45 PM
Buying the moment they go live !!!

Replacing my 20" original 2006 White iMac,

with a Splendid 27", fully loaded, fully spec'd out !!!

CitizenKoehn
Jun 22, 2012, 03:46 PM
No retina, no buy for "me".

Maybe sarcasm?

If you're sitting at an apporpriate distance from a 27" iMac, you can't see the pixels. Why on earth would people want a Retina display for that size of screen, unless they want to get rid of some extra money? Not to mention the increased strain on the GPU. What a waste it would be.

I'm ready for an iMac update, though! Man, I was disappointed they didn't even offer a refresh at WWDC.

Aidan5806
Jun 22, 2012, 03:46 PM
I'm kinda split on whether it would be worth it to have a retina display on an iMac or not. On one hand, 5120x2880 (14,745,600 pixels) is an insane resolution in any device and could be very expensive and maybe a small bit overkill (not really, I'm all for going all out). On the other hand the reality is that for professional users, the ability to consume less than a quarter of the display with a pixel perfect, 1080p, project viewer in FCX (or multiple 1080p streams), or display pixel perfect professional resolution photos in aperture is very, very enticing.

nfl46
Jun 22, 2012, 03:48 PM
Maybe sarcasm?

If you're sitting at an apporpriate distance from a 27" iMac, you can't see the pixels. Why on earth would people want a Retina display for that size of screen, unless they want to get rid of some extra money? Not to mention the increased strain on the GPU. What a waste it would be.

I'm ready for an iMac update, though! Man, I was disappointed they didn't even offer a refresh at WWDC.

Correct. It was sarcasm.

Bahamut Eos
Jun 22, 2012, 03:48 PM
I feel like updated iMacs will be more powerful than available mac pros.

dlowings
Jun 22, 2012, 03:49 PM
I honestly dont feel the need for one.. If I had to pick between that display and a quad core i7 I would go with way more horse power.. I use it as a work station...

deedas
Jun 22, 2012, 03:50 PM
I only care about new Mac minis. Stick in a quad core ivy bridge and room for two ssds and I'm a happy camper.

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 03:50 PM
Maybe sarcasm?

If you're sitting at an apporpriate distance from a 27" iMac, you can't see the pixels. Why on earth would people want a Retina display for that size of screen, unless they want to get rid of some extra money? Not to mention the increased strain on the GPU. What a waste it would be.

I'm ready for an iMac update, though! Man, I was disappointed they didn't even offer a refresh at WWDC.

People were saying the same about the Retina MacBook pro, claiming retina is ok on ios devices but useless on larger screens. Having my Retina MacBook Pro now, I can assure you the leap here is as big, if not bigger, than the leap we saw on iOS. A Retima iMacs would look amazing.

CarlHeanerd
Jun 22, 2012, 03:50 PM
We're surprised by this? There is no mobile GPU right now that can power 2x the current pixels of the iMac without taking a serious performance hit or risk overheating.

The current retina MBP is an experiment, so we'll see what tech develops from it in the next two years.

yanksrock100
Jun 22, 2012, 03:50 PM
This is a bummer. Retina is awesome, check out the 15 inch Retina if you haven't seen it already. I hope Apple surprises us this fall with maybe a 13 inch retina, or a new iMac refresh. Retina would be insane (in a good way) on a 21/27 inch screen.

chaosbunny
Jun 22, 2012, 03:51 PM
I hope they loose the optical drive and solder ram and hd to the mainboard to make it incredibly thin. Throwing computers away if something breaks is just so hip and trendy. You think it will be thin enough to slice bread and cheese?

needfx
Jun 22, 2012, 03:51 PM
what a sucky surprise to all people anticipating R in the next iMac refresh.

guess was too soon to expect it.

Fraaaa
Jun 22, 2012, 03:52 PM
Retina MBP 15" is the only retina will have this, and probably next year. Then will start to apply to 13". iMacs will join the party very late.

EvilEvil
Jun 22, 2012, 03:53 PM
Apple holding back features once again :rolleyes:

Hakone
Jun 22, 2012, 03:53 PM
I may not need a retina in a 27" screen, but a higher density resolution option than what's available already would be welcomed (by me).

Since the rumored iPhone 5 looks like a darker metal/aluminum, I'd think it would be cool to have that same shade of grey as an option for the next iMac.

portishead
Jun 22, 2012, 03:54 PM
Sorry but the Retina Macbook Pro is the best Apple product to date. I used to love the Air, but I can't even use it now. This display is awesome.

Pechente
Jun 22, 2012, 03:54 PM
The 27" iMac already is close to a Retina-Display for me. If you sit at an average distance away from it, you won't notice individual pixels all that much.

Skulls
Jun 22, 2012, 03:54 PM
Compared to my crappy 27" 1980x1920 TN, current iMac @ 2560 is retina to me all the way. All i'm waiting is better graphic chip(hopefully nvidia) and next gen cpu.
Why would anyone need more than 2560?

Droid13
Jun 22, 2012, 03:55 PM
As someone who has been saved up and is ready to purchase a 27" iMac, I am not interested in Retina as such - it is overkill and not really necessary. I just don't like the idea of buying an older model if a new one is round the corner.

For me, the things I would like to see are better colour reproduction, current generation processors, current generation graphics and current generation inputs.

I may wait until the baseline OS in the systems is 10.8.3 or thereabouts, depending on how Mountain Lion is received.

Enigmanaut
Jun 22, 2012, 03:55 PM
The screen on the current generation of iMacs is already stunning... how much better does it need to be?

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 03:57 PM
Apple holding back features once again :rolleyes:

Source? A retina mac would be like 180-200 ppi, versus the current 90-110. Are there even screens with that kind of density in that size yet? If iMacs don't go Retina it is because of screen tech or gpu tech lagging.

Thunderhawks
Jun 22, 2012, 03:58 PM
I'll believe it when I see the first home button leak.:rolleyes:

DTphonehome
Jun 22, 2012, 03:59 PM
Just bump the resolution a bit, and you're in retina town. So HiDPI scaling won't be relevant, but so what? Screen elements will be a bit smaller, but you won't be able to see pixels.

mentholiptus
Jun 22, 2012, 04:00 PM
Last september I bought a 27" 3.4ghz quad core i7 iMac with a 256gb SSD & 1tb HDD, added 16gb of ram for a total of 24gb, and bumped the GPU memory to 2gb, and this machine has been an absolute dream. Everything is snappy and fluid. FCPX editing is smooth as silk, 75mb RAW images from my D800 in both aperture and PS CS6 may as well be 1mb jpgs. This machine has yet to make me wait for anything I ask it to do.

I sym-linked my iTunes, iPhoto, and Aperture libraries from the HDD to the home folder on the SSD for the sake of simplicity when saving files from those apps, so with the OS and Apps on the SSD accessing the HDD for files, the system is ridiculously responsive.

I highly recommend an SSD. It really makes all the difference.

Asclepio
Jun 22, 2012, 04:01 PM
3584×2016 27" imac would be perfect

Icaras
Jun 22, 2012, 04:01 PM
People were saying the same about the Retina MacBook pro, claiming retina is ok on ios devices but useless on larger screens. Having my Retina MacBook Pro now, I can assure you the leap here is as big, if not bigger, than the leap we saw on iOS. A Retima iMacs would look amazing.

Agree. Resistance to forthcoming technology for whatever reasons, are always to be expected. It always reminds me of when people were so hesitant to jump off DVD and upgrade to blu-ray and high def media because they thought the change would be so insignificant to them. If the technology is available and can be sold at a practical price, then Apple should deliver to the consumer. If not right now, then we wait until the time is ready, but I'm sure as hell will welcome a retina iMac once they finally hit the market.

WilliamG
Jun 22, 2012, 04:01 PM
A retina-display iMac doesn't need to be 5120x2880, either, to be considered a retina display. At normal viewing distances, it's already hugely sharper than the 1440x900 in the MacBook Pro that got bumped to 2880x1800. Something in between 2560x1440 and 5120x2880 would be perfect.

AppleDApp
Jun 22, 2012, 04:01 PM
I hope they loose the optical drive and solder ram and hd to the mainboard to make it incredibly thin. Throwing computers away if something breaks is just so hip and trendy. You think it will be thin enough to slice bread and cheese?

can it cook my morning breakfast eggs?

Moonjumper
Jun 22, 2012, 04:02 PM
I'm sorry, but do we really need a retina iMac now? I hope nobody sits close enough to distinguish individual pixels. Maybe a 20-30% pixel boost would be perfect (although scaling would be an issue), with more attention to desktop performance internals, rather than borrowing from the mobile lineup. Make my iMac fatter :eek: but make it faster!

30% would be about enough to bring it up to retina, but that would require a new scaling solution from Apple. Doubling the res in each direction is more likely as although it brings other problems, OS X is now set up for it.

washer
Jun 22, 2012, 04:02 PM
Just playing the "what-if" game, can we roughly guess if the new Retina MBP could power a retina Thunderbolt display if/when it came out? Since it can drive three separate displays, I would think that it could push the pixels, but has someone done the math?

Maybe I need to do some googling and break out a calculator.

OregonSasquatch
Jun 22, 2012, 04:03 PM
Buying the moment they go live !!!

Replacing my 20" original 2006 White iMac,

with a Splendid 27", fully loaded, fully spec'd out !!!

I want to do the same! :D

hcho3
Jun 22, 2012, 04:05 PM
Why do we need 5k resolution on a 27 inch display? What for and who is going to pay for all of that? No No No.


Release an Imac and include SSD as standard for fast boot up. Upgrade Ram and Upgrade CPU to compete with new MBP. Call it a day. Maybe drop some price...

jon9091
Jun 22, 2012, 04:06 PM
The screen on the current generation of iMacs is already stunning... how much better does it need to be?

So that you can't see your reflection in it. That's how much better it needs to be (at the very least) :)

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 04:06 PM
A retina-display iMac doesn't need to be 5120x2880, either, to be considered a retina display. At normal viewing distances, it's already hugely sharper than the 1440x900 in the MacBook Pro that got bumped to 2880x1800. Something in between 2560x1440 and 5120x2880 would be perfect.

Wrong. The 15 in was 77% retina. The 15 in high res was 79% retina. The imac 21" is ~75% and the 27" is ~80% retina. So the leap would be as big as on the 15" RMBP.

adildacoolset
Jun 22, 2012, 04:07 PM
Apple holding back features once again :rolleyes:

Because asus haven't implemented retina in their computers, they also hold back.
Copy and paste for all OEMs in existence

brdeveloper
Jun 22, 2012, 04:07 PM
Maybe sarcasm?
If you're sitting at an apporpriate distance from a 27" iMac, you can't see the pixels.

What is an appropriate distance? I can't see too much difference in viewing distance from an iMac screen to a MBP screen. Maybe a TV is "retina" in FullHD/2560px but not a desktop monitor which sits much nearer from the user's eyes.

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 04:08 PM
The most important feature is not the retina display, but a matte display, at least as an option. Sign here:
MacMatte (matte petition)
http://macmatte.wordpress.com

Have you seen these new displays in person? I was a matte only person too. But now I have no complaints with these new glossy screens on the RMBP.

chaosbunny
Jun 22, 2012, 04:09 PM
can it cook my morning breakfast eggs?

Sure, since it'll be so incredibly thin it'll overheat as soon as you do something more demanding than posting how cool your new iMac is on facebook. :D

Rudy69
Jun 22, 2012, 04:10 PM
Not sure why everyone seems so against a retina 27" iMac, I would buy one right away

Moonjumper
Jun 22, 2012, 04:10 PM
Retina MBP 15" is the only retina will have this, and probably next year. Then will start to apply to 13". iMacs will join the party very late.

Apple have shown they are going for retina. Anything that isn't now seems like old tech with a limited lifespan. Apple need to move over more of their lines quickly.

Celli
Jun 22, 2012, 04:10 PM
I can understand people wanting the matte option. Sounds useful to all the folks with bright work spaces. Retina sounds like total overkill. My 2011 iMac i7 got delivered yesterday. I'm a little afraid of what issues are going to come with the latest refresh. My iPhone 4S didn't work so hot the first couple of months. I went for the tried and proven iMac. i7 with 16GB RAM from OWC sounds more worth it to me than retina. Have fun waiting for your iMac.

gregbenz
Jun 22, 2012, 04:11 PM
If true, probably doesn't bode well for a new high resolution Cinema Display for new Macbook Pro users...

Verita
Jun 22, 2012, 04:12 PM
30% would be about enough to bring it up to retina, but that would require a new scaling solution from Apple. Doubling the res in each direction is more likely as although it brings other problems, OS X is now set up for it.

Yes, but I have to believe it's cheaper and easier for the next year or two to code scaling solutions than pack a miracle display in millions of iMacs at the same price point. Sure, I'd love my D800 photos to view in full resolution (or close), but it's highly unlikely this year.

ProMod
Jun 22, 2012, 04:13 PM
Have you seen these new displays in person? I was a matte only person too. But now I have no complaints with these new glossy screens on the RMBP.

I agree 100%. And if the iMac refresh doesn't include something being done about the extremely glossy screen, I'll be forced to go for the Retina MBP with a Dell U2711.

shanmugam
Jun 22, 2012, 04:13 PM
Those are the two features i want (SSD as default option, shrink the HDD size to 2.5" and make it accessible for replacement and slim down the iMac profile).

do not care much about retina display ...

and of course beefier GPU always welcome.

these are given
Ivy Bridge CPU
USB 3.0

Jetson
Jun 22, 2012, 04:13 PM
Give me my matte display!

Enigmanaut
Jun 22, 2012, 04:14 PM
So that you can't see your reflection in it. That's how much better it needs to be (at the very least) :)

But I'm so handsome... ;)

rovex
Jun 22, 2012, 04:18 PM
Retina MBP 15" is the only retina will have this, and probably next year. Then will start to apply to 13". iMacs will join the party very late.

History suggests 13" retina pro's will land sometime this fall.

thekev
Jun 22, 2012, 04:19 PM
I feel like updated iMacs will be more powerful than available mac pros.

Mac Pros are a different issue completely. There are certain things where nothing else made by Apple will work in an acceptable manner (literally). For those guys, they eat the cost of it. Some people who use them would be better served by imacs, but they could really improve serviceability there.

The screen on the current generation of iMacs is already stunning... how much better does it need to be?

If it wasn't so reflective, I'd say it's the nicest AIO display out there without spending a fortune (hp dreamcolor). There are better independent displays. They just don't tend to be mass market items, so fewer people are familiar with them.

Adam552
Jun 22, 2012, 04:22 PM
Good, I don't want retina. I don't need the higher resolution.

OregonSasquatch
Jun 22, 2012, 04:23 PM
I grew up with PC's. I built several of my own while going through high school and college. I had a crush on the Aqua interface, even trying to replicate it on my PC. Finally, I became a Mac user with my first laptop, a 2005 12" Powerbook G4. I figured a laptop would be a good place to start with the Apple world (along side my iPod of course). I now use a 2010 13" Macbook Pro, Apple TV 3, iPhone 4, and a donated 2006 Mac Mini. I put a 750GB HD in my MBP, but I am still running out of space.

Long story short, I want a desktop again. I want it to be the home of all my data (additional Thunderbolt drives may be needed but iMacs don't move, so you don't really notice extra external drives), AppleTV/Music server, desk computer, and processing powerhouse. The MacPro's remind me of what building PC's was like, but they are very expensive and probably overkill for me.

Regardless of a Retina display, a new, powerful iMac sounds great!

So...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ySUYrCG3ps0/T0lMcS1BCQI/AAAAAAAAAvw/BE_Kmj6AphU/s1600/shut_up_and_take_my_money_borderlands.jpg

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 04:24 PM
Good, I don't want retina. I don't need the higher resolution.

Yes you do, you just don't know it yet. /sarcasm

sn
Jun 22, 2012, 04:26 PM
If you're sitting at an apporpriate distance from a 27" iMac, you can't see the pixels. Why on earth would people want a Retina display for that size

I agree with this but it also made me think:

Doesn't this mean the iMac, by definition, already has a retina display? The pixel density on a retina iPad is less than on a retina iPhone (I think?) but the reason they call them both 'retina' is because you can't notice the pixels from 'regular viewing distance'. See what I mean?

daneoni
Jun 22, 2012, 04:31 PM
Unsurprising. I'd imagine getting retina pixels onto 27" of glass wouldn't be a walk in the park.

smulji
Jun 22, 2012, 04:32 PM
As someone who has been saved up and is ready to purchase a 27" iMac, I am not interested in Retina as such - it is overkill and not really necessary. I just don't like the idea of buying an older model if a new one is round the corner.

For me, the things I would like to see are better colour reproduction, current generation processors, current generation graphics and current generation inputs.

I may wait until the baseline OS in the systems is 10.8.3 or thereabouts, depending on how Mountain Lion is received.

I agree. Retina on the 27" isn't really necessary yet. I would love it if were re-designed based on the ideas used to create the MBP Retina:

Thinner
All flash / SSD storage
Minimum 8GB of RAM
Ivy Bridge processors
Nvidia Kepler GPU
improved speakers and mic
Thunderbolt & USB 3.0 ports
No DVD Drive

I can definitely live with the 2560x1440 resolution screen.

----------

History suggests 13" retina pro's will land sometime this fall.

What history are you basing this on?

RoboCop001
Jun 22, 2012, 04:35 PM
Have you seen these new displays in person? I was a matte only person too. But now I have no complaints with these new glossy screens on the RMBP.

How do you rate matte vs retina glossy in terms of colour accuracy? I got a matte MBP last year because I didn't want the glossy screen to reflect everything, and I also didn't want it to give colours more saturation that they really had. Is the retina MBP screen good for that too?

Torrijos
Jun 22, 2012, 04:38 PM
First of all the most important update for iMac would be some form of standard SSD (or SSD caching system), we know that USB 3 is a given with Ivy Bridge.

I would love better graphics, and a 27" matching the display resolution of the 15" Retina MBP would be fine...
I already have difficulty seeing pixels, but it would make sense for apps adaptation and ease of development, ensuring that the capacity wouldn't be wasted waiting for devs to adapt to the various retinas.

Swift
Jun 22, 2012, 04:38 PM
You have to think of it. How many pixels would have to be represented to make a 27" screen? About the size of a 50" HDTV? An actual 4K iMac? The processors could probably handle it, but that's a very expensive screen there. iMac Pro?

Don Kosak
Jun 22, 2012, 04:39 PM
I think "Retina" and 27" iMac doesn't really make sense.

BUT

High Density does make sense. (i.e.: give me more resolution, but unhook the size of UI elements from that resolution.)

We're at 2560 x 1440 on the 27" iMac's today, and that's a pretty solid resolution. I think we could get up to 4096 x 2304 on 27" and have an incredible display. Just keep the UI elements from shrinking too small.

It would be nice to run my iPad emulator in retina mode without it being too big for my 27" monitor. Right now I need to scale it down, so I can only do "pixel perfect" testing on an actual device.

50548
Jun 22, 2012, 04:42 PM
No retina, no buy for "me".

Apple's definition of a "retina" display is that you're not supposed to notice pixels on the screen from a normal viewing distance.

Bottom line: the current iMac is ALREADY retina. There is no need to double or quadruple the current pixel count.

melendezest
Jun 22, 2012, 04:43 PM
What I hope is that Apple doesn't pull a 17" Macbook Pro and try to "replace" the 27" iMac with a Retina 21" or 24".

That would p*ss me off further and significantly delay me from replacing anything. I'm sure others feel the same way...

Bigger is better...;)

javor
Jun 22, 2012, 04:43 PM
I think the next iMac will be 4K resolution, so 4096x2160 or 4096x2304 in resolution, so we can edit and monitor video from cameras such as, RED, Sony FS-700, F65, Canon C 500 etc. FCP X supports 4K too.

Confuzzzed
Jun 22, 2012, 04:44 PM
Fall? Fall? Surely not. If no retina, nothing to hold the refresh that long. I don't care about retina. Just want SSD as standard, better GPU and ivy bridge. On my wish list they can launch in 3 weeks. Unless rMBP selling so well that SSD component is in short supply

faroZ06
Jun 22, 2012, 04:44 PM
Nooooooooooooo
Actually, I didn't expect it to happen. Does anyone else even have retina displays on their PCs at all?

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 04:47 PM
How do you rate matte vs retina glossy in terms of colour accuracy? I got a matte MBP last year because I didn't want the glossy screen to reflect everything, and I also didn't want it to give colours more saturation that they really had. Is the retina MBP screen good for that too?

I'm not competent to judge color accuracy, but it looks fantastic to me, and in my work environment I don't see reflections. You'd have to go judge for yourself in person.

----------

Apple's definition of a "retina" display is that you're not supposed to notice pixels on the screen from a normal viewing distance.

Bottom line: the current iMac is ALREADY retina. There is no need to double or quadruple the current pixel count.

No its not.

http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

Mojo1
Jun 22, 2012, 04:48 PM
Screw Retina. I would be overjoyed if Apple brought back the anti-glare display.

And is it asking too much for the iMac designers to make it possible to easily adjust the height of the computer? I know they can do it: the G4 iMac was the most ergonomic computer every made. The current iMac is among the worst.

I'll be replacing my 2006 24" iMac with a refreshed Mac Mini.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2012, 04:51 PM
If you're sitting at an apporpriate distance from a 27" iMac, you can't see the pixels.

I'd suggest an eye exam. It's easy to discern them from an average distance. We calculated the required PPI for an iMac 27 to become retina, and it's around 190 PPI. iMac is at 109 PPI.

Wardenski
Jun 22, 2012, 04:53 PM
I think they will offer two models:

iMac
EyeMac

The latter with retina display.

Exhale
Jun 22, 2012, 04:53 PM
Does anyone else even have retina displays on their PCs at all?
There are some specialty displays that are Retina, yes. The T220 and T221, which have a PPI of 204 on a 22'' Panel.

They can be a bit hard to find, however.

Ashok0
Jun 22, 2012, 04:54 PM
If you're sitting at an apporpriate distance from a 27" iMac, you can't see the pixels.

Nope. If Apple releases a Retina 27", I'm totally give them my money. :)

Razorhog
Jun 22, 2012, 04:54 PM
I think they will offer two models:

iMac
EyeMac

The latter with retina display.

LOL. Nice

Macsorbecks
Jun 22, 2012, 04:55 PM
I think the next iMac will be 4K resolution, so 4096x2160 or 4096x2304 in resolution, so we can edit and monitor video from cameras such as, RED, Sony FS-700, F65, Canon C 500 etc. FCP X supports 4K too.

I agree, a 4K iMac makes perfect sense for a number of reasons:

- Ivy Bridge and Kepler already support 4K video.
- 1080P video playback is easy, no scaling necessary, just pixel-doubling.
- will be a unique selling point.
- 4K video can already be transmitted over DP and HDMI.

However, as 4K content and cameras are still quite rare Apple might decide to postpone the 4K iMac to next year.

mdelvecchio
Jun 22, 2012, 04:55 PM
I hope they loose the optical drive and solder ram and hd to the mainboard to make it incredibly thin. Throwing computers away if something breaks is just so hip and trendy. You think it will be thin enough to slice bread and cheese?

why would anyone "throw away" a rMBP if something breaks? if the CPU fails you get the CPU replaced. if the RAM fails you have it replaced. if the entire logic board fails you have that replaced. if the battery wears out you have that replaced.

not seeing where "throw away" comes in. subscribe to tech blog hysteria, much?

QCassidy352
Jun 22, 2012, 04:56 PM
The display on my 21" iMac is awesome. I'm sure retina would look even better, but IMO this is already an area of strength for the iMac.

Xtremehkr
Jun 22, 2012, 04:57 PM
It would be helpful to know whether it's going to be an 'update' or a new generation of iMacs.

The kind of changes people are hoping for are more related to a new generation of iMacs. That can't be too far away though, I think the iMac has become the desktop model most people associate with Apple. It's certainly the most visible Apple desktop.

Akid0
Jun 22, 2012, 04:57 PM
.. until apple upgrade to retina display

BornAgainMac
Jun 22, 2012, 04:58 PM
I can understand the no retina display part. But Fall doesn't sound good if it is just a spec update.

travistaylor
Jun 22, 2012, 05:03 PM
Not too surprising information. I'm fine without retina in the iMacs. Honestly, the 27" is already crystal clear to me- even using one in the Apple Store at a relatively close distance.

All I want is a basic bump in the base-line specs. That way I don't feel like an idiot for buying a 2011 iMac just a few weeks/months before a refresh hits.

That said, I would love a re-design- however, as someone else mentioned, sometimes a Rev A design is a bad idea....Eh, if I wait and decide that I don't want to go for a Rev A (if there's a redesign)...I'll save some cash and get the previous model :)

I will just use my 2007 MacBook Pro (that must be plugged into the wall because its battery is toast...) for now. I'll live.

jumanji
Jun 22, 2012, 05:04 PM
retina would be nice but not a must have. i just want an updated damn processor

ixodes
Jun 22, 2012, 05:04 PM
This is great news. Finally Apple applies some common sense and makes a good choice.

Starship77
Jun 22, 2012, 05:11 PM
I agree, a 4K iMac makes perfect sense for a number of reasons:

- Ivy Bridge and Kepler already support 4K video.
- 1080P video playback is easy, no scaling necessary, just pixel-doubling.
- will be a unique selling point.
- 4K video can already be transmitted over DP and HDMI.

However, as 4K content and cameras are still quite rare Apple might decide to postpone the 4K iMac to next year.

Exactly! Of course a 5K (5120x2880 or "retina" 2560x1440 x2) would be great, but it's impractical now… GPUs and standards like HDMI or even DisplayPort don't fully support it.

So, why not take a step back to be able to take 2 steps forward? I mean, make it doubled 2048x1152 and you'll get 4096x2304! That's perfect for 4K playback and all the 4K standards already available…

And I agree, we're probably not gonna see it in the next revision. Maybe in the one after it, so 2013, being optimistic. ;)

tech4all
Jun 22, 2012, 05:18 PM
Apple holding back features once again :rolleyes:

Yes because Apple is clearly not implenting the Retina display in any of their products . . . oh wait . . . they are! :eek: :rolleyes:

eucsstamticc
Jun 22, 2012, 05:24 PM
either way I am buying the new iMac. Signs are pointing to a release with Mountain Lion.

Irregardless as to whats in it I am getting a fully spec'd iMac.


:apple:

javor
Jun 22, 2012, 05:24 PM
Exactly! Of course a 5K (5120x2880 or "retina" 2560x1440 x2) would be great, but it's impractical now… GPUs and standards like HDMI or even DisplayPort don't fully support it.

So, why not take a step back to be able to take 2 steps forward? I mean, make it doubled 2048x1152 and you'll get 4096x2304! That's perfect for 4K playback and all the 4K standards already available…

And I agree, we're probably not gonna see it in the next revision. Maybe in the one after it, so 2013, being optimistic. ;)

I agree, but they already introduced it in their Pro line of Laptops...let's hope the iMac follows with the next refresh and soon. :)

goldenglory18
Jun 22, 2012, 05:25 PM
History suggests 13" retina pro's will land sometime this fall.

See, this is why I have had such a hard time getting on board and finally taking the leap of faith with the larger (more expensive) Apple products. As soon as I get ready to purchase a "new" product of theirs (13" MBP w/Ivy Bridge) I read about the 13" line getting the retina upgrade in a few months.

Based off some recent posts, it sounds like the Pro lineup (as well as the iMac and others) may be getting ready for a significant shake up. Retina display addition requires a lot of hardware changes, especially in the laptops i.e. a larger battery changing the layout of the mother board and internal components. I also vaguely remember reading that the Retina screens were allowing the overall design of products to be thinner and in turn, changing how many ports and external options were designed. If all of that is true, then why would anyone buy the current models when such a shakeup is just around the corner?

Lastly, I admittedly went into my local best buy store looking to purchase a reasonably equipped, highly upgradeable HP that fit my needs to a 'T' but thanks to my beautiful wife and my inability to ignore the Apple aura, I'm now SERIOUSLY interested in a 13" Pro. The price is right at $1200, but you can bet I would blow a gasket if in four months a significantly redesigned version came out at the same price. Do we really feel that if the Retina display and subsequent changes hit the 13" Pro line, it's going to be in the $1200 - $1500 range? Same thing goes for the iMac, how much change in price is worth the technology?

I want to invest in Apple/Mac, but things like this is what leads me to pay 50% less on something that I can knowingly predict will be outdated in 12-18 months.....

nwcs
Jun 22, 2012, 05:26 PM
I'm hoping the new iMacs come out with Mountain Lion. I've had MacBook Pros for 5 years now and I'm pretty much going to an iMac. Getting a desktop class Ivy Bridge processor and 27" does it for me. Especially since Apple decided to off my 17" MBP preference. 15" is just too small for my taste. Retina 27" would be marvelous but probably too much to hope for. So I'll settle for just a good update.

iMac, Ivy Bridge 4 core (or higher), 16GB memory, SSD for me...

HurtinMinorKey
Jun 22, 2012, 05:27 PM
Who needs more resolution, 4K movies aren't really available yet. For editing photos? Please. Any visual artists would be better served by a better monitor, with more faithful reproduction of color at the current resolution (2560 x 1440).

To get more resolution and better color, you're talking astronomical prices.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2012, 05:29 PM
http://www.gizmag.com/panasonic-smallest-4k2k-ips-panel/21061/

Here is the new panasonic 216 ppi panel.

SSDGUY
Jun 22, 2012, 05:29 PM
Many are saying you can't see the pixels at a "normal" distance from current non-retina displays. I disagree. With my new glasses, and sitting 24" away, I can easily see the pixels on my 30" ACD, and not just around the edges of type, but actually in the white area. I think many have grown up looking at 72dpi computer monitors for so long they forget what a clear and truly sharp (not anti-aliased or artificially sharpened) image looks like. Similarly, many say the human ear can't distinguish digital sample rate improvements higher than 16 bit. Not true. The human ear (and eye) can pick up way more than we think. I say as long as performance doesn't suffer adversely, give us displays with as high a resolution as possible. How wonderful it will be to have large displays with type and image sharper and more natural than quality photo prints. Bring it on!

Litany
Jun 22, 2012, 05:30 PM
This is one of those "No Chit" articles. A 27" retina display would add over $2000 to the price just for the cost of the panel alone without Apple's profit markup. Would you pay $5000 for an iMac?

RebelScum
Jun 22, 2012, 05:30 PM
Who's editing 4k video even on (what is assumed will be) an Ivy Bridge quad-core iMac?

I have the i7 and LOVE it, and while I can work in Premiere at 1080p and edit 2gb PSB files with 100+ layers without batting an eye, I doubt I would be able to work on 4k RED files without getting all the way frustrated.

What really makes sense, to me at least, is to create a 27" retina cinema display for editors who need a 4k space, and spec out the MacPro to match.

Leave the display in the iMac as it is for the Rest Of Us. :P

apolloa
Jun 22, 2012, 05:31 PM
Hmm, well I guess Apple may have shot themselves in the foot with this one? Retina resolution is easier on a 15" screen. But I guess with the 27" you get problems with yields to just trying to build such a high res screen.

But they'll do it I'm more then sure, and I would also be sure to power the screen will be a beast of a GPU and CPU too in a redesigned case. I won't even bother with release date speculation..

NAG
Jun 22, 2012, 05:37 PM
Who needs more resolution, 4K movies aren't really available yet. For editing photos? Please. Any visual artists would be better served by a better monitor, with more faithful reproduction of color at the current resolution (2560 x 1440).

To get more resolution and better color, you're talking astronomical prices.

A few years ago SSDs had insane price points. Now we're to the point where basically everyone should go SSD or SSD hard drive combo.

Who needs more than 128 kb memory?

Seriously, the argument of "who needs" really needs to be put to rest for good. It is basically "I'm right, nah nah nah".

HurtinMinorKey
Jun 22, 2012, 05:42 PM
A few years ago SSDs had insane price points. Now we're to the point where basically everyone should go SSD or SSD hard drive combo.

Who needs more than 128 kb memory?

Seriously, the argument of "who needs" really needs to be put to rest for good. It is basically "I'm right, nah nah nah".

Sure, 5 years from now it might be practical, but we're talking about the next iMac release here buddy. And right now, better color is more practical (and more useful for most pros) than more resolution.

xVeinx
Jun 22, 2012, 05:43 PM
It is also possible that we may see only the 21.5 in iMac being updated with the retina display. The displays may have to be rolled out over time, with the volume being constrained until a later point. Let's face it, the displays are beautiful but hard to manufacture. That they are even out at all and provided without costing a fortune is quite impressive. Apple is going the extra mile to differentiate themselves from the competition.

Piggie
Jun 22, 2012, 05:44 PM
The screen on the current generation of iMacs is already stunning... how much better does it need to be?

I believe everyone said that about the iPad 1 and 2, and then the 3 came out and now the 1 and 2 are considered almost unusable by some

javor
Jun 22, 2012, 05:45 PM
This is one of those "No Chit" articles. A 27" retina display would add over $2000 to the price just for the cost of the panel alone without Apple's profit markup. Would you pay $5000 for an iMac?

Eizo 4K monitor costs $ 35.000, so yes, i'd pay $ 2.000 more for a 4K iMac in a blink of an eye. I guess they might do the same as they did with the MacBook Pro (retina and non-retina), give us an option for a regular iMac and a 4K iMac (Pro) both with updated Ivy Bridge of course.

NAG
Jun 22, 2012, 05:46 PM
Sure, 5 years from now it might be practical, but we're talking about the next iMac release here buddy. And right now, better color is more practical (and more useful for most pros) than more resolution.

Well listen here, boy. I reckon that I wasn't talkin' about this them thar release but was instead talkin' abou' yar makin' over-reachin' generalizations.

CoreyLahey
Jun 22, 2012, 05:47 PM
I would be happy if Scientology would really release the new iMac together with Mountain Lion, I'm waiting to switch from PC to Mac like many others here. A fall release wouldn't be the end of the world, but it seems rather late for an update, no?

Macclone
Jun 22, 2012, 05:47 PM
Buying the moment they go live !!!

Replacing my 20" original 2006 White iMac,

with a Splendid 27", fully loaded, fully spec'd out !!!

I thought I was the only one that had a 20 inch 2006 iMac.

thekev
Jun 22, 2012, 05:47 PM
Lastly, I admittedly went into my local best buy store looking to purchase a reasonably equipped, highly upgradeable HP that fit my needs to a 'T' but thanks to my beautiful wife and my inability to ignore the Apple aura, I'm now SERIOUSLY interested in a 13" Pro. The price is right at $1200, but you can bet I would blow a gasket if in four months a significantly redesigned version came out at the same price. Do we really feel that if the Retina display and subsequent changes hit the 13" Pro line, it's going to be in the $1200 - $1500 range? Same thing goes for the iMac, how much change in price is worth the technology?

I want to invest in Apple/Mac, but things like this is what leads me to pay 50% less on something that I can knowingly predict will be outdated in 12-18 months.....

This is nothing new. They've introduced stuff like this on expensive units in the past then moved it down. Expect it on the Air too. I kind of wondered if the Air would debut such a thing given that their displays don't exceed 13". The outdated thing happens either way though. Tock cycle, pretty bar graphs displaying igpu improvements, thunderbolt updates, etc. You're focusing on only one aspect of it. I also don't worry about resale value. The upgraded versions depreciate the most given that features tend to trickle down. If the 13" gets quad cpus or sees dramatic cpu improvements, fewer people will be interested in the old 15". Also $250 more for slightly higher clock speed doesn't hold up between generations most of the time, especially if you're purchasing a tick cycle machine.

Hmm, well I guess Apple may have shot themselves in the foot with this one? Retina resolution is easier on a 15" screen. But I guess with the 27" you get problems with yields to just trying to build such a high res screen.

But they'll do it I'm more then sure, and I would also be sure to power the screen will be a beast of a GPU and CPU too in a redesigned case. I won't even bother with release date speculation..

With larger displays, uniformity and other things become much bigger issues. If the panel has a problem, it's much more costly to discard it.


Who's editing 4k video even on (what is assumed will be) an Ivy Bridge quad-core iMac?

I have the i7 and LOVE it, and while I can work in Premiere at 1080p and edit 2gb PSB files with 100+ layers without batting an eye, I doubt I would be able to work on 4k RED files without getting all the way frustrated.

What really makes sense, to me at least, is to create a 27" retina cinema display for editors who need a 4k space, and spec out the MacPro to match.

Leave the display in the iMac as it is for the Rest Of Us. :P

It would make more sense on a discrete display with fewer design restrictions. By that I mean one where it's okay for the display to be thick or have vents cut for passive cooling or whatever else hooked up to something like a mac pro. I will be impressed if they can smoothly turn a 4k display into a mass market device. I just don't see it happening this year. As to laptops having higher resolution, their dpi has been higher for some time. Look at the 1920x1080 windows displays and 1920x1200 (I think it was 1200) on the prior 17" macbook pro. Notebook displays surpassing the others in dpi is not a new concept.

HurtinMinorKey
Jun 22, 2012, 05:48 PM
It is also possible that we may see only the 21.5 in iMac being updated with the retina display. The displays may have to be rolled out over time, with the volume being constrained until a later point. Let's face it, the displays are beautiful but hard to manufacture. That they are even out at all and provided without costing a fortune is quite impressive. Apple is going the extra mile to differentiate themselves from the competition.

You can buy a better monitor, with way more cpu gpu firepower as long as you are willing to go away from the all-in-one form factor.

You also have to give up OSX. So just don't go on the internet without your life preserver on!:eek:

50548
Jun 22, 2012, 05:50 PM
I'm not competent to judge color accuracy, but it looks fantastic to me, and in my work environment I don't see reflections. You'd have to go judge for yourself in person.

----------



No its not.

http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

Yes, it is. I said Apple's definition.

"the Retina display's pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels."

philipma1957
Jun 22, 2012, 05:51 PM
If it was anything like the MacBook Pro one, then it wouldn't be worth it anyway. OS dumbed down to the point where you can't even select the display resolution you want.

Wow the truth gets negative 35 votes !




I was in the apple store today getting a repair for a 2010 mac mini.


the machine has 5 settings . my names for the five settings are:

1)oldest eyes



2)old eyes = my 55 year old double cataract surgery eyes .

at least the surgery was perfect for far and medium.



3) normal eyes = my eyes up til 40

4) teen age eyes= my eyes up til 25


5) kids eyes = my eyes til about 13


Due to the surgery I do most of my computer work on a 46 inch sony led from 10 feet away.

HurtinMinorKey
Jun 22, 2012, 05:53 PM
Well listen here, boy. I reckon that I wasn't talkin' about this them thar release but was instead talkin' abou' yar makin' over-reachin' generalizations.

Nice. How did you know I was from the south?

Starship77
Jun 22, 2012, 05:55 PM
See, this is why I have had such a hard time getting on board and finally taking the leap of faith with the larger (more expensive) Apple products. As soon as I get ready to purchase a "new" product of theirs (13" MBP w/Ivy Bridge) I read about the 13" line getting the retina upgrade in a few months.

Based off some recent posts, it sounds like the Pro lineup (as well as the iMac and others) may be getting ready for a significant shake up. Retina display addition requires a lot of hardware changes, especially in the laptops i.e. a larger battery changing the layout of the mother board and internal components. I also vaguely remember reading that the Retina screens were allowing the overall design of products to be thinner and in turn, changing how many ports and external options were designed. If all of that is true, then why would anyone buy the current models when such a shakeup is just around the corner?

Lastly, I admittedly went into my local best buy store looking to purchase a reasonably equipped, highly upgradeable HP that fit my needs to a 'T' but thanks to my beautiful wife and my inability to ignore the Apple aura, I'm now SERIOUSLY interested in a 13" Pro. The price is right at $1200, but you can bet I would blow a gasket if in four months a significantly redesigned version came out at the same price. Do we really feel that if the Retina display and subsequent changes hit the 13" Pro line, it's going to be in the $1200 - $1500 range? Same thing goes for the iMac, how much change in price is worth the technology?

I want to invest in Apple/Mac, but things like this is what leads me to pay 50% less on something that I can knowingly predict will be outdated in 12-18 months.....

If there is a 13' retina later this year, it will probably be a new machine and it's not gonna "replace" the current 13'. It's gonna compare to the current 13 pro almost exactly like the 15 retina compares to the 15 mbp. The price should be in the 1499-1599 range, since the top 13 Air is already 1499 without retina display and with a slower processor. (the cpu in the 13 retina should be similar to the cpu in the 13 mbp, which is faster than the air) If there are 2 options like the 15, I believe the top model (2.9GHz, more SSD) should be in the 2099-2199 range.

So, if you want a 1200 notebook. The current 13 is a great option and it is brand new and updated (usb 3, etc) So, it's not like it's gonna be outdated anytime soon… ;)

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 05:58 PM
Yes, it is. I said Apple's definition.

"the Retina display's pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels."

You are truncating Apple's definition. Schiller gave the same mathematical formula as the TUAW site used to evaluate the machines in one of the keynotes. It is on the basis of that formula that they determine whether or not your eye can distinguish pixels, not subjective experiences as you are relying on. A person with 20/20 can see indivual pixels on the iMac from a normal viewing distance, as the math formula proves, and which is scientifically based. You claiming otherwise just spreads factual innacuracies.

GREEN4U
Jun 22, 2012, 06:01 PM
Just remove the god-awful chin! That's all we've ever wanted!

fastlanephil
Jun 22, 2012, 06:01 PM
I would think Apple will release a Retina Thunderbolt Display before the iMac gets one if they are going that direction.

Possibly after the release of the Mac Pro in late 2013.

CoreyLahey
Jun 22, 2012, 06:06 PM
I believe everyone said that about the iPad 1 and 2, and then the 3 came out and now the 1 and 2 are considered almost unusable by some

That's ridiculous. I'm not saying there aren't people like that, but I was very underwhelmed by the retina display on the iPad and just kept my iPad 2. To call the previous iPads "unusable" sounds insane to me, especially coming from people that were "using" the 1 and 2 before.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 22, 2012, 06:07 PM
People actually expected a roll out of 200+ ppi on 27 in panels, already?

The Panel conglomerates will milk present solutions as long as they can before they roll out high density pixel panels.

xVeinx
Jun 22, 2012, 06:07 PM
You can buy a better monitor, with way more cpu gpu firepower as long as you are willing to go away from the all-in-one form factor.

You also have to give up OSX. So just don't go on the internet without your life preserver on!:eek:

I've been using Windows and built my own PCs for 15+ years. I know what they have to offer. I'm finding my Mac Mini with OS X to be a joy to use currently, however. When I need to do more intensive work, I push those jobs onto a cluster and let them run. I'd be happier having a nice retina MBP for most tasks, and then having the mini for home, etc. My days of building high-end gaming PCs and such are over, it really isn't necessary or where my interests lie anymore.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 22, 2012, 06:08 PM
I think "Retina" and 27" iMac doesn't really make sense.

BUT

High Density does make sense. (i.e.: give me more resolution, but unhook the size of UI elements from that resolution.)

We're at 2560 x 1440 on the 27" iMac's today, and that's a pretty solid resolution. I think we could get up to 4096 x 2304 on 27" and have an incredible display. Just keep the UI elements from shrinking too small.

It would be nice to run my iPad emulator in retina mode without it being too big for my 27" monitor. Right now I need to scale it down, so I can only do "pixel perfect" testing on an actual device.

Retina on a 27" makes sense. They would be high density panels at the surface geometry for a 27" diagonal and at a standard Ergonomic depth you'll get the appropriate ``retina'' ppi for that size.

As others point out the availability will be difficult.

KnightWRX
Jun 22, 2012, 06:11 PM
We're surprised by this? There is no mobile GPU right now that can power 2x the current pixels of the iMac without taking a serious performance hit or risk overheating.

Uh ? The current Retina MBP can with the nVidia 650M. What are you on about ?

(and it's 4x btw, Retina is 2x2 pixels to 1 point. 2x2 is 4 ;) ).

RebelScum
Jun 22, 2012, 06:13 PM
A person with 20/20 can see indivual pixels on the iMac from a normal viewing distance, as the math formula proves, and which is scientifically based. You claiming otherwise just spreads factual innacuracies.

I do, and I can't.

Please formulate equation, Will Hunting.

GREEN4U
Jun 22, 2012, 06:19 PM
Just remove the god-awful chin! That's all we've ever wanted!

LMAO. Why did I get downvoted for this. You guys are queer.

nilk
Jun 22, 2012, 06:24 PM
Is the technology even there to be able to deliver affordable high-PPI displays at these sizes? I haven't seen it in person, and maybe it's a non-issue, but the 15" Retina Display poses the potential problem of scaling if you want more desktop space than the equivalent of 1440x900. I don't want to have to worry about those issues in my desktop.

Personally I'll probably never get an iMac (if my computer has a monitor built in, it better be portable), but naturally the Apple Display will have to match whatever the top-end iMac has. I think that the current Apple Display was actually a step backwards as far as the panel is concerned. Sure it has higher PPI (which has it's pros and cons; con being having to place it closer to be readable), but they reduced the vertical resolution from 1600 (the 30" display) to 1440.

Right now I use a Dell U3011 (30" 2560x1600) which I absolutely love and I think it is the best monitor available for less than $1500. What would I want in a future display? More usable pixels, not higher PPI. I'd like to see larger displays with a higher pixel count. Maybe something like a 32" or larger display with the same PPI as the current 27" Apple Display so that we end up with more pixels and thus more desktop space. And I don't want the PPI to be so high that I need to use HiDPI mode at a lower equivalent than 2560x1NNN or scaling to resolutions that are not 1:1 to be able to use the display.

thekev
Jun 22, 2012, 06:24 PM
Sure, 5 years from now it might be practical, but we're talking about the next iMac release here buddy. And right now, better color is more practical (and more useful for most pros) than more resolution.

That's very true, but good luck there. Apple has always gone with simplicity. There are ways to improve display stability or match a required range for print graphics or video workflows. The typical solutions of LUT based systems, panel blocking to even out uniformity, compensation for display drift, etc. aren't areas where I would expect much from Apple. They basically sell the same thing to everyone, and only a small portion are probably demanding such things. Those that do demand them already buy other things that are better for this. You can buy displays with software made to manage multiple displays where they'll work to match the behavior of multiple units purchased at different times to an incredibly fine level. You can't do this by just picking up whatever $100-200 colorimeter, and calling it a day. I just don't see Apple catering to this.


I think "Retina" and 27" iMac doesn't really make sense.

BUT

High Density does make sense. (i.e.: give me more resolution, but unhook the size of UI elements from that resolution.)

We're at 2560 x 1440 on the 27" iMac's today, and that's a pretty solid resolution. I think we could get up to 4096 x 2304 on 27" and have an incredible display. Just keep the UI elements from shrinking too small.

It would be nice to run my iPad emulator in retina mode without it being too big for my 27" monitor. Right now I need to scale it down, so I can only do "pixel perfect" testing on an actual device.

That still doesn't make any sense. You pick up a lot of engineering problems when scaling up. You guys are way too stuck on the idea that it must be 27". The current 27" displays have displaced most of the available 30" models. They're basically an expansion of 25.5" displays (often marketed as 26") widened from 16:10 to 16:9. If you backtrack a bit further toward 16:9 24" displays, you'd be at a good starting point. The question is whether they can contain a whole computer behind that. You'd probably need to expand dimensions somewhere, and Apple hates doing that. For reference look at this (http://www.necdisplay.com/p/medical%20-diagnostic%20-displays/md215mg).

It's a monochromatic display for medical use. They're quite expensive, but the tolerance in stability and manufacturing for that kind of equipment is much tighter than what Apple would most likely require. If you could do something like that only wider and in color, you'd have your display. These things have been available at reasonably high resolution for quite a few years. It matters what can be produced in high enough volume. Beyond that Apple has to be able to hit a certain price point while retaining their desired margins, which are quite high.

As to resolution independent ui elements, that makes a lot of sense, but fully vector based UIs don't seem to be available.

petsounds
Jun 22, 2012, 06:25 PM
I bet the Mac Pro update is being held up until “later next year” because a standalone (27-inch?) Retina Display can’t be released until then, and Apple wants to release them simultaneously to capture a lot of buzz and profit in the pro market.


Sadly, a new Mac Pro only being held up in order to market it with a standalone Retina Display makes perfect sense in Apple logic. They really should retire standalone Apple displays to the dustbin of history as they did their printers*. Who as a pro uses one? They don't make financial sense, and have too many limitations (I assume the new ones will only have a Thunderbolt connector).

If the pro market is being denied a Mac Pro update simply because a new Cinema Display won't be ready for a year, there will be hell to pay!

(*) Actually, I wish Apple still made printers. Every third-party printer I've had was a piece of junk. The Apple printers I used were reliable and always great performers (except for the terrible inkjet StyleWriters, which were mostly rebadged HPs). Did you know the ImageWriter II was Apple's longest-running product? 1985-1996.

Kimbie
Jun 22, 2012, 06:28 PM
Compared to my crappy 27" 1980x1920 TN, current iMac @ 2560 is retina to me all the way. All i'm waiting is better graphic chip(hopefully nvidia) and next gen cpu.
Why would anyone need more than 2560?

Well why not get a decent 27" IPS panel?

cupcakes2000
Jun 22, 2012, 06:34 PM
Did you know the ImageWriter II was Apple's longest-running product? 1985-1996.

Except for the Macintosh you mean? :D

leadfeather89
Jun 22, 2012, 06:35 PM
If the new iMac comes out with retina display and doesn't cost more than the current models, I'll get it. Hurray more pixels for the same price.

If the new iMac comes out without retina display and doesn't cost more than the current models, I'll get it. No QQ cuz I won't even notice the difference.

-SD-
Jun 22, 2012, 06:38 PM
Personally, I'd be quite interested in a 'retina' iMac, or one with a higher resolution display. However, I really don't think we'll see one this year to be quite honest. Maybe.

Considering the difference in price between the with/without MacBooks, I dread to think what it'd add to the cost of an iMac. The decent version of the 27" normally retails for about £1650, or thereabouts. Would you really be willing to pay, say, £2500 (or even a bit more) for the same spec with a retina/HiDPI display? Fair play to you if you would.

Thing is, even with this Unicorn-powered display, what are you actually going to run on it to take advantage of its magical DPI? There's only a few compatible apps available and a couple of games. It'll take the best part of the next year before we start seeing a decent amount of software that natively supports higher resolutions. And God only knows when Microsoft will update Office....

It's like being an early adopter on 3D TVs, it's awesome, but you've spent £5000 on a telly and there is (or was) only 3 compatible 3D films to watch on it!!

Higher resolution displays are obviously the future, and Apple are going to be at the forefront, but I'm not interested until the software's there to support the displays. So yeah, even if there's a 'retina' iMac tis year, I personally wouldn't be interested. I think I'd rather go for a full spec Mini until it's worth making the 'retina' upgrade in a couple of years.

:apple:

JayLenochiniMac
Jun 22, 2012, 06:39 PM
Just a new form factor (thinner iMac) from getting rid of the optical drive is good enough to drive sales. Retina display can come later. They're certainly not going to put all their eggs in one basket.

JustinOtstott
Jun 22, 2012, 06:40 PM
Regardless, I will be buying the new iMac. Time to start saving up some money.

Jeaz
Jun 22, 2012, 06:40 PM
Sure, retina is great, but looking at the price hike of the Macbook Pro I don't dare to imagine what it would cost on a 27" version. Plus, what would the resolution be? I mean, it's 2560x1440 now, and would then probably be well above 6000x4000-ish which would be just insane.

gnasher729
Jun 22, 2012, 06:42 PM
Considering the difference in price between the with/without MacBooks, I dread to think what it'd add to the cost of an iMac. The decent version of the 27" normally retails for about £1650, or thereabouts. Would you really be willing to pay, say, £2500 (or even a bit more) for the same spec with a retina/HiDPI display? Fair play to you if you would.

Before you do that kind of speculation about the price of a Retina iMac, go to the Apple store, then compare the price of the Retina MBP and a 15" MBP with the same 8 GB of RAM and 256 GB SSD: The Retina MBP isn't more expensive. It is actually cheaper: £1799 vs. £1979. £180 cheaper.

nilk
Jun 22, 2012, 06:43 PM
Sadly, a new Mac Pro only being held up in order to market it with a standalone Retina Display makes perfect sense in Apple logic. They really should retire standalone Apple displays to the dustbin of history as they did their printers*. Who as a pro uses one? They don't make financial sense, and have too many limitations (I assume the new ones will only have a Thunderbolt connector).

I'm not sure I follow your logic as to why a standalone Apple display should be retired. Maybe I misunderstood you?

Anecdote time: The company I work for is ordering developers two Apple Thunderbolt displays each, so that we can daisy-chain them connected to the rMBPs we will be ordering. I know plenty of "pros" who are using the same setup. Even people using 27" iMacs can benefit from having a second (or third) display. If I didn't already have a 30" monitor, I'd be considering an Apple display for home once I get a machine that has Thunderbolt.

The Apple Thunderbolt display fits right in with Apple's product line. It's perfect for people who have machines with Thunderbolt, especially MacBook owners who spend time at their desks.

That said, there better be a good reason for whatever is holding up a real Mac Pro update.

bushman4
Jun 22, 2012, 06:43 PM
Tim cook saying we're " doubling down on decracy" tells the whole story. At this point any rumor is merely pure speculation and BS There's no way to differentiate as to a real rumor or just fiction. Believe what you want. But don't let a hope & a prayer guide you when it comes to Apple rumors.

Celli
Jun 22, 2012, 06:46 PM
Who cares if the iMac gets thinner?? It's a desktop. My desk is pretty big.

----------

Just a new form factor (thinner iMac) from getting rid of the optical drive is good enough to drive sales. Retina display can come later. They're certainly not going to put all their eggs in one basket.

Who cares if the iMac gets thinner? It's a desktop. Do you really want a hotter, thinner desktop with less room for components?

bdkennedy1
Jun 22, 2012, 06:52 PM
I can't imagine they could fit a graphics chip powerful enough for a retina display in an iMac while keeping it thin.

Ashok0
Jun 22, 2012, 06:53 PM
I agree 100%. And if the iMac refresh doesn't include something being done about the extremely glossy screen, I'll be forced to go for the Retina MBP with a Dell U2711.

For the record, I RMAed my U2711 and bought the Apple LED Cinema Display 27". The DELL U2711 is a flaming POS.

Fraaaa
Jun 22, 2012, 06:54 PM
History suggests 13" retina pro's will land sometime this fall.

History or rumours? Because they are two different things.

I don't believe it. Why wait this long after WWDC to announce those?
It makes no sense to announce a new line in two different times. I believe if there was in fact a 13" it would have been launched with the 15".

my 2 cents

rowspaxe
Jun 22, 2012, 06:55 PM
I am so over retina display--it will be interesting to see if the retina momentum disapates. the imac is so ugly and boring, you can almost visualize a big hp where the apple logo goes. c'mon apple, think different!

-SD-
Jun 22, 2012, 06:58 PM
Before you do that kind of speculation about the price of a Retina iMac, go to the Apple store, then compare the price of the Retina MBP and a 15" MBP with the same 8 GB of RAM and 256 GB SSD: The Retina MBP isn't more expensive. It is actually cheaper: £1799 vs. £1979. £180 cheaper.

Touché.

I'll give you that one. ;)

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 07:03 PM
I do, and I can't.

Please formulate equation, Will Hunting.

Tan (a/2) = s/2d, where a is viewing angle, s is pixel spacing, and d is viewing distance. Would you like me to compute it for you too?

Shaun, UK
Jun 22, 2012, 07:10 PM
The cost of the larger retina screen would simply make the iMac way to expensive for it's target market. Maybe next year when prices some down.

Had my first chance to play with the new MBP Retina in my local Apple Store today. Honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. I didn't notice much of a difference from the previous MBP and despite what they said at the launch the glare is still very noticeable compared the old MBP with an anti-glare screen. It was also a lot heavier than I thought it would be. And it's seriously expensive at £1800 or £2300. They axed the 17" MBP coz it only represented 2% of sales - I can't see the MBP Retina doing much better at those prices.

My current 17" MBP has just died so I've decided to the buy the new MBA now and the new iMac when it comes out - which will cost me about the same as getting the mid range MBP Retina (£2300). For that I get a powerful desktop machine and a very light laptop without the annoying glossy screen.

charlituna
Jun 22, 2012, 07:12 PM
I'm sorry, but do we really need a retina iMac now? I hope nobody sits close enough to distinguish individual pixels. Maybe a 20-30% pixel boost would be perfect (although scaling would be an issue), with more attention to desktop performance internals, rather than borrowing from the mobile lineup. Make my iMac fatter :eek: but make it faster!

You raise an interesting point. How are folks defining Retina. Apple defines it as that amount where one can't distinguish pixels at a reasonable distance. Not some 4x what it normally has or set dpi amount.

This issue here could be that those that are making these statements are using that kind of definition and therefore they are saying such a screen isn't happening. When all that is really needed is the 'minor' 20-30% dump that you speak of with the same screen controls as they put on the new Mac Book Pro. And we might get that type of display on an iMac or even a revamped Cinema Display line in the coming months.

blumpkin
Jun 22, 2012, 07:12 PM
I'M GOING TO GET MAD AND WRITE AN ESSAY ON THE INTERNET! :mad:

urbanlung
Jun 22, 2012, 07:13 PM
I asked one of the guys at my local Apple Store what the specs on the new iMac were and he said he didn't know what I was talking about. I guess that's the end of all these rumours about a new model, after all, if anyone would know it would be an Apple person. For some reason when I asked if I could see the new Dell instead he seemed less willing to help and after looking all round the store for one I gave up and left. I really don't know why everyone rates Apple so highly. Anyway Im now the proud owner of the latest SpazM 27LX3000Turbo PC which I picked up at PC World for £349.99 including cash back. It makes a weird clattery sound when I look at my email but I've been assured that that is standard when using high end PCs. My only regret is that you can't see all the blue LEDs and stickers when I put the cushions around it. I don't know what it is but whenever I use it I'm sure I can smell curry or something hot.

Michael CM1
Jun 22, 2012, 07:16 PM
The Retina display boosted the cost of a MacBook Pro by $400. It has a 15-inch display. Does this mean $800 more for the iMac, which is already too rich for my blood in the 27-inch varieties?

I'm also guessing the iMac isn't as much of a priority as MacBooks are. Those sell much better than iMacs. I just wonder what spec people are going to complain about once all the Macs have a Retina display. It's very useful for iOS devices, but was this really a problem for computers? I know my 21.5" iMac could have a bit better resolution, but it's no slouch. 1920x1080 is pretty darn resolute in a screen sitting three or four feet away.

KnightWRX
Jun 22, 2012, 07:18 PM
The cost of the larger retina screen would simply make the iMac way to expensive for it's target market. Maybe next year when prices some down.

Have you priced both the MBPR and the standard MBP with the same specs ? You're in for a surprise... ;)

sunspot42
Jun 22, 2012, 07:23 PM
I ran the math for a few display sizes and resolutions, based on the 3438 x 1/n = formula that's been mentioned online as the method used to calculate if a display is "retina" or not.

The current 27" iMac already looks to be a retina display, at a viewing distance of only 2.6 feet at least, which seems pretty reasonable for a 27" display. It sports a PPI of 109. But maybe Apple will define the viewing distance as 2 feet or 2.5 feet. Or maybe they'll release a 32" iMac.

At WQHD resolutions - double the current 1080p standard - a 27" monitor would become a "retina" display at just 1.76 feet, with a PPI of 163 (higher than the first laser printers!).

Even at a 32" diagonal screen size, you'd be looking at a 138 PPI display and a "retina" distance of only 2.08 feet. So I could see Apple releasing just such a beast as their next iMac. I doubt anybody is gonna sit closer than 2' to a 32" display (unless they're trying to get a tan...).

Sharp, for what it's worth, was demonstrating WQHD (double current 1080p HD) earlier this year, so they're certainly in the pipeline. Apple may just be waiting for them to become available in quantity. Of course, that might mean no new "retina" iMacs until next year...

charlituna
Jun 22, 2012, 07:27 PM
I agree 100%. And if the iMac refresh doesn't include something being done about the extremely glossy screen,

Given the move they made with the Retina MBP it is very possibly they will do the same with the iMac and Cinema Displays. So not matte but much less glaring glossy.

ad2435
Jun 22, 2012, 07:29 PM
if apple doesnt come out soon with a new imac with usb3, blu ray, latest processors, EASY user upgradability and a less glossy screen it will be a sign that they will only focus on portable devices and will defocus on desktops.

JayLenochiniMac
Jun 22, 2012, 07:30 PM
Who cares if the iMac gets thinner?? It's a desktop. My desk is pretty big.

----------



Who cares if the iMac gets thinner? It's a desktop. Do you really want a hotter, thinner desktop with less room for components?

Apple cares, as evidenced by their obsession with slimming down everything they're able to. Besides, they want to get rid of the optical drive anyway so that'll allow it to be thinner.

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 07:30 PM
I ran the math for a few display sizes and resolutions, based on the 3438 x 1/n = formula that's been mentioned online as the method used to calculate if a display is "retina" or not.

Where did you get this formula specifically? How are these numbers even related to what we are talking abut, and from where are there values derived?

Shaun, UK
Jun 22, 2012, 07:32 PM
Have you priced both the MBPR and the standard MBP with the same specs ? You're in for a surprise... ;)

I checked the specs/prices for the new MBP 2.6 GHz model.

The new MBP seems to have gone up by about £100 from the previous model.

You pay £500 more for SSD instead of HDD/ODD + the Retina display.

KnightWRX
Jun 22, 2012, 07:35 PM
I checked the specs/prices for the new MBP 2.6 GHz model.

The new MBP seems to have gone up by about £100 from the previous model.

You pay £500 more for SSD instead of HDD/ODD + the Retina display.

Price them with the exact same specs. That includes SSD.

Taking a base 2.3 ghz here (1829$), adding 4 GB of RAM to match the 8 in the base MBPR, making the HD a 256 GB SSD, I get a price of 2429$. The base MBPR is 2229$.

200$ cheaper to get a Retina display, at the cost of a 35$ optical disc drive.

Oh, and the MBPR has 512 MB of extra VRAM on that 650M ;)

charlituna
Jun 22, 2012, 07:37 PM
I'm not competent to judge color accuracy, but it looks fantastic to me, and in my work environment I don't see reflections. You'd have to go judge for yourself in person.

----------



No its not.

http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

By their own math the 27 inch iMac is already 89% to Retina status. Getting up to that other 11% might not be that expensive or impossible.

Something like a revamped 40 inch Cinema Display would be a different issue but for the 27 inch it might be very possible.

Icy1007
Jun 22, 2012, 07:37 PM
New 27" iMac with 3.x GHz Ivy Bridge i7 and an NVidia 680M GPU. I would buy that instantly.

petsounds
Jun 22, 2012, 07:40 PM
Except for the Macintosh you mean? :D

Ok ok, I should have said the longest-running Apple *model*. It sold as "ImageWriter II" for eleven years with very little physical changes, whereas there have been many Macintoshes...

tominco
Jun 22, 2012, 07:41 PM
I'd rather see more competitive pricing on hardware than the addition of retina displays for more money, but then my 50 year old eyes are fine with my brand new 13" MBA. :)

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 07:41 PM
By their own math the 27 inch iMac is already 89% to Retina status. Getting up to that other 11% might not be that expensive or impossible.

Something like a revamped 40 inch Cinema Display would be a different issue but for the 27 inch it might be very possible.

Right, the real problem would be in the scaling needed to keep the same real estate as current models. Apple's current system is a breeze but it requires quadrupling the resolution, and that is difficult and perhaps even impossible right now.

Shaun, UK
Jun 22, 2012, 07:44 PM
Price them with the exact same specs. That includes SSD.

The cost of the 512GB SSD has come down but who in their right mind would pay £700 for the SSD upgrade anyway.

I think both the new MBP & new MBP Retina are over-priced. I can remember not that long ago when the 15" MBP started at around £1200 now it's £1500.

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 07:44 PM
I'd rather see more competitive pricing on hardware than the addition of retina displays for more money, but then my 50 year old eyes are fine with my brand new 13" MBA. :)

The problem is Apple has not been increasing the prices for the Retina displays. The iphone, ipad, and rmbp all had the same price. What bumped the price on the RMBPs is the SSD amd RAM increase more than anything else.

danthespaceman
Jun 22, 2012, 07:47 PM
The resolution for a retina 27" iMac would make
more sense at 3840x2160. (1920x1080 x2).

Celli
Jun 22, 2012, 07:50 PM
Apple cares, as evidenced by their obsession with slimming down everything they're able to. Besides, they want to get rid of the optical drive anyway so that'll allow it to be thinner.

I suppose that's true. Apple is obsessed with making everything thinner. I don't care if they shave 1/2" off on a desktop. I'm afraid it will run hotter and I like having an optical drive. Other than maybe getting a 2011 for less $ when 2012 comes out, there's nothing overwhelmingly appealing for me to wait for the refresh. Hey I got my free $29.99 Mountain Lion update. Wuhoo!

KnightWRX
Jun 22, 2012, 07:52 PM
The cost of the 512GB SSD has come down but who in their right mind would pay £700 for the SSD upgrade anyway.

I think both the new MBP & new MBP Retina are over-priced. I can remember not that long ago when the 15" MBP started at around £1200 now it's £1500.

Are you missing my point on purpose ? The whole point is that the Retina display does not seem to add any "extra costs" to the MBP. If you read the post I was replying to, it was implying a "Retina iMac would be costly". I simply provided evidence that it wouldn't be much pricier than the current iMac.

Gah, I guess you can't ever be subtle around here.

clibinarius
Jun 22, 2012, 07:55 PM
Late July for Mountain Lion is the only logical time.

Mr. Gates
Jun 22, 2012, 07:56 PM
Oh, whatever will the 90% of Mac users do without a $3000 Retina Facebook machine ?? :rolleyes:

Scythe5
Jun 22, 2012, 07:57 PM
Our logic or Apples? Often times those are two completely different things.

petsounds
Jun 22, 2012, 08:00 PM
I'm not sure I follow your logic as to why a standalone Apple display should be retired. Maybe I misunderstood you?


Well, perhaps 'retired' was strong language, but they certainly don't upgrade them often enough to stay competitive in the market. There's no justification for their price; they aren't objectively better than any other display. Mostly right now I'm just upset at the plausible suggestion that they're holding up the Mac Pro update.

Remel
Jun 22, 2012, 08:01 PM
Good, I don't want retina. I don't need the higher resolution.

Aple should offer one new model of iMac with retina display for the people who need/want one, while also upgrading the current models with faster processors, USB 3 etc. Just like they have for the MacBook Pro.

Jbach67
Jun 22, 2012, 08:01 PM
what a sucky surprise to all people anticipating R in the next iMac refresh.

guess was too soon to expect it.

Think of the economics here. People are bemoaning the cost of the retinal mbp, with a 15in screen and 256 ssd. Now make that a retinal 27 inch with a terabyte SSD in an iMac and you'll be into used SUV territory on cost. Desktop users will want more storage and memory and better graphics than a laptop. There's every reason to think costs will come down on ssd and displays and that's why the iMac of the future won't be coming this year. Next year when haswell processors come out, you may see a 3 or 4 grand monster of an iMac with all those goodies. But they'll need to make an affordable old school version as with the MBP for people who want something under $2 grand or so. I'll be happy to see the spec bump iMac with ivy bridge and better graphics in the near future. I've compared the current iMac screen with the retinal mbp at the apple store. I dont see a $1500 or more difference there. It's just not worth it to me. Maybe four or five years when prices have dropped back into the troposphere.

parish
Jun 22, 2012, 08:01 PM
We're surprised by this? There is no mobile GKPU right now that can power 2x the current pixels of the iMac without taking a serious performance hit or risk overheating.

I disagree. An iMac with a secondary 27" Cinena Display running extended desktop is powering 2x the number of pixels is it not?

And did you see the post earlier today showing a rMBP with 3 external monitors totalling ~15million pixels?

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 08:03 PM
Price them with the exact same specs. That includes SSD.

Taking a base 2.3 ghz here (1829$), adding 4 GB of RAM to match the 8 in the base MBPR, making the HD a 256 GB SSD, I get a price of 2429$. The base MBPR is 2229$.

200$ cheaper to get a Retina display, at the cost of a 35$ optical disc drive.

Oh, and the MBPR has 512 MB of extra VRAM on that 650M ;)

Right, and Apple charges 200$ to upgrade the ram from 8gb to 16gb on the rmbp, so we can actually substract that variable, leaving the price diff on the ssd alone. Looks like Apple threw in the extra vram for free. Also worth noting the 256gb SSd upgrade on cMBPs is 400$, the exact difference between retina and non retina models.

charlituna
Jun 22, 2012, 08:04 PM
Just remove the god-awful chin! That's all we've ever wanted!

speak for yourself, I personally have zero issue with 'the chin'. I wouldn't mind if it was more useful like say having stereo speakers in it but whatever.

What I would like to see is them go for an all SSD, ODD free unit that would sit flush on the wall with the various ports along the sides instead of the back.

And/or an even larger model in a Cinema Display that also have HDMI so I could use it as a tv. Say in a 40-46 inch model with a frame rate comparable to the larger TVs and perhaps even capable of viewing 3D. Which of course would mean then they need to put 3D 1080p files in the iTunes store cause folks could hook their Apple TV up to such a screen. Add in 5.1 sound, language and subtitle tracks and features identical to the disk releases that actually work on the freaking Apple TV and they would have files that are actually worth paying at much as a physical disk (the whole 'iTunes in the cloud' being mandatory as well)

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 08:05 PM
Oh, whatever will the 90% of Mac users do without a $3000 Retina Facebook machine ?? :rolleyes:

Again with this nonsense. Why do you assume Retina is more expensive?

Jbach67
Jun 22, 2012, 08:07 PM
Just a new form factor (thinner iMac) from getting rid of the optical drive is good enough to drive sales. Retina display can come later. They're certainly not going to put all their eggs in one basket.

Why do people want to dump the optical drive on an all in one to achieve thinness on a non portable desktop? Are you going to hang it on the wall. It already has a small footprint. To me, it's a step backwards. I'll need at least one optical drive and it may as well be in the desktop computer instead of eating space on the desktop.

mcfmullen
Jun 22, 2012, 08:09 PM
Again with this nonsense. Why do you assume Retina is more expensive?

Because it is?

KnightWRX
Jun 22, 2012, 08:10 PM
Right, and Apple charges 200$ to upgrade the ram from 8gb to 16gb on the rmbp, so we can actually substract that variable

Substract ? The base 15" MBP comes with 4 GB, the base MBPR comes with 8. I was making them equivalent with 8 each.

The retina display isn't costing extra, that's the point really.

mrmarts
Jun 22, 2012, 08:10 PM
A retina display imac will be equlivent to a 4k TV I can't see this happening anytime soon!

goobot
Jun 22, 2012, 08:12 PM
Again with this nonsense. Why do you assume Retina is more expensive?

Is this a joke? If not why do you think the retina MacBook pro cost 2,200? Why do you think 1080p tvs cost more than 720p? A retina 27 inch at 3000 would be cheap for that size IMO, it would be more like 3500.

KnightWRX
Jun 22, 2012, 08:12 PM
Because it is?

You missed both my posts. Price it yourself and be surprised.

----------

Is this a joke? If not why do you think the retina MacBook pro cost 2,200?

Price them out to the same specs. Retina vs non Retina.

Wow, why do we need to repeat this again and again ?

goobot
Jun 22, 2012, 08:16 PM
The price of the iPad 3 screen cost more than the iPad 2. The screen cost more here. Apple just isn't taking as much as a profit margin just like the iPad 3. And you need hardware to surport that screen. Enjoy the screen on hardware that can't even run it.

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 08:20 PM
Substract ? The base 15" MBP comes with 4 GB, the base MBPR comes with 8. I was making them equivalent with 8 each.

The retina display isn't costing extra, that's the point really.

Agreed

----------

Because it is?

Proof?

Casey MAC
Jun 22, 2012, 08:21 PM
I saw a MacBook pro with retina on display at the mac store and watched a short photo show on it. I was kinda neat. But that’s about it, kinda neat. As a multimedia Artist and filmmaker I don’t think I have any use for it, especially on a 27" IMac (the colors and detail are amazing already). I think apple created the Retina displays for there MacBook pro line because of the limited screen real estate on the new MacBook Pro "15". Retina displays are virtually worthless for "27" IMacs.

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 08:22 PM
Is this a joke? If not why do you think the retina MacBook pro cost 2,200? Why do you think 1080p tvs cost more than 720p? A retina 27 inch at 3000 would be cheap for that size IMO, it would be more like 3500.

Add the equivalent SSD to the classic Macbook Pro. What price do you get?

----------

The price of the iPad 3 screen cost more than the iPad 2. The screen cost more here. Apple just isn't taking as much as a profit margin just like the iPad 3. And you need hardware to surport that screen. Enjoy the screen on hardware that can't even run it.

The ipad 3 sold for the same prices as did the ipad 2, the same held true for iphone 4.

charlituna
Jun 22, 2012, 08:23 PM
I asked one of the guys at my local Apple Store what the specs on the new iMac were and he said he didn't know what I was talking about. I guess that's the end of all these rumours about a new model, after all, if anyone would know it would be an Apple person.

Not at all. They aren't told in advance because they aren't supposed to tell but the bosses know that someone would for attention if not money. So the staff won't know until the public knows. but it means nothing in regards to whether something will or won't happen and when

KnightWRX
Jun 22, 2012, 08:24 PM
The price of the iPad 3 screen cost more than the iPad 2. The screen cost more here. Apple just isn't taking as much as a profit margin just like the iPad 3. And you need hardware to surport that screen. Enjoy the screen on hardware that can't even run it.

Uh ? My late 2008 MacBook could push 2880x1800 pixels just fine between it's mDP and internal display, on a now outdated 9400m nVidia GPU.

And again, Apple isn't charging more for the Retina display, what makes you think this trend would change with the iMac ? I bet it wouldn't. A Retina iMac would not be more expensive than a non-Retina one.

charlituna
Jun 22, 2012, 08:26 PM
Aple should offer one new model of iMac with retina display for the people who need/want one, while also upgrading the current models with faster processors, USB 3 etc. Just like they have for the MacBook Pro.

And that is probably how they will do it.

Rofflesaurrr
Jun 22, 2012, 08:26 PM
Why are we speculating about a display resolution which is not even possible? All the current NVIDIA and AMD graphics processors only support a maximum resolution of 4096x2160 at 60Hz. I would like a retina display iMac as much as the next person, but it would take a significant amount of graphics power to run applications at that resolution. Possibly more than what would fit in an iMac chassis.

nilk
Jun 22, 2012, 08:27 PM
Well, perhaps 'retired' was strong language, but they certainly don't upgrade them often enough to stay competitive in the market. There's no justification for their price; they aren't objectively better than any other display. Mostly right now I'm just upset at the plausible suggestion that they're holding up the Mac Pro update.

You are right, Apple's displays aren't any better than alternatives and they definitely don't update them often enough. But, at least right now, the Apple Thunderbolt Display is a decent value proposition, because the non-Apple Thunderbolt hubs that are coming out right now are so expensive that buying a similar non-Apple display + a Thunderbolt hub cost in the same ball park as an Apple Thunderbolt display. I don't know if you can run 2 monitors off of any of the hubs, but if not, then Apple's monitor is the only way to do this over Thunderbolt.

But this may be only temporary that the Apple display is worth it. If their track record is the same as the 30" (no updates for a long time, and very little price drops), then yeah, it won't be a very good option.

FWIW, I really don't think we will see a large "retina" display from Apple for a long time. Even if the technology is there, I imagine it's prohibitively expensive to sell them and will be for several years. But maybe I don't know what is going on with LCD panel manufacturing, maybe there has been some breakthroughs.

iMikeT
Jun 22, 2012, 08:28 PM
No surprise.

iMacs and/or Apple Thunderbolt Displays can all ready be considered "Retina" because the "normal viewing distance" where individual pixels are indistinguishable from the next for these devices is about 2.5' away.

What iMacs and Apple Thunderbolt Displays suffer from is that content (UI elements, web pages, videos, etc.) is not resolution independent. Content makers, even Apple themselves, need to be taking advantage of the 2560x1440 resolution.

While I type this comment, I am sad that a web page like MacRumors is still coded for 1024x768 and I either have to lean closer to the display or view pixelated content via "command + (zoom in)".

iZoom P5
Jun 22, 2012, 08:28 PM
Judging by past history

Apple went from 153,600 pixels (320*480) to 614,400 pixels (640*480) in three years 2007 iPhone to 2010 iPhone 4 but all 3.5" displays.

The iPad only took 2 years to get from 786,432 pixels to 3,145,728 pixels between 2010 and 2012 iPad's with their 9.7" screens. (An 512% increase in pixels count!)

Granted the MacBook Pro has been in existence for much longer but it's recent move to a retina display was a much lower percentage increase. Raising the bar to 5,184,000 pixels just a few months with the 2880*1440 2012 MacBook Pro has (only) 165% more pixels than the iPad although it has a 15.4" screen.

Knowing this just based in pixel count alone
2560*1440 pixels would yield 14745600 Pixels in an almost 300% increase. For a display with almost 4x time amount of pixels that the MBP in an iMac would cost an insane amount of money at this point in time.

It's too soon to have display tech to caught up to make a mainstream display with that many pixels. It will come but just needs some time to mature.

thekev
Jun 22, 2012, 08:30 PM
Price them with the exact same specs. That includes SSD.

Taking a base 2.3 ghz here (1829$), adding 4 GB of RAM to match the 8 in the base MBPR, making the HD a 256 GB SSD, I get a price of 2429$. The base MBPR is 2229$.

200$ cheaper to get a Retina display, at the cost of a 35$ optical disc drive.

Oh, and the MBPR has 512 MB of extra VRAM on that 650M ;)

I don't have a problem with their strategy, but they're bundling a certain amount of upgrades to force a certain minimum sale. This makes a lot of sense. They always cost more if added via custom configuration. Anytime you buy a computer with cto options, you are not just paying for the upgraded part. You are also paying for a non standard configuration. The $2200 mark and above probably carried a relatively high margin, so they were able to bundle many things into a base configuration and ship a lot of identical units.


Substract ? The base 15" MBP comes with 4 GB, the base MBPR comes with 8. I was making them equivalent with 8 each.

The retina display isn't costing extra, that's the point really.

Note the prior post. This isn't uncommon with computing devices or other things. It makes perfect sense. They can bury the additional cost on something like this in a high margin item early on. Overall the cost of the other panels probably fell quite a bit since their initial implementation a few years ago or whenever they made a major update the last time. When these fall a bit they'll eat the older designs.

charlituna
Jun 22, 2012, 08:34 PM
A retina display imac will be equlivent to a 4k TV I can't see this happening anytime soon!

Not necessarily. The math that Apple uses to create their definition likely comes out to a lot less than 4k. And even if the math does come out to close than that the only reason anyone is saying it is impossible is because it hasn't happened. But Apple is known to tie up resources from companies that could make such things they want with NDAs to keep anyone from talking and suddenly Apple does the 'impossible'. Especially since if we accept the math going around the blogs the 27 inch would only have to go from 109ppi to 122ppi to be Retina. Not some 2x or 4x measurement

And as it is very possible that they will limit such a screen to the high end 27 inch model they wouldn't need millions of displays as that is already not the most popular consumer model. So 'limited supplies' wouldn't be as serious an issue

----------

The price of the iPad 3 screen cost more than the iPad 2. The screen cost more here. Apple just isn't taking as much as a profit margin just like the iPad 3. And you need hardware to surport that screen. Enjoy the screen on hardware that can't even run it.

1. If Apple is willing to make a bit less how is that anyone's business

2. if they include the screen they will include the hardware to run it. That's how Apple works.

Rocketman
Jun 22, 2012, 08:37 PM
No retina, no buy for "me".That is a very unreasonable position for a Mac-Mini! :D

BTW any educated guestimates on Mac-Mini specs and PORTS?

I know there is a 1% chance of a Mini format Pro, but what do the PC guys call them? Nettop.

http://releaselaptop.com/asus-eee-box-eb1503/

Rocketman

AidenShaw
Jun 22, 2012, 08:43 PM
LMAO. Why did I get downvoted for this. You guys are queer.

A fair number of us are queer, and I've always hated the chin.

DVD9
Jun 22, 2012, 08:49 PM
Agreed - "retina" across a 27" screen would be insane. I'd be happy with a pixel bump and a spec bump.

The only thing that would be insane is the price Apple would charge us.

JayLenochiniMac
Jun 22, 2012, 08:56 PM
Why do people want to dump the optical drive on an all in one to achieve thinness on a non portable desktop? Are you going to hang it on the wall. It already has a small footprint. To me, it's a step backwards. I'll need at least one optical drive and it may as well be in the desktop computer instead of eating space on the desktop.

That's beside the point. Physical media is dead.

KnightWRX
Jun 22, 2012, 08:58 PM
I don't have a problem with their strategy, but they're bundling a certain amount of upgrades to force a certain minimum sale. This makes a lot of sense. They always cost more if added via custom configuration. Anytime you buy a computer with cto options, you are not just paying for the upgraded part. You are also paying for a non standard configuration. The $2200 mark and above probably carried a relatively high margin, so they were able to bundle many things into a base configuration and ship a lot of identical units.

Note the prior post. This isn't uncommon with computing devices or other things. It makes perfect sense. They can bury the additional cost on something like this in a high margin item early on. Overall the cost of the other panels probably fell quite a bit since their initial implementation a few years ago or whenever they made a major update the last time. When these fall a bit they'll eat the older designs.

All of that doesn't change the fact : right now, getting the Retina display is essentially a cost free option at the spec levels of the machine. There is no reason to believe an iMac would use a different strategy.

Again : Just providing evidence to support the fact that a Retina iMac would not be more expensive than a comparably configured normal iMac following Apple's strategy for it in its other devices (iPhone/iPad/MBP).

You did notice all the posts in this thread saying an iMac would be ludicrously expensive with a Retina display right ? ;) (and they keep posting this stuff, even after we keep refuting it. I think some people just post without reading the comments first).

cgk.emu
Jun 22, 2012, 09:11 PM
I feel like updated iMacs will be more powerful than available mac pros.

Oh, for sure. At least if we are comparing standard configs. Of course a 12 core Pro would be more powerful, but how many of us NEED that? (Yes I'm aware some do, but a very VERY small percentage).

thekev
Jun 22, 2012, 09:15 PM
I feel like updated iMacs will be more powerful than available mac pros.

It depends how you define more powerful. Mac Pros do offer certain functionality that you can't fully duplicate in an imac. For a lot of people the imacs may be more practical, but the cpu bump will be quite modest compared to the laptops. If you don't believe me, check geekbench scores on the appropriate cpu types for yourself.

All of that doesn't change the fact : right now, getting the Retina display is essentially a cost free option at the spec levels of the machine. There is no reason to believe an iMac would use a different strategy.

Again : Just providing evidence to support the fact that a Retina iMac would not be more expensive than a comparably configured normal iMac following Apple's strategy for it in its other devices (iPhone/iPad/MBP).

You did notice all the posts in this thread saying an iMac would be ludicrously expensive with a Retina display right ? ;) (and they keep posting this stuff, even after we keep refuting it. I think some people just post without reading the comments first).

I read the majority of the comments. There's no real way of knowing if yields would be high/cheap enough to make this currently viable. I kind of doubt it. Notebook displays like I said were inching up a lot faster even if Macbook Pros didn't always incorporate the highest resolution. They mostly stayed with stable designs. It'll be interesting to see what they do here. This is the first time I've seen them use a fully custom panel as opposed to just a custom implementation.

Rocketman
Jun 22, 2012, 09:18 PM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=15099429&postcount=126

DVD9
Jun 22, 2012, 09:18 PM
What I hope is that Apple doesn't pull a 17" Macbook Pro and try to "replace" the 27" iMac with a Retina 21" or 24".

That would p*ss me off further and significantly delay me from replacing anything. I'm sure others feel the same way...

Bigger is better...;)

Seriously.

I want a 30" 16:10 Retina.

cupcakes2000
Jun 22, 2012, 09:19 PM
I think some people just post without reading the comments first.

i'm gonna go with 99% of people post without reading first. The same amount of people that seemingly post total nonsensical rubbish also! It really bugs me, but at the same time provides some pretty entertaining reading as well!

cfedu
Jun 22, 2012, 09:20 PM
If I hold my iPhone 3GS 5 feet away it is retina!!! So why would I need an iPhone 4 or 4s ;).

Seriously, the higher res the better!! If the rMBP was higher res it would look better at 1080 p. a retina iMac could be set to 1080p without looking fuzzy for older users with less than perfect eyesight.

Icy1007
Jun 22, 2012, 09:29 PM
The resolution for a retina 27" iMac would make
more sense at 3840x2160. (1920x1080 x2).

Actually it would be 2560x1440 x2 aka 5120x2880 for a "Retina" 27" iMac.

rocknblogger
Jun 22, 2012, 09:46 PM
I'll be honest, retina displays look very nice. Anyone who's seen one will attest it. But in my opinion, and this is only my opinion, the current iMac and TB display are gorgeous. While we would probably see a difference I don't know if it's going to be as dramatic as on a 15" screen.

I think the deciding factors of when we might see large retina displays lays with the developers. I can guarantee that some web developers are not going to go out of their way to make every imager retina ready. In the big scheme of things Mac users make up a very small percentage of web surfers. I'm not including iPad or iPhone for this argument because design and development for those two platforms is different than for large format screens. That small percentage of mac users is going to get even smaller when retina displays are released. Meaning that there will be even fewer Mac users with retina displays.

It's a bit like developers not supporting internet explorer (v6 or earlier). Even though a lot of people still used it and even now still use it, designers and developers have stopped optimizing for ie for a number of years now.

If of course Windows PCs come out with retina displays then that will have a tremendous impact on how developers are going to work. I think until that happens the retina experience is going to be fair at best.

Yes application developers like Adobe will optimize their software but I wonder at pace that will happen. It happened pretty quickly with the iPad but that's because it's the only game in town when it comes to tablets. PCs are a different story.

I predict that the sales figures for the current RMBP will not be as high as a lot of people seem to think. I think for that reason too it will be longer before we see the iMac with retina.

I for one am buying a non retina MacBook pro next week. I just want to be able to turn it on and go to work. I don't want to scale anything or change resolutions for different situations or anything like that. I just want everything to look right no matter what I'm doing or what site I'm visiting.

caligomez
Jun 22, 2012, 09:52 PM
Hopefully Thunderbolt displays will be updated with USB and released around that time.. THat's usually the case right? They update the displays shortly after the iMacs?

mtbgtr
Jun 22, 2012, 09:59 PM
either way I am buying the new iMac. Signs are pointing to a release with Mountain Lion.

Irregardless as to whats in it I am getting a fully spec'd iMac.


:apple:

"Irregardless" ??

Seriously?

Rocketman
Jun 22, 2012, 10:00 PM
I went to an Apple store today and played with the RMBP and the MBP15 and MBP13. The reps argued with me when I said they all had USB3. She and he were convinced and demanded they only had USB2.

That said, zero Macs in the store had more than one display attached. I just wanted to see how the latest Macs dealt with X number of displays, preferably 3+. No joy.

I'm old and got my very first glasses today and the retina was visibly better, but not day to day better for most things I actually do. If the graphics capacity issue is addressed for 2-3 external monitors, even the 13 will serve my > than Mini requirements for my very next unit.

There is officially a missing accessory. Let's call it the Rocketman accessory. A port plug strip that keeps dust and moisture out of exposed plug holes in adverse conditions. Cheapest part ever. Maybe I'll sell a colored roll of masking tape in the Apple store, but that would not be very Apple-ly. :(

Rocketman

Jobsian
Jun 22, 2012, 10:05 PM
No retina, no buy for "me".
Lol I'm intrigued as to why you curiously put 'me' in quotes, are you some kind of abstract entity that doesn't actually exist? :P

goobot
Jun 22, 2012, 10:10 PM
1. If Apple is willing to make a bit less how is that anyone's business

2. if they include the screen they will include the hardware to run it. That's how Apple works.

Thanks for reading the previous comments, that is exactly what i implied, meaning the computer would cost quite a bit.

----------


The ipad 3 sold for the same prices as did the ipad 2, the same held true for iphone 4.

Ok so? Like i said apple took a lower profit margin and made up the difference with other hardware becoming cheaper.

jvmxtra
Jun 22, 2012, 10:13 PM
Cost is too high to produce retina iMac.

Expecting retina 27 iMac is simply insane this year.

nfl46
Jun 22, 2012, 10:13 PM
Lol I'm intrigued as to why you curiously put 'me' in quotes, are you some kind of abstract entity that doesn't actually exist? :P

Yes, I'm from the movie, "Prometheus." :eek:

Hexley
Jun 22, 2012, 10:22 PM
4K resolution would be more welcome than pixel doubling the 27-inch's resolution.

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 10:26 PM
Ok so? Like i said apple took a lower profit margin and made up the difference with other hardware becoming cheaper.

Other hardware becoming cheaper??? You mean as in less expensive or of lower quality? If the latter I'd like to some evidence for that. The claim seems spurious.

seanm9
Jun 22, 2012, 10:26 PM
i don't think that this guy understands what retina displays are... those specs are unreal... and at a reasonable distance from a 27" screen i think you only need 20-30% more pixels than what we currently have...I bet a 3200 * 1800 pixel display would be in the range of a retina display... one where you can't tell the difference of 1 pixel from the next...

rocknblogger
Jun 22, 2012, 10:28 PM
"Irregardless" ??

Seriously?

Eh, give him a break. It's late on a Friday nite. Maybe a couple drinks and you know, words just start sounding good in your head, LOL. I'm sure you've been in a bar and had a couple over the limit and you say to your friends, "Okay I got to get going home irregardless you know the wife be pissed". But in your head it sounded more like "Hey guys it's getting late and I've had enough. Plus I don't want my wife to be angry". It happens, true story bro LOL!!!

Ah hell, it is getting late :D

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 10:28 PM
4k resolution would be more welcome than pixel doubling the 27-inch's resolution.

y

racer1441
Jun 22, 2012, 10:30 PM
This is disappointing if true. I got my retina Mbp and between that and the iPad 3, I can't take regular displays. I have already sold my non retina macs.

DVD9
Jun 22, 2012, 10:38 PM
I would be happy if Scientology would really release the new iMac together with Mountain Lion, I'm waiting to switch from PC to Mac like many others here. A fall release wouldn't be the end of the world, but it seems rather late for an update, no?

Tom Cruise dancing in his tighty whities because he's so excited about the iMac Retina.

Ryth
Jun 22, 2012, 10:40 PM
Why would they wait then just to release an iMac speed bump in August/Sept when they could have done that last week at WWDC like they did with the regular MBPRo and MBAir? The Ivy Bridge desktop chips are available and have been for a while.

The ONLY sensible logic/reason for the iMAC to not have been updated at WWDC is that they are working on a Retina version of it.

I mean...releasing it when Lion is release and just with a speed bump...can't see Apple doing that at all.

Something else is going down..otherwise the iMac would have been released already.

Randomoneh
Jun 22, 2012, 10:45 PM
None of you are familiar with studies behind 4K, 8K resolutions? Limits of human visual system (expressed as angular resolution)? No?
It's sad, reading all those "it's already close to retina" comments.

turtlez
Jun 22, 2012, 11:19 PM
first imac rumor in a while and it just talks about next year stuff? What about this year stuff??? I don't care if retina or no I just want an up to date iMac

----------

None of you are familiar with studies behind 4K, 8K resolutions? Limits of human visual system (expressed as angular resolution)? No?
It's sad, reading all those "it's already close to retina" comments.

99% of people go off their experience rather than physics :P I do too

----------

y

because no one wants to go from a 27" 2011 model to a 27" 2012 model (with retina) and see their computer performing below that of the 2011 model.

akadmon
Jun 22, 2012, 11:23 PM
I feel like updated iMacs will be more powerful than available mac pros.

Hahahaha! Prepare to cook some eggs.

JohnDoe98
Jun 22, 2012, 11:36 PM
Why would they wait then just to release an iMac speed bump in August/Sept when they could have done that last week at WWDC like they did with the regular MBPRo and MBAir? The Ivy Bridge desktop chips are available and have been for a while.

The ONLY sensible logic/reason for the iMAC to not have been updated at WWDC is that they are working on a Retina version of it.

I mean...releasing it when Lion is release and just with a speed bump...can't see Apple doing that at all.

Something else is going down..otherwise the iMac would have been released already.

What if they had extra inventory left over? They might want to wait a little longer no?

theturn
Jun 22, 2012, 11:39 PM
What if they had extra inventory left over? They might want to wait a little longer no?

Not buying that especially with Tim Cook at the helm he's been head of manufacturing since Jobs came back, remember that piece where Apple turns over its inventory almost as
much as mcdonalds which deals with perishables...

goobot
Jun 22, 2012, 11:59 PM
Other hardware becoming cheaper??? You mean as in less expensive or of lower quality? If the latter I'd like to some evidence for that. The claim seems spurious.

I meant like parts that are the same as the iPad 2's and a year later they would become cheaper...

JohnDoe98
Jun 23, 2012, 12:06 AM
I meant like parts that are the same as the iPad 2's and a year later they would become cheaper...

Right, so why should the trend in Retina prices all of a sudden change by increasing overall costs when they never did before? Are we expecting no parts to stay the same in the new iMacs? Is that what you are insinuating?

ghettochris
Jun 23, 2012, 12:35 AM
None of you are familiar with studies behind 4K, 8K resolutions? Limits of human visual system (expressed as angular resolution)? No?
It's sad, reading all those "it's already close to retina" comments.

yeah, I think the differences past the "retina" of the iphone are minimal, but studies do show that people with good vision can see pixels down to .3 arc minutes, and the iphone's pixels are 3x that size at about 1 arc minute.

Same goes with frames per second, most people think 24 fps movies are fine, and 60 fps for video is as much as you need, but for the eye/brain to make the motion blur not the video you need up to 500 frames per second before it's perfect for humans. 120 would be a good start for a while though. sucks to be the rotoscoper of 120 fps movie though.

Saw this chart in the apple television thread talking about hopes it could be 4k. defiantly overkill, but your 1080p tv isn't true "retina" at 10 feet unless it's only 10" big. 50" isn't even true retina at 40 feet. (see small graph at bottom to see how it plateaus past 100 pixels per degree-iphone retina is only 60 pixels per degree.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5242/1080vs4kvs8kvsmore.png

----------

why retina isn't enough (http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/)

lol the iphone would need more pixels than current 27" imac to be true retina, and the 27" imac would have to be 9120x5130 or 46 megapixels.

JohnDoe98
Jun 23, 2012, 12:36 AM
yeah, I think the differences past the "retina" of the iphone are minimal, but studies do show that people with good vision can see pixels down to .3 arc minutes, and the iphone's pixels are 3x that size at about 1 arc minute.


Here's a quote for you:

Dr. Soneira's claims are based upon a retinal calculation of .5 arcminutes which to my reading of the literature is too low. According to a relatively recent, but authoritative study of photoreceptor density in the human retina (Curcio, C.A., K.R. Sloan, R.E. Kalina and A.E. Hendrickson 1990 Human photoreceptor topography. J. Comp. Neurol. 292:497-523.), peak cone density in the human averages 199,000 cones/mm2 with a range of 100,000 to 324,000. Dr. Curcio et. al. calculated 77 cycles/degree or .78 arcminutes/cycle of *retinal* resolution. However, this does not take into account the optics of the system which degrade image quality somewhat giving a commonly accepted resolution of 1 arcminute/cycle.

I'm worried your sources are making the same error as Dr. Soneira. In fact your link appeals to Dr. Soneira.

TSloper
Jun 23, 2012, 12:40 AM
Simple math says there will not be a x2 27" Retina display...

A 5120x2880 display would require a bandwidth of ~21.2 Gb/s. This is over 2x what a single Thunderbolt channel can support today.

Starship77
Jun 23, 2012, 01:04 AM
yeah, I think the differences past the "retina" of the iphone are minimal, but studies do show that people with good vision can see pixels down to .3 arc minutes, and the iphone's pixels are 3x that size at about 1 arc minute.

Same goes with frames per second, most people think 24 fps movies are fine, and 60 fps for video is as much as you need, but for the eye/brain to make the motion blur not the video you need up to 500 frames per second before it's perfect for humans. 120 would be a good start for a while though. sucks to be the rotoscoper of 120 fps movie though.

Saw this chart in the apple television thread talking about hopes it could be 4k. defiantly overkill, but your 1080p tv isn't true "retina" at 10 feet unless it's only 10" big. 50" isn't even true retina at 40 feet. (see small graph at bottom to see how it plateaus past 100 pixels per degree-iphone retina is only 60 pixels per degree.

Image (http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5242/1080vs4kvs8kvsmore.png)

----------

why retina isn't enough (http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/)

lol the iphone would need more pixels than current 27" imac to be true retina, and the 27" imac would have to be 9120x5130 or 46 megapixels.


At those kinds of pixel densities, Anti-Aliasing wouldn't be necessary… Yes, without anti-aliasing, it's easy to see pixels in the iPhone even from a good distance (like stretching your arm as far as possible). Just play Real Racing and you will clearly see the aliasing.

BUT… anti-aliasing makes it looks as if it was 4 to 32 times higher density. Text is always anti-aliased, that's why it looks so sharp on the iPhone or retina iPad (and rMBP now). Those kind of resolutions aren't really that necessary if everything is anti-aliased. :cool:

Maybe in the future it becomes cheap and easy to achieve this level of pixel density, than anti-aliasing would not be necessary anymore… but that's far from now… :rolleyes:

themcfly
Jun 23, 2012, 01:18 AM
Simple math says there will not be a x2 27" Retina display...

A 5120x2880 display would require a bandwidth of ~21.2 Gb/s. This is over 2x what a single Thunderbolt channel can support today.

This doesn't even make sense. It's not like you hook up ad internal monitor with a thunderbolt cable. :rolleyes:

RebelScum
Jun 23, 2012, 01:25 AM
Tan (a/2) = s/2d, where a is viewing angle, s is pixel spacing, and d is viewing distance. Would you like me to compute it for you too?

Please do.

I would love to know how my inability to discern pixels from my standard viewing distance (~20-24") is in fact me seeing pixels.

Confuzzzed
Jun 23, 2012, 01:31 AM
I want to invest in Apple/Mac, but things like this is what leads me to pay 50% less on something that I can knowingly predict will be outdated in 12-18 months.....

There's a difference in PC hardware spec been outdated and Mac hardware been outdated. The former becomes technologically obsolete, the other carries on working as well as the day you bought it. There may be faster machines released, but you won't be noticing the slowdown which creeps into PCs because of malware in general. Just buy the machine if you need it and it serves your purpose right now. Your range has just been refreshed...besides, a retina MBP will cost twice what the current MBP costs...is it worth that to you for what you need the machine?

SockRolid
Jun 23, 2012, 01:35 AM
Maybe off-topic, but with high enough resolution, isn't anti-aliasing redundant?

The whole point of AA is to reduce the jaggedness of diagonal lines. But if the display has high-enough resolution, you wouldn't see any jaggies. And turning off (or eliminating) AA "smoothing" algorithms can significantly improve performance.

(For examples of jaggies without anti-aliasing, watch the original "Tron.")

Confuzzzed
Jun 23, 2012, 01:43 AM
57% of macrumors site users polled July as likely release of refreshed iMac.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1384568

Could it be this guy saying fall was been cautious having got one thing wrong already in his original article, namely retina? So when he had to issue a correction, he kicked it outn onto the long grass some distance away so his story would have a bit more shelf life?

I'm still going for July release with ML

Lancer
Jun 23, 2012, 01:46 AM
I really hope the iMac Ivy Bridge update comes before the Fall season and with Mountain Lion in about 4 weeks.

While I can wait if I have to I would really love a new iMac now, just not willing to spend so much on last years model.

And again I hate to think how much a Retina 27" iMac will cost, mark my words they will be an option or a separate iMac line when first released. I figure if I get the updated iMac in July then by the time I'm due a replacement (3-5 year) they will have Retina sorted and it will be standard feature on the iMac... and PCs will just start using them :lol:

fpsBeaTt
Jun 23, 2012, 01:56 AM
The report was wrong about one thing in terms of an update for internal components being possible now; the appropriate GPU has not yet been released. Since it appears that Apple has decided to switch to NVidia for this product lineup, which is perfectly fine according to the heat/power/performance ratings for Kepler in graphical applications, it would make sense that Apple would choose the GTX 680m for the top end iMac GPU, instead of the already released HD 7970. This squares up with the delay, and coincides nicely with the release of Mountain Lion.

krithikb007
Jun 23, 2012, 02:16 AM
After seeing the price of retina MBP i prefer better hardware config rather than retina display. In our place we can buy a car for the price of retina MBP :P:)

ikir
Jun 23, 2012, 02:19 AM
iMacs have a great display. Retina needs a lots of power and to double iMacs resolution probably it's too early. Even MBP retina is quite a miracle and a complete redesign Mac.

iBug2
Jun 23, 2012, 02:20 AM
Simple math says there will not be a x2 27" Retina display...

A 5120x2880 display would require a bandwidth of ~21.2 Gb/s. This is over 2x what a single Thunderbolt channel can support today.

What are you on about? The display of an iMac can be hooked up to the internal GPU through any interface Apple chooses to.

What you said is a good reason to why there won't be a 27" Thunderbolt display yet. And even that's not so certain. It may be possible to drive such a display with 2 Thunderbolt cables. (similar to dual link DVI).

----------

After seeing the price of retina MBP i prefer better hardware config rather than retina display. In our place we can buy a car for the price of retina MBP :P:)

The "old" MacBook Pro configured to the same hardware specs as the retina, costs more than the retina. Choose the highest preconfig "old" MBP and add 512GB SSD, it takes you up to 3100$. The Retina with the same config costs 2800$.

turtlez
Jun 23, 2012, 02:37 AM
After seeing the price of retina MBP i prefer better hardware config rather than retina display. In our place we can buy a car for the price of retina MBP :P:)

I agree. If retina does come out within buying distance for myself. I will most likely opt out and go with the normal display just because the price hike will be major in the 27". Not to mention better performance with lower resolutions.

sputnikv
Jun 23, 2012, 02:46 AM
at the moment it would be too expensive i suspect. the reason the mac mini and the pro aren't seeing updates is because the apple display first needs to be made retina and marketed alongside the existing mbps. that display will either come after or alongside the imacs. the last products to be revised in this significant wave of mac 'retina' revisions will be the mac pro and the mac mini. this needs to be done by the os after mountain lion given a shift towards vector GUIs imo

Imaginethe
Jun 23, 2012, 02:48 AM
Not sure why everyone seems so against a retina 27" iMac, I would buy one right away

I don't people are against it, I think it is probably more the frustration that it could be holding up an iMac release.

I personally would love a higher def display, sharper and more crisp displays are always good. However with the price jump on the mbpr it isn't something I will buy (starting at £1800 my mouth dropped). I imagine that a retina screen on an iMac will be mighty expensive, and probably too expensive for many consumers, including myself. So for us who are in need of the spec bump etc for a new mac, but not retina, we get shaky fist at Apple for not giving us what we want yet ;)

50548
Jun 23, 2012, 02:57 AM
yeah, I think the differences past the "retina" of the iphone are minimal, but studies do show that people with good vision can see pixels down to .3 arc minutes, and the iphone's pixels are 3x that size at about 1 arc minute.

Same goes with frames per second, most people think 24 fps movies are fine, and 60 fps for video is as much as you need, but for the eye/brain to make the motion blur not the video you need up to 500 frames per second before it's perfect for humans. 120 would be a good start for a while though. sucks to be the rotoscoper of 120 fps movie though.

Saw this chart in the apple television thread talking about hopes it could be 4k. defiantly overkill, but your 1080p tv isn't true "retina" at 10 feet unless it's only 10" big. 50" isn't even true retina at 40 feet. (see small graph at bottom to see how it plateaus past 100 pixels per degree-iphone retina is only 60 pixels per degree.

Image (http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5242/1080vs4kvs8kvsmore.png)

----------

why retina isn't enough (http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/)

lol the iphone would need more pixels than current 27" imac to be true retina, and the 27" imac would have to be 9120x5130 or 46 megapixels.

Could you please post again using the METRIC system? Virtually NO ONE outside the US (well, you are accompanied by Liberia and Burma) understands obsolete imperial measures.

This is an international forum and the civilized world has moved on, you know...

Icy1007
Jun 23, 2012, 03:01 AM
That's beside the point. Physical media is dead.

No it's not. There is still tons of it available. It is far from dead.

Removing the optical drive would probably be the worst decision apple could make for the iMac.

----------

Simple math says there will not be a x2 27" Retina display...

A 5120x2880 display would require a bandwidth of ~21.2 Gb/s. This is over 2x what a single Thunderbolt channel can support today.

Use 3 Thunderbolt ports then.

haravikk
Jun 23, 2012, 03:06 AM
While I have no doubt that a Retina display will make it into the iMac lineup, I think that cost is going to be a big factor; as Apple's mainline desktop machine they can't make it so expensive that no-one can afford one at the entry-level.

Still, they could potentially give similar treatment as they did to the MacBook Pro and discontinue the 27" iMac in favour of a new iMac Retina model? I'm not really sure how big of a demand there'd be for it though personally, I could more easily see them just holding off till Retina displays are cost-effective enough to start adding across the entire line.

JohnDoe98
Jun 23, 2012, 03:13 AM
Please do.

I would love to know how my inability to discern pixels from my standard viewing distance (~20-24") is in fact me seeing pixels.

I never said you saw the pixels. I said a typical person with 20/20 vision typically would be capable of seeing the pixels. You claim to have 20/20 vision, well, maybe that's so maybe not; you could easily be mistaken as to your actual prescription. Doctors can also get it wrong.

In either case, what was left implicit in my claim was that the average person with 20/20 vision who had no other visual aberrations would.... Perhaps you have low cone density or other visual disorders. I don't know. If you really had 20/20 vision maybe you should be asking yourself why you aren't capable of distinguishing the pixels that the typical person with 20/20 vision does differentiate. Heck, maybe you don't know what a pixel is so you don't know what to look for. So what's the bottom line? Your idiosyncratic experience in no way invalidates the science in optics.

----------

57% of macrumors site users polled July as likely release of refreshed iMac.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1384568

Could it be this guy saying fall was been cautious having got one thing wrong already in his original article, namely retina? So when he had to issue a correction, he kicked it outn onto the long grass some distance away so his story would have a bit more shelf life?

I'm still going for July release with ML

Your sample size is incredibly small.