Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro/OS X 4K Display Compatibility 'Like the Wild West', Some 4K Monitors Unsupported
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OS X detects some monitors as TVs and you get strange resolution options, YCbCr instead of RGB, wrong colors etc. I would try this fix first: http://www.ireckon.net/2013/03/forc...ix-the-picture-quality-of-an-external-monitor
early adopters in the photo and video fields must be dissapointed.........
Yes, but I bet most aren't. At > $3000 a display it just makes more sense to buy two regular-resolutioned displays (2560-by-1600 or 1440) and wait out the high price.
Two things wrong with this post:
1. HDMI and DVI use the exact same signaling for video. HDMI adds audio. HDMI is basically DVI with audio.
2. I have a Dell monitor plugged into my rMBP's mDP/TB port and it looks like crap because OSX thinks it's a TV and not a monitor. This is a well documented issue that's existed since 10.8 at least and I had to use a hack to the display definition files to get it to look right. The display works fine on Windows without any OS hacks.
That happens when you use a TV video+audio format to connect a computer to something. All these things won't happen with DVI or DP.
But have Macs treated monitors connected via DVI as TVs? I haven't heard of that.
With using a (m)DP input port on the Dell?
And how does TB2 handle the bandwidth that DP1.3 should be providing? As a poster above pointed out, it allows for 33.6Gb/s, far above TB2's limits. Everything going through TB is data: DP is data, data is data. You can't just 'stuff' DP1.3 in just because DP is supported. The only reason DP1.2 could've been added was because TB2 and it's higher bandwidth was introduced.
In almost all situations, you want 60Hz+ for general computing. So tell me: how does a pipe (in this case TB2) send 60Hz to a 2880p display if it can't actually carry that bandwidth?
I wouldn't even be sure that G-sync works the way you think it does. It paces screen updates when the GPU isn't fast enough. It's not to say, pace display updates when there isn't even enough bandwidth to update the display. And even before that, I'm pretty sure the drivers and/or hardware will have gone 'NOPE, CAN'T DO IT'.
No value in having your workspace large enough to have a full preview window on 1080 content taking up only 1/4 of the monitor?
Surprise!
Another half-a$$, half-baked release from Apple. Gee, you think Mac Pro customers might be interested in a high res display? Maybe we should support it....
nah, why bother.
Another half-a$$, half-baked release from Apple. Gee, you think Mac Pro customers might be interested in a high res display? Maybe we should support it....
nah, why bother.
I have been saying this all along. Apple needs to support high ppi external displays same way they do with retina. Even current 27" 2560x1440 is a bit of a stretch to call it really comfortable. At least, it is raising concerns, hopefully Apple will listen.
It has nothing to do with display support for retina. Display just displays pixels and should at least communicate back its resolution and other EDID info required for OS to understand how to use it and its capabilities. It is then up to OS to decide what to display and how. Apple has the technology, they just need to enable it on external high PPI monitors. Basically, the UI should stay same physical size independent of PPI or at least offer user a few options to scale UI size. We could enable hiDPI, but it is limited to 1/2 resolution for UI: 1080p or 720p, it makes text and UI to look really oversized. Retina has at least 6 steps in UI scaling.
So we can maintain typography accurate to some degree:
wiki:The defined length of a point varied over time and location until the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the traditional point was supplanted by the desktop publishing point (also called the PostScript point), which was defined as 1⁄72 of an inch.
Printers are good example of this as font size is independent of printer resolution (DPI).
Last edited:
I see the article is complaining about lack of Retina, but this display is not designed to be a Retina display, it is designed to deliver the image (with Desktop) at the full 4K resolution, which it does. The text and screen elements may seem unusably small...that is because this is a much higher ppi (and resolution) than even a 30" Cinema display...over 1.5 times the horizontal pixels. Things WILL seem tiny on this display, but the display was not designed to be your "General Purpose Use OS X" display....it was made to be a 4K editing workhorse, for use primarily with FinalCutPro editing 4K. In that program, the text size is increased for the 4K monitor so things are comfortable to work with.
But in Mac OS X, 10pt font will be a bastard on this display. For sure!
But in Mac OS X, 10pt font will be a bastard on this display. For sure!
You might want to refrain from such uninformed comments on topics you don't even remotely understand, because sometimes other uniformed individuals believe silly junk posts. There are some cases where a brand might need to test on Macs. Extensive testing is more common with display brands that ship accompanying software solutions. Even then they don't all update on day 1. Most have to wait for shipping hardware to make bug fixes. The same goes for NEC, Eizo, Quato, and Panasonic's broadcast displays. Even then there are cases where the issue is on Apple's end. In such cases it's typically posted as a known issue, however asking for such recognition on day 1 isn't reasonable. They would have no way of anticipating it.
Where did I say TB2 would provide it? Again, thats why i explicitly said that the connection which would drive x2880 displays would use DP1.3. And yes for Thunderbolt, that would mean a refreshed thunderbolt implementation, and yes that thunderbolt implementation would require a higher throughput.
Either via additional channels, or via the originally intended optical link, since otherwise you will fail to meet the requirements to qualify for DP1.3 - and if it did that it would not be DP1.3. But I would've assumed that to have fallen under 'obvious'.
No, DP1.2 required support for channel bonding, which TB1 did not support. The only thing TB2 introduced was channel bonding. Total throughput was not changed.
I never said anything about 60hz+, i said supporting a refresh rate as close as possible to the maximum of what the link (and panel) can handle.
You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension.
Last edited:
Early adopters always suffer problems like this. I've been an early adopter of many technologies and been bitten in a similar manner. NVIDIA's SLI comes to mind the first two generations of cards to support that were terrible and heck you couldn't run more than one display when SLI was activated until the 200 series from several years ago.
But I digress these kinds of issues have happened with everything. Ultra-High Resolution first came about in 2003 and you needed a GPU which had Dual-Link DVI to drive them. Those connectors took a few years to become ubiquitous and Display Port now has the same hurdle to overcome with DP 1.3 but this time for 4K and higher displays.
----------
This is exactly what I'm doing. I already have three 2560x1600 30" panels. I'm in no rush to replace those.
But I digress these kinds of issues have happened with everything. Ultra-High Resolution first came about in 2003 and you needed a GPU which had Dual-Link DVI to drive them. Those connectors took a few years to become ubiquitous and Display Port now has the same hurdle to overcome with DP 1.3 but this time for 4K and higher displays.
----------
This is exactly what I'm doing. I already have three 2560x1600 30" panels. I'm in no rush to replace those.
I am a full-time web engineer and I understand these technologies intimately. But I must admit I don't understand the point you are trying to argue here. OS X Retina is a published spec. Dell et all have the choice whether to support that spec, or they can allow Sharp to gobble up all the market. At this stage, it appears they have gone with the second option of giving the market to Sharp.
What the article missed...this is a 4K display....you plug it in to your Mac Pro, and it displays everything at 4K resolution...it works.
It is not a Retina display, nor does it do Retina scaling, NOR was it even meant to.
It displays a 4K resolution picture, and workspace.
The display at this resolution may have tiny text and UI elements, but it was not meant to operate at any other resolution (as of now). You must learn to deal with this. I think that is what they are complaining about here...people have gotten extremely spoiled by Retina scaling, and this display is flat out HIRES, so the UI elements are small.
It does everything its advertised to do.
I think the article missed this.
It is not a Retina display, nor does it do Retina scaling, NOR was it even meant to.
It displays a 4K resolution picture, and workspace.
The display at this resolution may have tiny text and UI elements, but it was not meant to operate at any other resolution (as of now). You must learn to deal with this. I think that is what they are complaining about here...people have gotten extremely spoiled by Retina scaling, and this display is flat out HIRES, so the UI elements are small.
It does everything its advertised to do.
I think the article missed this.