iMac - Retina Screen - is that going to happen ?

[freshe]

If so are there any indication when ? I'd say given the price tag for MBP-RD imac might go past 3k mark ?

[forty2j]

I'd put the odds at 50/50 for a separate, more expensive Retina model in 2013.

[comatose81]

I suppose they eventually will do this, but how expensive is it going to be? $2,500 for the base model? $4,000 for the top-end? Just seems like the cost would get completely out of control.

[vannibombonato]

Originally Posted by freshe

If so are there any indication when ? I'd say given the price tag for MBP-RD imac might go past 3k mark ?

No one can tell when, but i think the "if" is not an option: yes it will happen, eventually all Macs/PCs will be "retina".
On the iMac, my bet is either next or the following revision.

Personally i couldn't care less, don't see the point of it, i've barely noticed it when upgrading my iphone and don't give a damn for desktop use (even without factoring the obvious initial drawbacks such as performance compromises, price, etc.).

Only thing i truly appreciated going the retina way is my Kindle Paperwhite: could never go back to the previous model.

[iMcLovin]

It will definitely happen. But since that would require some serious gpu power I don't really see it happen before it won't take too much from the general performance. Personally I would never wanted to sacrifice what I can get today just for a sharper image. But in a year or two I think we come to a point were retina iMacs are possible. Apple makes all icons in 1024x1024 so they have prepared for it.

[washburn]

My guess is that Apple is racing to be the first to put out a Retina desktop computer especially since Intel were mentioning that its coming in 2013 and eliminating the screen gap is an indication they are going in that direction. They would have to have had a prototype for ages.

Plus the new Haswell chip is probably going to help in this area.

Btw why do people keep saying that a desktop retina would be so expensive?

All it is is just a screen with massive pixel density Apple already has the tech and also running a 27" retina mode doesn't nessesary requires x4 resolution, you could it with a lower res.. No?

[kaelell]

when it eventualy happens, I can't see it being a BTO order, it will be standard. But probably not till early 2014 and likely an update to the thunderbolt display before then?

[Razorhog]

Late 2015.

[washburn]

I think it will come with the Mac Pro first

There will be like a retina version of Thunderbolt Display alongside standard next year

[ventuss]

probably a 21.5 "retina iMac, but I don't see the 27" iMac getting retina any time soon..

[kaelell]

Originally Posted by washburn

I think it will come with the Mac Pro first

There will be like a retina version of Thunderbolt Display alongside standard next year

That makes sense, a Mac Pro + thunderbolt retina display

[BitterCreek]

Not going to happen any time soon. The display alone would cost $2000.

[forty2j]

Originally Posted by washburn

Btw why do people keep saying that a desktop retina would be so expensive?

All it is is just a screen with massive pixel density Apple already has the tech and also running a 27" retina mode doesn't nessesary requires x4 resolution, you could it with a lower res.. No?

The most logical resolution would be 4K .. 3840x2160. The cheapest in anything close to iMac size right now is the 32" monitor from Sharp for $5,500. And they plan to make 1500 of these a month.

I expect the display market to crack this nut, but 2013 may be too soon. It's not just a matter of cutting a bigger slice of the iPad glass.

[iLondoner]

The greatest advantage of the retina display on the MBP, for me, is the ability to run at higher than standard resolution to provide a bigger desktop.

The only non-retina device that's crying out for it at the moment is the iPad mini. My wife has the retina iPad and there's no way I will be buying the existing iPad mini with both a smaller screen and lower pixel count.

[pyzon]

I assume there is some reason you would need or want a 21 or 27" retina display?

[Chihawk725]

Originally Posted by forty2j

The most logical resolution would be 4K .. 3840x2160. The cheapest in anything close to iMac size right now is the 32" monitor from Sharp for $5,500. And they plan to make 1500 of these a month.

I expect the display market to crack this nut, but 2013 may be too soon. It's not just a matter of cutting a bigger slice of the iPad glass.

This is exactly right. The term retina is loosely defined by apple as the size of the pixels required so that the human eye cannot discern between two of them at a comfortable distance from the monitor. The iPhone because one has to look so close to it is 326 Pixels per inch, the iPad Is 264, the mbpr13 is 227 and the 15 is 220, extrapolate that to a monstrous 27 inch display and even with the 4k panel of 3840 x 2160 your looking at a pixel density of 168ppi and its currently at 109 so that is not the same sort of jump as people might be hoping for, The original iPad was 132 so the jump to retina was twice the pixel density. So it would be half as dense/clear as the iPhone but still arguably retina quality as it is so loosely defined. Anyone who has any hope of there being a retina Mac anywhere in the near future should google current prices of 4k monitors, add in the expense of a powerful upgrade to gpu required to handle those extra pixels and realize that realistically if apple was forced to release one in late 2013 it would cost them around $5000.... for a base model. I personally think they will focus on what they are going to do with the Mac pro line for the next year or two and of course all of the little mobile devices and an upgrade to haswell in late 2013 early 2014 for imac and we might see retina in 2015 for iMac once those quality screens become affordable. Also don't forget that we will have to wait not only for apple but for internet services and software companies. They will have to upgrade their products as well otherwise you'll be watching Netflix at 1080 p on a 2160 p screen wondering why you paid so much for such a pixelated experience. In summary buy this iMac now and hope retina iMac occurs in a few years.

[Chupa Chupa]

Eventually, sure. Imminent, who knows. But screens and resolutions on all devices keep bumping up. 4K TV made an appearance at last years CES, bound to be even bigger this year, though consumer adoption is still a few years off... for one thing there isn't much 4K media to play on them! But the display tech is there and it all bleeds together among all categories.

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by Chupa Chupa

for one thing there isn't much 4K media to play on them!

We heard the same complaint with the advent of HDTV, DVD, and even VCRs.

IMAX is much higher resolution than digital cinema or regular film, yet showing movies on IMAX is a big selling point.
IMAX DMR is a process for re-mastering lower-resolution content into superior-looking large-format high-resolution hyphen-laden improvements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#IM...Remastering.29

I expect we'll see the same for 4K media: done with care, HDTV content can be upscaled to better-looking 4K content.
http://www.red.com/store/products/redray-player

In the meantime, directors are already shooting content on 4K cameras. Skyfall, The Hobbit and the next Spider Man are there (to name a few).

[kaelell]

"RETINA " tv ANYONE?

[PatriotInvasion]

Originally Posted by Chihawk725

This is exactly right. The term retina is loosely defined by apple as the size of the pixels required so that the human eye cannot discern between two of them at a comfortable distance from the monitor. The iPhone because one has to look so close to it is 326 Pixels per inch, the iPad Is 264, the mbpr13 is 227 and the 15 is 220, extrapolate that to a monstrous 27 inch display and even with the 4k panel of 3840 x 2160 your looking at a pixel density of 168ppi and its currently at 109 so that is not the same sort of jump as people might be hoping for, The original iPad was 132 so the jump to retina was twice the pixel density. So it would be half as dense/clear as the iPhone but still arguably retina quality as it is so loosely defined. Anyone who has any hope of there being a retina Mac anywhere in the near future should google current prices of 4k monitors, add in the expense of a powerful upgrade to gpu required to handle those extra pixels and realize that realistically if apple was forced to release one in late 2013 it would cost them around $5000.... for a base model. I personally think they will focus on what they are going to do with the Mac pro line for the next year or two and of course all of the little mobile devices and an upgrade to haswell in late 2013 early 2014 for imac and we might see retina in 2015 for iMac once those quality screens become affordable. Also don't forget that we will have to wait not only for apple but for internet services and software companies. They will have to upgrade their products as well otherwise you'll be watching Netflix at 1080 p on a 2160 p screen wondering why you paid so much for such a pixelated experience. In summary buy this iMac now and hope retina iMac occurs in a few years.

If I remember correctly, Steve Jobs originally described "retina" resolution as 300+ppi being the pixel density sweet spot where your eyes cannot make out individual pixels. He never said anything about distance from the screen and all of that.
It wasn't until the 3rd gen iPad came out that Apple started bringing viewing distance into the equation so that they could still use the "retina" branding on the iPad's sub-300ppi screen and get away with it.

[Stetrain]

Originally Posted by PatriotInvasion

If I remember correctly, Steve Jobs originally described "retina" resolution as 300+ppi being the pixel density sweet spot where your eyes cannot make out individual pixels. He never said anything about distance from the screen and all of that.
It wasn't until the 3rd gen iPad came out that Apple started bringing viewing distance into the equation so that they could still use the "retina" branding on the iPad's sub-300ppi screen and get away with it.

At the iPhone 4 (first "retina display") launch he specifically referenced the 300 ppi number as holding a phone in front of your face:

10:38: "It turns out there's a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch" where your eye can't even see the pixels anymore, at 10 inches.

http://www.maclife.com/article/news/...c_2010_keynote

"..But there's more than that. It turns out, theres a magic number right around 320 pixels that, when held [at phone distance], the human eye can't see anything higher"

http://www.scribblelive.com/Embed/v4...e=4&ThemeId=97

If you want to get the quote more exact I'm sure you can find a video.

Of course it's distance specific. They aren't trying to 'get away' with anything.

It's the reason that 1080p on a 27" desktop monitor isn't so great, but 1080p on a 55" TV on the wall across the room looks fine.

[Chihawk725]

Originally Posted by PatriotInvasion

If I remember correctly, Steve Jobs originally described "retina" resolution as 300+ppi being the pixel density sweet spot where your eyes cannot make out individual pixels. He never said anything about distance from the screen and all of that.
It wasn't until the 3rd gen iPad came out that Apple started bringing viewing distance into the equation so that they could still use the "retina" branding on the iPad's sub-300ppi screen and get away with it.

So we both agree that currently apple describes retina as dependent on viewing distance

[comatose81]

People are bitching about the price now... how much do you think a retina iMac is going to cost? $4000?

[pukingpixels]

Originally Posted by comatose81

People are bitching about the price now... how much do you think a retina iMac is going to cost? $4000?

A lot more than that. That's basically what I've paid for the new 27".

[comatose81]

Originally Posted by pukingpixels

A lot more than that. That's basically what I've paid for the new 27".

Right, sorry, I meant for the base model. The rMBP 15" is $2800. How much do you think a computer with a screen almost twice the size is going to cost?

I can see it now... "Just ordered my 27" iMac with 1TB SSD... $8299!!!"