Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 4, 2012, 02:57 PM   #1
freshe
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
iMac - Retina Screen - is that going to happen ?

If so are there any indication when ? I'd say given the price tag for MBP-RD imac might go past 3k mark ?
freshe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 03:00 PM   #2
forty2j
macrumors 68030
 
forty2j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
I'd put the odds at 50/50 for a separate, more expensive Retina model in 2013.
__________________
 2012 iMac 3.2GHz 27" 680MX Fusion  iPhone 5  Apple TV 2  iPad 2 
forty2j is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 03:08 PM   #3
comatose81
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
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.
comatose81 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 03:18 PM   #4
vannibombonato
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshe View Post
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.
vannibombonato is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 03:41 PM   #5
iMcLovin
macrumors 65816
 
iMcLovin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
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.
__________________
27" iMac i7 2012 | 13" MacBook Air - 2013 | iPhone 5s | iPad Air ...etc
iMcLovin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 05:31 AM   #6
washburn
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
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?
washburn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 05:57 AM   #7
kaelell
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
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?
kaelell is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:00 AM   #8
Razorhog
macrumors 6502a
 
Razorhog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arkansas
Late 2015.
Razorhog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:02 AM   #9
washburn
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
I think it will come with the Mac Pro first

There will be like a retina version of Thunderbolt Display alongside standard next year
washburn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:02 AM   #10
ventuss
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
probably a 21.5 "retina iMac, but I don't see the 27" iMac getting retina any time soon..
ventuss is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 07:07 AM   #11
kaelell
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by washburn View Post
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
kaelell is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 07:30 AM   #12
BitterCreek
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Denver
Not going to happen any time soon. The display alone would cost $2000.
BitterCreek is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 07:30 AM   #13
forty2j
macrumors 68030
 
forty2j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by washburn View Post

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.
__________________
 2012 iMac 3.2GHz 27" 680MX Fusion  iPhone 5  Apple TV 2  iPad 2 
forty2j is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 08:04 AM   #14
iLondoner
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London (the big one, not London Ohio, Texas, Kentucky, etc)
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.
iLondoner is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 08:10 AM   #15
pyzon
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
I assume there is some reason you would need or want a 21 or 27" retina display?
pyzon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 08:13 AM   #16
Chihawk725
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
No retina in 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by forty2j View Post
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.
Chihawk725 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 08:35 AM   #17
Chupa Chupa
macrumors G3
 
Chupa Chupa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
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.
__________________
Walled Garden ≠ Prison:
"People who use Apple products considered their options, and chose Apple. If they regret their decision, they can dump it at any time." -- Harry McCracken, Technologizer.com
Chupa Chupa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 09:22 AM   #18
ctdonath
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chupa Chupa View Post
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).
ctdonath is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 09:31 AM   #19
kaelell
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
"RETINA " tv ANYONE?
kaelell is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 09:49 AM   #20
PatriotInvasion
macrumors 65816
 
PatriotInvasion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Boston, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chihawk725 View Post
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.
__________________
27-inch iMac [Late 2013, 3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, 8GB of memory, 256GB of flash storage], iPad Air [16GB, silver], iPhone 5s [16GB, silver], Time Capsule [1TB, A1355, 3rd Generation]
PatriotInvasion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 10:05 AM   #21
Stetrain
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotInvasion View Post
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:

Quote:
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

Quote:
"..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.
Stetrain is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 10:08 AM   #22
Chihawk725
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotInvasion View Post
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
Chihawk725 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 10:12 AM   #23
comatose81
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
People are bitching about the price now... how much do you think a retina iMac is going to cost? $4000?
comatose81 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 10:16 AM   #24
pukingpixels
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sweden
Quote:
Originally Posted by comatose81 View Post
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".
pukingpixels is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 11:48 AM   #25
comatose81
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by pukingpixels View Post
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!!!"
comatose81 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has this ever happen to anyone with the rMBP 13inch retina applefanboy5 MacBook Pro 2 Jun 30, 2013 08:03 PM
Retina MBP vs iMac 27'' screen Mac32 iMac 15 Jan 3, 2013 07:23 AM
Retina Macbook Air [ Will it happen on 2013? ] jpangeles1581 MacBook Air 74 Jan 3, 2013 06:34 AM
iMac non Retina screen tim100 iMac 8 Dec 1, 2012 03:14 PM
The retina MBA is not going to happen and here is why. surjavarman MacBook Air 55 Jul 14, 2012 01:54 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:14 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC