iMac Retina is almost here

hleewell said:

From Electronista:

"..We were a bit surprised to learn that Panasonic has taken an Ultra HD panel and packed it into a working Windows 8 tablet prototype, which looked much closer to a production device than many other prototype tablets we've seen. The 3840x2160 resolution equates to a density of 220 pixels per inch, essentially comparable to the iPad's Retina display but quadrupling the area.
"

Image Image

http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/01/08/pixel.density.rivals.retina.ipad/

Click to expand...

I want this device. Gimmeeeeeeeeeeeeee. You know, from a desktop standpoint i think Apple is behind surprisingly in the display area where they shine. I guess we will get retina eventually.

I want a touch based iMac with a swivel so i can lay it flat, i want to change the height too. And 6 core for good meausre someday....

Ddyracer said:

I want this device. Gimmeeeeeeeeeeeeee. You know, from a desktop standpoint i think Apple is behind surprisingly in the display area where they shine. I guess we will get retina eventually.

I want a touch based iMac with a swivel so i can lay it flat, i want to change the height too. And 6 core for good meausre someday....

Click to expand...

To add I also want digital pens so that I can draw on it and cursor eye input with speech recognition.

And the price of Samsung's gizmo?

MetzoPaino said:

And the price of Samsung's gizmo?

Click to expand...

Panasonic.

Excellent in all buy a couple of key details: price, performance.

You think 27" 2650x1440p panels are expensive? Just you wait.

A couple of years from now this is all standard.

(Couple of years=3-5 years)

Looks nice, I have to say my new iMac looks pretty good. I don't notice it ever not being retina. I guess when they do release one in a few years I'll have to get one

It won't be in the iMac for quite a while yet; it is cost prohibitive and the current [integrated] graphics cards wouldn't be able to run that resolution effectively.

The article said 20" screen; a bit to big to carry around but very nice as secondary screen of the desk or beside the bed.
Looks really nice; I would like to know the price range ...

nosnhojm said:

It won't be in the iMac for quite a while yet; it is cost prohibitive and the current [integrated] graphics cards wouldn't be able to run that resolution effectively.

Click to expand...

Nonsense they can easily drive the Display, MBP's can drive the internal and 2 (might be 3) external displays.

justperry said:

Nonsense they can easily drive the Display, MBP's can drive the internal and 2 (might be 3) external displays.

Click to expand...

MBPr = 2880x1800 (15" @ 220ppi)
iMac = 2560x1440 (27" @ 108ppi)
iMac (retina) ~ 5200x2925 (27" @ 220ppi)

That's 4 times the number of pixels that the current iMac has, and 3 times the number of pixels that the MBPr has. I don't doubt that current gen graphics cards could drive it...I'm just saying you wouldn't be able to play games at native resolution.

As far the new design is here to stay for next 3-4 years,do you think we will be able to change our non-retina,non-touch display (who knows^^..)to swap it on our late 27 2012 Imac?
Would a 680 Gtx be enough to drive it?

nosnhojm said:

MBPr = 2880x1800 (15" @ 220ppi)
iMac = 2560x1440 (27" @ 108ppi)
iMac (retina) ~ 5200x2925 (27" @ 220ppi)

That's 4 times the number of pixels that the current iMac has, and 3 times the number of pixels that the MBPr has. I don't doubt that current gen graphics cards could drive it...I'm just saying you wouldn't be able to play games at native resolution.

Click to expand...

What is retina, many people already consider the iMac to be retina, you're farther away so it does not need to be retina like iPhone or the rMBP.

A 4k would already be enough here.

justperry said:

What is retina, many people already consider the iMac to be retina, you're farther away so it does not need to be retina like iPhone or the rMBP.

A 4k would already be enough here.

Click to expand...

http://isthisretina.com/

Per this calculator (not sure of it's validity), you'd need to sit the following distances away from the display in order for it to be "retina".

MBPr - 15 inches
iMac - 32 inches
27" 4k display - 21 inches

Right now I'm sitting 20 inches away from a 24" display, so I would agree that 4k would be about right for a 27" retina display, but it would only be ~165ppi.

justperry said:

Nonsense they can easily drive the Display, MBP's can drive the internal and 2 (might be 3) external displays.

Click to expand...

drive the displays vs. drive the displays really well with no lag are not the same thing.

nosnhojm said:

http://isthisretina.com/

Per this calculator (not sure of it's validity), you'd need to sit the following distances away from the display in order for it to be "retina".

MBPr - 15 inches
iMac - 32 inches
27" 4k display - 21 inches

Right now I'm sitting 20 inches away from a 24" display, so I would agree that 4k would be about right for a 27" retina display, but it would only be ~165ppi.

Click to expand...

I myself think that when Apple eventually make one it won't be the double resolution, this is in my opinion just overkill, a 4k display would do just fine, cheaper as well.

Outrigger said:

drive the displays vs. drive the displays really well with no lag are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

I know you are not talking about gaming but gaming on the highest resolution has always been difficult, the GPU's are always lagging behind.

justperry said:

I myself think that when Apple eventually make one it won't be the double resolution

Click to expand...

Someone did a good analysis showing making iMac 1.5x resolution would satisfy "retina" demands well without overkill on both resolution and GPU considerations.

As long as they make it thinner. Does anything else really matter

Yikes Windoz OS!!!

Seriously, the graphics would be excellent, but seriously the touch interface and UI are horrible with Windows OS and even Android devices.
Recently I got Lenovo Ideapad Yoga and X230 tablet/laptop - both have similar issues when it comes to touch screens - very flaky and breaks the workflow and frustration builds up. So I would not go with the Panasonic hype just for display until it is proven the touch interface as smooth as iOS.

Okay, let's say current video hardware could be made to drive a retina display on an iMac. Would consumers be okay with an iMac incapable of driving a secondary display because all of the video resources were being used to drive the primary display?

My best guess is that retina won't arrive on the iMac until 2014 at the absolute earliest. They're hardly getting the current generation of iMacs to consumers, and it'll probably be another month or two until that stabilizes. 4K screens are absurdly expensive (just look at some of the price-tags on the 4K displays shown at CES).

Late 2013, they'll probably spec-bump the iMac with whatever Intel's latest CPU is ... and maybe in 2014 we'll begin to see large-screen retina as yields and prices come down to mass-appeal ranges.

I've been using my new late 2012 iMac 27'' for a couple of days now, and I gotta say the screen is pretty impressive. With such a huge screen you need some distance anyway, and the screen looks really crisp to me.. I'm definately not longing for a retina iMac 27'' so far, though I'm sure it will come at some point, but it's gonna be a while...

nosnhojm said:

That's 4 times the number of pixels that the current iMac has, and 3 times the number of pixels that the MBPr has. I don't doubt that current gen graphics cards could drive it...I'm just saying you wouldn't be able to play games at native resolution.

Click to expand...

Why would anyone even expect being able to play games at native resolution on such a display? Playing at 1440p is surely enough for the time being.