Apple to announce a 16:9 Display?

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by dotdotdot, Apr 25, 2005.

  1. dotdotdot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    #1
    http://www.macmerc.com/news/archives/2220

    A new screenshot on Apple.com shows Dashboard in action... on a display resolution of 1280x720. That is 16:9. That is High Definition.

    While the current Cinema Displays are in HD, they are in 16:10, which is not the true High Definition standard.

    Apple is known to use screenshots that match the aspect ratio of their products, yet this image matches none.

    Also, shipping on Apple.com of Cinema Displays has increaced from same day shipping to 1-3 day shipping.

    Could we be seeing a 17, 20, 23, 27, 30 and maybe HIGHER than 30" displays coming soon? All in true high definition??
     
  2. AppleAce macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    Actually, 1280x720 (720progressive scan) is pretend HD. It is better than standard def, 640x480 interlaced, but real HD is 1920x1080. As you said, the 23" and 30" displays have greater resolutions than 1920x1080, so they are HD capable. Not to flame you here, but would you rather have a 16:10 display that has black bars on the top and bottom when showing HD video, or have a 16:9 display without black bars, but have fewer pixels and less screen real estate? And what about the 23" display, or the 30" for that matter, isn't true high definition? The Apple cinema displays weren't designed to be televisions, they were designed to be computer monitors capable of displaying an HD video signal at full resolution. Now Apple may go ahead and release 16:9 updated cinema displays tomorrow, but I'm completely happy with my "almost HD capable" 16:10 20" cinema display.
     
  3. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #3
    Depends what you mean by true HD and what you mean when you say 1920x1080, because there are two flavors of 1080 HD footage. There is 1080i and 1080P. If your reasoning is that 1080i is true HD and 720p is not, you are sadly mistaken. Because 1080i has the same resolution as 720P. Only 1080P has higher resolution than either 1080i or 720P.

    Nice try, but you can't fool me.
     
  4. Phat_Pat macrumors 68000

    Phat_Pat

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Location:
    I Live Where I Live
    #4
    Here is the page with this image.

    [​IMG]

    Although this may be scaled just to make it fit nice in the text.... :confused:
     
  5. stoid macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #5
    I don't know if I'd like or use a 16:9 display. I like the 16:10 of my 15 inch PowerBook, but for some things, I wish it were a taller 1280x1024 (esp. gaming). I think that for normal computer use, I'd find a 16:9 aspect, especially at the low 1280x720 to be far too limiting.
     
  6. swy32x macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    #6
    If they do this, I assume it would be to introduce smaller screens, such as 17", matching for the mac mini ...
     
  7. AppleAce macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    Ummm, ok, I concede that 720p is not really inferior to 1080i, there are advantages to both. But 1080i does NOT have the same resolution as 720p. That is plain wrong.
    A 720p signal is 1280x720, which equals 921,600 pixels, refreshed 60 times/sec. A 1080i is 1920x1080, but interlaced, so really it's 1920x540, which is 1,036,800 pixels, refreshed 60 times/sec, or 1920x1080, 2,073,600 pixels, refreshed 30 times/sec. And 1080p, of course, is the same as 1080i, except with 60 progressive scan full frames per second.
    So, 1080i has a higher resolution than 720p, but 720p has slightly more net horizontal scan line refreshes leading to this signal being able to handle motion slightly better than 1080i. But overall, 1080i has a higher resolution than 720p. 1080p would be superior to both 1080i and 720p, and there are advantages to both 1080i and 720p, but they are not equivalent in resolution.
     
  8. ChrisFromCanada macrumors 65816

    ChrisFromCanada

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario (CANADA)
    #8
    The bottom line is 720p is better for sports footage and 1080i is better for things like the news. Sure a 1080i image looks better when looking at a slow moving video feed (like the news) but 1080i looks pretty crappy for sports (lots of digital artifacts).
     
  9. cryptochrome macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    #9
    metric!

    I won't be satisfied 'til we have metric screens, with a height:width ratio of sqrt(2). Where's my A3 screen with 1682 x 1189 pixels?

    Seriously though, that would make a fair amount of sense on handheld devices, for most efficient use of screen real estate with metric-ratio PDFs in any orientation or scale.
     
  10. AppleAce macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    Well, I want my screen to be a golden rectangle! :cool: 1.618:1 most pleasing ratio to the eye, oh yeah.
    http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/golden.htm
    Yeah, I agree, ChrisfromCanada, fast-moving images like sports would be better suited to a 720p non-interlaced image. But anyway, the original point of this thread was that Apple's displays are already capable of displaying HD video for editing, whether it be 720p or 1080i (only 720p for 20", obviously), and I said they were not designed to be HDTV's, that's why they aren't 16:9, and I stand by my preference of a not-so-wide widescreen computer display.
     
  11. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #11
    Steve said at MWSF '05 that this "is the year of HD." So it would make sense for Apple to introduce a new true HD line of displays. Now to see what the timing, maybe WWDC.
     
  12. aswitcher macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #12
    They really need a nice and competatively priced 17" out for the Mac mini. I I agree this could be the go for the whole line.
     
  13. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #13
    Sports require a higher temporal frame rate, so 1080i is better suited for sports. 720P is better for episodic movies and dramas.

    1080i doesn't look crappy for sports. It's because the broadcasters are cheapskates and encode their MPEG2 streams at a lower bitrate to save on digital bandwidth.
     
  14. MacFan25863 macrumors 6502a

    MacFan25863

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    #14
    Instead of the displays, what about an Apple HD Breakout box for your HDTV?

    Asteriod, perhaps?


    Connect to your Mac via firewire and get component, DVI-A (for HDTV), and Digital Audio out? Maybe HDMI? Perhaps Coax/RCA in, as well as an IR blaster to control Cable Boxes?

    Would be the perfect addon for your Mac Mini. Use it as a DVD player, DVR, and computer, all in HD on your TV screen.
     
  15. weldon macrumors 6502a

    weldon

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #15
    It's more complicated than that. Most HDTV's don't display 720p. They upscale to 1080i anways. I've had HD from DirecTV for about two years and more recently from Comcast cable. 1080i sources always look better on my Sony HDTV, ESPECIALLY sports. There are some 720p native displays, but not that many.
     

Share This Page