4K Apple Displays

onepremiere

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 16, 2012
176
2
Did Apple outline a future road map?

With the sneak peek of the new Mac Pro and pointing out it's ability to support 4K Displays, could this have been a hint of whats to come?

4K Apple Displays/TV's? I expect to see the present 27" Cinema Display to be refreshed prior to the release of the Mac Pro, but could that parallel a TV?

TV as a Display, Display as a TV? 27",32",46" - 60":eek:

From a sales stand point keeping them separate might make the most sense, but I'd like to speculate.

Thoughts?
 

Eddy Munn

macrumors 6502
Dec 27, 2008
291
66
Images of when they showed the screens had Sony and Sharp monitors advertised, I do believe.
Just quaking about what the price of an Apple 4K display would be though!
 

robo456

macrumors 6502
Mar 3, 2008
356
40
New Jersey
From what I've been reading, I thought the real benefits of the 4K are really more for 50+" tvs to keep a high def picture looking crisp?
 

dwarnecke11

macrumors 6502
Nov 29, 2009
354
0
I guess the only issue is... a 4k display using Apple's 2X GUI scaling (like rMBP) would have a pretty low "working" resolution. This makes me wonder if they will go higher (5120x2880) or just go with 4k not bother with the 2X GUI scaling.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,289
1,358
Did Apple outline a future road map?
For a computer monitor it is kind of goofy if talking about perception.


From a "Why Ultra 4K is still stupid" article http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
The TV aspect is debatable. Computer monitors are in a far more closer camp.

Who is sitting less than 1.5 feet away from their very large monitor? For a laptop there are limits to just how far away and how large monitor can be. So usage demands being closer.



With the sneak peek of the new Mac Pro and pointing out it's ability to support 4K Displays, could this have been a hint of whats to come?
4K is the new "hype" driver for video. it is going to drive new equipment and new content. Sure there is benefits to mastering in 4K. But that goes off to reference monitors in editing shops. It isn't mainstream. And sure the editing shops will buy some Mac Pros but .... reference monitors ... Apple doesn't sell those.


When the price drops into the reasonable range perhaps a 4K 21.5" since it could be placed closer but that likely is just going in an iMac. ( unless the TB display/docking station picks up two screen sizes over time .... or they drop the 27" as the 4K 21. matches in price. ).





4K Apple Displays/TV's?
Doubtful. Apple typically doesn't shoot for the "most expensive possible". They aren't the bargin basement vendor, but aren't out to sell the crazy expensive stuff either. There is no volume or growth in crazy expensive.

All that is going to happen current 4K TV is the price is going to collapse over next couple of years back to reasonable. Apple likes to enter a target market where can pick a price and stick to it. What will it cost next year? The same thing it cost last year.

More than likely Apple will start with something that most middle-class folks can afford in the just above the middle/median of the range. That means no 4K TV.

Probably means no 4K monitor either.
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
17
From what I've been reading, I thought the real benefits of the 4K are really more for 50+" tvs to keep a high def picture looking crisp?
Sharpness of a display depends on resolution, size, and distance.

4k would be useful as you said on TVs (which you sit moderately far away from) that are large enough that 1080p is no longer quite so sharp.

It will also be useful for smaller displays that you sit much closer to, like computer monitors.
 

Moonjumper

macrumors 68020
Jun 20, 2009
2,023
1,590
Lincoln, UK
I guess the only issue is... a 4k display using Apple's 2X GUI scaling (like rMBP) would have a pretty low "working" resolution. This makes me wonder if they will go higher (5120x2880) or just go with 4k not bother with the 2X GUI scaling.
A 4K screen set for HiDPI would give you the same working area as a 1080p monitor. The scaling modes on the Retina MacBook Pro give you more working area, but lose some sharpness.

The 31.5" 4K monitors from Sharp and Asus wouldn't work at all with a 1080p work area, or anything close. Perhaps Apple have some new scaling technology up their sleeve. Maybe the vector graphics technology of the Maps app has been adapted. I'm doubtful though, that would be such a shift they would probably call it Mac OS 11.
 

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,931
54
England
The first-hand reviews for 32-36" 4K monitors, aside from the 30Hz/multiple input issues, have all been steller from what I've seen. Just at $4,000 for 4k is not really worth it right now. Price is dropping with every new model it seems though.
 

CaptainChunk

macrumors 68020
Apr 16, 2008
2,142
6
Phoenix, AZ
From what I've been reading, I thought the real benefits of the 4K are really more for 50+" tvs to keep a high def picture looking crisp?
That's not the only real benefit. Many modern DI workflows in post finish in 4K now.
 

onepremiere

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 16, 2012
176
2
For a computer monitor it is kind of goofy if talking about perception.

Image
From a "Why Ultra 4K is still stupid" article http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
The TV aspect is debatable. Computer monitors are in a far more closer camp.

Who is sitting less than 1.5 feet away from their very large monitor? For a laptop there are limits to just how far away and how large monitor can be. So usage demands being closer.





4K is the new "hype" driver for video. it is going to drive new equipment and new content. Sure there is benefits to mastering in 4K. But that goes off to reference monitors in editing shops. It isn't mainstream. And sure the editing shops will buy some Mac Pros but .... reference monitors ... Apple doesn't sell those.


When the price drops into the reasonable range perhaps a 4K 21.5" since it could be placed closer but that likely is just going in an iMac. ( unless the TB display/docking station picks up two screen sizes over time .... or they drop the 27" as the 4K 21. matches in price. ).







Doubtful. Apple typically doesn't shoot for the "most expensive possible". They aren't the bargin basement vendor, but aren't out to sell the crazy expensive stuff either. There is no volume or growth in crazy expensive.

All that is going to happen current 4K TV is the price is going to collapse over next couple of years back to reasonable. Apple likes to enter a target market where can pick a price and stick to it. What will it cost next year? The same thing it cost last year.

More than likely Apple will start with something that most middle-class folks can afford in the just above the middle/median of the range. That means no 4K TV.

Probably means no 4K monitor either.
Wow, this is impressive. Thank you. *Cue Golfers Clap.

So what direction do you think Apple will go for there almost 2 Year Old Display? Retina?

I'd like to think Apple would conform to the iMac styling for a new display.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,289
1,358
So what direction do you think Apple will go for there almost 2 Year Old Display? Retina?
It is already Retina. If pulled very close on the desk just slide it back 2-3 inches.


I'd like to think Apple would conform to the iMac styling for a new display.
This year same move as the iMac 2012:

a. fused screen so the glare problem largely put to bed.
b. tweak the speaker set up.
c. add USB 3.0.

[ hopefully won't match iMac in dropping FW.... but Apple being OCD would not bet against that, they should realize that a TB dongle for a TB device dropping FW is actually more than a little goofy. It has already been kicked off the main Mac host unit in most cases. ]

adding USB 3.0 helps alleviate some of the USB port pressure for new Mac Pro with those with a boatload of devices attached to the current one.

There are very few fans of so glossy you can see yourself screens.

Will probably also match the upcoming 2013 iMac in getting Display v1.2 but maybe not. Can't really transports v1.2 now over TB so display won't have v1.2 to pass along. But they may put it in now if wait long enough can use TB 2 controllers. If coupled to the Mac Pro release then that too. But that will push it later into the year.


Honestly if Apple really want to sell more of their Docking station/displays they'd come out with a more affordable 21.5" model. Like at $599 or $499.
The only option for a Mac Pro being $999 is going to send alot of business elsewhere. Especially when you can "throw away" 1-2 ports to permanent backward compatible DP v1.1 mode with minor issues.
However, it isn't "Retina" so if they are Retina OCD they won't.


That also paves the way to dump the 27" model when 21.5" 4K displays get cheap enough.
 

Erasmus

macrumors 68030
Jun 22, 2006
2,654
165
Hiding from Omnius in Australia
Maybe Apple will bring back the 30" ACD, and give it a resolution of 3840x2400?

I don't really understand why people keep saying that 4K screens are too expensive for Apple to make one. Let's face it, the Retina screen in the 15" MBP is over half way there, and it isn't outrageously expensive.

If Apple made a 17" RMBP, it would have a 4K screen, and the screen itself wouldn't be outrageously expensive.

If Apple do bring back the 30" ACD, and make it 4K, I'm sure it will be expensive; not because it's 4K, but because it's 30" of Apple Liquid Crystal (with required colossal mark-up).
 

portishead

macrumors 65816
Apr 4, 2007
1,114
2
los angeles
4K is the new "hype" driver for video. it is going to drive new equipment and new content. Sure there is benefits to mastering in 4K. But that goes off to reference monitors in editing shops. It isn't mainstream. And sure the editing shops will buy some Mac Pros but .... reference monitors ... Apple doesn't sell those.


When the price drops into the reasonable range perhaps a 4K 21.5" since it could be placed closer but that likely is just going in an iMac. ( unless the TB display/docking station picks up two screen sizes over time .... or they drop the 27" as the 4K 21. matches in price. ).
The chart you linked to and the article is incorrect. You can certainly tell the difference 1080p & 4K for a 30" monitor at 4 feet away. If they are both encoded correctly, they will both look very good, but you will notice a difference. It's similar to the "retina display" effect which looks very nice.

Also, 4k is not hype, it is real, and it is amazing. It is not as big as the jump from SD to HD, but there is a difference. You're entering into law of dimishing returns territory, but I suspect 4k will eventually take over and last a lot longer than current HD video.

Here is possibly a better chart: http://cdn.avsforum.com/4/4c/900x900px-LL-4cd4431b_200ppdengleski.png

Also Apple will MOST CERTAINLY release a 4k display. It will probably be called Retina Display, but it will support at least 4k. Maybe next year? It's not going to be cheap.
 
Last edited:

portishead

macrumors 65816
Apr 4, 2007
1,114
2
los angeles
I think the amount of streaming content works against that somewhat for mass market appeal. You would just end up with too much compression to appreciate the quality.
Yes, well that is another story :)

But I hope Apple doesn't cater too much to the lowest common denominator.
 

scottrichardson

macrumors 6502
Jul 10, 2007
496
4
Ulladulla, NSW Australia
I suppose a 4K 24" display would make sense, in terms of being 'retina'. Since Apple's old 24" Cinema display was 1920px wide, it would make sense to double that resolution and keep the screen size around 23 - 25". As others have said, a doubled 1920 screen at 27" or 30" would mean all the UI elements are way too big!
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,715
1,782
Yes, well that is another story :)

But I hope Apple doesn't cater too much to the lowest common denominator.
With anything aimed at content consumption, they've generally sought good enough from as many perspectives as possible. Look at iPod sound quality for a prime example. It's not really great. The earbuds were terrible. The sound was mediocre. It was marketed really well. iTunes in spite of its bugginess provided for organization of music and distribution. The click wheel was great for quick navigation. Also look at how long it took for them to address some of the glare on their shiny displays. There are certain things that matter quite a bit to me, yet don't prevent others from purchasing them.
 

prvt.donut

macrumors 6502a
Jan 1, 2008
513
25
With anything aimed at content consumption, they've generally sought good enough from as many perspectives as possible. Look at iPod sound quality for a prime example. It's not really great. The earbuds were terrible. The sound was mediocre. It was marketed really well. iTunes in spite of its bugginess provided for organization of music and distribution. The click wheel was great for quick navigation. Also look at how long it took for them to address some of the glare on their shiny displays. There are certain things that matter quite a bit to me, yet don't prevent others from purchasing them.
I use my 40" Sony Bravia 3D TV as a monitor for my conputer and it is great! I can see that soon, we will experience the end of the dedicated computer monitor.
 

portishead

macrumors 65816
Apr 4, 2007
1,114
2
los angeles
With anything aimed at content consumption, they've generally sought good enough from as many perspectives as possible. Look at iPod sound quality for a prime example. It's not really great. The earbuds were terrible. The sound was mediocre. It was marketed really well. iTunes in spite of its bugginess provided for organization of music and distribution. The click wheel was great for quick navigation. Also look at how long it took for them to address some of the glare on their shiny displays. There are certain things that matter quite a bit to me, yet don't prevent others from purchasing them.
All fair points, but you're talking about a mass produced consumer accessory against a more expensive display device. The 27" ACD is nice, just expensive. I don't mind the slightly glossy display, but I know some people loathe it. Obviously nobody wants super shiny, but the display on my rMBP doesn't bother me at all.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,289
1,358
The chart you linked to and the article is incorrect. .....
Here is possibly a better chart: http://cdn.avsforum.com/4/4c/900x900px-LL-4cd4431b_200ppdengleski.png
Yes it is off as get down to normal range of computer monitor screen sizes. The other one isn't to much better as shrink down to smaller portable sizes. It reads about 2 ft for a 9-10" screen... which toasts the iPad.


Sigh. Ran some numbers through a online calculator that seems to check out ( it uses 3438 pixels per inch which is close to the "1 foot corresponds to a dot size of about 89 micrometers or a pixel density of 286.5 dpi. " mentioned here. http://www.edibleapple.com/2010/06/18/scientists-bicker-about-apples-retina-display-claims-but-who-the-hell-really-cares/ )

Pretty calculator: http://isthisretina.com/
bare bones : http://bhtooefr.org/displaycalc.htm

Anyway some computer monitor sizes mixed in with some real products:

dimensions ___ screen size ---> needed PPI for Retina and viewing distance.

3840x2160 __ 32" ------> 138 PPI 24 inches (64cm ) <== Sharp 32" IGZO 4K monitors $4K.


3840x2160 __ 31" -----> 142 PPI 24 inches (61cm)
3840x2160 __ 30" ----> 146 PPI 23 inches ( 58cm)
1920x1080 __ 30" ----> 73 PPI 47 inches ( 119 cm)


3840x2160 __ 27" ----> 163 PPI 21 inches (53cm)

2560x1440 __ 27" ----> 108 PPI 32 inches (81cm ) <== Apple 27" $999


3840x2160 __ 21.5" ---> 204 PPI 17 inches ( 43 cm )

1920x1080 __ 21.5 ---> 102 PPI 34 inches ( 86cm ) <=== current 21.5 iMac

Most folks don't put the computer's monitor 4 feet away. (48"). So if can see difference at 30" has something to do other than Retina. Deeper and/or more accurate color reproduction perhaps. ( areas where Apple has been ignoring issues in their persuit of the "pixel count increase war" ). Or a bit of "pixel doubling" ( amounts to better dithering. )

There is what might be a dated ergonomics page on Apples site. Apple's ergonomics page has typical monitors placed 18-24" away
(http://www.apple.com/about/ergonomics/vision.html ). That doesn't look like a heft 27" screen (or iMac though).

I think this page might be a little more current (given the growth in deployed median screen sizes):

"...The screen should be at least 20 to 26 inches distance. Adjust this distance for your visual acuity needs and comfort. The farther away the better in most cases. Distances of 30-40 inches are frequently preferred. "
http://ergonomics.ucla.edu/component/content/article/83-injuries-and-prevention/106-eye-strain

Hmmm, 30-34 inches ... right where that slides the iMacs into Retina zone. Coincidence???


Also Apple will MOST CERTAINLY release a 4k display. It will probably be called Retina Display, but it will support at least 4k. Maybe next year? It's not going to be cheap.
So they could solve a problem that is already done and make a big deal out of it. The real intent is to move from 'current' TV screen requirements to possible next generation TV screen requirements. That keeps panel production numbers high and Apple's costs down.

Also, 4k is not hype, it is real, and it is amazing.
Hype has nothing to do with being real or not. It has to do with being over promoted and becoming more of a buzz word. At this point marketing folks are pitching 4K because every one else is pitching 4K. A year or to ago in TVs it was 3D. that didn't really fly so now it is 4K. NHK is doing 8K demos.

Can 4K be distributed well? Nope. 4K movies into theaters... sure there are solutions. Mass distribution.... no. ( H265 makes HD cheaper and more effective as much as it brings 4k into the perhaps tractable range).


HD didn't really take off until broadcast bandwidth was redistributed. 4K isn't going to get another redistribution.

So it is alot like "the bridge to no where". That existed, but who was actually using it?
 
Last edited:

portishead

macrumors 65816
Apr 4, 2007
1,114
2
los angeles
Yes it is off as get down to normal range of computer monitor screen sizes. The other one isn't to much better as shrink down to smaller portable sizes. It reads about 2 ft for a 9-10" screen... which toasts the iPad.
I have no idea what this means. This rest of it you kind of lost me on. :confused:

Hype has nothing to do with being real or not. It has to do with being over promoted and becoming more of a buzz word. At this point marketing folks are pitching 4K because every one else is pitching 4K. A year or to ago in TVs it was 3D. that didn't really fly so now it is 4K. NHK is doing 8K demos.
I don't know if it's being over promoted. It's just coming out, so there's going to be some talk about it. I haven't seen any 4k commercials, and there's not even a 4k delivery system, so it's a bit premature. It's not fair to compare 4K to 3D imo. They're 2 totally different things. I was never on the 3D bandwagon, but 4K is awesome.

Can 4K be distributed well? Nope. 4K movies into theaters... sure there are solutions. Mass distribution.... no. ( H265 makes HD cheaper and more effective as much as it brings 4k into the perhaps tractable range).
4k isn't even really out yet, I'm not sure how you can criticize distribution. As you said, h.265 should help keep quality higher, and file sizes lower. But h.265 isn't even available yet except in 1 encoder somewhere I believe. I'm not even sure if it's finalized yet.

HD didn't really take off until broadcast bandwidth was redistributed. 4K isn't going to get another redistribution. So it is alot like "the bridge to no where". That existed, but who was actually using it?
I think it will take a while before broadcasters get on board with 4K I agree. 1080p broadcasts are already heavily compressed, and pretty mediocre quality as it is. I have no hope for them to broadcast in 4k anytime soon. But I do think motion picture studios will begin to release films in 4K first. It will be slow going for a while, but I think it will pick up and be more available. I'd estimate 2 more years before it's even worth it to get a 4K system. But that's just a guess.

Most folks don't put the computer's monitor 4 feet away. (48"). So if can see difference at 30" has something to do other than Retina. Deeper and/or more accurate color reproduction perhaps. ( areas where Apple has been ignoring issues in their persuit of the "pixel count increase war" ). Or a bit of "pixel doubling" ( amounts to better dithering. )
I would say people would put a 27" screen 3-4' away. It's not that far off. I can see the difference between a regular display and retina display from about 2 feet, and that's 15". So I think a 4K display at 4 feet is roughly equivalent. I'm doing rough head math, so forgive me.

You seem to discount the "retina display" effect. If you're talking about a pixel count war for DSLR's, I would agree with you, but higher resolution displays make a HUGE difference. Apple is never going to release a broadcast spec monitor, so I'm not sure what you're criticizing. And if you think increasing resolution as Apple has done with "retina" is a gimmick, well you're wrong.
 
Last edited:

MacMilligan

macrumors 6502
Aug 2, 2012
255
8
That chart shown above is very misleading. It should only be applied to motion video, not desktops. It should never be applied to computer monitors. When displaying text, we need as many pixels as possible. I've personally seen 4K computer monitors (Asus) and there is a large difference when at normal viewing range.

I'd love to have a 40" monitor with the same PPI as my 2x 27" 1440p monitor setup. It'd be great for productivity.
 

seveej

macrumors 6502a
Dec 14, 2009
822
50
Helsinki, Finland
Who is sitting less than 1.5 feet away from their very large monitor? For a laptop there are limits to just how far away and how large monitor can be. So usage demands being closer.
Kudos to deconstruct60 for another stellar dissection.

One thing I'd like to add:
- After having used 27" monitors (first an 27" iMac, then a 27" TBD) for close to three years, I'm now back using a 20" (Alu) ACD. My main reason was that 27", at my viewing distance (2 ft, as dictated by my table) gave me excruciating neck pains.

I happened to meet a doctor who specializes on workplace ergonomics, and related disorders, and he was really worried. To paraphrase him:
" At the office, we have larger and larger monitors, but our viewing distance has not changed, and the sector of optimal sharpness is just a 10-15 degree cone from the centerline of our eye, so we can't really see sharply as big an area as our new monitors, so we're moving our heads and craning our necks more and more, and I see the results at my practice.
In our private lives, we sit and stare at minuscule high-resolution screens, and we do that in a position which is even less natural. For the first time ever, I'm seeing more RSI's related to smartphone use, than mouse use."

In short, I even though you might get a 4K display for as low as 400 €/$ by 2016, it will be a highly mixed blessing.

RGDS,