A 4K 27-inch iMac is not a Retina iMac

[yoak]

First of all, a 3840x2160 iMac is not a 4K iMac, but would be an UHD iMac.
4K is 4096x2160, and I do hope Apple go with the proper 4K resolution and not UHD.
It will be retina enough, that's for sure

 

[TechZeke]

Stalemate. Anyone else have an opinion to break the gridlock?

I'll bite.

4K on a 27" would be retina for the average viewing distance of an iMac. My Current 2560x1440 is already almost retina for me. At the distance I view my iMac, going from my rMBP to iMac isn't bad and the display still looks great. Going to from my rMBP to a friend's cMBP, the difference is massive.

However, Apple's formula for retina has always been pixel doubling the previous non retina resolution. Thus I don't see apple releasing anything less than a 5120x2880 panel. In fact, this is probably the reason we still haven't seen a retina iMac.

The iMac itself is in a difficult spot, because it has the pixel density of a cMBP on a large display, which means it would have to have the same density of a rMBP. The problem is that you simply don't need the pixel density of a rMBP for it to be retina on a 27". With the high cost of nice 4K displays as it is, Apple is in a position where they simply can't make a retina 27 without it costing at least $3000 starting price.

About scaling, on my rMBP I use 1680x1050 and there is definitely a subtle difference in crispness.

 

[TechZeke]

I think the most practical solution is apple takes the 21.5inch iMac and brings it up to 4k for 'retina' resolution, while it holds off on the 27 inch iMac.

I think this is the most likely scenario, since pixel doubling 1920x1080 is the only practical panel they could put in an iMac right now.

$1999 starting retina 21.5" iMac with top tier specs (750, core i5, Fusion drive standard, etc)

 

[Moonjumper]

About scaling, on my rMBP I use 1680x1050 and there is definitely a subtle difference in crispness.

I agree. I have a 15" rMBP. The scaled resolutions are very good (better than most displays), but they are still second best to Best for Retina.

 

[eXan]

They'll just use the 4k "looks like 1920". Don't see a problem, assuming you can use the native res still as well.

 

[Serban]

First of all, a 3840x2160 iMac is not a 4K iMac, but would be an UHD iMac.
4K is 4096x2160, and I do hope Apple go with the proper 4K resolution and not UHD.
It will be retina enough, that's for sure

right, indeed i want retina imac...above 163 ppi
Its time that apple release the last 2 products macbook air and imac...to retina standards

----------

if apple needs 4 years to make all its products retina standards...i guess sapphire glass will take apple 10 years (maybe not in desktops because they are less risker )

 

[Mago]

What if, the Retina iMac its 5K (5120x2700)? damnnn

 

[flopticalcube]

First of all, a 3840x2160 iMac is not a 4K iMac, but would be an UHD iMac.
4K is 4096x2160, and I do hope Apple go with the proper 4K resolution and not UHD.
It will be retina enough, that's for sure

That would change the aspect ratio to 19:10 from 16:9. In the consumer world 3840 X 2160 is considered 4K... its close enough with less than 10% difference in # of pixels.

 

[gbkrip]

Viewing distances vary between different users. Unless the iMac meets the 'retina' criteria at the closest of those viewing distances, it shouldn't be classified as a 'retina' display.

I'm actually more interested in what they will do to the physical size of the display once the resolution is increased. Will it remain at 27"? I'd like to see something bigger.

 

[thedeske]

My Current 2560x1440 is already almost retina for me.

And me as well. Making a better panel in the next gen with the same 2560 is somehow Not Enough on the internets hive brain. It must be called Retina, cause ... internets. They could name a new GPU something "retina like thingy"
and fool the hord. Fusion Display! That's the ticket

The arguments always come back to fire breathing Processor. How do they shove a Mac Pro into an iMac? They Dont

 

[Traverse]

Can 4K at 27" be used natively or is it more likely to be scaled at 1080p?

 

[yoak]

That would change the aspect ratio to 19:10 from 16:9. In the consumer world 3840 X 2160 is considered 4K... its close enough with less than 10% difference in # of pixels.

I know, but if they are to come out with a proper 4K display for the Mac Pro I really think it has to be 4K and not UHD, as it's geared towards professionals, and 4K is the delivery format for high end productions.
But on the other hand, I don't think they would make both sizes (iMac and standalone display) so I have a feeling the pros will be left out to dry and they will go for UHD Displays

 

[Serban]

THe next iMac will have a resolution of 8347x4099 pixels