Apple Including Ultra High Resolution Artwork in Lion for Possible Retina Displays?

[fswmacguy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

This isn't surprising news considering that Lion will be running on a new 27-inch iMac screen.

The size of screen is irrelevant. It's resolution that matters here.

512x512 icons expanded on an ultra high resolution will come out horribly blocky and pixelated since the pixels of the image are no longer 1:1.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

i would love to get a 27" ACD with retina display - once they have started to incorporate OLED

OLED+retina display

 

[orthorim]

It was inevitable that this would come as soon as the iPhone 4 was released. That screen looks sooooo much better than my computer's. At desktop size it's going to be mind-blowing.

The only question is when, and I assume it's primarily a matter of getting the hardware made. No one makes retina 13, 15, and 17" displays and Apple is going to need huge quantities.

Making OS X resolution independent is a pretty big task so doing the prepwork now could still mean it's years away. I hope not of course. If they come out with a retina MBP, I am going to be the first in line to get one.

 

[orthorim]

Well, we will have to disagree there

I think Apple puts form/Style above function, and will make a device that does not work very well, or is comfortable/practical for a human to use, simply so that it looks cool and people want to buy it.

Is that why you bought the iPad? One would think if you have an iPad, you'd already see the error in judgement that you made there. Just because Apple stuff looks cool doesn't mean it's sacrificing function - to the contrary.

If you've used an iPhone, or iPad, for any period of time you'd know that.

Other computer makers put wavy lines, green blinking lights and all sorts of other kitsch on their machines - by kitsch I mean design features that have no function, that are there only to look "good".

When has Apple made a device that didn't work very well??? You'd have to go all the way to the Newton for that. And that happened while Steve Jobs was away, not a co-incidence. Ever since the iPod, it's been hit after hit.

 

[toddybody]

Is that why you bought the iPad? One would think if you have an iPad, you'd already see the error in judgement that you made there. Just because Apple stuff looks cool doesn't mean it's sacrificing function - to the contrary.

If you've used an iPhone, or iPad, for any period of time you'd know that.

Other computer makers put wavy lines, green blinking lights and all sorts of other kitsch on their machines - by kitsch I mean design features that have no function, that are there only to look "good".

When has Apple made a device that didn't work very well??? You'd have to go all the way to the Newton for that. And that happened while Steve Jobs was away, not a co-incidence. Ever since the iPod, it's been hit after hit.

Well, I think the previous commenter's point has some validity. A great example of this "form over function" is the iMac. Mobile graphics (and poor ones at that), horrendous thermal management, limited stand orientation...but one damn fine looking computer Dont get me wrong, Apple does amazing things with their products. (Im obviously a fan ) But I do think design is paramount to their efforts (not that function ever takes backseat, it just can be slightly lessoned on some releases). Now, IMO...they knocked both form and function out of the park with the iPad 2, iPhone 4, and 2010 MBA. Bravo

 

[Joshuarocks]

Bit harsh

Bit harsh, but true.

 

[Ommid]

Bit harsh, but true.

Probably because there is no need for it in that range? Plus most Mac Pro users won't use Apple displays IMO

 

[Starbuckfsd]

[url=https://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Image

A finding earlier this month by OSXDaily has generated some speculation about Apple's plans for "Retina" display Macs. The Mac OS X Lion Developer Preview 2 released in late March included an ultra-high resolution version of the background desktop image at a resolution of 3200x2000. A few observers noted that this is higher than any Apple display has ever supported, generating speculation that Apple is preparing for "Retina" display Macs in the near future.

We had previously reported that Mac OS X Lion has made some under-the-hood changes opening the door to such super-high resolution displays. Now, MacMagazine.com.br has found that Apple is already starting to include other super high resolution artwork in Lion. They found several icons stored as 1024x1024 sizes, up from a previous maximum of 512x512.


[url=http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/23/171301-lion.png]Image
[/url]
Click for full-size

Of course, this support for super high resolution displays is only the first step, but suggests Apple is planning ahead when the hardware becomes available.

Article Link: Apple Including Ultra High Resolution Artwork in Lion for Possible Retina Displays?

Oh please. Give me a break! Do you nitwits HONESTLY think there will be retina display Macs in the near future? It's total BS. If they did, the cost of said Macs would be prohibitive to the general public. Why do you think there aren't retina display iPads? IT'S TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE! C'mon guys...you're beginning to sound like CNET

 

[Gasu E.]

I'm not impressed if this is where the iMac display is potentially going , the current GPUs can barely drive the resolutions they have now in anything other than simple desktop apps . , can you imagine what video card you would need to drive a game (say portal 2 which has low to modest requirements) at 30fps + on a screen with 3200 or higher resloution ? Well whatever that GPU is , apple will ship with the one released 2 years ago and half the RAM it shipped with on the PC .
<...>
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry

I think you are just seeing advance preparation for something that won't happen for a while; moreover, when it does happen, it will start with smaller screens and work its way up to the larger ones over time. By the time it works up to a 20"+ displays, GPUs will be much more powerful.

 

[Gasu E.]

Well, I think the previous commenter's point has some validity. A great example of this "form over function" is the iMac. Mobile graphics (and poor ones at that), horrendous thermal management, limited stand orientation...but one damn fine looking computer Dont get me wrong, Apple does amazing things with their products. (Im obviously a fan ) But I do think design is paramount to their efforts (not that function ever takes backseat, it just can be slightly lessoned on some releases). Now, IMO...they knocked both form and function out of the park with the iPad 2, iPhone 4, and 2010 MBA. Bravo

I have to respectfully disagree. Having a large monitor in a small compact desktop form factor was important to me. I have very limited deskspace, even less floorspace, and a variety of needs for the large monitor. You may call this "form", but as far as I am concerned, this is "functionality", since a larger package forces me to make other compromise in my life.

 

[HypersonicXIV]

Oh wow, I am excited just at the thought that they might hopefully be heading in this direction, regardless of when it finally happens.

I'm a programmer and spend my day looking at text in an IDE on a couple of 27" cinema displays. When I look at my iPhone 4 and see how amazingly crisp and clear text is on the retina display and then look back to my computer screen, I weep quietly inside.

The 27" screens are beautiful, but the retina display on my phone just shows how amazing they could be.

I’m interested in what Apple will do with the 15” MBP. If Apple doubled the resolution of the 1440x900 display, then going from a 1680x1050 MBP to this new 2880x1800 MBP means an increase in DPI but a decrease in viewable information.

Hopefully they will include a scaling ability as well for those who don't mind shrinking everything down to fit more on the screen as well (which would address the problem mentioned above).

There is lots of potential for screens with such a high DPI

 

[toddybody]

I have to respectfully disagree. Having a large monitor in a small compact desktop form factor was important to me. I have very limited deskspace, even less floorspace, and a variety of needs for the large monitor. You may call this "form", but as far as I am concerned, this is "functionality", since a larger package forces me to make other compromise in my life.

Thats a totally valid point
But like I said, there are some functional drawbacks to that form (that you prefer)...also, increasing the iMac's depth by 2 inches wouldnt change its footprint whatsoever, the base is the issue there. So, from that perspective, Apple COULD have given the iMac a slightly thicker body with 2 120mm fan exhausts on the back(would look like the front mesh of the Mac Pro). Who knows, with that extra 2 inches of body depth...there could be superior cooling and improved desktop graphics. But then again, it wouldnt LOOK as sexy as it does now Take care friend!

 

[toddybody]

I'm not impressed if this is where the iMac display is potentially going , the current GPUs can barely drive the resolutions they have now in anything other than simple desktop apps . , can you imagine what video card you would need to drive a game (say portal 2 which has low to modest requirements) at 30fps + on a screen with 3200 or higher resloution ? Well whatever that GPU is , apple will ship with the one released 2 years ago and half the RAM it shipped with on the PC .

I love the mac OS , I love the mac design , I hate the "last years tech with a shiney shell" we seem to have to put up with , super high res screens and faster I/O ports are all well and good , but put a decent GPU in now the mac is becoming a contender as a home gaming platform .

Think I ranted a bit then , sorry

Nightarchaon, youre my hero. All the conjecture about future hi res displays aside...the current iMac is almost crippled with its current GPU options. At 2560x1440...it should have something equivalent to an HD 6950/GTX 570. Given that those cards would blow past any thermal limits Apple has set...iMac owners are in a bit of a graphical quandary. It's an utterly gorgeous machine, superb display, great CPU, decent RAM, sufficient HDD options. But those graphics? SP cores and clock rates aside...it should have 2GB of VRAM(frame buffer) at that res.

 

[ARF900]

They may be preparing but im not holding my breath on this. They havent even gotten retina displays for the iPad yet...

 

[mwayne85]

Good observation, but as others have said, this won't happen anytime soon. I guessing we'll see a resolution bump in the iPad before we see it in Macs.

 

[TallManNY]

iPad 2 not being retina is not a good example when talking about desktops. First, there are no battery issues to deal with for a desktop. Second, there heat issues but less so since the screen isn't held in your hand. And third, you can raise costs if you are talking about a high end screen to attach to your high end Mac Pro. Apple can target the "money is no object crowd" with some of its offerings. Apple sells $1,000 displays already and I'm not sure that they couldn't sell a $2,000 retina level display. I'd consider it. Yeah it would be a lot of money but I would expect the screen to last five years and I use my computer everyday. Would I spend about a dollar a day to have retina on a 27" screen? I'd at least consider it.

That said, I don't know if the technology is there yet. Could a current Mac Pro run a retina screen without a hiccup? I'd still 60 FPS on Crysis.

 

[Piggie]

http://www.tvlogicusa.com/product/product.php?idx=40

3840x2160 resolution
56" Screen
10 bit color

Came out exactly a year ago.


Or one from Sharp (came out 4 years ago)
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/15/sharps-4k-x-2k-64-inch-ultra-high-res-monitor/

4096 x 2048 resolution
62" screen

 

[Ommid]

http://www.tvlogicusa.com/product/product.php?idx=40

3840x2160 resolution
56" Screen
10 bit color

Came out exactly a year ago.


Or one from Sharp (came out 4 years ago)
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/15/sharps-4k-x-2k-64-inch-ultra-high-res-monitor/

4096 x 2048 resolution
62" screen

Actually beasts! How do you know about those then?

I think the Dell 30 inch is still relatively higher PPI though right?

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

You guys do realize that a 27" iMac would have to be 4K to possess a PPI over 300 and therefore be a "Retina Display?"

And that's when a 2K monitor (the LUM-560) is going for $66,000?

Yeah. Have fun with your $122,000 iMac.

 

[moderately]

You guys do realize that a 27" iMac would have to be 4K to possess a PPI over 300 and therefore be a "Retina Display?"

And that's when a 2K monitor (the LUM-560) is going for $66,000?

Yeah. Have fun with your $122,000 iMac.

"Retina Display" doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

[MythicFrost]

iPad 2 not being retina is not a good example when talking about desktops. First, there are no battery issues to deal with for a desktop. Second, there heat issues but less so since the screen isn't held in your hand. And third, you can raise costs if you are talking about a high end screen to attach to your high end Mac Pro. Apple can target the "money is no object crowd" with some of its offerings. Apple sells $1,000 displays already and I'm not sure that they couldn't sell a $2,000 retina level display. I'd consider it. Yeah it would be a lot of money but I would expect the screen to last five years and I use my computer everyday. Would I spend about a dollar a day to have retina on a 27" screen? I'd at least consider it.

That said, I don't know if the technology is there yet. Could a current Mac Pro run a retina screen without a hiccup? I'd still 60 FPS on Crysis.

Interestingly enough, there should be no more power drain nor heat produced on an iPad with a retina display than there is without.

I also remember reading an article a while ago that pinned a 2048x1536 retina display for the iPad at ~3x the current iPad's display price. Although, I'm not sure if it was real or not, I think it was though.

 

[KnightWRX]

You guys do realize that a 27" iMac would have to be 4K to possess a PPI over 300 and therefore be a "Retina Display?"

You sit 12 inches away from your iMac screen ?

 

[gorgeousninja]

That colour scheme for the Lion background artwork is hideous.

That is Fuji-san, and that's how it looks....

Always nice when someone goes public with their ignorance...

 

[Mal]

That is Fuji-san, and that's how it looks....

Always nice when someone goes public with their ignorance...

To be fair, it doesn't always have that color scheme. I've taken several pictures of Fuji, and none have that particular color scheme.

jW

 

[bhtooefr]

OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...

3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.

But, that does indicate a few things.

3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.

If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?

As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.

Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.

I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.

MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"

MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"

iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"

Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"

Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...

(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)

Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?

(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)