Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

Nightarchaon said:
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 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Desktop rendering performance at a retina display resolution would not be an issue with any modern Mac that shipped with a retina display. As for games, you do not have to render the game at the native screen resolution. The OS X implementation will almost certainly be the same as the iOS implementation. That is, a doubling of the vertical and horizontal resolution.

A game running on a 3840x2160 retina display can render at 1920x1080. No filtering need be applied by the monitor as it is an exact multiple in each direction. A 1920x1080 output resolution from a game would look exactly the same on a 3840x2160 display as it would on a 1920x1080 display. Every 1 pixel in the rendered image would take up 4 pixels on the higher res display. You can test this out on your Mac now with any game that allows you to select a resolution that is half the vertical/horizontal resolution of your current monitor. That is assuming the display is not stupid enough to filter resolutions that are an even division of it's native resolution. Most won't apply any filtering in those cases.
 
I hope this arrives with the Mac Pros and enough GPU power to drive it (Crossfired 6990s anyone?)
 
Cougarcat said:
I think Apple is simply futureproofing here, and we won't see Retina displays for 3+ years, when it would be more feasible.

I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
Click to expand...

Usually a new Mac OS is released every two years. Why inlude those now?
 
Nightarchaon said:
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 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
Note that the 3200x2000 wallpaper is form factor 16/10 and not 16/9!
Does this means Apple will be reverting to widescreen 16/10 displays instead of the tv-widescreen 16/9? Wouldn't be bad :D

I really hope the new iMac will have such a screen, and comes with a decent GPU like the HD6970m or the HD6950m for the top 27" iMac.
 
Last edited:
Retina? Not so fast...

Retina 27'' LCD should be 7200x4080 pixels. I think we can't expect it in near future... but i'd love to see it :)
 
KnightWRX said:
No, it wouldn't. Please understand what Retina means ;) :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

For all we know, the 27" already is a Retina display. It depends on what distance you find normal sitting away from it.
Click to expand...

Retina is clearly defined by minimum 300 px/in resolution, so distance from monitor there is nothing to do with. Sitting 10 meters from monitor don't transform your monitor to hiperRetina. Please...
 
Piggie said:
Ok, I'll try this question, which is a fair question...............

Everyone says again and again, Apple does not aim for the high end.
If we put Mac Pro's to one side as they are the proper PC's of the Apple Mac world.

Let's speak about iMac's

They are Apple mass consumer, man/woman in the street computers.
They type of customers who just want to enjoy their computer and be able to get the jobs they want done in a nice and easy way.

I think that's a fair statement.

Also, as has been said, over and over and OVER again, these customers, that the iMac's are aimed at, are not Nerds, Not Tech Freaks, Not spec junkies.
They are just normal people who probably don't want to be worried about specs and to be honest as long as it looks nice and moves smoothy on screen, don't care what's inside the case.

Given this. If these "typical consumers, who don't care or really know about specs" are today, looking at their current 1920x1080 screens, or 1920x1200 screens, and they cannot see the individual pixels from their normal, let's say two feet away viewing distance, then what on earth would be the point in increasing costs, and slowing down an iMac by lumbering it with a higher resolution screen?

What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
Click to expand...

In the not too distant future we will be getting convertible iMac's. You have all seen the patents that Apple have applied for, where the screen tilts into a more horizontal position on your desk and is usable as a touch screen device.

When in this mode the screen will be a lot closer to your eyes and would greatly benefit from being higher resolution
 
yfile said:
Retina is clearly defined by minimum 300 px/in resolution, so distance from monitor there is nothing to do with. Sitting 10 meters from monitor don't transform your monitor to hiperRetina. Please...
Click to expand...

Hum, no it's not. Read the article I linked to and go back to the intro of the iPhone 4. It's 300 PPI at a normal viewing distance for a phone (12 inches). Otherwise it makes no sense. The size of a pixel is relative to its distance from your eye. The further away something it is, the smaller it becomes relatively and thus your eye has more trouble seeing it. Sitting further from your monitor can make the pixels iPhone 4 size in no time at all.
 
Piggie said:
Apple's problem is that they put "Looks" before performance.

They crippled their chances of ever becoming a serious competitor to the PC for games due to deciding to use giant laptops on a stand which meant they could not cool any decent graphics cards, handing the gaming crown to the PC for years on a plate.

As for the future who knows.
Click to expand...

That issue could have been largely solved if they had just faced a standard high end GPU with the intake facing towards the back and the exhaust on the side. But Apple is too vain to put a vent on the rear of the iMac to accomodate the intake of a high quality GPU, let alone a slim exhaust vent on the side.

If they had simply used a standard GPU like that it would have opened up quality gaming on the Mac and made it simple to upgrade to newer cards so that people didn't have to chuck the entire computer every time they wanted a new video card.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)

Try fitting that icon on your iPhone screen.
 
kntgsp said:
That issue could have been largely solved if they had just faced a standard high end GPU with the intake facing towards the back and the exhaust on the side. But Apple is too vain to put a vent on the rear of the iMac to accomodate the intake of a high quality GPU, let alone a slim exhaust vent on the side.

If they had simply used a standard GPU like that it would have opened up quality gaming on the Mac and made it simple to upgrade to newer cards so that people didn't have to chuck the entire computer every time they wanted a new video card.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are right.

Given a bit of good design work on Apples part, when I say good design I mean, technically good as opposed to artistically good.

And in conjunction with Nvidea/ATI (personally I still like Nvidea as they seem more on the ball with Tessalation and Cuda programming for offloading CPU work onto the GPU)

A "Spread out" design, given the large rear metal surface are of an iMac and a few very neat vents to pull in cool air using a slow well designed fan, from the side or bottom and exhausting the warm air on the other side/top could be well within technical possibilities. And would address the weak spot Apple have had for a decade or two.

But, as has been said, Apple seem to fear this market as they seem to think they can't compete, and if you know you can't compete it's best not to enter the race. They want to go for poorer quality graphics, or we can use the term that sounds better than that.

The casual gamer.

Quite why this Apple created concept to cover their weak point should be happy with less quality/detail is unsure to me.

It's like saying people what watch films all the time and enjoy them should have the best picture quality we can deliver.

However, those who just watch the occasional movie should be happier with a lower quality image.

Kind of a strange concept when you think about it. and really we should all accept it's just a created excuse to excuse away a weak area as I said.

But, as you quite rightly said. Apple are too vein to spoil, in their mind the cosmetic look of an iMac by adding in cooling slits to allow for higher end graphics cards.
A shame really as if they had taken graphics a lot more seriously 15 or 20 years ago, they could be kings of this sector now.
 
HiDPI?

DPI = Dots per inch
PPI = Pixels per inch.

DPI is an acronym that mainly applies to the printing industry. No, your brand-shiny new ACD (seems more like BC-ACD) does not display dots. Pixels are, in fact, squares (rectangles, if you really wanna nitpick).

HiPPI is what it should be.

Is this going be another typeface/font mass misunderstanding turned commonplace?

THERE ARE NO DOTS ON YOUR SCREEN! ONLY PIXELS!

Freakin' idiots. What would your mothers say?
 
antic said:
In the not too distant future we will be getting convertible iMac's. You have all seen the patents that Apple have applied for, where the screen tilts into a more horizontal position on your desk and is usable as a touch screen device.

When in this mode the screen will be a lot closer to your eyes and would greatly benefit from being higher resolution
Click to expand...

That really is such a bad idea :(

Can you imagine the terrible usability in having a screen tilted on it's back and having to lift our arms up to do finger painting.

Who wants to cover their display with their hands?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Can't wait, a MBA with double the res, drawl.
 
This would be awesome. It'd drastically reduce the need for AA and allow for much more detailed textures :D

Would need some horse power though... even a GTX 580 would struggle at that resolution on max with Metro 2033 :p
 
Piggie said:
That really is such a bad idea :(

Can you imagine the terrible usability in having a screen tilted on it's back and having to lift our arms up to do finger painting.

Who wants to cover their display with their hands?
Click to expand...

lol both of you guys, its called the iPad... by the way Apple made it very clear that touchscreen laptops dont work well.
 
Very interesting...I think we'd be better off with a res bump in the notebook line. Aside from the air...things have been stagnant there for. While.

Also, people are getting all this retina/ppi discussion muddled. PPI IS fixed
and not based on viewing distance. On the other hand, the eyes capability to perceive those pixels IS dependent on viewing distance. No, an iMac does not need to have a 7xxx Display to be retina...as it's viewing distance shouldn't be what the iP4 is. Sould be more to the tune of 24inches
 
Last edited:
bwillwall said:
lol both of you guys, its called the iPad... by the way Apple made it very clear that touchscreen laptops dont work well.
Click to expand...

No, he's talking about the drawing that shows something like a 24" iMac than can be swivelled down on your desktop from it's normal upright position to a slightly inclined position (like an iPad on it's new triangle smart cover back rest) and then you lift your arms up and use the 24" screen like an iPad.

Seems such a bad idea.

I like the idea of a giant touch screen in the surface of a desk, for some uses, but I'm really unsure about swinging an iMac screen around and sticking your hands all over it.

This image here: http://www.alltouchtablet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/touchscreen-apple-imac.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back