Apple Posts 27" Retina iMac-Sized OS X Mavericks Background

[Ungibbed]

Do you really need a retina display for a desktop monitor? Aren't most users like 2 - 3 feet away from the monitor ... at which point can the human eye even see the pixels?

With the current resolution of the 27" ACD, I'm quite happy with it's current panel. A kick in the pants for audio output would be nice but even with an older Mac such as my 13" mid 2010 MBP, the ACD (MDP model for me) has a great screen resolution as it is. Those with TB Macs can run more than one which at 2650x1440 alone having a identical 27" display on it has plenty of workspace if you're running a older MBP the solution is still an awesome one.

Those with Retina MBP's really don't benefit as much but still the extra room from a TB 27" ACD are already in good shape.

TBH, even the rather dated 1280x800 panel on my MBP is still pleasing to the eye and has great color & contrast.

----------

Great... can someone post the new iOS 7 wallpaper


pretty please.

I want iOS 7, but the iPhone 5 versions of the new wallpaper would be sweet. I'm sure someone has them online and up for grabs already.

 

[washburn]

Do you really need a retina display for a desktop monitor? Aren't most users like 2 - 3 feet away from the monitor ... at which point can the human eye even see the pixels?

You can see more detail because you can draw with more pixels

 

[twoodcc]

now i'm really looking forward to 4k screens!

 

[cmanderson]

Pretty Sweet File size for such a big image

It compresses well as it's a lot of the same thing over and over...

----------

That's what this whole discussion is about. Apple has created background art that measures 5120x2880, which is presumably the resolution of the next generation iMacs and Apple Thunderbolt Displays. How do you drive an ATD at that resolution with a single cable? If you're paying attention, that is not twice the pixels of the current 2560x1440 panels, but 4x.



Nope. 1 Gbit = 1,000,000,000 bits. There are no base 2 antics involved here. 20 Gbit = 20,000,000,000 bits.

And when you're calculating the bandwidth requirements of a display, you need to account for various types of overhead. More "pixels" are required than are actually displayed. For VESA CVT (Coordinated Video Timings), there are blanking intervals, front porch, sync, and back porch in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions. 5120x2880 at 60 Hz with reduced blanking ends up being 5280x2962. So 5280 * 2962 * 24 * 60 = 22,520,678,400 bit/s, which is pretty darn close to 22.52 Gbit/s. Thunderbolt 2 provides exactly 20 Gbit/s per link to the upper layers, and DisplayPort 1.2 with HBR2 offers 17.28 Gbit/s over a 4-lane main link.

Retina style pixel "doubling" will result in 1440p standard desktop size.

 

[cwwilson]

time to replace my 2009 iMac!

I feel you. I still use my late 2009 iMac as my only computer and I highly doubt it will run Mavericks so maybe I'll get a sexy new 27" Retina iMac if the price isn't ridiculous.

 

[MikhailT]

That's what this whole discussion is about. Apple has created background art that measures 5120x2880, which is presumably the resolution of the next generation iMacs and Apple Thunderbolt Displays. How do you drive an ATD at that resolution with a single cable? If you're paying attention, that is not twice the pixels of the current 2560x1440 panels, but 4x.

The general discussion yes, not the actual thread that my quote was in. My post was explaining why the following quote is wrong in where the op mentioned it won't be possible to run such a HiDPI screen yet without TB2: "Why do you doubt it? You can already run two 2560x1600 displays as well as the internal display at an effective 3840x2400, which is a shedload more pixels than this..."

----------

With the current resolution of the 27" ACD, I'm quite happy with it's current panel. A kick in the pants for audio output would be nice but even with an older Mac such as my 13" mid 2010 MBP, the ACD (MDP model for me) has a great screen resolution as it is. Those with TB Macs can run more than one which at 2650x1440 alone having a identical 27" display on it has plenty of workspace if you're running a older MBP the solution is still an awesome one.

Those with Retina MBP's really don't benefit as much but still the extra room from a TB 27" ACD are already in good shape.

TBH, even the rather dated 1280x800 panel on my MBP is still pleasing to the eye and has great color & contrast.

You do know that the Retina version of the 27" ACD will use the same 2650x1440 resolution in HiDPI mode, right? It's just going to look twice as sharp but with the workspace.

Granted, folks will be able to switch to higher resolutions but it won't look as good as the HiDPI mode.

 

[mm201]

People don't get it no matter how many times you'll say it. They just know "retina" but don't understand DPI and the human eye.

People don't get how angular pixel density works. For the 27" iMac, you'd need to be 32 inches away for it to become Retina, which is about an arm's length. I can't speak for everyone but I sit a lot closer.

http://isthisretina.com/

Also please understand that "retina" only means the pixels are resolved for someone with 20/20 vision. Most young people have better.

As a rule of thumb, if the UI isn't uncomfortably small at its native resolution and a 1x DPI scale, it's not retina.

4k on the 27" iMac would probably be enough but it complicates Apple's pixel doubling strategy.

 

[iamkiyoshi]

People don't get how angular pixel density works. For the 27" iMac, you'd need to be 32 inches away for it to become Retina, which is about an arm's length. I can't speak for everyone but I sit a lot closer.

http://isthisretina.com/

Also please understand that "retina" only means the pixels are resolved for someone with 20/20 vision. Most young people have better.

As a rule of thumb, if the UI isn't uncomfortably small at its native resolution and a 1x DPI scale, it's not retina.

4k on the 27" iMac would probably be enough but it complicates Apple's pixel doubling strategy.

Well said.
I imagine Apple will keep with their resolution-doubling for Retina, but...

Instead of doubling 2560x1440 to 5120x2880, they might double 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 (aka 4k) for the 27" displays and iMac and double the 1280x720 to 2560x1440 for the 21.5" iMac.

Given that Thunderbolt 2 still needs room to run more than just the display (extra hard drives, multiple monitors, etc), I think the bandwidth is better used in this manner because it leaves some leeway.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

5120x2880 at 60 Hz with reduced blanking ends up being 5280x2962. So 5280 * 2962 * 24 * 60 = 22,520,678,400 bit/s, which is pretty darn close to 22.52 Gbit/s. Thunderbolt 2 provides exactly 20 Gbit/s per link to the upper layers, and DisplayPort 1.2 with HBR2 offers 17.28 Gbit/s over a 4-lane main link.

Thunderbolt 2 can use two 20 GBit channels (40 GBit bandwidth).

 

[ellsworth]

I want iOS 7, but the iPhone 5 versions of the new wallpaper would be sweet. I'm sure someone has them online and up for grabs already.

I recreated 2 out of 3 that I like. The third one was the space and stars wallpaper. It was too difficult trying to get rid of the icons and other stuff that the initial screen grab had. Will have to spend some more time adjust but here are two wallpapers to hold you down for awhile




Zip file with both wallpapers:
https://www.box.com/s/avnlmmhcy64fh00or2n5

 

[Serban]

its kind of obvious that a retina imac is coming because of this wallpaper and that the mac pro is supporting 4K..so they dont make commercial for other brands..they want YOU to connect the mac pro to your 21 or 27 iMac /thunderbolt display with 4K

 

[swm]

stanard res is also available

http://images.apple.com/home/images/osx_hero.jpg

 

[Kate4u]

When is 27" Retina iMac going to be released ?
Is there anyone know about the time line ?

 

[Serban]

i wonder if the new 7xx geforce series support that kind of resolution??! if yes, then i guess with the mac pro , they will release new iMac and thunderbolt display

 

[Lancer]

When is 27" Retina iMac going to be released ?
Is there anyone know about the time line ?

Steve Jobs might know!

IMO there will be no Retina iMac this year, maybe in 2014.

 

[LouisLeLou]

Am I the only one who is wanting to get their iMac right now, because they don't want retina? What graphics card would even begin to be good enough for that resolution?

 

[Cpt. Slow]

4k iMac !!!!

1080p = 2.1 Mpixel, 4K =4x1080p = 8.4 Mpixel.

5120x2880 = 14.8 Mpixel.

If they do that I'm totally getting an iMac.

Also a Thunderbolt Display of this res would render dell ultrasharp monitors useless. :O

----------

Am I the only one who is wanting to get their iMac right now, because they don't want retina? What graphics card would even begin to be good enough for that resolution?

iMac, now with GTX Titan?

 

[Serban]

they always put the M graphic card

----------

but i think the next 780M is more capable to handle

 

[AppleMark]

4k iMac !!!!

I do not see the point in a 4K iMac. Anybody who would need this kind of resolution for working, would surely use a Mac Pro with a 4K display. Even then I am not convinced, that you would get any benefit on a 27" screen, 2 feet away.

As for anything else, I am still waiting for a decent 4K home cinema projector to come out, however there is no real content available that makes it viable. Even Panasonic and JVC's [x55, x75 & x95] top end home projectors either do not currently have that resolution, or have a software enhancements such as E-Shift tech to upscale.

Bottom line is, if I cannot get 4K to display on a 10 foot home projector screen, do I really need it on a Mac, 2 feet away from my face?

 

[Mums]

It's a sea change.

 

[Serban]

I do not see the point in a 4K iMac. Anybody who would need this kind of resolution for working, would surely use a Mac Pro with a 4K display. Even then I am not convinced, that you would get any benefit on a 27" screen, 2 feet away.

Bottom line is, if I cannot get 4K to display on a 10 foot home projector screen, do I really need it on a Mac, 2 feet away from my face?

its quite the opposite. CLoser you stand , the image is not sharper anymore. So yes for a large TV and if you stand like 10 foot you don't see the pixels, but closer you get that changes it. So iMac you watched them at 2 feet so ..

 

[AppleMark]

its quite the opposite. CLoser you stand , the image is not sharper anymore. So yes for a large TV and if you stand like 10 foot you don't see the pixels, but closer you get that changes it. So iMac you watched them at 2 feet so ..

I am not sure you understood the essence of my post. In any case there is only so much you can see close up on a small screen.

In simple terms, just try looking at a HD image of a crowd of people on your your iPhone and see how much detail you can make out of the features on the peoples faces, then look at the same image on your iMac.

This is the essence of my point in relation to 4K on smaller devices, where the benefit is practically unusable.

 

[leftroom]

Where do I download the wallpaper? I can't see in on the MacRumors page.

Edit; Nevermind, I found it!

 

[coolspot18]

With the current resolution of the 27" ACD, I'm quite happy with it's current panel.

I wish Apple would put some USB ports on the bottom or side of the panel instead of the back. It would make it much more usable.

----------

People don't get how angular pixel density works. For the 27" iMac, you'd need to be 32 inches away for it to become Retina, which is about an arm's length. I can't speak for everyone but I sit a lot closer.

I sit about over arms length away; Monitor is so big I don't need to have it "in my face". According to the Retina calculator, you only need to sit 32" away from the current 27" monitor to be Retina... not unreasonable for most people.

 

[repoman27]

Retina style pixel "doubling" will result in 1440p standard desktop size.

True, but just because the UI elements are scaled doesn't mean there are fewer pixels to drive. Any assets that can be rendered at native resolution will be: text, icons, high resolution graphics or video, etc.

The general discussion yes, not the actual thread that my quote was in. My post was explaining why the following quote is wrong in where the op mentioned it won't be possible to run such a HiDPI screen yet without TB2: "Why do you doubt it? You can already run two 2560x1600 displays as well as the internal display at an effective 3840x2400, which is a shedload more pixels than this..."

Yeah, sorry, I may not have done the best job quoting there. The point I was trying to make is that even with Thunderbolt 2 / DisplayPort 1.2 you still can't drive a 5120x2880 panel at more than 18 bpp using a single cable. 2x Thunderbolt / DP 1.1 links isn't enough either.

I probably should have replied to tillsbury's post, which you quoted. The math there is definitely off. Even if the proposed scenario wasn't coming from 3 different DP 1.1a sources, the total number of pixels would still be 2880 * 1800 + 2 * (2560 * 1600) = 13,376,000 pixels, whereas 5120 * 2880 = 14,745,600 pixels. The scaling for the Retina display is performed by the OS before output.

Thunderbolt 2 can use two 20 GBit channels (40 GBit bandwidth).

Per controller, but not per cable / port. They just bonded the two 10 Gbit/s channels in a standard Thunderbolt cable to reach 20 Gbit/s and be able to transport a full DP 1.2 HBR2 main link.