TV 4K is 3840 x 2160 (at a 16:9, or 1.78:1 aspect ratio)
Movie industry standard is 4096 x 2160
27" iMac could be 5120 x 2880,
Better than 4k. Nice!
Better bring out a Monitor too!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Evidence of Upcoming Retina iMacs Showing Up in OS X Yosemite Beta
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
TV 4K is 3840 x 2160 (at a 16:9, or 1.78:1 aspect ratio)
Movie industry standard is 4096 x 2160
27" iMac could be 5120 x 2880,
Better than 4k. Nice!
Better bring out a Monitor too!
I don't see how these can be this year, or even next year at current iMac prices... 4k monitors and tvs are still crazy expensive and to keep up the quality with even more pixels seems unfeasible at a $1800 price point!!
But really, I don't know anything about this... but that all makes sense in my head
4K monitor prices are not that bad now. I fully expect them to have a retina and non retina version - probably $2400?
I don't know about this
I mean what is the point of double or quadrupling the pixels only to show content the exact same size as on a lower resolution display?
I mean I just bought a laptop with something like 3200 x 1400 resolution, but then Windows UI is scaled at 200% so all the content is the same relative size as if it was a 1600 x 700 display. This is the same process used by iOS devices that went "Retina", same sized icons, just smoother rounded corners.
It has been maybe 15 years since I last looked at a screen and lamented how aliased some lines looked on it.
Yes I know that there is content like video and photos that will look beautiful @ 5000+ pixels, and I am sure there are apps that can use every pixel you can throw at it, but 99% of the time most users are going to simply be looking at a highly scaled up UI that is identical in physical dimensions to icons and buttons from the previous "low" res generation of screens, they just paid an *ssload more money for that privilege.
Also, I question putting this on an iMac because iMac's are not notorious for offering high-end GPU options and if you hope to play any future game on this screen, at native resolution, then you are going to need like a 4-way SLI GPU configuration option from Apple.com. Unless you can add an external GPU through Thunderbolt which also daisy chains back to the internal iMac display, then I think most people are going to be frustrated trying to make full use of their iMac with an impressive waste of pixel count.
Apple, just focus on making iMac affordable and/or come out with a headless Mac that doesn't cost as much as a used car and let people decide how many pixels they need to waste on a display of their choice.
I mean what is the point of double or quadrupling the pixels only to show content the exact same size as on a lower resolution display?
I mean I just bought a laptop with something like 3200 x 1400 resolution, but then Windows UI is scaled at 200% so all the content is the same relative size as if it was a 1600 x 700 display. This is the same process used by iOS devices that went "Retina", same sized icons, just smoother rounded corners.
It has been maybe 15 years since I last looked at a screen and lamented how aliased some lines looked on it.
Yes I know that there is content like video and photos that will look beautiful @ 5000+ pixels, and I am sure there are apps that can use every pixel you can throw at it, but 99% of the time most users are going to simply be looking at a highly scaled up UI that is identical in physical dimensions to icons and buttons from the previous "low" res generation of screens, they just paid an *ssload more money for that privilege.
Also, I question putting this on an iMac because iMac's are not notorious for offering high-end GPU options and if you hope to play any future game on this screen, at native resolution, then you are going to need like a 4-way SLI GPU configuration option from Apple.com. Unless you can add an external GPU through Thunderbolt which also daisy chains back to the internal iMac display, then I think most people are going to be frustrated trying to make full use of their iMac with an impressive waste of pixel count.
Apple, just focus on making iMac affordable and/or come out with a headless Mac that doesn't cost as much as a used car and let people decide how many pixels they need to waste on a display of their choice.
Awesome! But don't raise the price on them and don't keep non retinas just retina that the starting price of $1,200. That would be awesome
This would be really cool to see. Design for retina iPad is almost impossible to do on current iMac 27.
Actually.. Theres two reasons why I'd love this.
1. Extra space whenever I need it for whatever I'd need that much space for.
2. Eyegasms at a HiDPI resolution with all the super sharp UI
My retina macbook still gives me those from time to time at 1440x900 HiDPI
i bet you:
1. there will be two options, non retina and retina
2. retina will only be made available for the 27" option
3. will start at $2500
1. there will be two options, non retina and retina
2. retina will only be made available for the 27" option
3. will start at $2500
I think this is why the Mac Mini Late 2012 has not been updated. An updated Mac Mini would HAVE to support 4k monitors making it a BETTER option than the non-retina-only iMacs out today. So they'll first offer retina iMac then hesitate to release retina capable (4k capable) Mac Minis because they have to... -or- they'll cancel the Mac Mini altogether since it eats into the high iMac profits
Mac Mini 4k capable plus that 4k Dell monitor = a $1400 retina computer. Apple wants to sell a ~$2299 retina iMac...so it only hurts them to release the Mac Mini with 4k support
Mac Mini 4k capable plus that 4k Dell monitor = a $1400 retina computer. Apple wants to sell a ~$2299 retina iMac...so it only hurts them to release the Mac Mini with 4k support
All I can think about is how terrible the rev. A product is going to be. All the issues the first Retina iMac will have. How fast it will become dated because of a GPU that can barely handle the pixels anno 2014. Let alone by 2016. By 2017 you'll probably be happy if it can trigger Mission Control with three windows open without stuttering too much. Especially the 27-inch version. The price alone will make it DOA for most.
On a more practical level: Is there even a GPU suitable for all-in-ones that can handle a 27-inch Retina screen? Not to menton a second display.
At this point it's much more likely we'll see a 4K 27/28-inch iMac, rather than a true 5K Retina one. Color me skeptical about the latter for the reasons stated above.
On a more practical level: Is there even a GPU suitable for all-in-ones that can handle a 27-inch Retina screen? Not to menton a second display.
At this point it's much more likely we'll see a 4K 27/28-inch iMac, rather than a true 5K Retina one. Color me skeptical about the latter for the reasons stated above.
Last edited:
This is great. But if I think the price increase is going to be a lot more (if currently). This would make my decision of going to a Mac Pro so much easier. I think a high end iMac with retina would be costly and would probably approach a decent, maybe?, mid-range MP. Even if it were the low end MP, I still think I would go that way.
that will teach me to read first, comment later