Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by LaazyEye, Sep 3, 2013.
Take a look at this
And you can gauge how much one would cost if Apple were to produce one.
Perhaps. But how much did a 2880x1800 resolution 15" laptop cost before Apple introduced the rMBP?
Guess I'll wait until it's $349.00
....or look at this and see how FAST the (UHD panel) price is dropping.
There's a big difference between a TV-class panel and a computer monitor class panel.
Yes, big difference, about 25 inches
Apple's original Cinema Display (23") did cost $3500.
That's what she said.
My (wild, uneducated, crazy, speculative) prediction is Apple will offer 2 displays. An updated 27" QHD with TB 2.0 for $999 and a Pro 32" to 34" UHD TB 2.0 for $1999 to $2499.
It hurts my head to think about the indecision with aspect ratios at Apple.
Some stuff is 16:9 (Thunderbolt/Cinema Display, iMacs)
Some stuff is 16:10 (rMBP, cMBP, Air)
Would be nice to see them standardize on 16:9 with the next iterations.
I don't think it's indecision. Apple uses the best aspect ratio they think fits to it's computer which seems to be 16:10 in laptops and 16:9 in desktop. That's make perfect sense since laptops have a smaller displays and the extra height comes very handy.
Below 1280x800 I could actually agree with you. Above that, not so much.
That was cheaper $400 on slickdeals.
Apple mass producing something would make it significantly cheaper.
QHD screens which are already 2560x1600 on 27"?
How much more is an extra 3840 or whatever 4k is now? Seems to be less than doubling the pixel density like the rMBP.
2k would seem like a fair price for a 4k thunderbolt.
I'm just waiting for a thinner design.
Brought to you straight out of Shenzhen's finest trash cans™.
And exactly that is the problem with 4K panels: The yield is so bad that Seiki can sell them for $699. I couldn't even find a quality product that uses the 39/40" panel yet, so who knows where the good panels end up (not that there isn't one thing that doesn't scream "LG" on Seiki TVs).
I really wish apple comes out with new cinema when is it likely again? Also I agree 27" and > but I would totally fetch the 24" if it came out.
I typed up a "dream spec" of what I'd like to see in the new TB displays:
Retina Thunderbolt Displays
-24" Retina Thunderbolt Display 3840x2160p
--Three USB 3.0 ports, One Gigabit Ethernet port, Two Thunderbolt 2 ports, Kensington security slot, built in magsafe cable,
--For users with Retina display computers that are looking to expand their desktop space with the addition of a 4K capable display for watching new 4K QuadHD video content.
-30" Retina Thunderbolt Display 4096x2304p
--Three USB 3.0 ports, One Gigabit Ethernet port, Two Thunderbolt 2 ports, One HDMI 2.0 port, Kensington security slot, built in magsafe cable.
--For enthusiasts and professional users alike that need a 4K Cinema spec display for video editing and professional playback of 4K video at full rates.
Although I do like 16:10 on larger displays 16:9 only makes sense...especially with pricey 4K displays. I'll leave the pricing for those ideas to others
On the topic of 4k monitors and retina resolutions, part of the "retina" concept for apple includes the intended viewing distance from screen to eye. With that in mind, would a "retina" display for a desktop need the full 4k? I love high pixel density and all, but it seems like overkill for a ~27" screen, even viewed at 2 or 3 feet.
Depends on screen size and distance. An iPhone is usually held about 1' to 2'. So lets say 2' for all. An iPhone is 326DPI, a 27" QHD is 108DPI (way low and would need to be about 9" for a DPI326). To get a UHD (3860x2160) at the same Retina level for 2' viewing it could only be 14" for a DPI316. Any larger and if would not qualify.
Just to add: UHD top spec (often incorrectly called 8K) at 7680x4320 would get you 326DPI on a 27"
That's like equating the GSIII's display to a 24" 1080p monitor and saying that they should cost the same.
Bigger the display, more material needed and higher the cost. And since screen area grows exponentially so does the cost.
You're completely right. At normal viewing distances the current display is pretty close to retina, and whatever resolution bump it might get won't help it much other than a very slight increase in perceived sharpness.
You can also get a $400 27" 2560x1440 display from Monoprice and it's a complete piece of crap made from reject panels like Giuly said. Not to mention that's a TV and it's a whole lot easier to design light guides for large format displays than computer monitors.
You miss my point. Ultra-high resolution laptops were insanely expensive if you could even find one - until Apple introduced the rMBP. A 4K display costs a lot now, because no one is making them in high quantities. Apple could change that.
No, they're making plenty of 4K displays. The OP even has a link to a mass-produced 4K display from ASUS. They cost a lot because they cost a lot to make.
There's "Mass-produced" and "MASS-produced". I'd be amazed if ASUS has made 10,000 of those. Remember Apple calls items like ATV (which they've sold 13 million of) a "Hobby".
If it's being offered to the consumers at all it's certainly selling in good enough numbers. ASUS is in the same position as Apple in ordering parts from other sources, with this particular display coming from Sharp, so expect similar pricing from Apple should it order 4K displays from the same sources. And knowing ASUS's pricing habits that's the lowest price around for a desktop 4K monitor.
Add to the fact that apparently there are two display drivers in that ASUS panel. It cleverly employs the underused displayport daisy-chaining capability to make one apparent image. Which unfortunately means it wouldn't work on most macs since they don't have displayport 1.2 (I believe most are 1.1a). Your alternative would be to use dual hdmi. Anyways, what I'm getting at is this is also why they're currently expensive, the tech isn't quite there yet.