Here is why 4K resolution is unlikely this year

beosound3200

macrumors 6502a
Nov 23, 2010
684
0
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/viewsonic-vp3280-led-4k-monitor-hands-on/

How much for this 31.5" beauty? About the price of a small car.
are they using sharp screens?

what would be the difference between 15' retina screen and 27' 3840x2160 screen? first one could be implemented in a laptop and the second one costs like a mid-range car?

10bit means to you anything?

are they mass-manufactured like sharps, designated for consumer monitors?

why is it so hard to understand? if apple decides to buy 27 inch retina, they will buy it for the next 5 years at once. it is possible for imac to have retina in every possible sense (especially to apple, tech-wise, money-wise), there were even a couple of rumors saying they have been spotted in production chain. deal with it. wrap your head around it already!

the only question that remains is will apple do it? we'll find out in 5 days.
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
are they using sharp screens?
I haven't asked.
what would be the difference between 15' retina screen and 27' 3840x2160 screen? first one could be implemented in a laptop and the second one costs like a mid-range car?
Not sure what the point of this is since there is no 15" iMac. This is the iMac sub-forum so I assume what one posts is automatically related to an iMac, unless stated otherwise. Some people were dreaming about 30" or 32" high-resolution iMacs. Even 27" or 21" panels with double the current resolution is not going to be cheap.

10bit means to you anything?
Yes, it means to me anything.

are they mass-manufactured like sharps, designated for consumer monitors?
No, it's some bloke in Crewe making the panels by hand. Each one is bespoke and hand-signed by Andy himself.

why is it so hard to understand? if apple decides to buy 27 inch retina, they will buy it for the next 5 years at once. it is possible for imac to have retina in every possible sense (especially to apple, tech-wise, money-wise), there were even a couple of rumors saying they have been spotted in production chain. deal with it. wrap your head around it already!
I've noticed that you seem to get very excited about this particular topic. I am not sure why a different point of view and a debate angers you so much
 

beosound3200

macrumors 6502a
Nov 23, 2010
684
0
I haven't asked.

Not sure what the point of this is since there is no 15" iMac. This is the iMac sub-forum so I assume what one posts is automatically related to an iMac, unless stated otherwise. Some people were dreaming about 30" or 32" high-resolution iMacs. Even 27" or 21" panels with double the current resolution is not going to be cheap.

Yes, it means to me anything.

No, it's some bloke in Crewe making the panels by hand. Each one is bespoke and hand-signed by Andy himself.

I've noticed that you seem to get very excited about this particular topic. I am not sure why a different point of view and a debate angers you so much
so 15' and laptop dont ring a bell? one sentence next to the other in the same paragraph?

try researching 10bit color, maybe you'll get a wider 'point of you' that im so 'mad' of.

the only mass-manufactured high-resolution displays for consumer products are sharp's. any other would be extremely expensive, 10bit or not. why? because apple is buying sharp's, so its indeed MASS-manufactured.

bear in mind, i dont get excited because of a different point of view, only the ignorant one. you could conclude that by the number of my responses as opposed to a lot of different views on this sub-forum.

usually im not inclined to comment, except on particularly 'special' topics, like no usb3 (but ivy bridge supports it), or retina aint possible, it costs like a mid-range car (that would be around 20000-30000$ right?) but still a 15 inch laptop is getting one. how much of a difference could there be between those two? 15 inch 2880xsmth costs 200$ and 27 inch 3840x2160 costs 20000$? do you understand now what you're saying?

you come here parading with a 10bit 31.5 inch high-resolution high-performance professional-orientated screen screaming 'look what i found, it aint possible!'. i apologize, but its disturbing. i understand that its not always easy to connect the dots, but when some is working actively to be ignorant, that i dont understand. its like we're talking about parking sensors in a car we're expecting, and you post a link of 10million dollar sonar installed in seawolf-class nuclear submarine.

im not saying imac will get one, but i just cant stand it when someone says its not possible or its too expensive. if intel says 2013, apple says 2012.

and btw, sarcasm is used only when you have the upper-ground. in other cases, it makes you that much more stupid.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,735
1,900
you come here parading with a 10bit 31.5 inch high-resolution high-performance professional-orientated screen screaming 'look what i found, it aint possible!'. i apologize, but its disturbing. i understand that its not always easy to connect the dots, but when some is working actively to be ignorant, that i dont understand. its like we're talking about parking sensors in a car we're expecting, and you post a link of 10million dollar sonar installed in seawolf-class nuclear submarine.

im not saying imac will get one, but i just cant stand it when someone says its not possible or its too expensive. if intel says 2013, apple says 2012.

and btw, sarcasm is used only when you have the upper-ground. in other cases, it makes you that much more stupid.
When you say 10 bit, I assume you're referring to the addressable hardware bit depth, essentially 0-1023 as opposed to 0-255 for R, G, and B channels. LG has used such panels for the past couple years, sometimes paired with an LUT that uses higher bit depth calculations to suppress rounding errors, unless I'm missing something and they're not really 10 bit panels but marketed as such via firmware voodoo.

I truly wouldn't expect it in anything this large yet. Typically sizes climb as the technology stabilizes, and Apple previously stuck to mature technology in the imacs. The G5 imacs actually used TN displays which annoyed everyone, so they switched back.

Watch out on that last line. I've gotten mod warnings for speaking like that, although in my case I was responding to trash posts:p.
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
18
Not sure what the point of this is since there is no 15" iMac. This is the iMac sub-forum so I assume what one posts is automatically related to an iMac, unless stated otherwise. Some people were dreaming about 30" or 32" high-resolution iMacs. Even 27" or 21" panels with double the current resolution is not going to be cheap.
Really? You're not sure what the availability and cost to produce of screens in a different size but similar pixel density has to do with a different screen size?

There's nothing magically different between a 15" 220ppi display and a 27" 220ppi display, the second is just a larger cut out from the mass produced sheets.

Larger screens are more expensive, especially at cutting-edge ppi counts, both because of the larger number of total pixels and because with more total pixels you're more likely to have imperfections resulting in lower yield count.

Since the 15" Macbook Pro (it's a laptop, sort of like a small iMac with a built in battery if you haven't seen one) is heavily rumored to include such a high density display this year. Sharp has announced that it is mass producing IGZO displays with these densities.
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
Really? You're not sure what the availability and cost to produce of screens in a different size but similar pixel density has to do with a different screen size?
I am not sure why you're taking my post out of context.

I was responding to this:

what would be the difference between 15' retina screen and 27' 3840x2160 screen? first one could be implemented in a laptop and the second one costs like a mid-range car?
I could not understand the point the poster was making, probably due to the poor grammar.
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
18
I am not sure why you're taking my post out of context.

I was responding to this:



I could not understand the point the poster was making, probably due to the poor grammar.
Hmm, I guess the original post seemed clear to me. He was comparing the seeming feasibility of a high density 15" laptop display (which has been much rumored and discussed on Mac related websites) with a similar density 27" display.
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
Hmm, I guess the original post seemed clear to me. He was comparing the seeming feasibility of a high density 15" laptop display (which has been much rumored and discussed on Mac related websites) with a similar density 27" display.
For a display to be "retina" it does not have to 4K resolution, depending on how far away it is. I am specifically talking about 4K resolution on the iMac, since that's what some people are dreaming about in the 2012 iMac threads.

The Sharp IGZO screens are indeed in production, but the ones in production are not 4K.

The panels come in three types. For monitors, there’s a 32-inch, 3,480 x 2,160 pixel, 140 ppi version. For notebook PCs, there’s a 10-inch, 2,560 x 1,600 pixel, 300 ppi version. And for tablets, there’s a 7-inch, 800 x 1,200 pixel, 217 ppi version. Using IGZO has enabled Sharp to achieve high resolution, low power consumption displays, with high yield.
Sharp are also experimenting with 4K resolutions:

This technology can also be applied to OLED displays. Sharp has made prototypes of a 13.5-inch 4K version and a 3.4-inch flexible version. Sharp and SEL don’t currently plan to commercialize these OLED displays. Instead, they’ll keep working on R&D, in preparation for future market needs.
I guess most people immediately think that higher resolution/retina displays and 4K are the same thing, but it's not.
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
18
I guess most people immediately think that higher resolution/retina displays and 4K are the same thing, but it's not.
True, but a display is still just a PPI and a screen size. Even 4K itself can refer to several different specific resolutions.

QFHD (3840x2160, or 4x the number of pixels as 1080p) is a "4K" resolution according to the wikipedia article. It's also the resolution of the monitor in your original post.

It looks like Sharp is already producing such a display at 32 inches. At 27 inches, that resolution results in a PPI of 163, which seems quite achievable to me with current technology. That's actually a significantly lower pixel density than the rumored 15" retina display. It's also the same PPI as the original non-retina iPhone.
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
True, but a display is still just a PPI and a screen size. Even 4K itself can refer to several different specific resolutions.

QFHD (3840x2160, or 4x the number of pixels as 1080p) is a "4K" resolution according to the wikipedia article. It's also the resolution of the monitor in your original post.

It looks like Sharp is already producing such a display at 32 inches. At 27 inches, that resolution results in a PPI of 163, which seems quite achievable to me with current technology. That's actually a significantly lower pixel density than the rumored 15" retina display. It's also the same PPI as the original non-retina iPhone.
Sharp is producing 3,480 x 2,160. 4K is 3,840 x 2,160. :)
 

Inconsequential

macrumors 68000
Sep 12, 2007
1,977
1
True, but a display is still just a PPI and a screen size. Even 4K itself can refer to several different specific resolutions.

QFHD (3840x2160, or 4x the number of pixels as 1080p) is a "4K" resolution according to the wikipedia article. It's also the resolution of the monitor in your original post.

It looks like Sharp is already producing such a display at 32 inches. At 27 inches, that resolution results in a PPI of 163, which seems quite achievable to me with current technology. That's actually a significantly lower pixel density than the rumored 15" retina display. It's also the same PPI as the original non-retina iPhone.
While it is possible to do 163 PPI over a 4" screen. It is something altogether different over a 27" screen.

You essentially have to make 10 (Arbitrary value for the increase in area) iPhone screens in one. Not only that you times the probability of pixel failures by the area increase too.

One day 27" HiDPI screens will be available for the same price as non-high DPI. But not for a while yet :p
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
18
Sharp is producing 3,480 x 2,160. 4K is 3,840 x 2,160. :)
I think that was a typo in that particular article. I searched around and have seen other articles that refer to the 32" IGZO display as 3840x2160.

Edit: Here's Sharp's own press release, which states a resolution of 3840x2160:

http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/120413.html

I think a 32" 4K iMac wouldn't be out of the question then for this year's refresh. Not very likely, but not out of the question.
 

beosound3200

macrumors 6502a
Nov 23, 2010
684
0
Hmm, I guess the original post seemed clear to me. He was comparing the seeming feasibility of a high density 15" laptop display (which has been much rumored and discussed on Mac related websites) with a similar density 27" display.
macbook pro 2880x1800 is 226dpi

imac 3840x2160 is 163dpi

i guess different sheets...
 

shokunin

macrumors regular
Jun 7, 2005
218
48
I know everyone was clamouring for new macs, but I was really hoping for a 32" 3840x2160 Thunderbolt display or even a 32" imac. But alas.. maybe NEC will come up with a more affordable 32" display...
 

Similar threads

  • zoran
9
Replies
9
Views
575
  • eurasian
6
Replies
6
Views
939
  • Robert4
4
Replies
4
Views
567
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.