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

iMac 27 with Retina Display, is it possible?

forty2j said:
"Retina" is not a terribly useful term in this context. It's supposed to mean that, in normal usage, your eyes can't distinguish between pixels.

So, the optimal viewing distance for a screen is 1.5x its diagonal width. So for a 27" screen, that would be 40.5". What DPI do you need to achieve "retina" at that viewing distance?
Click to expand...

Oh, who cares about the human eye limitations. The 1080p 60" TV crowd doesn't get it either.:rolleyes:
And as stated many times above, the GPU needed to run a display like that would be insane and would be at least 5-10 years out given Apples predictable "thin" design's and love of stuffing mid-low end graphics in all their models. I could see something like a 2560x1440 on a 23-24" screen. That would smooth out the pixel corners but still be "somewhat" usable in the next 3 years. IF Apple started using muscular GPU's.
 
A Retina display on an iMac would have a lot more pixels than the new iPad display, but would still have a lower ppi, which should allow a much higher yield rate, meaning it maybe wouldn't have such a high relative cost. I think there is the potential for it to happen, but have no idea if it will.
 
derbothaus said:
Oh, who cares about the human eye limitations. The 1080p 60" TV crowd doesn't get it either.
Click to expand...

I know. It's right up there with the people that swear they can distinguish between 150 fps and 200 fps. (Good luck with that.)

I found a source that suggests that "retina" for a 36" viewing distance is a whopping 90 dpi - so if your face is at least 3 feet away from your screen, you're probably already looking at a retina screen. At 18" it's 180 dpi, which is a bit less than double current resolutions (which you'd notice only if you were practically on top of your screen).
 
I think it's quite a coincidence that a 27" display at 8K resolution (7680x4320) would have exactly 326 DPI. Thats the same pixel density as all the Retina iPhone displays.

It would be quite something to see something as clear and colorful as my iPhone 5 display over a whole 27 inches! It looks great on a 4" display. Seeing that I have to move to about 5-6 inches to see the pixels, it would be amazing to see a 33 MegaPixel photo (or even video) that I can lean into and still see more and more detail.

Engineers and medical professionals would find this useful.

I know this is an old post, there still isn't a Retina display for the 27 inch displays. But I do predict that the 21" will become 4K and the 27" will become 5K. That would keep with the trend of quadrupling the resolutions for Retina displays as with the iPhone 4, 3rd Generation iPad and the two Retina MBP.

4K = 3840x2160 for 21 inch Retina display
5K = 5120x2880 for 27 inch Retina display

8K = 7680x4320 for a 326 DPI 27 inch display
 
you dont need more than 200 ppi on imacs. Only if you can't see and you must stand at 20cm away from the screen
 
I'd love a 4K iMac for screen real estate with content creation but Im not holding my breath for one. Maybe next year when Nvidia Maxwell is released Apple will look into it some more, once the tech is there to drive one of those screens.
 
Makes me laugh all this "retina" nonsense. Like it's something magical. It's just pixels, big, small, smaller or whatever. The current iMac is very nearly "retina" already. Putting say a 4k screen on an iMac is hardly going to make any difference at all, and all for enormous cost in terms of the panel and the processing power needed to drive it.

This really is a case of a solution looking for a problem.
 
I really think a retina iMac would make sense this year in some respects. First of all, the new Mac Pro will be ale to support multiple 4K monitors so Apple is probably going to release a 4K Thunderbolt Display this year too. It'd be really weird if the Thunderbolt Display had a significantly better resolution than the iMac when they're basically the same size. Also, Haswell has significantly better integrated graphics which many people are saying would be great for a "retina" display. Especially on the rMBP since people report it being underpowered for it's screen resolution.

Of course, just going by the price of 4K screens on the market right now, it seems pretty ludicrous for the iMac to get one. Also, Haswell alone would likely not be enough for 4K. Though, Apple has been known for making the thought-to-be-impossible products work...

But just going off the rumors, I've yet to hear anything like retina iMacs since that'd be kinda big. What with all the leaks for the iPhone 5s and 5c, I doubt a retina iMac could sneak under the radar. Plus, Apple couldn't keep up demand for it's 27" screens last time so I doubt they'd try something again this time.

So no. I don't think "retina" (4K) iMacs are coming. At least not this year. I'm crossing my fingers for 2014. 2015 at the latest but I have faith in Apple.
 
If apple releases a 4k thunderbolt display there will be a iMac shaped puff of smoke where my current iMac is. I was in the market for a higher end display and maxed out mac mini setup last year. There really just isn't anything out there. I had a grand or maybe two to spend on a display but nothing exists higher then a cinema display, and even that was out done by the 2012 iMac.

I tried a 29 inch dell but hated it. Ended up just going iMac again. But with base specs because I am intending on upgrading.

I can't think of any other sector that has stagnated more then high end desktop monitors. Besides calibration, and minor lighting improvements we are stuck with the same panels from way back in 2009. There is no other segment that hasn't gotten extremely higher in PPI in the time since.

That is crazy since this is one of the few markets that has the money to spend for boutique electronics.

I will admit that 1440p is decent on 27 inches. My dream monitor is 4k 33inch IPS. I would buy it for anything south of $2000
 
seasurfer said:
Everytime after looking at my iphone 4s and back to my iMac or iPad, I feel that there is a downgrade in visual display. The retina display just looks so much sharper and comfortable.

I wonder if there will be retina display on the iMac? Is it possible.
Click to expand...



Can we assume you do not own a television.

I mean after looking at your iMac all day the television my feel like a massive downgrade!
 
so more and more rumors that we will have retina Thunderbolt display and imac ?
i understant in the last DP Maveriks more 2880p wallpapers were added ?
 
I would be very interested in getting a 21" retina-based iMac... I've been so getting used to retina on my MacBook Pro, that I really cannot stand my PC with the 1920*1200 resolution on 23" any more... :/

What's on October 15th, another Apple event?
 
yashi said:
It will happen someday I'm sure, just probably not in the near future. Just look at the number of pixels squeezed into a high resolution MacBook Pro compared to an old monitor of the same diagonal dimension.
Click to expand...

You were probably talking about the 1680x1050 pixel resolutions of the 15" MacBook Pro. Now they have 2880x1800 pixel resolutions!

Interesting how what he used to think of high resolution is only one third (1/3; 0.34) as much as the new Retina MacBook Pro. The Retina MBP is obviously 4 times the resolution, as with all "Retina", Apple has always increased the linear resolution by exactly 2 therefore increasing the area and total pixels by 4 (2x2).

I suppose it's possible that a Retina 27" iMac could have a 4K (3840x2160) display instead of a 5K (True "Retina" by quadrupling the resolution at 5120x2880 pixels).

I certainly hope Apple will go with a 5K display instead of a 4K display. Display Port 2.0 can handle it. (Display Port 1.2, the current spec, can handle a 5K display at 48 fps as far as I know.)
 
derbothaus said:
Oh, who cares about the human eye limitations. The 1080p 60" TV crowd doesn't get it either.:rolleyes:
And as stated many times above, the GPU needed to run a display like that would be insane and would be at least 5-10 years out given Apples predictable "thin" design's and love of stuffing mid-low end graphics in all their models. I could see something like a 2560x1440 on a 23-24" screen. That would smooth out the pixel corners but still be "somewhat" usable in the next 3 years. IF Apple started using muscular GPU's.
Click to expand...

Edit: Wow.. who resurrected this thread? I'm responding to a march 2012 post! Oof!


Wow... mid to low end? That's pretty harsh. The card was introduced in late october of 2012 and was considered high end at the time. A card like the GTX 780 came out in May of this year and is the fastest laptop video card, I believe. To say that apple, ugh, "stuffs" their machines with low end cards ignores the simple fact that video cards become old news pretty darn fast.
 
malvicus said:
Edit: Wow.. who resurrected this thread? I'm responding to a march 2012 post! Oof!


Wow... mid to low end? That's pretty harsh. The card was introduced in late october of 2012 and was considered high end at the time. A card like the GTX 780 came out in May of this year and is the fastest laptop video card, I believe. To say that apple, ugh, "stuffs" their machines with low end cards ignores the simple fact that video cards become old news pretty darn fast.
Click to expand...

Not harsh just reality unfortunately. A GTX 780 laptop card is 40-60% slower than a GTX 780 desktop card. A desktop card that runs as fast as the laptop would be seen as a current mid-grade GPU. Apple can't use real desktop GPU's because of thermal constraints. Also in October 2012 they blew my mind and released a GTX680 side grade laptop variant that is like a 660ti desktop. Much better than they have ever done before so please read my comment for it's day. They may have changed their tune. I wait for the next GPU fleet to confirm:)
 
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