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.
iMac High-Def? Likely or Never?
- Thread starter wattage
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Never say never.
Next update will probably see high def - I'm kinda surprised this rev didn't go HD.
Next update will probably see high def - I'm kinda surprised this rev didn't go HD.
Hmm, I didn't think of this. iMacs with HD displays would be sweet! Especially with Front Row now available, imagine that coupled that with an HD display... it'd be perfect! Jobs did say this is the year of high definition, so there is always a chance we'll see this happen before Christmas. I wouldn't exactly hold your breath, though. I don't see it being very likely. PowerBooks, though, that'll definitely happen (hopefully next Wednesday). A PowerBook with an HD display... oh man I can only imagine! 
To be fair, the iMac is already more HD than a lot of TV's that claim to be HD. As long as you have a widescreen with 720 (or is it 780?) vertical pixels, you can call it HD.
You could. And you could also say that Chinese people are made of candy. But it wouldn't make it true.SuperChuck said:
sjpetry said:
Bad example. I'm pretty sure Chinese people are made out of candy. Well, all the one's I know are pretty sweet. It's okay, I'm on medication at the moment. I swear!
I can see iMacs going HD at some stage but I really don't know what the fuss is all about. I mean HD is a standard I don't really care about. So long as there are lots of pixels I couldn't care less and whether that pixel count meets a third-party definition of HD or not doesn't bother me.
Does anyone else think HD is overrated?
As previously stated, the iMac is already HD. If a display is capable of displaying at 1280x720, then it can view HD 720. As far as 1080 goes:
1) Being interlaced, it isn't good for action/sports
2) With as little HD programming as there is, VERY little of it is 1080i
3) The majority of HD TVs sold aren't capable of 1080i
1) Being interlaced, it isn't good for action/sports
2) With as little HD programming as there is, VERY little of it is 1080i
3) The majority of HD TVs sold aren't capable of 1080i
mad jew said:
And *I* get accused of threadjacking! Now I'm stuck with images of MJ licking all his Chinese friends!
Seriously... the iMac 20" has the same resolution as the Dell 2005FPW, doesn't it -- 1680x1050. Which is not particularly low, although, I guess if the industry had sprung for thirty more vertical pixels, you could do pulldown of signals to native 1080P... and that would be teh r0XX3rz.
But I guess I'm confused about what would make an iMac "HD," as other users have pointed out. Do people just mean that they want to see one with a 24" or larger screen?
Blackheart said:
There are two 1080 formats, 1080i and 1080p. While HDTV broadcasts are limited to 1080i, HD DVD and/or Blu-Ray can offer 1080p contents. And considering all modern computer displays are progressive scanning, with good algorithm, 1080i signals can be converted to 1080p with minimal (or no) artifacts.
In the US: although ABC, ESPN, and Fox broadcasts 720p, practically everyone else, including CBS, Discovery, HBO, HDNet, NBC, PBS, ShowTime, Universal, UPN, and WB broadcasts 1080i.
Whether majority of HDTVs can fully render 1080 contents or not does not make 720p a better format.
I would consider one of these as my next computer, but that won't be for a couple of yrs, apple has some time to make it happen, i would also only buy if it were a 23" or bigger screen i don't loke small pixels
barneygumble said:
Umm... the pixels would be just as big as the ones on the current iMac displays...
nutmac said:
1) I have yet to see a HD DVD or Blu-Ray disc and player on the market
2) I believe most people do not watch their HD content on their computer displays
3) In my preliminary searches, I have yet to find specifications of your listed networks broadcasting in 1080i
4) Even if they did, 1080i is not necessarily better quality than 720p.
5) I would only vote for widespread use of 1080 if it was progressive scan.... best of both worlds.
The iMac willo ne day go high-def, but you'll have to wait for the Cinema displays first I imagine. You'll also need to wait until Apple can get a powerful enough video card into the iMac, and those cards will likely be in the PM first.
Michael Jackson?mkrishnan said:And *I* get accused of threadjacking! Now I'm stuck with images of MJ licking all his Chinese friends!
Seriously... the iMac 20" has the same resolution as the Dell 2005FPW, doesn't it -- 1680x1050. Which is not particularly low, although, I guess if the industry had sprung for thirty more vertical pixels, you could do pulldown of signals to native 1080P... and that would be teh r0XX3rz.
But I guess I'm confused about what would make an iMac "HD," as other users have pointed out. Do people just mean that they want to see one with a 24" or larger screen?
So now he's going after the Chinese, huh? Anyway. HD is the wave of the future, color is more vibrant, picture is clearer and more detailed, I in no way think HD is overrated. I think its fantastic. I'm sure that the iMacs will be HD capable by the intel switch. Expect, at least, the first intel iMac to be HD.
Does no one read the thread before posting?
Anyway, in regards to the video card being the problem... let's just say that I'm driving 1920x1200 with a video card that's worse than the video card on the low-end iMac. So to sum that up, the video card is NOT the issue in getting the iMac to view 1920x1080 resolution for 1080 HD.
Anyway, in regards to the video card being the problem... let's just say that I'm driving 1920x1200 with a video card that's worse than the video card on the low-end iMac. So to sum that up, the video card is NOT the issue in getting the iMac to view 1920x1080 resolution for 1080 HD.
UMHurricanes34 said:Michael Jackson?
Anyway. HD is the wave of the future, color is more vibrant, picture is clearer and more detailed, I in no way think HD is overrated. I think its fantastic. I'm sure that the iMacs will be HD capable by the intel switch. Expect, at least, the first intel iMac to be HD.
MJ = Mad Jew. See the post I was quoting.
And... aside from being an excellent usage of catchphrases....
I don't understand anything you said. HD is not a quality standard for LCDs, as far as I know...it's a standard set of resolutions for television broadcasting. And as far as the current conception of what meets HD requirements goes, the iMac is already HD compatible, although it is a few pixels shy of 1080p and does not have any special processing hardware like a drop-down processor. So I still don't get it. Yes, there are widescreens with >1080 vertical pixels. Most of the LCDs that aren't on laptops are at least 23-24" in size. And as far as I know, there isn't any particular way that the color is substantially better or more vibrant than on 20" screens. I've never heard someone say that a 2405FPW blows a 2005FPW out of the water for vibrancy.
Just to bury the hatchet, most HDTVs have resolutions of 1280x768 or slightly better. I've never seen one plasma that runs 1920x1080, which would meet apple's high requirements for HD. So the 720p content (which is true HD) would play with resolution to spare on any of the imacs, and the 1080p content would be just 30 pixels shy of nativity. But apple isn't ever going to adopt 16x9, so there isn't ever going to be a TV specific iMac.
i'm a bit of a noob, but if we did see "true" HD on the imac wouldn't that push the prices really high? I mean, if we're talking about something like Apple's cinema displays, how could Apple ever offer an iMac starting at 1299?
jimsowden said:
Why would Apple never use 16x9? If they can trim the bottom bezel of the iMac a little more, add in a TV tuner, bump up the top screen size to 30", and give it a real remote they'd have the perfect TV. They are so close to really starting to dominate the living room (they may never make another move towards this room or they might continue down the road that lead to "Front Row", who knows for sure). Eventually the iMac will run Intel chips, which will make them thinner than ever before, close enough to pass as regular displays (the lower bezel is the only thing giving it away) and at that point there would be no reason not to start competing with TVs at some level. 16x9 may not be so far off. And of course, HD 1080p support too (with minimal extra black space).
I think Apple should simply name it the HD iMac on the next revision seeing as (like others said) it's basically already High Definition. I think the iMac we'll be seeing in June when the Intel processors come to Macs will be the HD iMac - a complete media center - with Blu-ray drive, tv tuner, and 20" & 23" options.
23" will be something like $1899 and 20" $1499. Sweet setup indeed.
23" will be something like $1899 and 20" $1499. Sweet setup indeed.
barneygumble said:
The smaller the pixels, the crisper the image.
Big Pixels;
Little Pixels;
Which looks better. Think about it.
So the 20" iMac is 1680 x 1050. Now am I wrong, but adding 30 pixels would not make the iMac support 1080. 1080 HD is 1920 x 1080.
Laser47 said:
My 34" Sony HDTV is capable of 1080i (1920 x 1080) but then again it is a CRT and not LCD or plasma. Therefore, better than the average HD TV...
wattage said:
I see the pro line potentially getting this soon...this year maybe...but in the next 12 months for sure. I even wonder if we will see a rerelease of the 17" LCD once the 17" PB gets the treatment.
As for iMac. Yep one day. Not before the Cinema Displays and PBs have it. Apple are big on this sort of artificial difference.