impressions of 5K trickling out...

Discussion in 'iMac' started by imaginaryfriend, Oct 18, 2014.

  1. imaginaryfriend, Oct 18, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2014

    imaginaryfriend macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    #1
    http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/18/imac-with-retina-5k-display-first-impressions/


    "The iMac with Retina 5K display is far and away the best visual experience ever produced, for any kind of computing device, and likely for any kind of A/V device, period."

    "Performance doesn’t stutter, and you don’t even see the kind of minor visual hiccups on image-rich pages that we witnessed with early Retina MacBook Pro tech. When you can find 4K video samples (which took some digging), they render beautifully, but even standard HD content upscales remarkably well."
     
  2. EnderTW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    #2
    BOOM. here we go!!
     
  3. gugy macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    La Jolla, CA
    #3
    Looking forward to see it at the retail store. This is the first time I am considering leaving the MacPro to the iMac. I wish the standalone display was available. Gotta wait.
     
  4. DotCom2 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    #4
    Anybody know how soon after announcement new iMacs make it to the retail stores?
     
  5. imaginaryfriend thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    #5
    i heard monday from my local apple store.
     
  6. DotCom2 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    #6
    Thanks
     
  7. gugy macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    La Jolla, CA
    #7
    end of next week at UTC La Jolla.
     
  8. fa8362 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #8
    Apple must have sent that copy to the writer.

    There are large screen 4k TVs available that are much more impressive than any 5K 27" display because of their sheer size.
     
  9. EnderTW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    #9
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsS7o8lgmAI

    1) Do you really notice the difference between a 27" dell Ultrasharp 4k display and the Apple "Retina" 5k 27"?
    2) From what I can tell, the M290x, a laptop gpu that isn't even known for being particularly good, powering a 5k display on an iMac, is certianly not going to be enough to do much else. Do you find lag or issues of any kind while you're trying to achieve tasks on the iMac??
    3)Would you consider it a good buy for the price, simply because there's only one other 5k display out there at the moment?

    1) There is definitely a difference when comparing a 4k display and a 5k display, we will have more videos that go more in depth with the differences so be sure to keep an eye out for those.

    2) Not at all. I edited this video on the iMac and it ran great. No lag at all, and let me remind you this is a 4k video so it is really taxing on the graphics card. You probably won't be able to play games maxed out at 5K but you should not have any major issues. You can also opt for a more powerful GPU from apples website.

    3) Definitely a good buy. If your a Mac user especially. The display is great in terms of color and clarity and I can personally not think of any negatives that come with owning this computer.

    I do agree with your views but you have to remember that a high resolution display in a phone vs a high resolution display on a computer are two completely different things. On a phone you just get more clarity and thats it, and like you said after a certain threshold there is no point of more pixels on a phone. On the note 4 for example, when comparing to the note 3, the displays look so similar that I would prefer the Note 4 to have a 1080 p display and have greater performance and battery life. On a computer monitor on the other hand more pixels means more work space. You can have more things open at the same time and see more of each thing, which is important to me.
     
  10. WilliamG macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #10
    I guarantee that 4K TVs are a very different kind of impressive. Plus, remember, a 5K iMac is useful at all times, whereas a 4K TV is pretty much useless at all times (unless you get the Sony media player with a few 4K movies that are available. Then you can watch a couple of 4K movies on repeat!)

    Content, content, content!
     
  11. fa8362 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #11
    It's not necessary to watch 4K material for a 4K set to be impressive. I watch photo slideshows and blu-ray films on my 55" 4K set on a nearly daily basis. Even if I had that 5K iMac in house, I wouldn't use it for those activities. It can't possibly be the "best visual experience ever produced, for any kind of A/V device, period," because it's simply too small to have anywhere near the impact of a large 4K set.
     
  12. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #12
    Retina displays have been out for ages, so I thought that by now people would have grasped how it works. You are not getting higher effective resolution with a retina screen! The only thing you get is better image quality, or, as you say 'clarity'. The HiDPI screen on phones and computer monitors work the same way. With Apple - two 'retina pixels' are one 'work pixel'. I would be also very skeptical if you claim that you can comfortably work with a native 5K resolution on a 27" display — the text is just way too small.

    ----------

    Thats the reason why a 5K 27" will always look better — because its pixel density is much higher.
     
  13. JesperA macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2012
    Location:
    Sweden
    #13
    Actually it is 4 "retina" pixels per "regular" pixel. (2 horizontally and 2 vertically)
     
  14. WilliamG macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #14
    Blu-ray on a 55" 4K TV isn't going to look any better than Blu-ray on a 55" 1080p TV. I watch Blu-rays on a >100" projector, but I know the 5K iMac will be more impressive in terms of perceivable pixel density. That's all the reviewer is saying. This is going to be an astonishingly sharp display at normal viewing distance.
     
  15. Serban Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    #15
    with Apple entering in the 4k-5k territory will force the others to make content a lot.
    just how was in the case of 15" MBP 1800p. In 1 year almost everything was updated for the screen
     
  16. BeachChair macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    #16
    Sounds incredible. Certainly will be the best A/V device standing on a desk, but as a photographer, AV enthusiast or cinematographer, I would go after the 65" LG OLED. Seeing my own photos on the 55" 1080p OLED I have now is god damn incredible, the only pet peeve really being the amount of pixels.

    The retina screens I have around the house, including the 15" MBP, don't come close to the visual impact of the OLED, despite having more detail.
     
  17. EnderTW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    #17
    Any new impressions? Or did tech crunch break embargo. Lol
     
  18. boy-better-know macrumors 65816

    boy-better-know

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Location:
    England
    #18
    The more I read the more I want. I am happy with my 2012 iMac - but its getting quite tempting.

    My only gripe with my iMac is that I can pick pixels out, and after being spoiled with the rMBP. It's kind of hard to not notice it.

    If there really is no downside in terms of performance it really does sound incredible.
     
  19. WilliamG macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #19
    I have the same iMac as you, probably. Mine is the high-end 2012 iMac (i7 3.4Ghz, GTX 680MX).

    I'm still jumping on the new 5K iMac. 4x the number of pixels is hard to say no to. It's ALL about the display, and I can't wait. I'm a total resolution junkie; I'm that guy who said no to an iPhone 6 and had to have the iPhone 6 Plus because of the number of pixels per inch.

    If you're *that guy/girl* too, do it, do it, do it. I have a feeling when the impressions of Macrumors users come in, there's going to be an awful lot of gushing..

    iMac 2012 - 2560x1440 = 3,686,400 pixels (109 pixels per inch)
    iMac 5K 2014 - 5120x2880 = 14,745,600 pixels (218 pixels per inch).

    If ever you doubt the decision, refer to the above numbers.

    The iPad 3/4/Air/Air 2 have 264 pixels per inch. Now think how close you hold that iPad. Now look at how far away you sit from your iMac. Those iPads have 21% more pixels per inch than a 5K iMac, but... - again, think distance.

    Personally? I think the new 5K iMac is going to look better than anything you've ever seen. Better than an iPhone 6 Plus, better than an iPad Air, better than a Galaxy Note 4 or LG G3, better than.. well.. you'll see.

    I'm so glad we're finally in the age of 5K screens, and that Apple kept the real estate of the 27" iMac intact. That makes going from our 2560x1440 iMacs to the 5K iMacs a simple, simple change.

    Conversely, going from a 15" MacBook Pro with the BTO 1680x1050 display to a 15" Retina display MacBook Pro was much harder, since you lost real estate in HiDPI mode (Apple used the base 1440x900 resolution and quad-pumped it to 2800x1800). That meant those of us who owned 1680x1050 non-Retina MacBook Pros actually lost space in native res when we bought 15" MacBook Pros with Retina displays. Boo!

    Anyway, getting sidetracked. Can't wait for 5K iMac. Buy one. That is all. :p
     
  20. karmamule macrumors 6502

    karmamule

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Location:
    Waltham, MA
    #20
    A couple weeks ago I saw that 55" OLED TV in a local Best Buy and it was truly astonishing. What an absolutely gorgeous picture. I almost made an impulse purchase, but even "on sale" at about $3400 it was too much for me to make the leap that spontaneously.

    I had forgotten that the iMac refresh was coming up soon, so I'm doubly glad I resisted else I couldn't have placed my order. But, if bonuses are good next year then oh yeah I'm going to be checking out what's available for OLED TVs.
     
  21. xmichaelp macrumors 68000

    xmichaelp

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #21
    This is great to hear.
     
  22. scottrichardson macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    Ulladulla, NSW Australia
    #22
    While physically/logically true, semantically speaking when referring to lengths or single dimensions, 2 retina pixels supplant 1 non-retina pixel. I know it isn't 100% accurate, but when speaking about a measurement across one axis, it is more meaningful.

    ie: "Hey designer, our web design needs to be 640 pixels wide for retina displays, rather than 320 pixels wide for non-retina."

    Scottie
     
  23. maclove4life macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #23
    lg monitor.
     
  24. tillsbury macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    #24
    I just hope it's as perfect as the LG screen on my rMBP has been for the last two years plus...
     
  25. iMcLovin macrumors 68000

    iMcLovin

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    #25
    Thats not how it works. It could and probably an old OS version or windows it might happen, but luckily Apple have made OS X adaptive so that size stays the same and just uses 4x largers icons. So, in theory it works exactly the same as phones actually - which would be the only sensible way to do it....if everything would become 1/4 of the size on a 5k display it would become impossible to work on.
     

Share This Page