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.
Ivy Bridge to Support Ultra High Resolution 4096x2304 Screens
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They may not do that to keep from pulling attention away from the 13MBA with its 1400x900 screen...
Aside from web browsing, what will this mean for video? Consider that 480i/p content already looks only 'ok' on 1080p screens, the content will certainly look 'bad' on 4K screens.
Also, A 'full' Blu-ray video (just the video part, not the extras) is on avg. 30 gb... Imagine how big the file size would have to be to handle 4K... and how long will it take to download or stream from the internet?
Also, A 'full' Blu-ray video (just the video part, not the extras) is on avg. 30 gb... Imagine how big the file size would have to be to handle 4K... and how long will it take to download or stream from the internet?
As if the next generation Macbook Air will have a 4k resolution screen.
The integrated GPU could support it, but I don't think we will see that kind of display resolution on a Macbook Air, anytime soon. They don't even have a 1080p display. The supply & demand will also remain very limited since the standard of HD media is at 1080p.
In case you want to hook up a Thunderbolt display, then yes, I also believe it's a nice feature. However it should be noted that not even the (current) "high-end" Thunderbolt display has a resolution of 4096x2304.
Notice how 4k (4096x2304) is called QuadHD rather than DoubleHD. The picture nicely demonstrates how that comes to be.
This is a small bit of vindication for those who have been correctly referring to "resolution doubling" as really being "resolution quadrupling" since screen resolution is not a linear measurement but a square one. 4 times the pixels, 4 times the screen real estate, 4 times the resolution, hence "Quad".
Whatever we call it, it'll be sweet when it comes.
This is a small bit of vindication for those who have been correctly referring to "resolution doubling" as really being "resolution quadrupling" since screen resolution is not a linear measurement but a square one. 4 times the pixels, 4 times the screen real estate, 4 times the resolution, hence "Quad".
Whatever we call it, it'll be sweet when it comes.
In the case of JPEG:
JPEG uses a DCT on 16x16 pixel blocks, AFAIK. So if your increased resolution is < (72 * 16) you should not see a much bigger file size, if you use the same image in 72, 150 or 300 ppi and the same compression parameters. JPEG eliminates "unnecessary" details, which are invisible to the human eye. This is a nearly resolution independent process. You can test this with Photoshop or GraphicConverter.
demand 16:10 monitors
I don't want 16:9 monitors, no matter how large they are. If Apple stops selling 16:10 screens then I will stop buying Apple computers. It's that simple. The reason I'm now an apple customer is because they are the only company selling new laptops with 16:10 screens.
I don't want 16:9 monitors, no matter how large they are. If Apple stops selling 16:10 screens then I will stop buying Apple computers. It's that simple. The reason I'm now an apple customer is because they are the only company selling new laptops with 16:10 screens.
actually 4k films already exist, some cinemas that installed the more costly 4K digital projection systems show films at this resolution.
right now 2k cinema projection is more common, however 35mm is still universal and most films are exhibited on this format. the 2k system never made sense as it simply doesn't offer much (if any) improvement over 35mm.
the 4k system however, is extremely sweet.
it already makes sense to have 4k resolution computer screens, this is just another step towards making it mainstream
Same here I would much rather have a monitor with retina display capability than a 3D one, with or without the glasses. Even though, as a couple have stated, it is not necessary. Although when I look at my iPhone 3G and an iPhone 4 the difference is pretty big to me.
I wonder how long before apple comes out with a screen to support that resolution. I would definitely be wasting my money on that one!
I wonder how long before apple comes out with a screen to support that resolution. I would definitely be wasting my money on that one!
I hope not; 4K movies are pretty much pointless unless you are sitting extremely close to your TV. 1080p TVs already pass the "Retina" threshold for the sizes and viewing distances that people actually use.
Also on a practical level we are nowhere close to having enough bandwidth to make streaming 4K movies practical.
If pixel-doubling is used (i.e. iPhone Retina display) then the images should look the same as they would look on the same size low-res display. Higher-res images would look better but I wouldn't call pixel-doubling a horrible result.
it's about time! jk
I did enjoy my MBP's (late 08) LED screen. It looked better than any other computer I had seen. So an improvement to the monitor is always welcomed. Only problem is that glossy screens can strain your eyes
I did enjoy my MBP's (late 08) LED screen. It looked better than any other computer I had seen. So an improvement to the monitor is always welcomed. Only problem is that glossy screens can strain your eyes
You are so right. I can't wait to get access to thousands of 4096 movies on my data-capped internet plan.
Larger displays
How about a 42 in display to allow a bigger image without losing any detail.
How about a 42 in display to allow a bigger image without losing any detail.
Need 16:10
That is why I will never purchase an Apple 27" LED LCD. In fact I picked up 2 HP 30" displays to go along with my 30" Apply 6:10 matte display.
If Apple changes that will limit what I can do when I replace my 17" MacBook Pro. I plan to do that with the next new one out. But as you say a change to 16:9 will blow that. There already is a lack of height on these screens. I do not want to loose 10% more.
That is why I will never purchase an Apple 27" LED LCD. In fact I picked up 2 HP 30" displays to go along with my 30" Apply 6:10 matte display.
If Apple changes that will limit what I can do when I replace my 17" MacBook Pro. I plan to do that with the next new one out. But as you say a change to 16:9 will blow that. There already is a lack of height on these screens. I do not want to loose 10% more.
Didn't some japanese company test out a HD res TV like this a couple of years ago? The project was scrapped because the picture was so realistic it made people vomit.
----------
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ultra-hd.htm
There we go. NHK was the one I was thinking of. I guess they did not scrap the project.
----------
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ultra-hd.htm
There we go. NHK was the one I was thinking of. I guess they did not scrap the project.
Microsoft should completely drop their OS development and all other kinds of crap, and just focus on developing a decent and stable Office.
FAIL. No websites are about to be streaming higher then 1080p video for a LONG time. Who cares? The benefit if a super-high res monitor is for fitting lots of applications in "normal" state at a time. It's good for multitasking.
ahh, why so much?
Professional niche market that has a lot of revenue. Someone has to fund the R&D
An 11 x 17 piece of paper printing out content at 72dpi looks a lot different than that same 11 x 17 piece of paper printing out content at 1200dpi.
Pixel density matters as much as dot density.