Sidebar Sidebar
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

takezo808 said:
The project was scrapped because the picture was so realistic it made people vomit.
Click to expand...
I suppose that job is now handled by TEPCO.

According to the article you linked Ultra HD requires 3.5 terabytes for an eighteen minute "movie" and displaying it apparently requires as much electricity as an entire house's energy use for a month. Not sure how much of that is applicable (or even true) but that's what it says.
 
Questions regarding 4k Displays

hleewell said:
This could be paving the way for HD Movies with 4K resolution to be delivered through Apple TV+iTunes.

How would those normal web pages look in such high pixel density display?? They would look miniaturized on 4K display, and when you upscale the pages, the GIFs & JPEGs would look quite horrible, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

I'm worried about this also. Won't website be much smaller on a 4k display or would the pixel double maintain the size of the webpage without decreasing image quality? Anyone know the answer to this?

As for me, I can't wait for 4k displays! Mainly because it will push forward the release of 4k Films which will have much more detail and clarity.

I'm just worried that they would take up much more space on the computer when purchased through Itunes.

Won't there need to be new disk formats as well? The current 25/50GB Blu-Ray Disks would not be able to hold 4k movies unless they abandon disks completely.

Thanks
 
SLR2009 said:
...Won't there need to be new disk formats as well? The current 25/50GB Blu-Ray Disks would not be able to hold 4k movies unless they abandon disks completely...
Click to expand...

tneeddiscs.jpg
 
DrFu79 said:
Optical media have been dead in the water for the last two or three years. I can't imagine another physical media standard that will propel plastic discs to the pre-bluray-era in terms of market share.
it will be all about internet distribution and new algorithms making good use of all the new cpu/gpu power.
Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who has the speed to download a 4k movie in less time than it would take to go to the store and buy it.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, the recently released BD-XL format has a 100/128GB capacity. It's for data, but could easily be used for QuadHD. We'll see how the studios deal with the idea of releasing a near-archival grade format to consumers. No question it would provide a very satisfying viewing experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#BDXL
 
mdriftmeyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

When it comes to displaying content on a monitor (which is what we're talking about here) you're talking pixel dimensions. 1920x1080 is still 1920x1080 regardless of if it's at 72 dpi or 300 dpi. If you want or need an image to be bigger on a monitor, you concern yourself with pixel dimensions - dpi is irrelevant. A 17x11 image at 72 dpi is 1224x792 pixels. That same 17x11 image at 1200 dpi is 20400x13200 pixels.
 
Last edited:
Whats the point of using that resolution for a computer screen smaller than 20"? Icons and words will be ridiculously small. People won't be able to see anything. It'll be sweet on a 27" imac though.
 
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