LG Display Claims Apple Will Release the 'iMac 8K' Later This Year

[repentix]

They're probably going to scale it down to 1080p to give you the "best" experience.

 

[xgman]

I honestly can't tell the difference between the old 27" iMacs and the 5K iMacs

wow, you must have really poor vision. I can barely look at an old 27" imac after using the 5K for a while. Night and day to me....

 

[McTaste]

8K?

1. I have been doing a render of 3 minutes for 2 days of only polygons in HD. Forget about do it for 5K and unrealistic to do it for 8K.

Time for a new workstation ?

 

[Pressure]

Retina 4K

I would welcome that.

 

[MacDarcy]

They might never update the Thunderbolt display. It's such a niche product these days, they can hardly be bothered with the R&D.

As for 8K what graphics card will they be using in an iMac to drive it? Sounds like a resource hogger to me, and what about content. Finding decent 4K content is hard enough, but 8K? At what point does it make no difference but to a few eagle eyed users?
I'd rather they concentrated on a wider more constant colour gamut with a matt screen than more pixels.

Niche product? How so? More and more people are not buying a desktop and opting for more mobile computing with iPads and MacBooks for heavier use. But they do want to be able to enjoy a bigger screen when plugged in at home. Why would Apple give this market over to its competitors? I disagree. I think the Cinema Display will become more important to Apple.

 

[uiop.]

5k iMac is 5120 x 2880. 8k is 7680 x 4320. That's 1.5 times more in each direction (not 1.6 times more, as you might think reading 5k and 8k). Would be 40.5" at the same resolution.



At 60 Hz, it would be 7680 x 4320 x 60 pixels per second, that is close to 2 billion pixels. Instead of 24 bit RGB, you could transmit 16bit YUV which makes 4 billion bytes or 32GBit per second. That's an awful lot. RGB would be 6 billion bytes or 48GBit per second.

Give me a 40 inch 5K iMac.

 

[phillipduran]

Given where Apple has been putting their time, money and focus lately, it wouldn't surprise me that they think, somehow, that 8K is important and that we (the consumers) want it.

But, the statement "Apple has also announced that they will release the 'iMac 8K' with a super-high resolution display later this year.", where did Apple announce it? It doesn't say leaked, or rumored, etc., it says announced. Did we miss that?

Given Apple's new fashion forward thinking, it's not about the resolution, it's just about offering $10,000 monitors for those that want to stand out from the crowd. It's about the experience.

Get yours today! Sign up for your 30 minute appointment to pick out the model that fits YOU!

----------

Wait! Will LG be punished by Apple for publishing this information?

People have "jumped" out of tall buildings for less.

 

[Somian]

The illustration for this post isn't exactly true to scale. uhd should be twice as wide as 1080p

 

[Lepton]

Oh great, another expense - I'm going to need to get my eyeballs upgraded to enjoy these resolutions. Do you KNOW how much that costs!?

 

[thekeyring]

I would have expected iPhone's to get "double Retina" displays before they up the pixel density of an iMac even more.

 

[nikaru]

I didnt have diarrhea before reading this article...Ill sue you MacRumors.

 

[badlydrawnboy]

8K? You can't even use the new 4K as an external monitor with your MacBooks yet! They haven't even updated the Cinema Display to 4k yet! And the upcoming Apple TV won't even have 4k streaming yet. wtf? Let technology catch up Alittle first apple. Sheesh!

Not to mention the fact that programs like Adobe Lightroom have not been optimized to even work on the 5k iMac. (I know, because I have one.)

 

[8CoreWhore]

TV broadcast over the air, or or from Cable TV or Sat, is not even 1080P now. It's 1080i. (interlaced, not as good as progressive scan)

Blueray is 1080P.

Most American's internet connection cannot handle 4K streaming over the web, like you can find on some channels on YouTube. Netflix wants to stream a few titles in 4K, but most people cannot see it because their ISP's suck.

If you want a new TV in the U.S., don't bother waiting for 4K or 8K because we won't get the content for YEARS.

If you find you haven't collected a boat load of Blueray's then don't worry about 4K blueray's coming because you won't buy or rent those anyway.

You can get a great 1080P TV for under $1,000 without the stupid "smart" feature (get Apple TV or Roku, etc) and that will serve you well for several years.

 

[Carlanga]

Waiting for the comments of the sheeple supporters of 8k on the new iMac that were also against 4k capabilities in the next appletv.

 

[rekhyt]

8K? You can't even use the new 4K as an external monitor with your MacBooks yet! They haven't even updated the Cinema Display to 4k yet! And the upcoming Apple TV won't even have 4k streaming yet. wtf? Let technology catch up Alittle first apple. Sheesh!

I suspect it'll be the Cinema Display that'll be 8K, not the iMac. The iMac, with its mobile GPU, has no chance of running 8K.

An redesigned MacBook Pro, with a nVidia Maxwell GPU (970M, 980M) can feasibly run a 8K monitor. As can a Mac Pro.

 

[smiddlehurst]

While I somehow don't think this is the best source in the world and an 8k iMac is unlikely... I can see the logic behind it.

Oh not for the majority, as a general purpose machine it's massive overkill and the performance penalties in gaming, rendering time etc will be counterproductive. As others have pointed out 8k video is still a long way off too. But for those who spend a lot of time editing photos 8k is a very interesting resolution.

The current 5k iMac in full screen mode can display a 10 megapixel image natively which is significantly less than most sensors used in point and shoots, mirror-less or DSLR cameras. An 8k panel would give you enough resolution to display a 24mp image natively with toolbars etc on screen for editing.

It would also depend on a suitable display connection being available. Apple's already had to hack together something to get the 5k panel up and running (which is, I assume, why you can't run it as an external monitor - nothing else has the bandwidth to run it!) but if DP 1.4 can do it natively and is available in time (and with suitable graphics card support) implementation might actually be easier than the existing 5k model.

 

[Four oF NINE]

This becomes a chase after diminishing returns over time. Who can appreciate the upgrade?

 

[2457282]

8K? You can't even use the new 4K as an external monitor with your MacBooks yet! They haven't even updated the Cinema Display to 4k yet! And the upcoming Apple TV won't even have 4k streaming yet. wtf? Let technology catch up Alittle first apple. Sheesh!

I just posted on the AppleTV upgrade story that there is not enough TVs or content out there to justify upgrading the ATV box to support 4k even though the hardware will probably be capable of it (assumes an A8 or better chip). One way to get the ball rolling is to start shipping higher resolution screens. Apple waiting to integrate NFC until there were enough readers to make it a worth while venture. I think the same is true here. And while they are at it why not go to where the market is heading (as in 8k).

Personally, I think this story is overly optimistic, but I can see Apple being strategic of putting out the screens first, then the content and transport layers later.

 

[dragje]

8K? You can't even use the new 4K as an external monitor with your MacBooks yet! They haven't even updated the Cinema Display to 4k yet! And the upcoming Apple TV won't even have 4k streaming yet. wtf? Let technology catch up Alittle first apple. Sheesh!

My thoughts exactly!

But I do understand that for photographers and video-editors a 8K screen could be helpful, especially when editing, for example, 4K footage. With 8K you can edit it on 100% screen size while having enough space for other menu items. This is already possible with a 5K screen but with 8K it means even more space for tools...

That's being said I do find it odd that Apple is not making separate 5K or 8K monitors which you could use with an Apple Pro computer. With multiple processors it's really a candidate for video editing, Adobe Photoshop also uses multiple processor power while the iMac versions lack in performance when you compare it with bench results of the Mac Pro. I find it also strange that the Mac Pro hasn't been updated yet and the question remains what Apple will do with the Mac Pro lineup. As a Mac user for decades now I noticing a clear jump from Apple towards favoring products for development for the masses, like the Watch, iPhones iPads and the iMac's while the more 'high end' machinery like the Mabook Pro and the MacPro lacks frequent updates.

 

[centauratlas]

That sounds sketchy.

Agreed. Particularly the part that says "Apple has also announced...."

 

[Piggie]

As we had/have the same (sort of) accepted standards:

720p
1080i
1080p
4K
8K

The latter two being used in "The Industry" before they find their way eventually to consumers.

Can anyone remind me why Apple decided to come out with something totally non standard in 5K, which I'm guessing will just turn into a white elephant device.

Apart from the fact of course than someone was able to build the panel and Apple fitted their panel just for the sake of it.

 

[fuchsdh]

As we had/have the same (sort of) accepted standards:

720p
1080i
1080p
4K
8K

The latter two being used in "The Industry" before they find their way eventually to consumers.

Can anyone remind me why Apple decided to come out with something totally non standard in 5K, which I'm guessing will just turn into a white elephant device.

Apart from the fact of course than someone was able to build the panel and Apple fitted their panel just for the sake of it.

Because a 27" retina iMac would have a 5K screen. Either objects would be tiny on screen or too large with a 4K panel at that size and OS X's scaling.

If there's going to be a 4K iMac, it'll be the neatly-resolution doubled 21" iMac (though whether it stays at 21" is up in the air.)

 

[macpro2000]

You obviously do t have a 4k set at home. I have a 70" 4k and a Sony 4k projector for my theater room. Both upscale 1080 beautifully to 4k. It isn't true 4k when upscaling, but it sure puts any 1080 to shame. And when I stream from Netflix in true 4k, nothing compares. I wouldn't waste my money on another 1080 set.

TV broadcast over the air, or or from Cable TV or Sat, is not even 1080P now. It's 1080i. (interlaced, not as good as progressive scan)

Blueray is 1080P.

Most American's internet connection cannot handle 4K streaming over the web, like you can find on some channels on YouTube. Netflix wants to stream a few titles in 4K, but most people cannot see it because their ISP's suck.

If you want a new TV in the U.S., don't bother waiting for 4K or 8K because we won't get the content for YEARS.

If you find you haven't collected a boat load of Blueray's then don't worry about 4K blueray's coming because you won't buy or rent those anyway.

You can get a great 1080P TV for under $1,000 without the stupid "smart" feature (get Apple TV or Roku, etc) and that will serve you well for several years.

 

[Piggie]

Because a 27" retina iMac would have a 5K screen. Either objects would be tiny on screen or too large with a 4K panel at that size and OS X's scaling.

If there's going to be a 4K iMac, it'll be the neatly-resolution doubled 21" iMac (though whether it stays at 21" is up in the air.)

So, it's the fault of OSX that icons and text can't scale correctly for Apple to use a 4K screen?

 

[iPadCary]

The only reason they are increasing resolution is
for you to replace your computers and TVs, otherwise factories would have to close
because we do not need such resolutions ....

For the love of God, finally someone's said it!!!!
That is the only reason: the rez wall has been hit, my friends,
and thier businesses are about to collapse, quite literally, overnight.