Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

LordVic said:
Apple has long LONG moved out of the 'gamers' market. They have no real intention of worrying about driving anything other than OS and GUI level graphics.

I don't think they (and to be honest, MOST users who don't game) care that their 4/5/8k desktops won't be able to game at native resolutions. As long as it can handle the GUI and your day to day tasks, thats what Apple is for
Click to expand...

IMO there is no need for a 5k display, let alone an 8k display. I'd much rather Apple reduce the price of the machine, or put that money to upgrading other tech. within the machines.

If I were going to buy a new rMBP tomorrow and they had a 220 PPI vs a 400+ PPI. I don't care if the 400+ was just $1 more, I would not spend $1 more for a better display. You give up too much performance and are trying to fix something that isn't broken.

For giggles, I'd say a 300 PPI 15-17" display is the stop point for me. But since I'm happy with 220 PPI, I wouldn't even wish for 300 PPI at this point.

It's bad enough I have to worry about Apple spending so much time trying to thin everything out. Now I have to worry about the machine simply powering the huge display. And did you see the specs of the new 12" MBP compared with 2011 versions of the MBP? So we are getting weaker machines anyway, and now take that weakness and go power an 8k display.

If you like looking at beautiful wallpaper, I guess the display will be killer. If you like to do anything else (and I'm not talking about just games), good luck.
 
I'd be interested in a 8K iMac IF Apple made it as follows:

1) Thinner; this is critical.
2) Replace all ports, including power input, with only 1
USB-C port.
3) price it no less than $10,000 in basic configuration (4
gb's RAM and 128 gb ssd storage).

Do this and you've got a sale to me, Apple!
 
furi0usbee said:
IMO there is no need for a 5k display, let alone an 8k display. I'd much rather Apple reduce the price of the machine, or put that money to upgrading other tech. within the machines.

If I were going to buy a new rMBP tomorrow and they had a 220 PPI vs a 400+ PPI. I don't care if the 400+ was just $1 more, I would not spend $1 more for a better display. You give up too much performance and are trying to fix something that isn't broken.

For giggles, I'd say a 300 PPI 15-17" display is the stop point for me. But since I'm happy with 220 PPI, I wouldn't even wish for 300 PPI at this point.

It's bad enough I have to worry about Apple spending so much time trying to thin everything out. Now I have to worry about the machine simply powering the huge display. And did you see the specs of the new 12" MBP compared with 2011 versions of the MBP? So we are getting weaker machines anyway, and now take that weakness and go power an 8k display.

If you like looking at beautiful wallpaper, I guess the display will be killer. If you like to do anything else (and I'm not talking about just games), good luck.
Click to expand...

I don't think the intention of going higher res would be to drive the PPI up to some ridiculous levels. Apple already toughts these devices at "retina".

However, there is the possibility that a higher res screen would be more beneficial in the desktop space. Its not so much for the PPI, but the available desktop space.

As mentioned, going 5k on the iMac allows you to have 4k running natively, while giving you real estate for UI elements of your video editting. Going 8k would just provide that much extra real estate.

however, once you start getting into these high resolution count display, you're going to have to start making them larger, and larger for that extra space to be usable.

maybe its indicating that they're looking towards 32" or 40" display iMac?
 
rei101 said:
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.

2. You can have a 60 inches TV, but from the distance of your couch, you eye will not tell the difference between HD or 4K just because our eyes does not have that resolution from that distance, we are not eagles. Forget about 8K.

3. You may have 4K TV with a 4K signal from your cable operator, but the compression will give you an equivalent to HD from your Bluray Disc.

4. The only reason they are increasing resolution is for you to replace your computers and TVs, other wise factories would have to close because we do not need such resolutions in our day to day, people are having a blast watching Youtube videos and Vines, what mater is the message of the content, not the resolution of it.
Click to expand...

1. You won't need to create a render for 8K displays in the near future. You will use all those pixels to create 4K content.

2. The whole idea is to make the pixels indistinguishable. You don't use your computer from your couch. As long as you are sitting on a desk, you either need a tiny screen or a high resolution display. Once you cross the ppi number necessary to make a display retina, then you have other parameters such as fitting as much content on your desktop as possible. A 60" 1080p TV can fit into retina description from your couch, but you will only see a tiny computer monitor in terms of what you can fit in that screen. An 8K display makes a lot of sense for screen sizes over 27". For my work, I use a 15" rMBP connected to two Thunderbolt displays, and most times I feel cramped with three displays. I would happily add two more TB displays if it was possible. One single 8K display will offer 12.5% more screen real estate than the total of two 5K iMacs. Imagine having a setup of two thunderbolt displays, then make them 5K by dividing each pixel into 4. A single 8K display will give you 12.5% more pixels than this setup offers. You can have a 40" iMac that you wouldn't see a pixel from two feet away.

3. If you are buying a high resolution computer monitor for watching movies or TV content, you are doing something wrong. These displays are for content creators and other professionals who need a lot of work area. Probably a 40" 1080p or a 60" 4K TV will give you a better viewing experience for less.

4. Again, if you want it to watch YouTube videos, this display is not for you. I write code, work with large number of spreadsheets and compare multiple high resolution imagery simultaneously. I think I would want more than one of these 8K monitors when they are released.

----------
Piggie said:
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.
Click to expand...

These are the words of someone who never heard of 2560X1600 or 1920x1200 computer monitors. These "accepted" standards that you have listed are for TV industry. Apple is making computers and computer monitors. They offer what is best for the user, not what is cheaper to manufacture.
 
LordVic said:
I don't think the intention of going higher res would be to drive the PPI up to some ridiculous levels. Apple already toughts these devices at "retina".

However, there is the possibility that a higher res screen would be more beneficial in the desktop space. Its not so much for the PPI, but the available desktop space.

As mentioned, going 5k on the iMac allows you to have 4k running natively, while giving you real estate for UI elements of your video editting. Going 8k would just provide that much extra real estate.

however, once you start getting into these high resolution count display, you're going to have to start making them larger, and larger for that extra space to be usable.

maybe its indicating that they're looking towards 32" or 40" display iMac?
Click to expand...

If they are looking at 40" 8k... it better be for a real-life Apple Television. I wish they'd bring back a 24" iMac or a 24" display. 27" is too large for me. I used to have a 17" MBP, but went down to 15" retina and I love it. I've been down to 13" with the Air, and if the new MacBook 12" came in a 13", I'd probably sell my 15" and get that.
 
-So, how much is this?
-An arm and a leg.

Apple really needs to make a successor to the Cinema Display and freshen up the Thunderbolt display series - they are really getting long in the tooth.
But is this going to happen by the means of an 8K capable display?
Who knows, we'll see in the near future, WWDC maybe?
 
With a significantly bigger screen (like, 40") that may be a reasonable resolution to work with, but I don't really see the need for that much area. At that point it would be a lot handier to just use multiple monitors. From a computing point of view, I don't see how it's not possible. It's just twice the pixels the Retina iMac is pushing atm, and getting a graphic card twice as powerful as the AMD Radeon R9 M290X shouldn't be too hard. The connection needs to be a custom solution, but we're already there anyway.
 
When it comes to TV, what I'm waiting for are higher frame rates, not a higher resolution.
 
Quu said:
They did it for one simple reason. It is exactly double the horizontal and vertical resolution of the normal iMac so the scaling is perfect. For every 1 pixel on the old display there is now four pixels.
Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining that. Pixel doubling, whilst non standard, I can totally see as making logical sense whilst you still need to rely on bitmapped graphics.
 
swarmster said:
Anyway, just wanted to point out the scale image used in this article is completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Absolutely miles out, yes, even on the smaller resolutions. Who would bother making a graphic like this without any attempt at correct scaling?

But, as an aside, I would be first in line for a 40" 8k imac. 5k would be straight up for sale! :)
 
I hope not ... The 5k iMac can barely push the pixels it has now (even with the graphics card upgrade). Plus, it's already darn-near print resolution at 218 pixels/inch. Unless you are creating theater-level film, I cannot conceive of a reason to have that level of pixels on a desktop machine (particularly an iMac).
 
dannys1 said:
I'M NOT GONNA BUY AN IMAC NOW, GONNA WAIT FOR VERSION 2 OF THE 8K, NEVER BUY VERSION ONE.

(puts money away until 2018....)

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think you might like to buy a new keyboard first, one with an un-jammed caps lock key ;)


You guys are wayyyyyyyyyyy behind the curve - 16K will be here before you know it, and you'll all be lumbered with old tech, lol.
 
8K on a 27" screen is the same PPI as regular Retina (326PPI).

So, if you tiled up 49 iPhone 5 screens and chop off a little on the edges, you'd have an 8K screen.
 
dragje said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem Apple has is that display connection standards haven't kept up with the panels themselves. DisplayPort 1.2 can't drive anything above 4k as it just hasn't got the bandwidth. 1.3 fixes that problem but was only finalised in September last year and likely won't be hitting the Mac line until Intel releases ThunderBolt 3 alongside Skylake later this year (uh, assuming they actually manage to hit that release window this time).

Basically the lack of a 5k monitor from Apple is a mix of technical limitations and a desire not to have to run a multiple cable solution. It's the same with the Pro line of computers, they're reliant on Intel (and, in the case of the Mac Pro, AMD) coming up with worthwhile new silicon. I believe there is a new generation of Xeon they could put in the MP but the MBP is stuck waiting for the massively delayed Broadwell parts. Frankly I wouldn't be too surprised if they skipped 'em entirely in favour of Skylake as Broadwell is unlikely to offer much of a performance boost and is far more important at the ultrabook end (see the new Macbook for a prime example).

That's why you see far more rapid updates on the consumer side - the tech is nowhere near as mature so big jumps in performance are (relatively) easy to achieve and as they're not quite so bleeding edge as Intel in terms of manufacturing processes there tends to be fewer delays.
 
LordVic said:
I don't think the intention of going higher res would be to drive the PPI up to some ridiculous levels. Apple already toughts these devices at "retina".

However, there is the possibility that a higher res screen would be more beneficial in the desktop space. Its not so much for the PPI, but the available desktop space.

As mentioned, going 5k on the iMac allows you to have 4k running natively, while giving you real estate for UI elements of your video editting. Going 8k would just provide that much extra real estate.

however, once you start getting into these high resolution count display, you're going to have to start making them larger, and larger for that extra space to be usable.

maybe its indicating that they're looking towards 32" or 40" display iMac?
Click to expand...

This! 4K or 5K is plenty of resolution. 27" is just way too small.

Love my 40" 4K monitor!
 
nutjob said:
You mean they're not to scale.
Click to expand...

They're not to scale, but no, I also mean they're flat-out wrong:

2K is 2048x1080 (2K Native - 2K Flat is 1998x1080 and 2K Scope is 2048x858). They put QHD correctly, but imply it is the same as 2K, when it is far from the same.

They call Full HD "1K" - Full HD is actually very very close to 2K. 1K was never defined as a DCI resolution but refers to resolutions approximately one thousand pixels wide.
 
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