First they'd rather support other screens properly before throwing another overpriced (just apple branded) display on the market.
Last edited:
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.
Mac Pro/OS X 4K Display Compatibility 'Like the Wild West', Some 4K Monitors Unsupported
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
First they'd rather support other screens properly before throwing another overpriced (just apple branded) display on the market.
It's not even about delivery of files. I deliver in 2k and 4k dcp already, but I edit in SD during offline and only relink to higher res source files in grade. It is still the fastest and most efficient way to work.
Also, in terms of television, a 60" 1920x1080 TV is already 'retina display' at a viewing distance of 7.8 feet. (Pixels indistinguishable with 20/20 vision)
No consumer will ever notice the difference between HD and 4k television at average viewing distances on televisions under 70".
4K delivery is Unnecessary.
This. It's why I think 4K tv adoption will be MUCH slower than HD was. HD was a very noticeable real world leap in how our TV's looked. But to the human eye at normal viewing distances, 4k is not a similar leap up from HD.
Obviously, if 70, 80, 90 inch TV's become all the rage, then yea, 4K will get rolling, but I kinda doubt joe six-pack in peoria has the space in his room or the burning desire to get a tv that big.
No consumer? Well, I can't speak for the billions of other consumers out there but the 55" 4K Sony TV I saw was stunningly sharper than any HDTV I've every seen. But here is the rub -- I didn't know it was 4K when I saw it. It captured my attention in the store, but I thought it was just a top of the line set. A salesperson came up to me and told me it was 4K.
Is 4K delivery necessary? Probably not. HD wasn't necessary either. Heck how many people are still happily watching DVDs on their HD set! If color TV was never invented we'd likely still be satisfied with B&W. And if B&W TV never came to fruition we'd all be listening to radio shows like in the 1920s-40s. Such is the nature of technology and human adaptation.
Honestly, most TV is cr@p regardless of resolution. But I sure would love to see sports in 4K.
Oh boy. Someone had too many snob pills this A.M. Do you remember how massive tube TVs use to be, and then rear projections were even bigger. 70" flat screens are miniature by comparison. People have room for them and will by them if price is right and there is sports content in 4K.
BTW I live just outside DC and homes near DC are a lot smaller than ones in the burbs. Land is expensive close in so homes get smaller.
Last edited:
This dude managed to get the HiDPI enabled using the 24" 4K Dell. It requires terminal commands.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyqtyVx_j_o
Has anyone found the commands anywhere?
----------
Never mind, looks like it is running at 30Hz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyqtyVx_j_o
Has anyone found the commands anywhere?
----------
Never mind, looks like it is running at 30Hz
How does lack of support by Apple make the displays improper? I find this practice of lowballing other brands by not supporting them fully to push their own products, a cheap business practice.
Apple doesn't know squat about displays. It will go buy it cheap from someone in China or Taiwan and then wrap a aluminum frame around it.
----------
And most importantly, of all the reviewers who were going gaga over their unboxing and reviews, it took Anandtech to do a *real* review!
Still I'd love an apple cinema display with the imac lamination process applied, so it's nice and even thinner than the imac because of less internals. I fill I would kinda miss my imac on my desk if I'd trade it for a nMP, just because it's so beautiful and I would have to replace it with an ugly Dell screen..
I would even be happy if it would not be 4k but just 27" imac resolution for starters.
What do you guys think would be a realistic date for apple to come out with a new display? Before autumn?
I would even be happy if it would not be 4k but just 27" imac resolution for starters.
What do you guys think would be a realistic date for apple to come out with a new display? Before autumn?
Bit of a knee jerk reaction, and full of untruths. I've used many a 3rd party peripheral and monitor since my first headless Mac in 1990. I've never had any problems with monitor support. Even when Macs had proprietary monitor connectors there was always an inexpensive adapter. Sometimes the adapter was included with the Mac.
For years Cinema Displays led the field, featuring IPS panel monitors exclusively when most others only had inferior TN panels. Clearly Apple has dropped back from that position in past years, but to say Apple doesn't know anything at all about displays is hyperbole at best. To suggest it weakens any argument you have on the subject.
The 4K compatibility is really an issue of its own. 4K is bleeding edge right now so incompatibilities & quirks really should be expected. The pioneers (early adopters) always take the arrows. But a fix and improvements will come soon.
sudo defaults write /Library/Preferences/com.apple.windowserver DisplayResolutionEnabled -bool YES;
it's entirely about "retina technologies". not sure you get it -- the monitor DOES render at max res, perfectly. it just so happens that, at such a great resolution, everything becomes very small. no different than has been the case on windows monitors for almost two decades. the issue raised is users would like OS X to scale up certain onscreen elements (text, menu bars) to improve usability at such extreme resolutions...as it does on the rMBP.
the monitor renders at full resolution just fine in OS X. it's the rMBP retina-mode selective scaling that people want.
----------
that's a very curious world you must live in.
you don't get it. it does -- and renders perfectly at max res. but now people want selective scaling on UI elements (text, menus) like how the rMBP works. think about that...rMBP behavior on a non-apple monitor. yet somehow that's their fault. riiight.
Tim Cook really needs to come out and tell us when we can expect updated Apple Displays. Fortunately I don't need a 4K display at the moment so I'll opt for a cheaper option than the Sharp model they've listed, but it would still be nice to know so I can plan ahead.
And that would be entirely based around how OSX handles scaling, not the monitor itself. The monitor only has to be capable of displaying the appropriate base resolution.
That said, it isn't a failing of OSX, just something that hasn't been implemented yet outside of the rMBP. All it'd take is a quick update to support 3rd party 4k monitors.
It's their fault they don't have an Apple 4K display to launch with the Mac Pro. So we're forced to get a non-Apple 4K if we need 4K. Who's fault is that? They've been working on the new Mac Pro for long enough. The panels are available. It's just bad planning once again.
I am responding to the hyperbole that is "Where is Apple monitor that is better?"...
Apple introduced those IPS panels made by Hitachi or Sharp or Anyone. They just assumed that people will pay the premium and people did. While others like Dell did not take that leap. How does that make Apple a leader of displays?
Right, the Sharp display is not advertised as a Retina display. Apple might update their cinema display to be a Retina display that scales all the text and UI elements, which would give them an edge over other manufacturers.
Wah, wah, wah.
The amount of whining here is typical. (Especially without knowledge what Apple's reasons or plans are)
Apple doesn't do this and doesn't do that , wah!
How about just waiting?
All your stuff works right now.
Just because there is a new MacPro out, doesn't mean your stuff stopped working.
Expecting a perfect world will have you disappointed.
Apple marches at their time schedules (nothing new) and in due time there will either be fixed monitor support or they will launch their own 4K display.
(At which point people will be bitching here that it's too expensive)
In the meantime don't buy the new MacPro if it frustrates you so much.
PC World better?
How close were you standing when you saw it? Unless you have superhuman vision, there's no way a 55" 4K TV is going to look better than 1080P at any normal living room sitting distance.
I hope to god they don't, because the only difference a future Apple 3840x2160 Retina Display and a Dell 3840x2160 monitor will be how OSX treats it.
I can understand Apple wanting to play favorites with their own stuff, but they shouldn't hold back features in order to force you into buying one nearly identical monitor over another.
Yah, it's disappointing that Apple hasn't released their own updated displays. Makes you wonder if they are already doing more than they can manage, or if the issues are entirely in the manufacturing capacity, or maybe they can't get them to a price point that would provide healthy margins?
As someone who sits 10 feet from 106 inches, I think I'm in the small group that actually is looking forward to UHD and 4K. But the other thing that I really wish more people would focus on is the possibility of higher bit color and dynamic range. Those are just as important (and contribute mightily to file size ^_^) as the pixels race.
Yes, other companies _make_ the monitors, but Apple has defined very high sets of specifications that panels have needed to meet before they can be called an "Apple monitor". Apple is defining the standard, ensuring that the product being delivered to their customer is on par with the Mac the monitor gets connected to. That process is contrary to many monitors you can buy that are of varying qualities. That's what makes Apple products better... the attention to detail. It's not just a matter of slapping their logo on a third-party panel and charging a premium.
Speculation is that you would use two TB2 channels to drive each half of a display (similar to Dual-Link DVI). So having six TB2 connectors would allow driving three displays.
Again speculation, but with 4K displays either being expensive "studio / reference quality" units that are overkill for general computing use or televisions with poor text quality, Apple either would have had to release a very expensive display (which would have brought the usual howls of protest at how expensive Apple products are) or a low-end TV panel (which would have brought the usual howls of protest about how poor such a display is and how Apple no longer cares).
So there is some belief that Apple is waiting for a panel that is higher quality than the "TV panels", but not to the level of the "reference" panels to allow them to bring out a "general purpose" 4K Thunderbolt Display in the $2000 range.
Kinda. Apple monitors tend to be in the middle of the spectrum, and most monitors you buy within that same price range have been well tested for screen quality before rolling out the door.
Apple makes quality, well designed monitors, no doubt. But Eizos they ain't.