Think these will work with new Mac Book Pro's??
"MacBook Pro (Retina, Late 2013) computers can use 4K Ultra HDTVs."
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6008
Think these will work with new Mac Book Pro's??
Apple chooses not to do redesigns for modest changes; a feature not a bug known to most long time users. Now there are rumors that Apple will build and sell 4K displays for TB2, but you probably wouldn't be interested based on your equipment list.
Your choices are any number of Displayport models or an Apple 27inch TB display with I/O breakout not to your liking. Maybe there are some 3rd party TB displays but as I'm not in the market, it wouldn't be important to look.
Anyone here care to predict the cost of an Apple-branded 4K Thunderbolt display?
I don't even want to imagine.
If you can't imaging the usefulness, leave it to the professionals to appreciate this new breed of displays.
Not everybody will watch TV on these.
You all realize that you'd have to stick your nose less than 6 inches from a 30" 4K display to even start to see the pixels. Using multiple 4K displays on your desktop would be overkill and a total waste of money. The market for these will be very small, used only by the "look at how big and fine mine is" crowd.
"Apple's exacting quality standards" - lol!
I have two iMac 27"s with LG panels. Both displays developed horrible dust blotches after a year or so (they are inside the panels). A well known problem, but Apple won't address the issue. So much for exacting quality standards...
This is the second comment in that many days in which the basic premise is "if you can't picture this, then it's not for you." It doesn't seem like Apple is in the business these days of producing products for a small crowd - so why would they start now? The point is for mass market appeal, and you can't get there by designing products people can't understand why they would need them.
But there is that group of people that will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a car that will go well over 200 MPH but they never take it above 100. They're willing to pay for the status of having one.
This is the second comment in that many days in which the basic premise is "if you can't picture this, then it's not for you." It doesn't seem like Apple is in the business these days of producing products for a small crowd - so why would they start now? The point is for mass market appeal, and you can't get there by designing products people can't understand why they would need them.
The trick is will they only run at 30 hz? I haven't seen any indication of a 4K display thats able to run an 60-120 hz like current 2560x1600 monitors. Your eyes will not enjoy staring at 30 hz, unless apple has shares in lense crafters![]()
The trick is will they only run at 30 hz? I haven't seen any indication of a 4K display thats able to run an 60-120 hz like current 2560x1600 monitors. Your eyes will not enjoy staring at 30 hz, unless apple has shares in lense crafters![]()
Also, 163 pixels per inch, even at 27", hardly qualifies as retina (FYI, the original iPhone to iPhone 3Gs had 165 pixels per inch). Coupled with the fact that such display will default at ultra low 1920x800 resolution, I simply don't think this panel is destined for Apple's 27" display.
You all realize that you'd have to stick your nose less than 6 inches from a 30" 4K display to even start to see the pixels. Using multiple 4K displays on your desktop would be overkill and a total waste of money. The market for these will be very small, used only by the "look at how big and fine mine is" crowd.
PPI isn't a good measure for visual acuity since it doesn't consider a very important factor: viewing distance.
What really matters is the angular proportion of your FOV the pixel occupies.
True, but that does't change the fact that 163 PPI at 27" still requires 21 inches (Is This Retina?) of viewing distance. My office has a ton of 27" displays (mostly Apple's) and no one sits that far from the monitor.
I myself sit about 18 inches away.
For the love of god, please make these matte, not glossy.
"equivalent of" 1920 x 1080 on a 27" or 32" display? No thanks. Scalable content will doubtless look beautiful, but icons and menu-bars are going to be huge!
"equivalent of" 1920 x 1080 on a 27" or 32" display? No thanks. Scalable content will doubtless look beautiful, but icons and menu-bars are going to be huge!
The question is, whether 'scaled mode' 2560x1440 equivalent on a 4k screen will look better than native 2560x1440 on the current 27".
or Apple could drag OS X kicking and screaming into the 21st century and come up with a fully-scalable UI so they weren't in this 'double the pixels or bust' situation.
Retina makes sense for smaller devices viewed at less-than arm's length - displays like the ACT/ATD/iMac 27" are already near-retina once you allow for viewing distance. I can't say that I look at my ACD now and think "ugh, look at all that visible pixellation". Wake me when 5120x2880 is here so we can have pixel-doubled mode, or when the double-width wrap-around 5120x1440 display appears.
I think there are serious applications for 4K but most of them involve either (a) being a video editor working on a 4K movie or (b) other graphics pros who want a secondary screen for big beautiful renders.
Had my $1,000 to throw down months ago for a Thunderbolt Display if they just updated the form factor to match the benefits of the new (now 1 year old) 27" iMac display.
Since Apple has chosen to continue selling 3 year old tech for full price (USB 2.0, really?) I have had enough time to think and decided that I no longer have an interest in the display period. Apple's loss for not keeping up with the times across their product line. They would have had an extra $1,000 from me and likely many others.