Apparently the new retina iMac requires a viewing distance of 16.1" to get retina-ness (the point at which pixels resolve to someone with 20/20 vision)(http://www.wired.com/2014/10/apple-5k-faq/).
By comparison, the regular iMac/Mac display achieves 89% of retina-ness at 28", and full-on at 32" (http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/ or http://isthisretina.com)
I am at 24" from my monitors, 2 x 2560x1440 IPDs.
So I'm wondering if I use two monitors, one retina iMac and one regular 2560x1440, am I either gonna sacrifice the benefit of retina on the iMac, or get whiplash trying to see both at even a compromise distance? There seems no point in getting retina if I'm too far away from it. The ergonomics can get kinda weird. Even with just the one, 16-18" is sorta front-row-theaterish.
By comparison, the regular iMac/Mac display achieves 89% of retina-ness at 28", and full-on at 32" (http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/ or http://isthisretina.com)
I am at 24" from my monitors, 2 x 2560x1440 IPDs.
So I'm wondering if I use two monitors, one retina iMac and one regular 2560x1440, am I either gonna sacrifice the benefit of retina on the iMac, or get whiplash trying to see both at even a compromise distance? There seems no point in getting retina if I'm too far away from it. The ergonomics can get kinda weird. Even with just the one, 16-18" is sorta front-row-theaterish.