New iMacs with new display resolutions?

lozpop

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Mar 6, 2006
487
0
First of all, iMac displays are gorgeous and I don't feel the need for a Retina display on a desktop computer that stands 60 centimeters away from my eyes.

Anyway, do you think that the new iMacs will have slightly higher resolutions?

Since I'm a UI designer, I would by the 27" with the actual resolution to work on iPhone and iPad Retina UIs, but if the new 21" will feature a slightly higher resolution, I could go for it.

What are your thoughts?
 

lozpop

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Mar 6, 2006
487
0
There's really nowhere for them to go. The next common 16:9 resolution is 4K, which is cost prohibitive right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions
Yeah sure, 4K is too much today, but maybe the 21" could go from 1920x1080 to 2048x1152. Is that technically impossible?

----------

I would like to see a return to the 16:10 ratio for iMacs, giving 2560x1600. I don't expect that to happen unfortunately.
I think they went with 16:9 because it's best for movies. I own an iMac 24", so 16:10, and I love this proportion.
 
Comment

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
Yeah sure, 4K is too much today, but maybe the 21" could go from 1920x1080 to 2048x1152. Is that technically impossible?

----------



I think they went with 16:9 because it's best for movies. I own an iMac 24", so 16:10, and I love this proportion.
Does anyone make a 21.5" 2048x1152 panel? I thought they were all 23" thus preserving the dpi. 16:10 was better for video editors (tools/timeline along the bottom).
 
Comment

SR20DETDOG

macrumors regular
Jan 25, 2011
186
0
Queensland Australia
Not that I'm in the market for a new iMac but personally I think a 30" 2560x1600 iMac would be pretty cool.

The extra 3" and 160 vertical pixels would be nice in their own right but more than that it would bump up the volume of the case allowing for better and/or more components inside.

Not that I see this happening, I heard somewhere that 16:10 displays are less cost effective than 16:9, I don't know if that's actually true but it has some sense to it.
 
Comment

Moonjumper

macrumors 68020
Jun 20, 2009
2,101
1,706
Lincoln, UK
Not that I see this happening, I heard somewhere that 16:10 displays are less cost effective than 16:9, I don't know if that's actually true but it has some sense to it.
16:9 displays are more cost effective when you can use the same components for TVs because of the economies of scale. But that only applies to TV resolutions such as 720p and 1080p, neither of which apply to the 27" iMac. Although that is perhaps why so many people are looking at 4K for the potential retina iMac.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.