What if they had extra inventory left over? They might want to wait a little longer no?
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.
No Retina Display in Next-Generation iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What if they had extra inventory left over? They might want to wait a little longer no?
Not buying that especially with Tim Cook at the helm he's been head of manufacturing since Jobs came back, remember that piece where Apple turns over its inventory almost as
much as mcdonalds which deals with perishables...
I meant like parts that are the same as the iPad 2's and a year later they would become cheaper...
Right, so why should the trend in Retina prices all of a sudden change by increasing overall costs when they never did before? Are we expecting no parts to stay the same in the new iMacs? Is that what you are insinuating?
yeah, I think the differences past the "retina" of the iphone are minimal, but studies do show that people with good vision can see pixels down to .3 arc minutes, and the iphone's pixels are 3x that size at about 1 arc minute.
Same goes with frames per second, most people think 24 fps movies are fine, and 60 fps for video is as much as you need, but for the eye/brain to make the motion blur not the video you need up to 500 frames per second before it's perfect for humans. 120 would be a good start for a while though. sucks to be the rotoscoper of 120 fps movie though.
Saw this chart in the apple television thread talking about hopes it could be 4k. defiantly overkill, but your 1080p tv isn't true "retina" at 10 feet unless it's only 10" big. 50" isn't even true retina at 40 feet. (see small graph at bottom to see how it plateaus past 100 pixels per degree-iphone retina is only 60 pixels per degree.
----------
why retina isn't enough
lol the iphone would need more pixels than current 27" imac to be true retina, and the 27" imac would have to be 9120x5130 or 46 megapixels.
Here's a quote for you:
Bryan Jones said:
I'm worried your sources are making the same error as Dr. Soneira. In fact your link appeals to Dr. Soneira.
Last edited:
But that's not considering ANTI-ALIASING
At those kinds of pixel densities, Anti-Aliasing wouldn't be necessary Yes, without anti-aliasing, it's easy to see pixels in the iPhone even from a good distance (like stretching your arm as far as possible). Just play Real Racing and you will clearly see the aliasing.
BUT anti-aliasing makes it looks as if it was 4 to 32 times higher density. Text is always anti-aliased, that's why it looks so sharp on the iPhone or retina iPad (and rMBP now). Those kind of resolutions aren't really that necessary if everything is anti-aliased.
Maybe in the future it becomes cheap and easy to achieve this level of pixel density, than anti-aliasing would not be necessary anymore but that's far from now
At those kinds of pixel densities, Anti-Aliasing wouldn't be necessary Yes, without anti-aliasing, it's easy to see pixels in the iPhone even from a good distance (like stretching your arm as far as possible). Just play Real Racing and you will clearly see the aliasing.
BUT anti-aliasing makes it looks as if it was 4 to 32 times higher density. Text is always anti-aliased, that's why it looks so sharp on the iPhone or retina iPad (and rMBP now). Those kind of resolutions aren't really that necessary if everything is anti-aliased.
Maybe in the future it becomes cheap and easy to achieve this level of pixel density, than anti-aliasing would not be necessary anymore but that's far from now
This doesn't even make sense. It's not like you hook up ad internal monitor with a thunderbolt cable.
Please do.
I would love to know how my inability to discern pixels from my standard viewing distance (~20-24") is in fact me seeing pixels.
There's a difference in PC hardware spec been outdated and Mac hardware been outdated. The former becomes technologically obsolete, the other carries on working as well as the day you bought it. There may be faster machines released, but you won't be noticing the slowdown which creeps into PCs because of malware in general. Just buy the machine if you need it and it serves your purpose right now. Your range has just been refreshed...besides, a retina MBP will cost twice what the current MBP costs...is it worth that to you for what you need the machine?
The end of anti-aliasing?
Maybe off-topic, but with high enough resolution, isn't anti-aliasing redundant?
The whole point of AA is to reduce the jaggedness of diagonal lines. But if the display has high-enough resolution, you wouldn't see any jaggies. And turning off (or eliminating) AA "smoothing" algorithms can significantly improve performance.
(For examples of jaggies without anti-aliasing, watch the original "Tron.")
Maybe off-topic, but with high enough resolution, isn't anti-aliasing redundant?
The whole point of AA is to reduce the jaggedness of diagonal lines. But if the display has high-enough resolution, you wouldn't see any jaggies. And turning off (or eliminating) AA "smoothing" algorithms can significantly improve performance.
(For examples of jaggies without anti-aliasing, watch the original "Tron.")
57% of macrumors site users polled July as likely release of refreshed iMac.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1384568/
Could it be this guy saying fall was been cautious having got one thing wrong already in his original article, namely retina? So when he had to issue a correction, he kicked it outn onto the long grass some distance away so his story would have a bit more shelf life?
I'm still going for July release with ML
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1384568/
Could it be this guy saying fall was been cautious having got one thing wrong already in his original article, namely retina? So when he had to issue a correction, he kicked it outn onto the long grass some distance away so his story would have a bit more shelf life?
I'm still going for July release with ML
I really hope the iMac Ivy Bridge update comes before the Fall season and with Mountain Lion in about 4 weeks.
While I can wait if I have to I would really love a new iMac now, just not willing to spend so much on last years model.
And again I hate to think how much a Retina 27" iMac will cost, mark my words they will be an option or a separate iMac line when first released. I figure if I get the updated iMac in July then by the time I'm due a replacement (3-5 year) they will have Retina sorted and it will be standard feature on the iMac... and PCs will just start using them :lol:
While I can wait if I have to I would really love a new iMac now, just not willing to spend so much on last years model.
And again I hate to think how much a Retina 27" iMac will cost, mark my words they will be an option or a separate iMac line when first released. I figure if I get the updated iMac in July then by the time I'm due a replacement (3-5 year) they will have Retina sorted and it will be standard feature on the iMac... and PCs will just start using them :lol:
Last edited:
The report was wrong about one thing in terms of an update for internal components being possible now; the appropriate GPU has not yet been released. Since it appears that Apple has decided to switch to NVidia for this product lineup, which is perfectly fine according to the heat/power/performance ratings for Kepler in graphical applications, it would make sense that Apple would choose the GTX 680m for the top end iMac GPU, instead of the already released HD 7970. This squares up with the delay, and coincides nicely with the release of Mountain Lion.
After seeing the price of retina MBP i prefer better hardware config rather than retina display. In our place we can buy a car for the price of retina MBP
What are you on about? The display of an iMac can be hooked up to the internal GPU through any interface Apple chooses to.
What you said is a good reason to why there won't be a 27" Thunderbolt display yet. And even that's not so certain. It may be possible to drive such a display with 2 Thunderbolt cables. (similar to dual link DVI).
----------
After seeing the price of retina MBP i prefer better hardware config rather than retina display. In our place we can buy a car for the price of retina MBP
The "old" MacBook Pro configured to the same hardware specs as the retina, costs more than the retina. Choose the highest preconfig "old" MBP and add 512GB SSD, it takes you up to 3100$. The Retina with the same config costs 2800$.
Last edited:
After seeing the price of retina MBP i prefer better hardware config rather than retina display. In our place we can buy a car for the price of retina MBP
I agree. If retina does come out within buying distance for myself. I will most likely opt out and go with the normal display just because the price hike will be major in the 27". Not to mention better performance with lower resolutions.
at the moment it would be too expensive i suspect. the reason the mac mini and the pro aren't seeing updates is because the apple display first needs to be made retina and marketed alongside the existing mbps. that display will either come after or alongside the imacs. the last products to be revised in this significant wave of mac 'retina' revisions will be the mac pro and the mac mini. this needs to be done by the os after mountain lion given a shift towards vector GUIs imo
I don't people are against it, I think it is probably more the frustration that it could be holding up an iMac release.
I personally would love a higher def display, sharper and more crisp displays are always good. However with the price jump on the mbpr it isn't something I will buy (starting at £1800 my mouth dropped). I imagine that a retina screen on an iMac will be mighty expensive, and probably too expensive for many consumers, including myself. So for us who are in need of the spec bump etc for a new mac, but not retina, we get shaky fist at Apple for not giving us what we want yet
Could you please post again using the METRIC system? Virtually NO ONE outside the US (well, you are accompanied by Liberia and Burma) understands obsolete imperial measures.
This is an international forum and the civilized world has moved on, you know...
No it's not. There is still tons of it available. It is far from dead.
Removing the optical drive would probably be the worst decision apple could make for the iMac.
----------
Use 3 Thunderbolt ports then.
While I have no doubt that a Retina display will make it into the iMac lineup, I think that cost is going to be a big factor; as Apple's mainline desktop machine they can't make it so expensive that no-one can afford one at the entry-level.
Still, they could potentially give similar treatment as they did to the MacBook Pro and discontinue the 27" iMac in favour of a new iMac Retina model? I'm not really sure how big of a demand there'd be for it though personally, I could more easily see them just holding off till Retina displays are cost-effective enough to start adding across the entire line.
Still, they could potentially give similar treatment as they did to the MacBook Pro and discontinue the 27" iMac in favour of a new iMac Retina model? I'm not really sure how big of a demand there'd be for it though personally, I could more easily see them just holding off till Retina displays are cost-effective enough to start adding across the entire line.