OS X Mavericks 10.9.3 Beta Contains Native 'Retina' Resolution Option for 4K Displays

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

You guys would really pay a thousand bucks for a monitor?

Cheap compared to my Sony Trinitron 1600x1200 monitor "a while back". But, sadly, I don't think they can do the full-up high-quality TB2-etc monitor for that little. If they can, I would buy one tomorrow. Seriously.

Note that the distance needed for the pixels on a 32" 2560x1440 display to not be visible to the average person ("Retina," in Apple terms) is 37.5". Most people don't sit that far away from their monitors.

For a 4K display to fit Apple's definition of "Retina" you'd want something like a 21" display at a more typical viewing distance of 24".

I'm not sure I follow you. Why does it have to be "full Retina" at close viewing? It is a monitor. At very close viewing, I would expect to see pixels.

Personally I don't understand why Apple won't enable this for all screens. My mom really wants an iMac but with her eyes interface elements are just too small. Lowering the resolution or magnifying makes everything look blurry (waste of the iMac's screen) and increasing text size won't affect the interface.

Agree. Apple needs to work on scaling.

Yeah I'm keen to know what exact dimensions they'll be. Usable desktop of 2560x1440 at 2x is awesome, but if it's just 1920x1080, then as pretty as it'll look, I'll have to pass. Hopefully they'll be 30" screens... that'd be nice.

I'm looking for a screen big enough that native 3840x2160 (or, please please, 3840x2400) is usable. That should be about 30".

True, however one thing that makes me want to trade out my Dell monitors is the "antiglare" screen. The sandpaper texture means I lose accuracy of working with pixels. It's really rough! So keen for a glossy Mac thunderbolt display.

It should be an option. I don't agree with the fascination with "glossy", but, I have to believe that the volume on these monitors will support several options, including true matte, true glossy, and, something in between perhaps.

They could also release a 4k 17" MBP...

Pretty please!!

It's not just a monitor. It's a high quality screen, Thunderbolt dock, speakers, HD webcam, Thunderbolt cable, and MB charger. And all that plugs in with 2 cables.

And USB 3.0 ports. But, with all that, it will have to cost more than $1K. $1K would get you are bare screen only.

4K displays seem like an awkward temporary hack until true pixel doubling is possible. It may take a few years until 27" or 30" displays of 5120x2880 or 5120x3200 are affordable and technology is available for the bandwidth to output to those displays.

Buying 4K now seems like a waste of money when it's not that much better than current displays.

I believe Apple is heading towards pixel doubling for the iMac and ACD but the tech isn't ready yet. It may be better to take a wait and see approach.

4K is the next big thing because it downsamples perfectly to HD, HD pixel-doubles perfectly to 4K (as in 3840x2160), it mirrors the resolution of 35mm film cameras, it is perfect for digital SLR work, and the effective resolution is good enough to view widescreen movies. I don't see 5K as the next big thing after that -- it will be 8K.

Two requests: 16:10 & matte. A 30" or 32" size would be great - thanks!

Yes, please! 30" 3840x2400 matte would be perfect.

I am genuinely curious, what do you like about matte displays?

I really can't wrap my head around it. To me, every matte display I've every seen has looked washed out, speckly, and has made every light source in the room splash a big region of glare across the screen.

To be sure, I have seen some poorly made glossy displays that are highly reflective, but to me the ideal monitor has a smooth screen made of something like museum glass that virtually eliminates reflections and glare.

Matte works best in a wide variety of situations. But, since you mention it, I don't see why monitor manufacturers don't make it easier to switch out the face to meet different applications and requirements.

 

[ElectronGuru]

It is actually possible to enable hi-dpi mode (retina) on all Macs. If you try it out, you'll understand why Apple don't enable it though... You have to run at a quarter the full resolution in terms of working area, and for the non-retina displays, that's not all that usable.

I find HiDPI so useful on my mini/htpc, it's been the exclusive mode for over 2 years:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...I-for-Mac-Mini-powered-HDTVs-(requires-10-7-3)


Main drawback is when certain windows needs more height than 540. Everything else is epic!

 

[DarwinOSX]

You guys would really pay a thousand bucks for a monitor?

Do some research on high end monitors. That's cheap. Not the sort of junk you buy in Best Buy but high quality color accurate monitors. NEC and others.

----------

So glad my NEC PA272W came the other day...
Apple should have released this with the nMP

I'm thinking of getting that one. $1199 at B&H. Free shipping, no sales tax in Cali.

----------

Dells quality is highly variable as you can see in user reviews and god forbid you need service or support. But I see why they sell so many monitors. My understanding is they have eased up on the multi-glare coating lately too.

I paid $1,000 for two Dell 20.1" displays some time ago (ips, very similar to apple's 20.1, same element) - and you know what? they still work brilliantly. Of course, now you can get something similar for far, far less.

Some things are worth paying for, even with the early adopter tax.

----------

I would say with Thunderbolt 2 not TB 1.

Does Mavericks support driving a 4K display properly with two thunderbolt ports, though?

And will this HiDPI mode become available when run in that mode?

 

[kgapp]

Now to wait for someone to test 4K monitors on older Mac Pro's to see how it handles the resolutions. I've got a 2009 Mac Pro that would love to have a retina-quality display...

I am also interested in knowing if there will be any options to get a 4k monitor running properly on the last generation Mac Pro.

My understanding is that the Sapphire 7950 Mac Edition supports 4k on Windows but not on OS X. That makes it sound like it may be a software driver limitation more so than a specific hardware limitation.

If anyone testing 10.9.3 has a last generation Mac Pro with a modern video card and has access to a 4k display let us know what happens.

 

[DarwinOSX]

You don't know anything about the subject so why are you posting?
Apple uses LG panel's but is more selective than others and panel alone doesn't make the display. That's a rookie mistake.
Also Apple use two other panels besides LG. I'll let you Google it so you learn something about the subject.

Apple uses crappy LG screens for their laptops and iMacs, eh.

So if you buy Apple you will probably be buying an up-priced LG screen, eh.

 

[LeDao]

Dell U3014 with Late2013 Mac Pro

Bought the Del in anticipation of the Mac Pro and when that came I was really disappointed as the screen was washed out and blurry as many have noted about Dell monitors. Apple didn't help except ask me to change cables, eventually I found this http://www.ireckon.net/2013/03/forc...ix-the-picture-quality-of-an-external-monitor which resolved the issue totally. Colours are bright and sharp. Moved up from a 27" iMac for photo and video work and the quality of blues is wonderful in the new system. When affordable 4K comes along I will upgrade, but there really are some great monitors available.

The thing I cannot work out is colour depth, as technically its possible to get 10bit colour from the graphics and the monitor will display at that colour depth. does anyone know where OSX and Mac Pro are because if I can get 10 Bit colour (assuming I don't already have that depth) then pictures will be awesome.

 

[DarwinOSX]

I dont' understand why so many people dismiss 4k displays as not that big of an improvement.

Because they don't understand it.

 

[Qaanol]

Matte works best in a wide variety of situations. But, since you mention it, I don't see why monitor manufacturers don't make it easier to switch out the face to meet different applications and requirements.

That's a good point. I know I've heard about a DIY process to remove the matte covering from certain Dell monitors, that basically involves covering the screen with wet paper towels and waiting several hours, then gently peeling off the film. But never anything easy.

I guess I'll just acknowledge that some people prefer matte, even though I don't grok why. My experience is that a matte screen, by virtue of its uneven bumps, reflects light in every possible direction so you're guaranteed to have glare if there is any light source anywhere in view of the screen, whereas a smooth screen only reflects at exactly the angle of incidence, so it is usually simply to make tiny rotations that eliminate glare. Ah well, to each their own.

 

[DarwinOSX]

c a l i b r a t i o n . . .

True that Apple calibrates their screens while most others don't because they are too cheap. But Apple also has a far higher reject rate than others using the same panel. Plus if you have an issue Apple will take care of it.
But monitors are more than just a panel, the backlight and inverter quality also have an impact. This is what the kiddies whining about "expensive" Apple displays don't know.

----------

UHD 4K Thunderbolt Display for $999 would be an insta-buy for me.

But I'm actually sticking to my original prediction and think it will be $1999.

Nobody is pricing them that low so i would be surprised to see 2k. I'd like an updated TB monitor with USB 3 and a retina version. Throw in a 24" too. I would buy a couple of those but Apple stopped making them awhile back.

----------

I know a lot of professional video editors, 3D, and web develops who have no issues with glossy display. Don't put it in front of a sunny windows. Problem solved.

I am genuinely curious, what do you like about matte displays?

I really can't wrap my head around it. To me, every matte display I've every seen has looked washed out, speckly, and has made every light source in the room splash a big region of glare across the screen.

To be sure, I have seen some poorly made glossy displays that are highly reflective, but to me the ideal monitor has a smooth screen made of something like museum glass that virtually eliminates reflections and glare.

 

[DarwinOSX]

Umm, sure they would, they are Apple customers. They would pay over $3000 for a laptop computer. Something nearly unheard of in the PC world.

I realize you don't know anything but will try to educate you. Average selling price for a PC laptop is around $600 to $700. Thats for the cheap junk you get at Best Buy and you are still using the always mediocre Windows and forget about service and support.
Average selling price for a Mac laptop is around $1,100. The $3,000 you reference gets you top of the line 15". The advantages of the $1100 Mac laptop are obvious to everyone here.
$3,000 is not remotely "unheard of" in the PC world. Sitting next to my 15" loaded retina is an HP Workstation laptop that costs more than my 15" MBP. But still not as good in any way and it runs Windows. Ugh.
So $3,000 is an outlier price for Mac laptops but you can easily pay that for Dell or HP PC laptops among others that are also workstation class quality.
You get what you pay for.
Here is a Dell workstation laptop for $2775 sort of equivalent in specs to my 15" MBP but it costs $400 more, does not have a retina display, is made of the cheapest components Dell can find, terrible service and support, and uses Windows 7 because nobody wants Windows 8. Enjoy.
Processor
Intel Core i7-4702HQ (Quad Core 2.20GHz, 3.2GHz Turbo, 6MB 37W, w/HD Graphics 4600) edit
16GB (2x8GB) 1600MHz DDR3 edit
LED Display
15.6" UltraSharp™ FHD Touch(1920x1080)
Video Card
Nvidia® Quadro® K1100M, w/ 2GB GDDR5 edit
Hard Drive
512GB Solid State Drive Full Mini Card edit
Intel® Dual Band Wireless-AC 7260 + Bluetooth 4.0
Primary Battery
6-cell, 61Whr primary battery edit

 

[designaholic]

You guys would really pay a thousand bucks for a monitor?

It will be at least double that. $1000 would be a snip.

 

[mmendoza27]

I am also interested in knowing if there will be any options to get a 4k monitor running properly on the last generation Mac Pro.

My understanding is that the Sapphire 7950 Mac Edition supports 4k on Windows but not on OS X. That makes it sound like it may be a software driver limitation more so than a specific hardware limitation.

If anyone testing 10.9.3 has a last generation Mac Pro with a modern video card and has access to a 4k display let us know what happens.

From what I've been searching around, this is basically enabling the same functionality as the Windows card. I would love to have 2 28" 4K monitors, but I don't think there is a card that pushes that type of resolution around.

I was looking at a 7970 but a 7950 (if it could do 2x 4K monitors) would be great for me.

 

[puckhead193]

I'm thinking of getting that one. $1199 at B&H. Free shipping, no sales tax in Cali.

Do it! So worth it! I ordered mine from B&H! Awesome display. But since I live in NY I had to pay sales tax

 

[TechZeke]

I realize you don't know anything but will try to educate you. Average selling price for a PC laptop is around $600 to $700. Thats for the cheap junk you get at Best Buy and you are still using the always mediocre Windows and forget about service and support.
Average selling price for a Mac laptop is around $1,100. The $3,000 you reference gets you top of the line 15". The advantages of the $1100 Mac laptop are obvious to everyone here.
$3,000 is not remotely "unheard of" in the PC world. Sitting next to my 15" loaded retina is an HP Workstation laptop that costs more than my 15" MBP. But still not as good in any way and it runs Windows. Ugh.
So $3,000 is an outlier price for Mac laptops but you can easily pay that for Dell or HP PC laptops among others that are also workstation class quality.
You get what you pay for.
Here is a Dell workstation laptop for $2775 sort of equivalent in specs to my 15" MBP but it costs $400 more, does not have a retina display, is made of the cheapest components Dell can find, terrible service and support, and uses Windows 7 because nobody wants Windows 8. Enjoy.
Processor
Intel Core i7-4702HQ (Quad Core 2.20GHz, 3.2GHz Turbo, 6MB 37W, w/HD Graphics 4600) edit
16GB (2x8GB) 1600MHz DDR3 edit
LED Display
15.6" UltraSharp™ FHD Touch(1920x1080)
Video Card
Nvidia® Quadro® K1100M, w/ 2GB GDDR5 edit
Hard Drive
512GB Solid State Drive Full Mini Card edit
Intel® Dual Band Wireless-AC 7260 + Bluetooth 4.0
Primary Battery
6-cell, 61Whr primary battery edit

At least some people on this forum realize this. Comparable PC hardware costs just as much if not more than macs.

Compare Dell's 27" XPS All-in-One to the iMac, or Dell's XPS 15 to a 15" rMBP, or a Dell or HP workstation to the new Mac Pro with similar specs.

 

[djsukebe]

You guys would really pay a thousand bucks for a monitor?

Yup, let's not forget the original retail price of $3299 for the 30" Apple Cinema Display.. working professionals and 'prosumers' like myself will not hesitate to drop $$ on a good display.

 

[Truthfulie]

Hm...4K display with HiDPI would be nice for 1080p Retina resolution. Too bad it's still not big enough for 2x Retina 1440p resolution. 1.5x might not be too bad considering viewing distance.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Umm, sure they would, they are Apple customers. They would pay over $3000 for a laptop computer. Something nearly unheard of in the PC world.

i know you dont know what youre talking about, but.... apple's MacBook Air for $999 set the bar on ultrabooks -- best performance, great price. their lowest Mac is $599, iPad is $299, iPod is $49. all of which are high-quality, best-in-class devices...unless the cheap crap like netbooks which fall apart, or my MIL's HP notebook which is useless junk.

 

[mdelvecchio]

I realize you don't know anything but will try to educate you. Average selling price for a PC laptop is around $600 to $700. Thats for the cheap junk you get at Best Buy and you are still using the always mediocre Windows and forget about service and support.
Average selling price for a Mac laptop is around $1,100. The $3,000 you reference gets you top of the line 15". The advantages of the $1100 Mac laptop are obvious to everyone here.

$3,000 is not remotely "unheard of" in the PC world. Sitting next to my 15" loaded retina is an HP Workstation laptop that costs more than my 15" MBP. But still not as good in any way and it runs Windows. Ugh.
So $3,000 is an outlier price for Mac laptops but you can easily pay that for Dell or HP PC laptops among others that are also workstation class quality.
You get what you pay for.

Here is a Dell workstation laptop for $2775 sort of equivalent in specs to my 15" MBP but it costs $400 more, does not have a retina display, is made of the cheapest components Dell can find, terrible service and support, and uses Windows 7 because nobody wants Windows 8. Enjoy.

good post. when did this site get overridden w/ people who dont know what theyre talking about when it comes to Mac stuff? ironic, right?

 

[MacLC]

Umm, sure they would, they are Apple customers. They would pay over $3000 for a laptop computer. Something nearly unheard of in the PC world.

You could have put that in a way that did not make you look like a troll.

I used to wonder myself why premium prices existed for premium products. Then a friend in business explained, "I do $800,000 of business in a year of which my margin is $50,000. If I can buy a machine, even for $2000 that improves my business by 1%, I will increase profits by 12%."

So yes, although I am not a "pro" user myself, I can see how a better monitor even for $3000 that allowed somebody to work 1% faster or take less time away from the screen to rest their eyes would be valuable to a real professional.

 

[Gudi]

Deleted

 

[ionjohn]

Yup, let's not forget the original retail price of $3299 for the 30" Apple Cinema Display.. working professionals and 'prosumers' like myself will not hesitate to drop $$ on a good display.

Better buy some lube otherwise it's gonna hurt!

 

[xmichaelp]

This is why I just don't get the appeal of 4k yet. They're too big to pixel double and too small to run native.

I'd love a 21.5 inch 4k iMac, but that's a ways off. As it is, I can't see why anybody would want 1080 real estate on a 27-32 inch 4k screen. And if you want to run native that's way too small to be readable. You'd need 38~ plus to have a readable screen at native resolution.

 

[xmichaelp]

Ahhhh. Hold on. Apple is selling a 31" Sharp 4K display in their store for well over $3,000 and you think a 4K Thunderbolt Display will land from the heavens at $1,399? Keep dreaming. If they release one I'd be stunned if it's a penny less than $2,499. Doubt we'll see price points for high end 60Hz 4K Thunderbolt Displays that low until late 2015-2016.

That Sharp monitor for 3000 is a joke though, it's way more than other ones on the market. Dell has ones for 1400 and will release one for under 1000. And we all know Dell makes good displays.

Apple probably just advertised that Sharp one so when they release theirs it will be a fraction of the price and make Apple look good. I'd bet it's 1499.

----------

13 laptops at Best Buy over $3000. THIRTEEN. And NONE are Apple products.

Saying something anti-Apple doesn't make it true.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemplatemapper.jsp?&id=pcat17071&type=page&ks=960&st=categoryid%24abcat0502000&sc=Global&cp=1&sp=-bestsellingsort+skuidsaas&qp=currentprice_facet%3DSAAS~Price~%243000+and+Up&list=y&usc=All+Categories&nrp=15&fs=saas&iht=n&browsedCategory=abcat0502000

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Whatever happened to OS X receiving true resolution independence support (i.e. vector based GUI, etc.)? That would easily scale to any size you want/desire with any resolution you might throw at it. The rumor that Apple was going to do that dates back to at least Tiger. It seems like it has been abandoned.

 

[xmichaelp]

Whatever happened to OS X receiving true resolution independence support (i.e. vector based GUI, etc.)? That would easily scale to any size you want/desire with any resolution you might throw at it. The rumor that Apple was going to do that dates back to at least Tiger. It seems like it has been abandoned.

Does anyone know how hard it would be to implement vector based GUI? I honestly have no clue.