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.
Retina Display - total speculation
- Thread starter saxon48
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. To would need a very powerful GPU, an the LCD panel with a resolution like that would be way to expensive to produce. There are some nice high res screens, but none that I know of that make the pixels so small that a human eye can't see. So it will happen during my life time, but not too soon.
Retina 21.5" iMac: 3840 x 2160
Retina 27" iMac: 5120 x 2880
Retina 13" MB/P: 2560 x 1600 (the resolution of the current 30" Cinema Display)
Retina 15" MBP: 2880 x 1800
Retina 15" MBP HR: 3360 x 2100
Retina 17" MBP: 3840 x 2400
Looking at these numbers alone makes me think, that current technology is not ready for panels of that resolution in that form factor for a feasible price.
Maybe in ten to fifty years.
DISCLAIMER: I did not use PPI as base for my "calculations", I simply doubled the current resolutions, as the iPhone 4 has double the resolution of the iPhones before that.
Retina 27" iMac: 5120 x 2880
Retina 13" MB/P: 2560 x 1600 (the resolution of the current 30" Cinema Display)
Retina 15" MBP: 2880 x 1800
Retina 15" MBP HR: 3360 x 2100
Retina 17" MBP: 3840 x 2400
Looking at these numbers alone makes me think, that current technology is not ready for panels of that resolution in that form factor for a feasible price.
Maybe in ten to fifty years.
DISCLAIMER: I did not use PPI as base for my "calculations", I simply doubled the current resolutions, as the iPhone 4 has double the resolution of the iPhones before that.
I think its safe to say that it will happen eventually. Its just a matter for manufacturing to catchup. It will probably be very expense to build a 20+ inch display with similar pixel density as the iPhone. It could be next year, it could be in 10 years, it could be in 20 years. I don't know, but I do believe it will happen.
Having a Retina display version of the High resolution 15" display would be so cool. It's like a Retina Retina display. Plus make it Matte and it will be beautiful.
How did you get these numbers? I used PPI Calculator and got a result that 27" iMac would need 7680x4320 in order to have the same PPI as iPhone 4 has. Without resolution independence, such high res would be useless. Super Hi-Vision which has the same result is expected to come within 5-10 years. 20 minutes of uncompressed Super Hi-Vision takes only 4TB of space
Retina: 300 PPI @ 12 inches!
Laptop/Desktop normal viewing distance: at least 24 inches.
So: 'retina' at 24" is 150 PPI. Macbook Pro 17" PPI = 137 PPI. Already very close.
Laptop/Desktop normal viewing distance: at least 24 inches.
So: 'retina' at 24" is 150 PPI. Macbook Pro 17" PPI = 137 PPI. Already very close.
How did you get these numbers? I used PPI Calculator and got a result that 27" iMac would need 7680x4320 in order to have the same PPI as iPhone 4 has. Without resolution independence, such high res would be useless. Super Hi-Vision which has the same result is expected to come within 5-10 years. 20 minutes of uncompressed Super Hi-Vision takes only 4TB of space
I just doubled the resolutions, as the iPhones before that had only half of the resolution of the iPhone 4. I ignored the PPI completely, as Apple products have different PPI throughout their line.
It's a shame though, that I can't view Epic footage in its full resolution on the Retina 27" iMac.
Ahh, that explains it! Well, we don't really know what the retina really stands for as it would have to be +300PPI which is the maximum that human retina can recognize (over that, it can't I think), but as you said, for iPhone it was just doubled. Current res in 27" is already awesome so without some software changes, it's useless it improve it.
I think your numbers are off, assuming a pixel density of 326ppi then the resolutions will be as follows:
iPad: 2530x1898
13" MacBook Pro: 3594x2246
15" MacBook Pro: 4146x2592
17" MacBook Pro: 4700x2938
21.5" iMac: 6110x3436
27" iMac: 7672x4316
30" Cinema Display: 8294x5184
I have rounded up the numbers to the closest even number. The resolutions required are insane!!!
You can't have a retina display of a high-res screen as the initial resolution doesn't matter. Only the dimensions are needed.
Hellhammer asked me the same:
How did you get these numbers? I used PPI Calculator and got a result that 27" iMac would need 7680x4320 in order to have the same PPI as iPhone 4 has. Without resolution independence, such high res would be useless. Super Hi-Vision which has the same result is expected to come within 5-10 years. 20 minutes of uncompressed Super Hi-Vision takes only 4TB of space
And I answered this:
And I should have put up a disclaimer in my first post, telling everyone that I didn't use the proper way of using PPI as base for calculating my numbers and just using the fact, that the iPhone 4 has double the resolution of the iPhones before, has made me decide to just double the current resolutions, as 300PPI for a computer display is insane at these times, especially at the distance one uses a computer compared to a phone.
You know fellas, your HDTV at home is far beyond 'retina' pixel density at the recommended viewing distance.
For example: 46" 1080p TV is 47.9 PPI. The recommended viewing distance is 2-3x the size of the screen. So say at 2x it's about 8 feet. At 8 feet your eyes can only make out points the if the density was lower than 37.5 PPI.
But by your logic, that 46" TV needs to be 12000x6750 to qualify for this 'retina' requirement.
For example: 46" 1080p TV is 47.9 PPI. The recommended viewing distance is 2-3x the size of the screen. So say at 2x it's about 8 feet. At 8 feet your eyes can only make out points the if the density was lower than 37.5 PPI.
But by your logic, that 46" TV needs to be 12000x6750 to qualify for this 'retina' requirement.
Like I said in other topic-- I'd sooner want to see an oled display for very vibrant colors, true blacks and great contrast ratio, than I would want to see a retina display.
I do feel eventually, every screen will have a dpi of near 300, but that would take a lot of vector implementation and calculations, and a lot of clever upsizing of already rasterized images.
I do feel eventually, every screen will have a dpi of near 300, but that would take a lot of vector implementation and calculations, and a lot of clever upsizing of already rasterized images.
You are hinting at a major point that seems to have been lost in this discussion. The separation of two distinct points must be greater than 1 minute of arc at the viewing distance. If their angular separation is less than this, then they merge and cannot be distinguished as separate by any optical instrument including the human eye. The near point for normal vision is 10 inches, giving a limiting pixel density of 344 dpi. The human retina come in a little smaller. Books, magazines, newspapers, and iPhones are designed to be held at 10 inches from the eye.
The point is that it is not a fixed value of pixel density that is important. To find the retina display resolution for a particular display, use the following formula:
326 x 10 in./viewing distance
Most computer monitors are intended to be viewed at 10 inches. For digital cinema monitors, electronic scoreboards, etc., the viewing distance is substantially greater and the retina display resolution is much less than 326 dpi. For example, the retina display resolution for a viewing distance of 8 ft. is only 34 dpi.
A 300 dpi display using OS X 10.6 would be unusable. Menus, text, and the chromes to apps would be too small. Apple, and MS for that matter, are going to have to make the OS independent of the display resolution and scale smoothly without the smudgy interpolation artifacts present now.
10 inches? are you sure?
I would say more like 24 inches. Using a conmputer display at 10 inches is the best thing for headaches.
At a distance of 12 inches.
Retina display is an Apple marketing invention. Steve explained it to mean "not being able to see the pixels at a normal viewing distance".
It's not a fixed PPI, it's not even a real spec. It's just marketing bunk. People have already stated that displays are already very close to this "retina display" spec today, at normal viewing distances. Phones just happen to be closer to your face and thus require more PPI to fit in.
Wrong. It is a given that a 300 dpi display requires the switch from a resolution-dependent GUI to a resolution-independent GUI. Your post implies that you are aware of this, but you don't seem to be able to put everything together.
You are correct that the phrase retina display is Apple marketing speak. However, the phrase has centuries of empirical and theoretical optical physics to support it. Rather than trying to teach Bessel functions in its marketing presentations, Apple chose an easy to understand phrase that gets its message across.
Updated the image
I'm hoping this pic will make it clearer to understand. You'll see how current displays fit in roughly.
The key point here is that the current line of Macs, are already fairly close to this 'retina' resolution (resolution being the pixel density).
I'm hoping this pic will make it clearer to understand. You'll see how current displays fit in roughly.
The key point here is that the current line of Macs, are already fairly close to this 'retina' resolution (resolution being the pixel density).
Last edited:
There is absolutely no reason to believe this is true. With Core Image acceleration, there's no reason why even the low-end macbooks couldn't push a far more powerful display - after all, they can drive a 30" display. 2500x1600 might be all you need to get those near-invisible pixels onto a 13" screen or something similar. GPU power is not the problem, if they were able to get 960x540 completely responsive on a much, much less powerful machine. There might be a speed penalty, but the GPU is not the problem
This is the problem. But it's the problem now. I'm willing to bet that super high resolution screens will start becoming affordable in just a few years...just like 3D TVs will start becoming affordable in just a few years.
Because they're not on the widely available commercial market. But they certainly exist, if only in the labs (and I have good reason to believe that 4K screens and similar are used in the medical fields, high tech development, and other such specialized, super expensive needs).
Just give it some time. Given that has actually had a history of being mildly aggressive with new display technology, though by no means selling it cheaply, I would not be surprised if it was who started bringing us extra high resolution laptop and desktop IPS screens. Not saying they will, but they might.
I'm hoping this pic will make it clearer to understand, whipped it up quickly.
This chart is wrong. When an object's distance is HALVED or DOUBLED that objects height and width appear to DECREASE or INCREASE by a factor of 2, however the object's apparent area QUADRUPLES. A "retina resolution" at 2ft would be 300 / 4 = 75PPI.