Retina Display - total speculation

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by saxon48, Jul 10, 2010.

  1. saxon48 macrumors 6502a

    saxon48

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Location:
    Barad-dûr
    #1
    As indicated, this is pure speculation.

    Is there any sort of possibility/practicality of a desktop or notebook release in the future integrating an iP4-like Retina Display?
     
  2. ouimetnick macrumors 68020

    ouimetnick

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Location:
    Beverly, Massachusetts
    #2
    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.
     
  3. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #3
    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.
     
  4. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #4
    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.
     
  5. ouimetnick macrumors 68020

    ouimetnick

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Location:
    Beverly, Massachusetts
    #5
    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.
     
  6. saxon48 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    saxon48

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Location:
    Barad-dûr
    #6
    Yeah, I was expecting something in the neighborhood of at least a decade or so. Ah well... thanks for the input everyone! :cool:
     
  7. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #7
    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 :D
     
  8. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #8
    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.
     
  9. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #11
    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.
     
  12. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #12
    Hellhammer asked me the same:

    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. :)
     
  13. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #13
    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.
     
  14. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #14
    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.
     
  15. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #15
    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.
     
  16. ValSalva macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
    #16
    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.
     
  17. lewis82 macrumors 68000

    lewis82

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    #17
    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.
     
  18. KnightWRX macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #18
    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.
     
  19. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    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.
     
  20. sammich, Jul 11, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2012

    sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #20
    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).

    [​IMG]
     
  21. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #21
    ^^ nice work sammy. good to know, iPhone kicks a$$ for detail!
     
  22. TheStrudel macrumors 65816

    TheStrudel

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    #22
    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.
     
  23. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #23
    Interesting way of looking at it, but makes sense.

    Useful chart. Thanks.
     
  24. saxon48 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    saxon48

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Location:
    Barad-dûr
    #24
    A big thanks again to everyone for clarifying this issue for me. The chart was also a huge help too. :cool:
     
  25. matthewjacob macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page