Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Retina Displays Also Coming to Next-Generation iMac?

I'm sure some of you guys don't really understand "Retina" displays.

If you consider iPad display to be "Retina display" then iMac 27'' is even higher quality. You see, at 30 degrees of horizontal viewing angle - iPad (3rd gen) has 68 pixels per degree. 27'' iMac has 85 pixels per degree.

Usually, at 100 pixels per degree human eye can't tell the difference between two pixels and sees them as one.

If you don't believe me - just say. I'll be more than happy to explain perfectly cleat math behind this.
 
far out... this thread is so full of fail, it's amazing. Even by macrumors standards... Anyone that doesn't want HiDPI displays has got rocks in their head. I think only gnasher729 understands the topic. Maybe one or two others; at most.
 
devman said:
Anyone that doesn't want HiDPI displays has got rocks in their head.
Click to expand...
devman said:
Maybe one or two others [understand the topic]; at most.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is just sad. People: go and read. Relation between optimum viewing distance (viewing angle: 20, 30, 40 degrees), display width, number of pixels and human eye. It may not be simple in the beginning, but once you get it - that's it.

If you cannot understand something - please ask instead of making assumptions based on bad math. I'll be happy to answer.
 
Randomoneh said:
I agree. It is just sad. People: go and read. Relation between optimum viewing distance (viewing angle: 20, 30, 40 degrees), display width, number of pixels and human eye. It may not be simple in the beginning, but once you get it - that's it.

If you cannot understand something - please ask instead of making assumptions based on bad math. I'll be happy to answer.
Click to expand...
Yes, the calculations do depend on your visual acuity and the distance to the screen, among other things. I think your calculations are using a larger distance to the screen than some other calculations that have shown that most current Macs are at 75% to 90% of the resolution required to be considered "Retina".
 
MacinDoc said:
Yes, the calculations do depend on your visual acuity and the distance to the screen, among other things. I think your calculations are using a larger distance to the screen than some other calculations that have shown that most current Macs are at 75% to 90% of the resolution required to be considered "Retina".
Click to expand...

I've read that article some time ago. Now, widely quoted figure is 100 pixels per degree of view. For me, that number is around 155 pixels per degree (you probably know you can test yourself easily on any display).

My calculations are using 30 degree viewing angle (using 40 degrees would be more future proof, but for now, let's make this happen first). 30 degrees viewing angle that I'm using (horizontal) is really somewhat a standard (check TV manufacturers recommendations, it's minumum 20, maximum 40 degrees).

So, let's say limit of my eye is 155 pixels per degree. In order for my TV (that is set that close/far that it occupies 30 degrees of my horizontal viewing angle) to be "Retina", it would need to have 155 pixels per one degree - 4650 horizontal resolution. If I want my TV to occupy 40 degrees (maximum), my TV should have horizontal resolution of 6200 pixels.

You can easily use this type of calculation (there are more calculations for some different things) for any Apple product - from iPhone to iMac or upcoming Apple TV.
 
kiljoy616 said:
All I can say is forget about any 1080p bull Apple TV if Apple finally brings out a TV its going to be 4K for sure and I am one who will be lining up to buy it, but what does that say about bluray movies on monitors like this?

----------



Even a ATI 6800 or 6900 hundred cards would have a hard time running something that high as there would be on the iMac with FPS unless Apple is coming up with some new idea of some monster cooling system for iMacs regular GPU will not be doing any real 3D gaming at that resolution.

But I would be all excited of seen 4K iTV for sure.:D
Click to expand...

Apple could put a http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/7870/Pages/radeon-7870.aspx in it.
 
I'm not surprised... why are you?

I really don't see this as a surprise. I'm kind of bewildered that so many people are acting surprised by this.

Don't you remember the 32inch and 37inch display rumors awhile ago that people were saying was a sign of Apple TV's? Don't you remember people saying how this wouldn't make for very impressive TVs?
I distinctly recall several people on this forum discussing the possibility that these were for new hiRes iMacs instead.
 
I work with graphics and video and it is utterly pointless, for me, to have pixels that are so closely spaced that I cannot differentiate them. Imagine I create something with elements that are a single pixel in width/height and now imagine that being displayed back on a "retina" display?
 
budgynana said:
I work with graphics and video and it is utterly pointless, for me, to have pixels that are so closely spaced that I cannot differentiate them. Imagine I create something with elements that are a single pixel in width/height and now imagine that being displayed back on a "retina" display?
Click to expand...

Interesting point, I had never thought of that issue. I wouldn't have the slightest idea how everything would need to be modified in order to rectify the issue.
 
Randomoneh said:
I've read that article some time ago. Now, widely quoted figure is 100 pixels per degree of view. For me, that number is around 155 pixels per degree (you probably know you can test yourself easily on any display).

My calculations are using 30 degree viewing angle (using 40 degrees would be more future proof, but for now, let's make this happen first). 30 degrees viewing angle that I'm using (horizontal) is really somewhat a standard (check TV manufacturers recommendations, it's minumum 20, maximum 40 degrees).

So, let's say limit of my eye is 155 pixels per degree. In order for my TV (that is set that close/far that it occupies 30 degrees of my horizontal viewing angle) to be "Retina", it would need to have 155 pixels per one degree - 4650 horizontal resolution. If I want my TV to occupy 40 degrees (maximum), my TV should have horizontal resolution of 6200 pixels.

You can easily use this type of calculation (there are more calculations for some different things) for any Apple product - from iPhone to iMac or upcoming Apple TV.
Click to expand...
Apple bases its "Retina" specs on the visual acuity of someone with 20/20 vision, which is where I believe they got the 100 pixels per degree assumption. I suspect yours is better than that. In fact, the iPhone 4S may not be "Retina" to you. In any case, I completely agree with your methods and calculations, which demonstrate the effect of assumptions such as visual acuity and viewing angle on the calculations.
 
My girlfriend has the most current 13 inch Macbook Pro and I have the most current iMac.

I can tell that the font and everything look like crap compared to mine...will the new iMac (if these resolutions are true) make my iMac look like crap now too?

I know the 13 inch MacBook Pro really needs an updated screen...but does;t the current iMac have a pretty good one right now?
 
budgynana said:
I work with graphics and video and it is utterly pointless, for me, to have pixels that are so closely spaced that I cannot differentiate them. Imagine I create something with elements that are a single pixel in width/height and now imagine that being displayed back on a "retina" display?
Click to expand...
You would still be able to see a single pixel. You just wouldn't be able to distinguish any space between two pixels; they would appear as a single enlarge pixel.

Of course, if you need to work with individual pixels, it's probably most practical to do so under magnification in any case, Retina display or not.
 
I can almost guarantee that the first iTV will be 1080p. 4k would be useless unless you were using it as a monitor. There isn't a single TV network in the world producing content beyond 1080p and also movie studios would be extremely reluctant to begin outputting 4k copies of movies for streaming (which would be huge file sizes) and probably cost a fortune.


kiljoy616 said:
All I can say is forget about any 1080p bull Apple TV if Apple finally brings out a TV its going to be 4K for sure and I am one who will be lining up to buy it, but what does that say about bluray movies on monitors like this?

----------



Even a ATI 6800 or 6900 hundred cards would have a hard time running something that high as there would be on the iMac with FPS unless Apple is coming up with some new idea of some monster cooling system for iMacs regular GPU will not be doing any real 3D gaming at that resolution.

But I would be all excited of seen 4K iTV for sure.:D
Click to expand...
 
seriall said:
Finally got updates on the imac!! and yet it is a little bit suprising to hear that retina also appear on imac. I don't quite believe this actually.
cause it make no sense to make a 27" inch monitor to a retina one. If this is so, all video quality will become very bad.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm typing on the 2011 27" iMac right now. The screen quality is super sharp. I honestly can't tell the pixels appart from each other. You know why? Because my face is further away from it than the 10-12 inches they suggest for viewing an iPhone or iPad.

Sure, it would be cool if they could do it, but I don't see that sort of thing being particularly practical. I think people need to realize that at some time or another, pixel density rates have to kind of plateau.
 
bungiefan89 said:
I agree. I'm typing on the 2011 27" iMac right now. The screen quality is super sharp. I honestly can't tell the pixels appart from each other. You know why? Because my face is further away from it than the 10-12 inches they suggest for viewing an iPhone or iPad.
Click to expand...

Could you please tell me how far away is your 27'' iMac from you (in inches)? It's for the science. :)
 
Double HD Resolution

The current 27" iMac runs at double 720p HD resolution, or Wide Quad High Definition (2560×1440).

The next 27" (or maybe even 32") iMac will run at double 1080p resolution, or 3840*2160.

That's well within the capabilities of the kind of graphics chip they could fit inside the iMac, especially if they go to 32". And manufacturers like Sharp have been showing off QFHD (Quad Full High Definition) for the past six months or so.
 
bungiefan89 said:
I agree. I'm typing on the 2011 27" iMac right now. The screen quality is super sharp. I honestly can't tell the pixels appart from each other. You know why? Because my face is further away from it than the 10-12 inches they suggest for viewing an iPhone or iPad.

Sure, it would be cool if they could do it, but I don't see that sort of thing being particularly practical. I think people need to realize that at some time or another, pixel density rates have to kind of plateau.
Click to expand...

+1. I'm on a 13" MBP right now which has a resolution of 1280x800 and it's the sharpest screen I've used on a laptop, I can't see the pixels at the normal viewing distance. My old 15.4" laptop had the same resolution, so having the same res on a slightly smaller screen makes it just that bit sharper. I doubt the retina displays will come to the mac any time soon, it would be pointless and have a heavy cost on battery life.
 
Drag'nGT said:
I heard the same thing when HD came out. How silly do those people feel now?

But this is exactly why I think it will be an option and not the standard display. Those that don't get it, need it, or want it; don't have to have it. But those of us who do use it and want the screen real-estate can have it as an option. I think your concept of the workspace gained from this kind of screen is a bit skewed. The words won't get smaller. It's like looking at the computers in the store. View a pic at full res on the 13", 15", 17", 21" and 27". Same rule applies to the working area of an app like Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture or Final Cut.
Click to expand...

I think you missed part of the article that said the workplace would get smaller (not as in text get smaller, as in you have less space on your monitor space to organize stuff) if htey decided to just double the resolution. That's what I was referring to there.

----------
Sgt. ButtKiss said:
Anyone who buys a 13" MBP for gaming is a wanker haha :D
Click to expand...

Well, because as is now it sucks. But maybe some of us want a portable computer when we are moving around, but we also connect it up and treat it like a desktop when we are at home (therefore have a much bigger screen).

Maybe you shouldn't be so closed minded to think people only want to use their computer like you do.
 
jerdo said:
I can almost guarantee that the first iTV will be 1080p. 4k would be useless unless you were using it as a monitor. There isn't a single TV network in the world producing content beyond 1080p and also movie studios would be extremely reluctant to begin outputting 4k copies of movies for streaming (which would be huge file sizes) and probably cost a fortune.
Click to expand...

4K acquisition is happening, it just won't be broadcast/streamed at that resolution for some time.
 
I think retina displays across the board is great. Now figure out how to make an iMac run cool enough to use a top end video card. That would be impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back