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?

Anybody want to buy a slightly used 2011 27" iMac?

I should be paid to be an analyst. I said this would happen months ago. The progression path should be obvious. It should also be obvious that Apple is not going to release Retina iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, and iMacs and then NOT release a Retina class iTV. Clearly they are going to produce a 4K TV... which I also said months ago. As if streaming TV channels will be the only differentiator.
 
dinjin201 said:
Perhaps they will begin to include dual graphics cards in the iMacs by default.... :D

Apple wouldn't ever let performance suffer. Look at how they handled the iPad. They literally quadrupled the graphics power to drive the retina display and achieve the same level of performance.
Click to expand...
I think Retina resolution is good for everyday desktop things where current performance is more than enough (i.e. browsing, office apps).

For everything performance sensitive (3D games, video), it's best to fall back to current non-Retina resolution for the next few years.
 
Mad Mac Maniac said:
I thought those were to be released in June?
Click to expand...

You may be right about June; I had in my mind late June / early July and not in line with the WWDC timelines.

----------
WhoDaKat said:
Anybody want to buy a slightly used 2011 27" iMac?

I should be paid to be an analyst. I said this would happen months ago. The progression path should be obvious. It should also be obvious that Apple is not going to release Retina iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, and iMacs and then NOT release a Retina class iTV. Clearly they are going to produce a 4K TV... which I also said months ago. As if streaming TV channels will be the only differentiator.
Click to expand...

Considering what's happening to the TV market they may not release a TV at all.
 
You know, seeing as I can't see the pixels from the distance I view my laptop, I don't see the big deal.

In fact, I could see where this might be a bad thing.

First of all part of the rumor on this thread is reducing workspace (so they can only double the resolution). That to me is a step backwards and make me not want the thing.

Second of all, it will hamper performance. Specially on something like the 13" MBP that doesn't even have a dedicated graphics card. Will suck for gamers.

Third, battery life will be affected.

So I can see a lot of negatives and really don't see a big positive there.
 
Lots of people on this post seem to be forgetting the definition of "retina". It's where the pixels are so small that the eye cannot distinguish the pixelation. So, in the case of iPhones, iPod Touches and iPads, which we tend to use quite close to our eyes, since these are handheld, there is a need for the pixels to be very small in order that you can't see them. But in the case of an iMac which sits on a desktop, and where the screens is, or should be a distance away from you, you don't need the same level of pixel density as in a new iPad (3) to achieve a retina effect for the user. The level of user-satisfaction is achieved when a retina-effect is achieved. Hence, it does not make sense for iMacs and notebook Macs to have exactly the same pixel density as iPads and iPhones simply because less density can still achieve a retina-effect for the user.
 
I don't think there's a graphics card in existence today that has the thermal properties that would make it a suitable candidate for an iMac with a 5120 X 2880 display. And the extra backlighting requirements of such a display would further strain the iMac's heat management.

Even a 3480 X 2400 display would require 2.3 times as much graphics processing power as the current iMacs. Actually, come to think of it, I doubt that 3480 X 2400 would even be an option, considering that this would have a significantly different aspect ratio from the current iMacs.

Of course, by Apple's definition, "Retina" resolution only requires that individual pixels are not visible from a distance at which a device is typically used. So, since an iMac will not be positioned 10 inches from your face, a 25% increase in pixel density would probably be sufficient for it to meet Apple's definition of "Retina".
 
Rocketman said:
I wonder if the next MacPro will have a display on its side and a projector making it effectively an all-in-one with integrated dual display technology? The cost would be trivial and the gee wiz factor would be notable. :D

Tell Apple I sent you.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

haha It's hard to envision that and not chuckle...

...and speaking of Mac Pro news, wtf Apple?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 27" won't go higher than 3840x2160

Let's think about it for a second. The vast majority of 27" displays sell to Macbook Pro users. If Apple were to offer a 27" with any higher resolution than 3840x2160 the ivy bridge macbook pro's wouldn't be able to use it - the GeForce GT 650M has a maximum resolution of 3840x2160, as does the intel HD4000 GPU.
 
fat phil said:
Not quite true. Fill rates and overdraw are massive drains on a GPU's performance, it doesn't matter if it's 2D or 3D. The desktop is still Quartz, which is OpenGL, which means lots of paged textures and LOTS of memory. It's not just games, it's every windowed application too, be it Mail or Final Cut X.

Apple haven't been too canny when it comes to video cards, if anything they're a bit predictably "safe". So I'm more curious to see what they've done to get around this if the new hardware really does support higher resolutions. Gone for top-end cards to match the old-world speeds? Because that really would attract gamers running at half-res, but with all that extra power. Not that I think that's going to happen though; it's far too unconservative.
Click to expand...

Ivy Bridge would in theory would assist the GPU in drawing these massive resolutions.

----------
agenda893 said:
Let's think about it for a second. The vast majority of 27" displays sell to Macbook Pro users. If Apple were to offer a 27" with any higher resolution than 3840x2160 the ivy bridge macbook pro's wouldn't be able to use it - the GeForce GT 650M has a maximum resolution of 3840x2160, as does the intel HD4000 GPU.
Click to expand...

This is obviously going to change, to meet new display resolutions.
 
tigress666 said:
You know, seeing as I can't see the pixels from the distance I view my laptop, I don't see the big deal.

In fact, I could see where this might be a bad thing.

First of all part of the rumor on this thread is reducing workspace (so they can only double the resolution). That to me is a step backwards and make me not want the thing.

Second of all, it will hamper performance. Specially on something like the 13" MBP that doesn't even have a dedicated graphics card. Will suck for gamers.

Third, battery life will be affected.

So I can see a lot of negatives and really don't see a big positive there.
Click to expand...

If you've read the Ivy bridge reviews, you'd know that ivy bridge could handle retina resolutions and brings about decent gaming performance for once.
 
Why pixel-doubled?

I don't understand why the article refers to quadrupling the number of pixels in order to make a "retina" Mac display. Unlike iPhone, iPods, and iPads, Macs are resolution-independent, so Apple can increase the resolution by just about any factor. What makes a high-resolution "retina" is the eye's inability to distinguish individual pixels, not whether the linear pixel densities are exactly doubled.

In fact, the high-res 15" and 17" MacBook Pros currently on the market, are already at or near Apple's "retina" specification: http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/
 
shurcooL said:
I think Retina resolution is good for everyday desktop things where current performance is more than enough (i.e. browsing, office apps).

For everything performance sensitive (3D games, video), it's best to fall back to current non-Retina resolution for the next few years.
Click to expand...

I guess that makes sense. and it wouldn't be so bad having 4 retina pixels act as one normal pixel for gaming. I would assume that AA would fix the blocky feel of it all...
 
MSean101 said:
I don't understand why the article refers to quadrupling the number of pixels in order to make a "retina" Mac display. Unlike iPhone, iPods, and iPads, Macs are resolution-independent, so Apple can increase the resolution by just about any factor. What makes a high-resolution "retina" is the eye's inability to distinguish individual pixels, not whether the linear pixel densities are exactly doubled.
Click to expand...

Sigh....

FTA
MacRumors said:
Consequently, some have suggested that Apple would increase display resolution on its Mac lines by a smaller amount than seen on iOS devices, with current variation in pixel density among Mac models already introducing some flexibility in interface element sizes. But with most Mac models offering pixel densities in the range of 100-130 pixels per inch (ppi), moving to a somewhat higher density such as 160-170 ppi to qualify as a Retina display still imposes some difficulties for developers and users.

While user interface elements do vary in physical size depending on the machine they are displayed on, they are designed to be usable in the typical range of 100-130 ppi. Moving to something in the range of 160-170 ppi, for example, could result in user interface elements becoming too small for users to click on with ease unless applications are specifically updated with new elements designed for that pixel density range. Otherwise, elements could be scaled to approximate the physical size seen on lower-resolution displays, but this scaling would undoubtedly degrade image quality.
Click to expand...

So you don't need to double, but it simplifies things even with resolution independence

But the article goes on the speculate this, which I find interesting
David Barnard has argued that Apple could still use the pixel doubling motif on larger Mac displays without necessarily having to quadruple the number of actual pixels if users would be willing to accept a smaller workspace than seen on current machines. In one example, Barnard describes how rather than moving the current 2560x1440 27-inch iMac all the way to 5120x2880, Apple could instead offer a display at 3840x2400 that would present itself with a Retina workspace of 1920x1200.
Click to expand...

So if Apple were to implement something like this, I assume that means everything would be slightly enlarged?
 
MSean101 said:
I don't understand why the article refers to quadrupling the number of pixels in order to make a "retina" Mac display. Unlike iPhone, iPods, and iPads, Macs are resolution-independent, so Apple can increase the resolution by just about any factor. What makes a high-resolution "retina" is the eye's inability to distinguish individual pixels, not whether the linear pixel densities are exactly doubled.

In fact, the high-res 15" and 17" MacBook Pros currently on the market, are already at or near Apple's "retina" specification: http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/
Click to expand...
The math in that article demonstrates that only a 25% increase in pixel density is required to make the current line of Macs' displays "Retina". That's less than a 12% increase in each dimension.
 
macduke said:
Hmmm.....if the Macbook Air gets retina, I might get the smallest and cheapest Macbook Air and a 27" iMac instead of a new 15" Macbook Pro.
Click to expand...

My working theory (NOT based on any rumours and definitely not based on any knowledge!) is that the MacBook Air won't go retina but will instead go to 1080p (or 1920x1200 if it retains the 16:10 ratio on the 13")

My reasons for this are:

1. With the MBP getting thinner and lighter, and losing the DVD drive, a difference in resolution is an easy-to-understand difference to justify the cost difference.

2. Yes the MBP will have a better processor, but it's damn confusing to keep track of things, especially trying to explain why a quad-core at a lower clock rate is better than a dual-core at a higher one.

3. With most Ultrabooks still at 1366 x 768 and a select few at 1600 x 900, 1080 or 1200p will still blow away the competition.

4. This allows for a refresh to Retina next year as costs decline.
 
beosound3200 said:
sharp produces high resolution igzo displays that will be used in imac in a couple of weeks (cost-effective)...
Click to expand...

Great link, shows me that it is easily possible for Apple to have purchased large quantities of these high resolution displays for consumer use. Maybe others will read it and stop saying it is such a ludicrous idea!
 
MSean101 said:
I don't understand why the article refers to quadrupling the number of pixels in order to make a "retina" Mac display.
Click to expand...

Because increasing the PPI in any way other than pixel doubling introduces a whole host of extra complications. The end goal for a retina display is to have a display with the *appearance* of a display with half the retina resolution, but with less pixelation of things like textual and UI elements. So - icons, text, graphics etc on a retina display will all have the same size as those on their non-retina counterpart, they will just suffer from much much less pixelation.

If you start messing around with other PPIs then the physical size of things on-screen would have to change - text and images get smaller, buttons beome harder to clikck, things become harder to read without devs and/or users messing around with a bunch of settings to try to restore some normality to the experience -which is not the intent at all with a retina display.

Pixel doubling is by far the most straightforward and least problem-inducing method of doing this.
 
Due to the high power consumption of retina displays, I find it more plausible to see iMac and Apple displays with high pixel densities than MacBooks Pros and MacBook Airs.
 
bloggerblog said:
Due to the high power consumption of retina displays, I find it more plausible to see iMac and Apple displays with high pixel densities than MacBooks Pros and MacBook Airs.
Click to expand...

Just as the new iPad has a much denser battery than previous models, I'm sure the same technology would be employed in any new notebook line. Plus there may be some space left for a larger battery with the removal of the optical drive, even after taking into account the rumoured shrinkage of the form factor.
 
younker said:
Anyone remembers that apple invested sharp 1 billion last year. Now we should know why.
http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/16/apple-may-invest-1-billion-in-sharp-for-ipad-and-iphone-displays/
Click to expand...

Interesting to note that Sharp took over the Pioneer KURO tech and after Pioneer shut down their Elite displays (were industry standard top of the line plasma's and still are if you can find one), Sharp is selling Elite plasma's and LED's. Surprised to learn this when I picked up my Samsung 55" LED 8000 this weekend as I thought Panasonic bought out Pioneer's tech.
 
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