So where did you find this figure related to "retina resolution" as a function of distance? I must admit when I was at Apple store looking at the 2 screens side by side it was not easy to see a difference, but I may have been more than 32 inches away from screens.
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 iMac make sure you view it in person before buying!
- Thread starter qunit
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So where did you find this figure related to "retina resolution" as a function of distance? I must admit when I was at Apple store looking at the 2 screens side by side it was not easy to see a difference, but I may have been more than 32 inches away from screens.
The only rational way to test drive the riMac is to get to the retina distances; 16" and compare to 32" on an old iMac, respectively. Then shrink the dock until you can't see the ticks on the Safari icon, and try the same thing on the regular iMac. If you don't adjust the viewing distance, you aren't gonna see anything different. Ditto with the MBPs, iPads, iPhones, and HDTVs. Retina is all about viewing distance.
And I'd love to see a citation to the reviewers who said they need to have their noses to the screens. They'd have to be morons...maybe they thought it was a touch screen. You can find lots of resources online that explain the relation of pixels, screen size and viewing distances.
But I do agree it's also matter of taste. I couldn't even live with a non 2560x1440 screen. I don't wanna ever go back to non-retina mobile devices. And depending on what you use your Mac for, an old VGA could work for you. Some people can live without external speakers, or with simple stereo sound, or flip phones. That's great; saves them some money no doubt.
But if you want to give a modern screen a fair test, on any device, do it under the conditions for which it's designed.
And I'd love to see a citation to the reviewers who said they need to have their noses to the screens. They'd have to be morons...maybe they thought it was a touch screen. You can find lots of resources online that explain the relation of pixels, screen size and viewing distances.
But I do agree it's also matter of taste. I couldn't even live with a non 2560x1440 screen. I don't wanna ever go back to non-retina mobile devices. And depending on what you use your Mac for, an old VGA could work for you. Some people can live without external speakers, or with simple stereo sound, or flip phones. That's great; saves them some money no doubt.
But if you want to give a modern screen a fair test, on any device, do it under the conditions for which it's designed.
Well I thought the quip another customer made in store summed it up perfectly for me - he simply said this is 'the Emperors New Clothes' all over again.
If people are convinced they can see an appreciable difference then fine spend the extra cash. As I've said before eyesight is unique to the individual.
Even if it was a no cost option it really wouldn't bother me which model Apple dispatched. The standard screen blows me away as it is.
It sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself you don't need a riMac. Maybe you can't afford one? I never said the normal iMac isn't great, I love mine. However, the retina screen does offer an obvious improvement. Whether or not you think you need it, that's an individual choice. I'm very happy that Apple gives us a choice. I'm gonna stick with my late 2012 a bit longer, because I like to game regularly, and I'm not convinced just yet that the riMac is a viable machine for gaming...
Cost doesn't come into it - if it really moved the user experience forward in a measurable and appreciable way then I would definitely consider one. I tend to use that criteria for most of my purchases.
However, despite all the fanfare a few weeks ago I don't believe 2014 has been a great year for Apple upgrades.
I expect 2015 to be better when the new chips should finally be with us along with better graphics. I think this current 5K r-iMac is driving the hardware on the limit of present capabilities.
Let the early adopters pay for the latest and greatest - I'll wait and see.
I checked one out at the Apple Store on Sunday and clearly saw the sharpness and detail in the monitor. I asked my wife who wouldn't normally have an eye for such things if she noticed anything...she noticed the clarity in the monitor and sharpness.
It's a beautiful monitor. Well done on that front.
It's a beautiful monitor. Well done on that front.
Some of the anecdotes here related to issues about screen refresh, dropping frames, etc etc. If you want some hard evidence that the refresh rate is indeed 60Hz see:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/11/yes-the-5k-retina-imacs-screen-runs-at-60hz-at-5k-resolution/
And read the author's comments about the comparison with the old iMac that sat nearby. I had the same experience.
As you work with the riMac you start to notice stuff. Like how you can make out what a picture looks like even with tiny icons. For example at 20x20 I can see the lines of text on a txt file on the riMac; when I move it to the 2560x1440 display the text is replaced in the icon by a tiny Textmate icon. That in itself is so what, but move up a bit in size and the icon view becomes MUCH more useful. I rarely used it on my regular iMac; if I blew the icons up, there were too few visible in the window to be useful. Now I can cull PDFs and image files at half the size, with enough visible in a window to be useful.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/11/yes-the-5k-retina-imacs-screen-runs-at-60hz-at-5k-resolution/
And read the author's comments about the comparison with the old iMac that sat nearby. I had the same experience.
As you work with the riMac you start to notice stuff. Like how you can make out what a picture looks like even with tiny icons. For example at 20x20 I can see the lines of text on a txt file on the riMac; when I move it to the 2560x1440 display the text is replaced in the icon by a tiny Textmate icon. That in itself is so what, but move up a bit in size and the icon view becomes MUCH more useful. I rarely used it on my regular iMac; if I blew the icons up, there were too few visible in the window to be useful. Now I can cull PDFs and image files at half the size, with enough visible in a window to be useful.
I get such a kick out of these threads. There are several after EVERY Mac/iPhone/iPad update, usually titled "What's the big deal?" "Not worth it, save your money" "Apple is (again) trying to steal your money"... etc. etc.
Seriously, somebody -can't- see a difference with 4x the resolution? I'd say they need some serious vision correction. Either that, or they work for HP or Dell as member of their "Disinformation Department".
Those of us who took this plunge are laughing as some of these desperate "justifications not to buy". "Can't see much difference" is the granddaddy of them all. My advice to those who feel the need to post this nonsense: smarten up. Blast the new iMacs for the marginal bump in CPU/GPU specs. That's a reasonable criticism. Saying things like "can't see much difference" just makes you look silly.
Seriously, somebody -can't- see a difference with 4x the resolution? I'd say they need some serious vision correction. Either that, or they work for HP or Dell as member of their "Disinformation Department".
Those of us who took this plunge are laughing as some of these desperate "justifications not to buy". "Can't see much difference" is the granddaddy of them all. My advice to those who feel the need to post this nonsense: smarten up. Blast the new iMacs for the marginal bump in CPU/GPU specs. That's a reasonable criticism. Saying things like "can't see much difference" just makes you look silly.
How old are you, not very old I'd wager from such immature postings. Did you not read what I wrote earlier about vision being unique to each individual? We all see the world uniquely. Have you read about or even heard the word acuity?
Go and read, do some growing up then come back and tell us all what you have learned. #
... and look who it is calling people names.
Look, vision is different. But if you can't tell the difference between the old iMac and RiMac, you are either legally blind or brain dead. Either way, you have my pity.
I am curious though. Are you getting paid by Dell, or Lenovo or HP? Or do you enjoy making a public fool of yourself? On the dole and can't afford a new iMac, so you dump on those who can? No point in further embarrassing yourself though. By my count, 90% of the posts in your little hit-thread disagree with you. Flame on, because I am done here.
Last edited:
I've yet to see one of these in person but I wouldn't buy the 5k iMac till they go with a beefier video card, that's just me. I would be curious what the mobile SLI cards would have done far as performance, I don't game much but I do like playing Diablo 3 here and there (and a few other games). I'm sure the 295 would SCREAM in the 2.56k iMac but I doubt we will see that till next year.
With the latest trend from the Mac Pro and now 5k iMac, I think it's safe to say
is going to use AMD Radeon in the next Retina 15" MacBook Pro high end version. If I'm not mistaken the M290X/M295X can be ran in SLI mode (if manufacturer put 2 of them in there), I wonder why Apple decided to not offer a high end SLI version since this has a beast of a screen, maybe it would royally piss off the Mac Pro buyers?
With the latest trend from the Mac Pro and now 5k iMac, I think it's safe to say
is going to use AMD Radeon in the next Retina 15" MacBook Pro high end version. If I'm not mistaken the M290X/M295X can be ran in SLI mode (if manufacturer put 2 of them in there), I wonder why Apple decided to not offer a high end SLI version since this has a beast of a screen, maybe it would royally piss off the Mac Pro buyers?I'm beating a dead horse here, because most of us see the profound difference with 5k. This is a great comparison where you can toggle on/off retina resolution:
http://diglloyd.com/retinapref.html
Of course, you would need a retina display to see the difference. If you are still in doubt, go to an Apple store and load up this web page. Hit <cmd>+ to zoom in a bit, and then toggle away.
http://diglloyd.com/retinapref.html
Of course, you would need a retina display to see the difference. If you are still in doubt, go to an Apple store and load up this web page. Hit <cmd>+ to zoom in a bit, and then toggle away.
I finally got to see one this week, and you're right, the retina experience isn't as drastic of a difference as it was with the rMBP. I remember seeing the MacBook and it was definately a "wow". The iMac looks good, but the screen doesn't look all that much better than a current 1440p. It even seemed more reflective to me, but that could have been the lights in the store. If you have a 2011 or older the riMac is definately the one to buy. But with the minimal hardware upgrades, I can't see a reason to upgrade from a 2012/2013 iMac. Unless of course you just have to buy the newest (not judging, and I totally understand
)
Once you go Retina there is no going back. People here are saying the difference isn't big by just looking at the two screens for a couple of minutes. Work a couple of days with a Retina iMac and then tell me if you still feel the same.
Everything is sharp, very sharp. The difference is the same as when going from a MBP to a rMBP. People are just getting used to it and don't get so excited. This display is the best I have ever seen and I love it. The best computer I ever owned.
Everything is sharp, very sharp. The difference is the same as when going from a MBP to a rMBP. People are just getting used to it and don't get so excited. This display is the best I have ever seen and I love it. The best computer I ever owned.
I have a late 2009 27 inch iMac obviously with a non-retina screen and just sis this. There was a discernible difference in sharpness (better) when toggling to the "retina" setting and according to the website the retina image should have looked worse on a non-retina screen. So I'm not quite sure about what this shows (maybe it is even better on the retina screen).
As mentioned in my post, you need a RiMac to see the difference. When you toggle the images, it switches to a higher resolution version that can only be fully displayed on a higher resolution monitor.
Wow!
I went with a friend a few weeks back to return a modem he bough by mistake to Best Buy. I went over to the computer section and saw the iMac's. They had a retina iMac sitting there. I looked at it, went to a few websites and was immediately blown away by how good text and images looked on that screen. I left the store thinking I want one of those. I went to the Apple store on Halloween and saw it again and was still impressed, I went to the opposite side of the table and saw the 1440 res iMac and while nice the difference between the two in resolution was very noticeable. If I was going to buy an iMac that night after looking at the two, it was going to be the Retina.
I hadn't had any inkling to get a 5k iMac nor did the news of a 5K iMac interest me into rushing out to buy one but seeing this bad boy in person sure did. Of course I did what the thread topic suggested. When you make the purchase you should be doing it for the screen, if you expect something more than just the resolution to be something special, you'll be in for a disappointment. The price is great just for the fact it's a 27" 5K display with a built in computer. Dell's will be the same price but without a pc to use the thing on. I upped the ram to 24 gb's and have no regrets on my purchase.
I went with a friend a few weeks back to return a modem he bough by mistake to Best Buy. I went over to the computer section and saw the iMac's. They had a retina iMac sitting there. I looked at it, went to a few websites and was immediately blown away by how good text and images looked on that screen. I left the store thinking I want one of those. I went to the Apple store on Halloween and saw it again and was still impressed, I went to the opposite side of the table and saw the 1440 res iMac and while nice the difference between the two in resolution was very noticeable. If I was going to buy an iMac that night after looking at the two, it was going to be the Retina.
I hadn't had any inkling to get a 5k iMac nor did the news of a 5K iMac interest me into rushing out to buy one but seeing this bad boy in person sure did. Of course I did what the thread topic suggested. When you make the purchase you should be doing it for the screen, if you expect something more than just the resolution to be something special, you'll be in for a disappointment. The price is great just for the fact it's a 27" 5K display with a built in computer. Dell's will be the same price but without a pc to use the thing on. I upped the ram to 24 gb's and have no regrets on my purchase.
That's my point. I should not have been able to see a difference. In fact the website says that viewing the higher resolution image on a non-retina screen should look worse than the standard resolution image. But that's not what happened. The retina image was clearly sharper, even on my non-retina display. It makes me question the validity of what they are doing.
The difference you are seeing is the result of different scaling algorithms. The non-retina was scaled in an image editing application while the retina image is scaled down by the web browser. That's why they won't look identical.
Generally the browser will not do as good of a job scaling the image down since it will focus on speed, but the results may vary.
Thanks. I have every intention of comparing the models myself in person in any event.
At the end of the day I have been using MS Office since Windows 3.1. For letters and reports they looked good then and on my mid-2011 iMac they still look good now.
I don't do any video editing and only take family snaps which I rarely re-tweak. I don't use my computer for watching films or TV. That just leaves web browsing and emails.
There is no way on earth I would pay any extra for the above, the benefits would be minimal. Even if it was a no cost option I would not be fussed if I had one or not. For me this is a case of 'The Emperors New Clothes'. Remember all the hype over 3D, where is it now?
I get it I really do. You have spent/spending the cash you want to justify your purchase.
I have far more going on in my life than the amount of pixels on a screen. I am of an age where I can remember monochrome TV so I'm sure some of you older ones will know where I'm coming from.
I don't embrace things like Twitter or Facebook, I have a 'real' circle of friends. I'm more interested in my current project of restoring my classic motorcycle, my collection of orchids or landscaping my garden.
Life is all about perspective and making an image on the screen marginally sharper really doesn't do it for me.
I don't do any video editing and only take family snaps which I rarely re-tweak. I don't use my computer for watching films or TV. That just leaves web browsing and emails.
There is no way on earth I would pay any extra for the above, the benefits would be minimal. Even if it was a no cost option I would not be fussed if I had one or not. For me this is a case of 'The Emperors New Clothes'. Remember all the hype over 3D, where is it now?
I get it I really do. You have spent/spending the cash you want to justify your purchase.
I have far more going on in my life than the amount of pixels on a screen. I am of an age where I can remember monochrome TV so I'm sure some of you older ones will know where I'm coming from.
I don't embrace things like Twitter or Facebook, I have a 'real' circle of friends. I'm more interested in my current project of restoring my classic motorcycle, my collection of orchids or landscaping my garden.
Life is all about perspective and making an image on the screen marginally sharper really doesn't do it for me.
Last edited:
I looked at the two models side by side in the Apple Store yesterday. To be absolutely honest (I wanted there to be no difference as I have just ordered a non retina 27" from my workplace salary maxing scheme - no retina models available) the difference was obvious to me. Close up the difference is really quite profound (to my eyes), standing working distance away the difference is less obvious. For what I do (and the really quite massive saving I'm making!) I can live with the non-retina screen.
What interested me is that the first Apple Store employee I talked to did not know that the models we were looking at were retina and non-retina. She spent ages showing me the two were the same by bringing up identical images - when I could clearly see a difference. She told me non retina 27" have been discontinued, something I clearly am aware is not the case!
Quite apart from the fact that an Apple Store employee is fundamentally misinformed about one of their main products (I did eventually talk to two other employees who did know what was going on) it seems that, for some people, if you don't KNOW there's a difference you can't actually see it!
What interested me is that the first Apple Store employee I talked to did not know that the models we were looking at were retina and non-retina. She spent ages showing me the two were the same by bringing up identical images - when I could clearly see a difference. She told me non retina 27" have been discontinued, something I clearly am aware is not the case!
Quite apart from the fact that an Apple Store employee is fundamentally misinformed about one of their main products (I did eventually talk to two other employees who did know what was going on) it seems that, for some people, if you don't KNOW there's a difference you can't actually see it!