retina iMac resolution

[IlikeMacsSoMuch]

Hi, I have a 2009 iMac 27 inches and the picture quality is amazing, the distance between the screen and my head must be about 3 feet.

If makes a retina display IMac, would it really be that different? I don't plan on upgrading my iMac ( just ordered a new cmbp) but I am curious what you people here think.

My son has an iPad 2 and I have an iPad retina display and I can honestly say that even tho there is a difference, it is not by that much.

Would the iMac be any different?

 

[simsaladimbamba]

Going by past iterations of Retina displays, the 27" iMac would get 5120 x 2880 pixel, which is quadrupling the current resolution.

If you look for it, you see the difference. If not, then probably not. It depends on what you are accustomed to and how good your eyes are from a health perspective and how well they are trained.

I edit video and when I started I couldn't see the difference between different compression ratios (subtle changes - bigger compression, less information, more artifacts). Now I can see them and loathe badly compressed video, especially with HD video.

 

[akatsuki]

I don't think that is right - you sit further away and iMac 27" is at 109ppi already and just needs a slight bump to hit a "retina" level.

I think it is around 130dpi.

 

[Stetrain]

I think that 5120x2880 would be a bit overkill. I think a 4K resolution might be more likely (3840x2160).

The default "Best for Retina" mode would make things the same size as 1080p, but of course you could also choose from one of the modes that gives you more workspace.

 

[theSeb]

I think that 5120x2880 would be a bit overkill. I think a 4K resolution might be more likely (3840x2160).

The default "Best for Retina" mode would make things the same size as 1080p, but of course you could also choose from one of the modes that gives you more workspace.

Your replies are far too sensible and have too much logic in them.