Retina iMacs, double the display resolution ???

[Smartie]

smartie, where do you see 4k resolutions on that link?

I wrote it in the previous post. It is in the table for 32" in the "for LCD screens" row (3840 x 2180 is what is referred to as 4k resolution).

EDIT: actually 3840x2180 is QFHD which 4 1080p for TVs, sometimes referred to as 4k, but 4k can also be other resolutions so sorry if mixing things up for you.

Digital cinema standards
Standard Resolution DAR Pixels
Digital cinema 4K 4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544
Digital cinema 4K 3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360
Academy 4K 3656 × 2664 1.37:1 9,739,5840
Full Aperture 4K 4096 × 3112 1.32:1 12,746,752

 

[leman]

you can forget 4k resolutions

these are the displays going into macs
those are sample sizes...

The 3,840 x 2,160 is called a 4K resolution. If you even don't know that, why am I arguing with you? I mean, if you don't know the terms, your knowledge about the technology is clearly just what you read on MacRumors. Here is a tip: not everything they write is the absolute truth. There is nothing known about the price of these Sharp panels. 'Attractive price point' may well be 10000$, given the current prices of these things.

 

[beosound3200]

I wrote it in the previous post. It is in the table for 32" in the "for LCD screens" row (3840 x 2180 is what is referred to as 4k resolution).

EDIT: actually 3840x2180 is QFHD which 4 1080p for TVs, sometimes referred to as 4k, but 4k can also be other resolutions so sorry if mixing things up for you.

Digital cinema standards
Standard Resolution DAR Pixels
Digital cinema 4K 4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544
Digital cinema 4K 3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360
Academy 4K 3656 × 2664 1.37:1 9,739,5840
Full Aperture 4K 4096 × 3112 1.32:1 12,746,752

haha, weird nomenclature, kinda defeats the purpose of 4k, but look at 4g...

in any way, the highest resolution we can expect is 3840 x 2180.
the only debatable thing is if they will lower it for 27' or if it will stay the same but with higher dpi.

i strongly believe those displays are made for apple and are intentionally published with different sizes than apples computers so there still is the element of surprise. apple has a strong relationship with sharp (ipad 3 was a plan b, plan a was with sharp igzo) so i definitely believe we'll be seeing macbook pros and imacs with high resolution igzo displays on this year's wwdc. it makes me really happy, im waiting for imac 27'

there are a lot of clues pointing to that. new generation gpus supporting higher resolutions, ivy bridge gpu supporting higher resolution, rumors about antiglare and simmer imac, etc. i guess this year's wwdc will be spectacular, 'steve jobs' spectacular

----------

The 3,840 x 2,160 is called a 4K resolution. If you even don't know that, why am I arguing with you? I mean, if you don't know the terms, your knowledge about the technology is clearly just what you read on MacRumors. Here is a tip: not everything they write is the absolute truth. There is nothing known about the price of these Sharp panels. 'Attractive price point' may well be 10000$, given the current prices of these things.

leman, you are a lemon

if i knew everything, i wouldnt be here, would i?

 

[leman]

leman, you are a lemon

Still doen't change the fact that you are a troll...

 

[beosound3200]

Still doen't change the fact that you are a troll...

why am i a troll? because i dont know 4k resolution is below 4000?

 

[leman]

There's a wholly different reason that such high-resolution displays might be "pointless".

Imagine a 27" iMac display with twice the resolution as the current one. Would that render 12-point text 1/2 the size that it currently is? (assuming "native" resolution) Who's going to be able to read it, unless they double its size -- and (in effect) "reduce the resolution" of the entire screen by 1/2?

For older users in particular, this will create problems. Many have a difficult time reading standard-sized (i.e. 12 or 14 point) text at normal resolutions on current displays...

This is not how it is supposed to work. There is a reason why fonts are measured in points and not pixels. E.g. a 12pt font should be 1/6 inch high. The OS is supposed to take the PPI density of the monitor and render the font with an appropriate height. In the end, the 12pt font should have similar dimensions on any screen, independent of the resolution. Of course, some OSes take this more seriously and some less, unfortunately.

 

[leman]

why am i a troll? because i dont know 4k resolution is below 4000?

No, because you argue for something without any knowledge of the topic or rational analysis by simply repeating same highly speculative wishes and attacking everyone who tries to point out the flaws in your arguments.

Listen, it might very well be that Sharp has came up with a revolutionary new technology which allows them to create super high-res screens for a few bucks. And it might very well be that Apple include these wonder-displays in their next products. But: could we please do more than simply copy-paste some claims from some websites? Some sort of rational analysis? We only have a press release telling that Sharp starts production of a new 32" display. What makes you think that these displays will be as cheap as the current IPS displays? It might be aimed at the professional crowd and cost over 10000$. And why no rumors about panels for a 20"-something iMac?

Some food for thoughts: if I told you that the new iMac will come with 1TB super-fast SSD per default and cost the same as the current one would you instantly believe me or would you actually think that something like this is extremely unlikely given the history of the industry? I could post something like that on my blog (if I had one), would be interesting to know how soon it would reach MR fron page

 

[New Apple]

Hell what if mac pro is dead and theres an imac pro with retina and desktop gpu

My dream[/QUOTE]

not the dream for many ($)

 

[beosound3200]

No, because you argue for something without any knowledge of the topic or rational analysis by simply repeating same highly speculative wishes and attacking everyone who tries to point out the flaws in your arguments.

Listen, it might very well be that Sharp has came up with a revolutionary new technology which allows them to create super high-res screens for a few bucks. And it might very well be that Apple include these wonder-displays in their next products. But: could we please do more than simply copy-paste some claims from some websites? Some sort of rational analysis? We only have a press release telling that Sharp starts production of a new 32" display. What makes you think that these displays will be as cheap as the current IPS displays? It might be aimed at the professional crowd and cost over 10000$. And why no rumors about panels for a 20"-something iMac?

Some food for thoughts: if I told you that the new iMac will come with 1TB super-fast SSD per default and cost the same as the current one would you instantly believe me or would you actually think that something like this is extremely unlikely given the history of the industry? I could post something like that on my blog (if I had one), would be interesting to know how soon it would reach MR fron page

ok, i get you

first, i said 'forget 4k resolutions' because people tend to think retina means quadrupling resolutions, and that would mean resolutions north of 5000, thats insane and thats the only reason. why get mad at me?

second, why do you think it would be so widely marketed? how many times have you heard some manufacturer is beginning production of high-resolution displays? especially on macrumors? and they do exist, other than sharp.

third, pure logic and common sense tells me that retina displays in macbook pros are indeed igzo panels from sharp (sharp is mass-producing them, so no niche uses). and if they can get those screen in macbooks (bear in mind, notebooks components carry much higher cost) i see no reason they wouldnt put them in imac. thats what i thought yesterday, look at my posts. today when i saw a rumor regarding imac (from abc news, not digitimes) and remembering rumors about antiglare screen and new design, i was that much sure.

im sorry i didnt know 4k resolutions could be below 4k, its just common sense. i wrongly think other people use that too, but considering 4g debacle and now 4k (thousands) resolution are resolutions below 4000 verticaly or horizontaly, people often bend the rules. but its not important. what is important is that i posted a link from sharp website claiming the 38xx resolution, so we have a firm number you can call what you want.

and i still see no reason why did you get mad. i should have done my reading, but no reason to get mad