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 iMacs
- Thread starter necromorph
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Based on the price leaks, I'm going to say no. The high-end 15 inch MBP saw a significant price raise (can't be assed pulling up the spreadsheet, but wasn't it by $500?). I can see that being retina. But the high-end iMac only saw a raise of $200. For a bigger screen I'd expect the raise to be higher than that of a retina MBP. I'm hoping for a slight res bump, but nothing like the 2x res jump some people have been touting.
All speculation of course, but I'm on the negative.
(please prove me wrong Apple)
All speculation of course, but I'm on the negative.
(please prove me wrong Apple)
I vote no
FWIW,
Higher Rez LCD's are one thing, posters keeping referring to 'RETINA", a marketing ploy by Apple that just means higher resolution LCD panels - be these 4in, 8in, 10in, 11in, 13in on 15in - could Apple actually state clearly how many Pixels per square inch, regardless of how far away you are from the screen, constitutes RETINA - basically its all over the show.
Hence could we refer to higher pixel density per square inch or square centimetre, which effectively means that for this incarnation of the iMac given price associated with higher pixel count density means RENINA is a no go - of course unless its a BTO option for an additional say US$800, in which case its a maybe for those mad enough to pay for marketing hype at this stage in the game.
FWIW,
Higher Rez LCD's are one thing, posters keeping referring to 'RETINA", a marketing ploy by Apple that just means higher resolution LCD panels - be these 4in, 8in, 10in, 11in, 13in on 15in - could Apple actually state clearly how many Pixels per square inch, regardless of how far away you are from the screen, constitutes RETINA - basically its all over the show.
Hence could we refer to higher pixel density per square inch or square centimetre, which effectively means that for this incarnation of the iMac given price associated with higher pixel count density means RENINA is a no go - of course unless its a BTO option for an additional say US$800, in which case its a maybe for those mad enough to pay for marketing hype at this stage in the game.
Basically, for Apple it's angular resolution of 60 pixels per degree at normal viewing distance. Farther you are, angular resolution of display is higher. For iPhone at 12'', angular resolution is 69 pixels per degree.
At normal contrast levels, humans have angular resolution of anywhere up to 120 pixels per degree. However, it's worth to note that according to Japanese NHK study, average people were able to detect difference in quality of images up to even 310 pixels per degree!
It's not really "retinal technology".
Last edited:
I think it all depends on what you class as retina, a lot constitutes, but i doubt i if you mean 2x the resolution, I don't think it's practical, or necessary, but i think that it could be a BTO option, but at a high cost.