Silly question about screen resolutions...

[Kal-037]

So here are the resolutions for the current Retina MacBooks and the Retina iMac. I'm wondering if these are the right (k) monikers for each display....

MacBook 12" 2304 x 1440 = (2k?)
MacBook Pro 13" 2560 x 1600 = (2k?)
MacBook Pro 15" 2880 x 1800 = (3k?)
iMac Retina 27" 5120 x 1880 = (5k)

Sorry this is a weird post, but I've been wondering about it for a few months (for no reason really.) But I am just curious to what is considered 2, 3, 4, or 5k. Do they round off the numbers, or if a display is 2560 x 1800 is it a 2k because it starts with a 2?



Kal.

 

[JTToft]

The iMac is 5120x2880.

For 2K, 4K and 5K, see these Wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5K_resolution

These generally follow the 16:9 aspect ratio common with film media, so describing the 16:10 MacBook or MacBook Pro with these names would be misleading.

3K isn't a standard resolution like the others and generally isn't used.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

It really isn't important

So here are the resolutions for the current Retina MacBooks and the Retina iMac. I'm wondering if these are the right (k) monikers for each display....

MacBook 12" 2304 x 1440 = (2k?)
MacBook Pro 13" 2560 x 1600 = (2k?)
MacBook Pro 15" 2880 x 1800 = (3k?)
iMac Retina 27" 5120 x 1880 = (5k)

Sorry this is a weird post, but I've been wondering about it for a few months (for no reason really.) But I am just curious to what is considered 2, 3, 4, or 5k. Do they round off the numbers, or if a display is 2560 x 1800 is it a 2k because it starts with a 2?



Kal.

What is important is screen quality and colour gamut.

The number of pixels is only important in context of screen size. The bigger the screen the more pixels you'll want to keep the sharpness. As a 50 inch TV with 4K screen looks amazing even up close all of apple products (air excepted) have fantastic pixel density.

 

[Kal-037]

Interesting, but where does that leave the 2880 x 1800? The 13" is 2k, but those links didn't mention 2880 x 1800... I'm just going to assume it's a 2.8k or 3k. jk... Thanks for the input.



Kal.

 

[JTToft]

Interesting, but where does that leave the 2880 x 1800? The 13" is 2k, but those links didn't mention 2880 x 1800... I'm just going to assume it's a 2.8k or 3k. jk... Thanks for the input.

- It leaves 2880x1800 nowhere. It doesn't have an xK name. And the 13" isn't 2K, either. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, 2K is 2048x1080.

 

[dmccloud]

Interesting, but where does that leave the 2880 x 1800? The 13" is 2k, but those links didn't mention 2880 x 1800... I'm just going to assume it's a 2.8k or 3k. jk... Thanks for the input.



Kal.

For monitor resolutions, 1024 pixels = 1K. So you'd have to have 4096 horizontal resolution for 4K, 5120 horizontal for 5K. There are no subpoints between 2k and 4k or between 4k and 5K, and as others have said, there is no 3k. The next step beyond 5k will be 8k (8392 x 4320)

 

[JTToft]

So you'd have to have 4196 horizontal resolution for 4K

- If you substitute a 0 for that 1, yes.

 

[dmccloud]

- If you substitute a 0 for that 1, yes.

Fixed - can't believe I didn't catch that when I posted...