Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

SOME reviewers are saying the new iMac screen has the appearance of retina.....?

I

iFanboy

Guest
Does anyone have any information on the new iMac screen, such as the ppi compared to the iPhone, iPad and Retina Macbook Pro etc...

I know it's not retina, but some reviewers are saying that it looks almost that good to them, so I'd be interested in some figures to compare to see how close it comes :)
 
Probably commenting on the new laminated display tech. It brings the pixels right up to the glass and really makes things pop.

My guess is 2014 for Retina iMacs.
 
iPhone: 326ppi
iPad Retina: 264ppi
13" Retina MBP: 226ppi

21.5" iMac: 102ppi
27" iMac: 109ppi

So as far as pixel density goes they're pretty far off, but they're also much larger displays. I think that the high display quality (IPS) combined with the new thinner glass and lamination technique are probably what was impressing the reviewers.
 
Stetrain said:
iPhone: 326ppi
iPad Retina: 264ppi
13" Retina MBP: 226ppi

21.5" iMac: 102ppi
27" iMac: 109ppi

So as far as pixel density goes they're pretty far off, but they're also much larger displays. I think that the high display quality (IPS) combined with the new thinner glass and lamination technique are probably what was impressing the reviewers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Shame that it's that far off. From the reviews saying that it LOOKED "close" to retina I got my hopes up :(
 
During his presentation, Phil said that the image appears to be right on the surface of the glass. With thinner glass and no air gap the image would be subject to less deterioration from refraction, compared to the air gap and thicker glass of the previous iMacs. This would give the image more "pop".
 
Keep in mind average viewing distance for an iMac is like 4x the distance as an iPhone too, so there's a retina element in there as well. For what it's worth, I'm hard pressed to see pixels when I view my iMac.
 
Stetrain said:
iPhone: 326ppi
iPad Retina: 264ppi
13" Retina MBP: 226ppi

21.5" iMac: 102ppi
27" iMac: 109ppi

So as far as pixel density goes they're pretty far off, but they're also much larger displays. I think that the high display quality (IPS) combined with the new thinner glass and lamination technique are probably what was impressing the reviewers.
Click to expand...

Are we sure that's the ppi for the 2012 iMacs? I have not seen that published anywhere yet.

The guy from the verge mentioned "pixel doubled screen" during his "hands on", but have not heard anything like that from anyone else.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3544356/apples-new-imac-first-hands-on
 
dwarnecke11 said:
Probably commenting on the new laminated display tech. It brings the pixels right up to the glass and really makes things pop.

My guess is 2014 for Retina iMacs.
Click to expand...

I wonder if its worth waiting for the retina display or just getting this one if it resembles a retina display. I know my macbook retina looks killer on wallpaper and text i am dying to see this thing in the shop before i buy.
 
TMRaven said:
Keep in mind average viewing distance for an iMac is like 4x the distance as an iPhone too, so there's a retina element in there as well. For what it's worth, I'm hard pressed to see pixels when I view my iMac.
Click to expand...

yeah.. i have heard that some where around these forums that 175 ppi would be retina at desktop viewing distances... sounds plausible if the rMBP 13" is only 226ppi... a 13 inch laptop should be much closer than a 27" desktop screen...

any one think that we will see a december launch of a laminated TB screen to match the iMac... i think that is one thing that would be cool... a 27 inch iMac with in a dual screen setup with a matching TB cinema display....

when the iMac goes retina, you know the Cinema Display will too..
 
mrmarts said:
I wonder if its worth waiting for the retina display or just getting this one if it resembles a retina display. I know my macbook retina looks killer on wallpaper and text i am dying to see this thing in the shop before i buy.
Click to expand...

My predicament also.

If in the flesh the 27" IPS display looks that good, and from the usual iMac viewing distance "pretty close to retina", then I'm tempted to take the plunge and buy it.
 
jedolley said:
Are we sure that's the ppi for the 2012 iMacs? I have not seen that published anywhere yet.

The guy from the verge mentioned "pixel doubled screen" during his "hands on", but have not heard anything like that from anyone else.
Click to expand...

The screen sizes and resolutions are the same as the 2011 models:

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/

I think that the guy from The Verge was just talking about the scaled resolution settings in the display preferences.
 
Stetrain said:
iPhone: 326ppi
iPad Retina: 264ppi
13" Retina MBP: 226ppi

21.5" iMac: 102ppi
27" iMac: 109ppi

So as far as pixel density goes they're pretty far off, but they're also much larger displays. I think that the high display quality (IPS) combined with the new thinner glass and lamination technique are probably what was impressing the reviewers.
Click to expand...
How far do you sit from a 27" screen

How far do you sit from a 13" screen

How far do you sit from a 4" screen.

YEP
 
NewbieCanada said:
Same size screen and same resolution as 2011 equals same ppi. No way around it.
Click to expand...

But why would the thinner glass and no air gap manufacturing process improve screen quality to the point where SOME reviewers are saying it looks close to retina?

Surely there must be other improvements to the 2011 screens? :confused:
 
btw is this a 21" model ? bit tricky to tell

2012-10-23imac-4_verge_super_wide.jpg
 
iFanboy said:
But why would the thinner glass and no air gap manufacturing process improve screen quality to the point where SOME reviewers are saying it looks close to retina?

Surely there must be other improvements to the 2011 screens? :confused:
Click to expand...

There just talking about how the screen is constructed. It is similar as the retina screens. Also i have never said anyone say its retina quality. There just talking about the bonding process and how its constructed.

However if the screen is closer. Things do pop more. If there are other improvements? sure reduced glare, and maybe better colour reproduction, but we cant know that, yet.

----------
jedolley said:
Are we sure that's the ppi for the 2012 iMacs? I have not seen that published anywhere yet.

The guy from the verge mentioned "pixel doubled screen" during his "hands on", but have not heard anything like that from anyone else.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3544356/apples-new-imac-first-hands-on
Click to expand...

Dunno if that guy know what his talking about

"effective resolution 1920x1080" not for the 27"....

And why would we do pixle doubling on a 27" screen. If you guys know what pixle doubling means from the retina mbp.

It means you get 2880x1800 resolution
But the desktop space is just 1440x900. So you dont get more room, just clearer details.

If this would happen to the imac we would get

2560x1440 resolution
but only a working desktop space of 1280x720.

Dunno if people understand what i mean, but thats how pixle doubling works. And that guy really is saying all kinds of wrong things.
 
iFanboy said:
But why would the thinner glass and no air gap manufacturing process improve screen quality to the point where SOME reviewers are saying it looks close to retina?

Surely there must be other improvements to the 2011 screens? :confused:
Click to expand...

Because the current iMacs already look close to Retina?
 
Jinzen said:
Because the current iMacs already look close to Retina?
Click to expand...
I hate how Retina has now become a term of quality.

When its not that at all. Shrugh

My iPad isnt retina if i hold as close as my iPhone.
My TV is Retina if i walk 15 meters away from it.

And to answer your question. No the current iMAc doesnt look close to Retina when we talk about PPI. At the given distance from desk to screen.
And no there is almost nothing similiar to the bonding process and how the display is layered compared to lets say and iPad.

However with the new iMac they use the same techniques used to make/bond the screens on the iPad. That doesnt mean its a retina screen (pixel wise). That just means it uses the same type of tecnology to house the LCD etc etc.

People must not get those wrong.

Also if u listen closely to the verge video: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3544356/apples-new-imac-first-hands-on

He cleary says the same tequnices. That means engineering wise. How the screen is housed, and how close the screen is to the display etc. But again, that doesnt make it retina. That requires a hell of alot more resolution. A resolution current gpus wouldnt be able to run without having lag issues.
 
Last edited:
henrikrox said:
There just talking about how the screen is constructed. It is similar as the retina screens. Also i have never said anyone say its retina quality. There just talking about the bonding process and how its constructed.

However if the screen is closer. Things do pop more. If there are other improvements? sure reduced glare, and maybe better colour reproduction, but we cant know that, yet.

----------



Dunno if that guy know what his talking about

"effective resolution 1920x1080" not for the 27"....

And why would we do pixle doubling on a 27" screen. If you guys know what pixle doubling means from the retina mbp.

It means you get 2880x1800 resolution
But the desktop space is just 1440x900. So you dont get more room, just clearer details.

If this would happen to the imac we would get

2560x1440 resolution
but only a working desktop space of 1280x720.

Dunno if people understand what i mean, but thats how pixle doubling works. And that guy really is saying all kinds of wrong things.
Click to expand...

I get what you mean, but when he said "pixel doubling" I assumed it to meant that it would be at it's native resolution with twice the pixels. I look at the rMBP like this... It's native resolution is 1440x900 with 4x the pixels. If you up the resolution 2880x1800, you have more "real estate", but you lose the "retina" effect.

----------
henrikrox said:
I hate how Retina has now become a term of quality.

When its not that at all. Shrugh

My iPad isnt retina if i hold as close as my iPhone.
My TV is Retina if i walk 15 meters away from it.

And to answer your question. No the current iMAc doesnt look close to Retina when we talk about PPI. At the given distance from desk to screen.
And no there is almost nothing similiar to the bonding process and how the display is layered compared to lets say and iPad.

However with the new iMac they use the same techniques used to make/bond the screens on the iPad. That doesnt mean its a retina screen (pixel wise). That just means it uses the same type of tecnology to house the LCD etc etc.

People must not get those wrong.

Also if u listen closely to the verge video: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3544356/apples-new-imac-first-hands-on

He cleary says the same tequnices. That means engineering wise. How the screen is housed, and how close the screen is to the display etc. But again, that doesnt make it retina. That requires a hell of alot more resolution. A resolution current gpus wouldnt be able to run without having lag issues.
Click to expand...

He also mentions right after that about the pixel doubling which has absolutely nothing to due with the bonded glass.

Don't get me wrong, he could be completely wrong about his statement, my only point was that he said it and "if" it were true then it would not be quite "retina", but it would be better than current gen iMac.
 
iFanboy said:
But why would the thinner glass and no air gap manufacturing process improve screen quality to the point where SOME reviewers are saying it looks close to retina?

Surely there must be other improvements to the 2011 screens? :confused:
Click to expand...

They're saying "it looks good."

PPI is a mathamatical formula. Same size screen and same resolution will always yield the same ppi (assuming different scaling isn't used.) Has nothing to do if with it being a good screen or a poor screen or excellent screen.
 
Just a quick question is the iMacs screen flat like the current model or is it bubbled slightly, i saw a video somewhere on my travels on the net and it looks round from the side am i right or wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back