What is the difference of apple retina display vs apple cinema display?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by nec207, May 15, 2012.

  1. nec207 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    #1
    I know you can get the apple cinema display or the high end iMacs have cinema display but what would be difference of apple retina display than say apple cinema display?

    I hear all the Macbook pros , iMac and macbook air are going to be retina display .
     
  2. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #2
    A retina display has quadruple the resolution.
    Say the current 17" MBP has 1920 x 1200 pixel, the new 17" MBP would have 3840 x 2400 pixel.
    Just look at the iPhone and iPad and what Retina meant there. But then again, Community Discussion would have one thread less because of you, since this seems to be the sub-forum you mostly frequent, even if there are ones suited better for your "questions".

    [​IMG]
     
  3. nec207 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    #3
    Okay you forgot these.

    21.5-inch iMac

    ■21.5-inch (viewable) LED-backlit glossy widescreen TFT display with support for millions of colors
    ■Resolution: 1920x1080 pixels


    27-inch iMac
    ■27-inch (viewable) LED-backlit glossy widescreen TFT display with support for millions of colors
    ■Resolution: 2560x1440 pixels

    http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac/select

    And this .


    With built-in Thunderbolt technology — the fastest, most flexible I/O ever — the new Apple Thunderbolt Display can do things other displays simply can’t. Of course, it delivers a brilliant viewing experience. But connect it to any Thunderbolt-enabled Mac and it becomes a plug-and-play hub for everything you do. Features include a high-resolution 2560-by-1440 LED-backlit display

    http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC914LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ


    Apple LED Cinema Display (27" flat panel)

    Connect the 27-inch Apple LED Cinema Display to your Mac and supersize your view with an incredible 2560-by-1440 resolution, LED backlighting for instant-on brightness, and an amazing 178-degree viewing angle. The LED Cinema Display features a universal MagSafe

    http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC007LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ

    Not sure what these would be if they where retina display .
     
  4. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #4
    No, I didn't, since that graphic is over two months old, made for one of the previous of dozens of threads about the exact same issue.

    Math could help here.
    Just multiply each side (horizontal and vertical side) by two (thus the resolution is quadrupled) of the Macs you listed in your second post and get to the final resolution.

    Example: 15" MBP with 1440 x 900 pixel > RETINAlisation > 2880 x 1800 pixel on the 15" MBP with standard Retina display.
     
  5. nec207 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    #5


    Than if you do that a 27-inch iMac or Apple LED Cinema Display (27" flat panel) 2560x1440 pixels should be 5120 X 2880
     
  6. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #6
    Correct. That would be a massive panel, even quite expensive and a lot of work for the GPU. If the rumours are true, and the iMac gets Retina displays, maybe it is not the same as with the iPad and iPhone, since you sit farther away from them. But then again, we will see in a month or two. Or not.
     
  7. GavWhite macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    #7
    Yeah, "Retina Display" was never defined as "quadruple the resolution." It just happens to be the most efficient way to make the transition.

    Incidentally, both existing Retina Displays deployed on Apple products did quadruple the number of pixels, but it was more specifically defined as the pixel density at which the human eye can no longer discern a single pixel, and curves look perfectly smooth rather than jagged. They determined this density to be 326ppi for the iPhone 4, and 264ppi for the new iPad. Doubling the Apple Thunderbolt Display's density would bring it to 218ppi, which could work.
     
  8. boss.king macrumors 68040

    boss.king

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    #8
    Am I the only one with a passionate hatred for the term 'Retina Display'?
     
  9. macbook pro i5 macrumors 65816

    macbook pro i5

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #9
    Yes.
     
  10. AdrianK macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    #10
    I prefer it to "PPI at which you can no longer differentiate between pixels at a sensible distance from the display".
    Yes, horrible use of English is horrible.
     
  11. gatortpk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    #11
    Exactly right. They did exactly that with the new MacBook Pro (2880x1800). So I'm holding out for the 5120x2880 iMac or ThunderBolt display. The current MacBook Pros can drive two current 27" displays now. So they may be able to drive one retina 27" display. I would find that satisfactory. But driving 14.7 MP won't be easy.

    Perhaps the new MacBook pro with two thunderbolt ports and advanced graphics can drive two external Retina Displays. After all the integrated Ivy Bridge integrated HD Graphics 4000 supports 4096x4096 displays on its own. That's enough buffer for a Retina 27" display, then the Nvidia GForce GT 650M could drive the other 27" retina display as well as the built in 2880x1800 MacBook Pro display. Or perhaps the 1GB Nvidia descrete GPU can drive all 34.7 MP on its own? At 24 bits per pixel, only (exactly) 100 MB frame buffer is needed for a static display of 35.0 million pixels total on all three displays.

    Then again 10 Gbps ThunderBolt (or DisplayPort) connection would only be good enough for 28 fps video. Perhaps they'll use all the DisplayPort and ThunderBolt PCIe speed for 20 Gbps uncompressed video to each display? The next Retina MacBook Pro could be updated by then (if even needed) by then for two Retina 27" Displays. That would be nice having a 34.7 million pixel desktop from a MacBook Pro! (Though not on one display, that's more than NHK's 33.2 MP Super Hi-Vision video or UHDTV display resolution).
     
  12. wikus macrumors 68000

    wikus

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Location:
    Planet earth.
    #12
    Retina doesnt mean anything, its a marketing gimmick to sell their products better. At first it meant the iPhones resolution, then a lower resolution from the iPad and now an even lower resolution from the Macbook.

    Retina should mean 300dpi at ANY distance which is where apple fails to deliver.

    Stand back far enough from a monitor made in the stone age and you get yourself 'retina' display as well.

    The term is complete bull.
     
  13. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #13
    So other than having a line saying "display with much higher resolution than the normal display", what single term would you use to say the product has a much higher resolution?

    You see, the idea of a retina display is that it's made to the resolution to which the eye can no longer discern pixels. It makes no sense for that to be the same resolution for all devices, as those devices are used at different distances from the eyes. For instance, a 300dpi television is completely pointless, as is a monitor.

    But they do need to have a way to market the ultra high resolution displays in a couple of words...hence the term. Are you suggesting that the ads should say "Now with 296dpi screen!!". That means nothing to most people.
     
  14. tech4all macrumors 68040

    tech4all

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Location:
    NorCal
    #14
    Calm down, it's just a marketing term.

    Breathe in . . . breathe out . . .

    Feel better now?
     
  15. rebscb macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #15

Share This Page