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

Year of the retina iMac

joe-h2o said:
27" is already nearly retina at the current resolution (2560x1440). There is no need to pixel double it to make it retina - unless you're not understanding exactly what ti is that enables a screen to be classed as "retina".

The formula considers distance from the screen as well as pixel size. The current 27" inch screen is 90% of the way to being retina. While pixel doubling is one way to make the transition "easy", it is not essential.

If we're going to see a "retina" iMac then it will be in the guise of a 4k display that is running in high dpi mode, or a panel with a modest increase in density over the current 2560x1440 one.

Of course, that doesn't even address the problem of how you're going to drive such a display adequately.
Click to expand...

Sure, the viewing distance for a desktop monitor is greater than the mobile devices and that desktop "retina" displays would need less pixel density. But the current 1440p displays definitely aren't "nearly retina". 1440p on 27" screen yields 108PPI, simply not enough density to rival clarity of iOS devices even after factoring greater viewing distance. Sitting further away doesn't change much as the texts become harder/unreadable at that point.

As for the GPU power to drive the display, the only solution that comes to my mind (with current technology) is to use desktop class GPU. This will be sufficient to drive retina or 4K display except for games but games aren't very big part of Mac to begin with...

If Apple wants to stick with mobile GPUs, which is likely, then I think we need at least one or two generation of GPU architectures (excluding Maxwell) from Nvidia to see retina or 4K iMacs.
 
Truthfulie said:
Sure, the viewing distance for a desktop monitor is greater than the mobile devices and that desktop "retina" displays would need less pixel density. But the current 1440p displays definitely aren't "nearly retina". 1440p on 27" screen yields 108PPI, simply not enough density to rival clarity of iOS devices even after factoring greater viewing distance. Sitting further away doesn't change much as the texts become harder/unreadable at that point.

As for the GPU power to drive the display, the only solution that comes to my mind (with current technology) is to use desktop class GPU. This will be sufficient to drive retina or 4K display except for games but games aren't very big part of Mac to begin with...

If Apple wants to stick with mobile GPUs, which is likely, then I think we need at least one or two generation of GPU architectures (excluding Maxwell) from Nvidia to see retina or 4K iMacs.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is "nearly retina" as I stated earlier. The formula considers pixel size and viewing distance and to qualify as retina the pixel density has to be high enough that a normal-visual-acuity person cannot distinguish individual pixels on the screen.

For the 27" 1440p display it is 85-90% of the way there at a typical view distance.

There's a defined mathematical formula, and the current 27" display is very close (but still under) the line.
 
joe-h2o said:
It absolutely is "nearly retina" as I stated earlier. The formula considers pixel size and viewing distance and to qualify as retina the pixel density has to be high enough that a normal-visual-acuity person cannot distinguish individual pixels on the screen.

For the 27" 1440p display it is 85-90% of the way there at a typical view distance.

There's a defined mathematical formula, and the current 27" display is very close (but still under) the line.
Click to expand...

Good points. How close is the 21" to retina?
 
joe-h2o said:
It absolutely is "nearly retina" as I stated earlier. The formula considers pixel size and viewing distance and to qualify as retina the pixel density has to be high enough that a normal-visual-acuity person cannot distinguish individual pixels on the screen.

For the 27" 1440p display it is 85-90% of the way there at a typical view distance.

There's a defined mathematical formula, and the current 27" display is very close (but still under) the line.
Click to expand...

There seems to be some good 28" 4K panels on the market or coming soon.
So while not as retina as the laptops at 220ppi, 160ppi of those panels would be a good boost to the iMac and maybe about right for viewing distance.
 
Personally, I'm waiting for a retina iMac to buy one as well. I'd love to get an iMac, as I had one but sold it due to money issues, but I'm still waiting because after using a retina MacBook Pro, I can't go back to something with a lower res.

Maybe that's just me. One thing I'm worried about though is, how am I gonna find desktop backgrounds for a 27" retina! Aside from taking the photo myself, of course. :D
 
joe-h2o said:
It absolutely is "nearly retina" as I stated earlier. The formula considers pixel size and viewing distance and to qualify as retina the pixel density has to be high enough that a normal-visual-acuity person cannot distinguish individual pixels on the screen.

For the 27" 1440p display it is 85-90% of the way there at a typical view distance.

There's a defined mathematical formula, and the current 27" display is very close (but still under) the line.
Click to expand...

What is this 'formula' you talk of?

Regardless...you may not be able to distinguish the individual pixels but that doesn't mean that you can't see the difference in clarity altogether from higher PPI. Just mimic 'retina' by enabling HiDPi mode and most will agree that higher PPI will make significant difference (especially in other languages that uses more elaborate characters then our own, like I mentioned earlier in the thread.) thus this 'nearly retina' or 'clear enough' argument less convincing, at least for me.
 
Truthfulie said:
What is this 'formula' you talk of?

Regardless...you may not be able to distinguish the individual pixels but that doesn't mean that you can't see the difference in clarity altogether from higher PPI. Just mimic 'retina' by enabling HiDPi mode and most will agree that higher PPI will make significant difference (especially in other languages that uses more elaborate characters then our own, like I mentioned earlier in the thread.) thus this 'nearly retina' or 'clear enough' argument less convincing, at least for me.
Click to expand...

This one:

http://i.imgur.com/r02s0.png

(that's Phil Schiller by the way).

The value of h (the effective dpi) depends on d for a fixed value of "a".

This has always been the retina formula, but people regularly misunderstand what the term means and automatically assume that it means "must have the dpi of the iPhone" or "must be pixel doubled over the non-retina one".

For a 27" 2560x1440 display the tipping point is around 80 cm (or 32 inches). My 27" display sits about 28 inches away during normal use (I've measured it before), but if you sit 32" away or more then you already have a retina iMac.

That's the point - at that limit then you can't tell the difference between one pixel and the next so the displays look the same whether they are 100 dpi or 400 dpi assuming they are displaying a piece of text at the same size and are the same distance away.

Obviously if you move closer to the point where you can distinguish individual pixels then you are below the threshold.
 
joe-h2o said:
This one:

http://i.imgur.com/r02s0.png

(that's Phil Schiller by the way).

The value of h (the effective dpi) depends on d for a fixed value of "a".

This has always been the retina formula, but people regularly misunderstand what the term means and automatically assume that it means "must have the dpi of the iPhone" or "must be pixel doubled over the non-retina one".

For a 27" 2560x1440 display the tipping point is around 80 cm (or 32 inches). My 27" display sits about 28 inches away during normal use (I've measured it before), but if you sit 32" away or more then you already have a retina iMac.

That's the point - at that limit then you can't tell the difference between one pixel and the next so the displays look the same whether they are 100 dpi or 400 dpi assuming they are displaying a piece of text at the same size and are the same distance away.

Obviously if you move closer to the point where you can distinguish individual pixels then you are below the threshold.
Click to expand...

The 13" MBP classic was closer to the "retina" threshold at 1280x800 than the current iMac 27" yet it was still doubled, and now sits far beyond the threshold of 57 arcseconds per pixel at 29.6. I think given Apple's display moves over the past few years its a foregone conclusion that the iMac and TBD will be pixel doubled, the question is moreso when the technology allows for it in terms of cost and performance.
 
Last edited:
considering there are no rumors of a retina 27" imac screen being made, i doubt it's anytime soon. It'll definitely be IGZO and it'll definitely leak
 
joe-h2o said:
This one:

http://i.imgur.com/r02s0.png

(that's Phil Schiller by the way).

The value of h (the effective dpi) depends on d for a fixed value of "a".

This has always been the retina formula, but people regularly misunderstand what the term means and automatically assume that it means "must have the dpi of the iPhone" or "must be pixel doubled over the non-retina one".

For a 27" 2560x1440 display the tipping point is around 80 cm (or 32 inches). My 27" display sits about 28 inches away during normal use (I've measured it before), but if you sit 32" away or more then you already have a retina iMac.

That's the point - at that limit then you can't tell the difference between one pixel and the next so the displays look the same whether they are 100 dpi or 400 dpi assuming they are displaying a piece of text at the same size and are the same distance away.

Obviously if you move closer to the point where you can distinguish individual pixels then you are below the threshold.
Click to expand...

Is the screen going to be 80cm away if on a desk that is 75cm deep or even 60cm deep?

Take in to account the stand depth of 20cm and say good posture will have your eyes maybe 5cm back from the front edge of the desk. So maximum viewing distance is going to be the desk depth - 15cm.

So 60cm (23.6") on a 75cm desk puts Retina iMac about 140ppi. 160ppi if you only have 60cm deep desks. Yes people have larger desks but if Apple want to be genuine they need to account for normal office fitout measurements.
 
Last edited:
MattInOz said:
Is the screen going to be 80cm away if on a desk that is 75cm deep or even 60cm deep?

Take in to account the stand depth of 20cm and say good posture will have your eyes maybe 5cm back from the front edge of the desk. So maximum viewing distance is going to be the desk depth - 15cm.

So 60cm (23.6") on a 75cm desk puts Retina iMac about 140ppi. 160ppi if you only have 60cm deep desks. Yes people have larger desks but if Apple want to be genuine they need to account for normal office fitout measurements.
Click to expand...

What are you smoking?

To give an idea of just how silly that is, consider that an iPhone 5S is 12.5 cm tall.

So, hold your iPhone up to your face so that one end of it touches your nose or cheek, then put the other end touching your display. That is what you think the "maximum viewing distance" will be for some people with shallow desks. You really didn't think that one through, did you?

Also, how are Apple "not being genuine"? They don't advertise the iMac as retina, so there's nothing to not be genuine about.

Edit: Ah, I see now (as pointed out by the poster below me) that you meant the desk depth less 15cm, but it still isn't that simple, since you sit back a bit from the edge of a desk. I'm in front of my iMac right now and the distance from the screen to my eye is exactly 28 inches (71 cm). The distance of the screen to the edge of the desk is 25 inches (63.5 cm), so I'm about 2 or 3 inches too close for this screen to pass the retina threshold.

In order to keep the same distance, the pixel density of the display wouldn't have to go up that much - certainly not pixel doubled in each direction.
 
Last edited:
joe-h2o said:
What are you smoking?

To give an idea of just how silly that is, consider that an iPhone 5S is 12.5 cm tall.

So, hold your iPhone up to your face so that one end of it touches your nose or cheek, then put the other end touching your display. That is what you think the "maximum viewing distance" will be for some people with shallow desks. You really didn't think that one through, did you?

Also, how are Apple "not being genuine"? They don't advertise the iMac as retina, so there's nothing to not be genuine about.
Click to expand...

I think he means desk depth MINUS 15 cm, or in his scenario 45 cm, would be the viewing distance.

For reference, Apple recommends between 45 and 70 cm/18-28 inches for the Thunderbolt Display.
 
kwijbo said:
I think he means desk depth MINUS 15 cm, or in his scenario 45 cm, would be the viewing distance.

For reference, Apple recommends between 45 and 70 cm/18-28 inches for the Thunderbolt Display.
Click to expand...

Oh it seems you are correct - I misread his post and have edited mine to clarify.

I just measured the distance from my eyes to the 27" iMac: 28 inches.
 
Serban said:
I think they can update the iMac to 4K display, thunderbolt 2, geforce 8xx series, and fusion drive standard
Click to expand...

Sure...if you want the 4K iMac starting at $2,999 or higher.

Check out what a high-end 4K standalone display costs right now. Not a cheap TN 30hz panel. A true high end 4K display. Now tell me how Apple will deliver the display, a quad-core processor, dedicated graphics, an SSD/Fusion Drive, and a Thunderbolt 2/USB 3 hub with a keyboard and mouse for a penny less than $2,999. That's why you won't see a 4K iMac until late 2015 at the earliest.
 
So this will be a year of an retina iMac OR Thunderbolt Display.
They can go with 1440p on 21.5" and with 4k for the 27"
I think that over 160 ppi on a desktop can be called retina
 
Last edited:
PatriotInvasion said:
Sure...if you want the 4K iMac starting at $2,999 or higher.

Check out what a high-end 4K standalone display costs right now. Not a cheap TN 30hz panel. A true high end 4K display. Now tell me how Apple will deliver the display, a quad-core processor, dedicated graphics, an SSD/Fusion Drive, and a Thunderbolt 2/USB 3 hub with a keyboard and mouse for a penny less than $2,999. That's why you won't see a 4K iMac until late 2015 at the earliest.
Click to expand...

The ASUS PB279Q is supposed to be out soon, and it is a 27-inch SST 4k IPS display with 10-bit color and 100% sRGB coverage. So, it is basically the 4k version of the panel currently used in the iMac. ASUS said that the price will be well under $1k.

The 27-inch Cinema Display was $999 when the 27-inch iMac was released, so they could technically use this new 4k panel and keep the price the same as it is now, but of course Apple would be losing money because I imagine the 27-inch panels cost much less today than they did when the 27-inch iMac was announced.
 
Last edited:
PatriotInvasion said:
Sure...if you want the 4K iMac starting at $2,999 or higher.

Check out what a high-end 4K standalone display costs right now. Not a cheap TN 30hz panel. A true high end 4K display. Now tell me how Apple will deliver the display, a quad-core processor, dedicated graphics, an SSD/Fusion Drive, and a Thunderbolt 2/USB 3 hub with a keyboard and mouse for a penny less than $2,999. That's why you won't see a 4K iMac until late 2015 at the earliest.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Apple sticking a display (or any part really) into one of their products like the iMac can drive the price down a little bit because of economies of scale.
 
i think will be very easy to bump the current prices of imacs with 200-300$ for retina and thats it
 
Serban said:
So this will be a year of an retina iMac OR Thunderbolt Display.
They can go with 1440p on 21.5" and with 4k for the 27"
I think that over 160 ppi on a desktop can be called retina
Click to expand...

2560x1440 on the 21" would be an odd choice - the default resolution in HiDPI would be 1280x720. UI elements would be huge and it'd have ~44% of the real estate of the current model.
 
gmfeier said:
Thanks, that's what I figured. Not all that much of an improvement over the current one.
Click to expand...

That's why I think they would create an 880MX version for apple, they did that with the 680MX and if they put in 8Gb VRAM and boosted the speed that could make a decent GPU
 
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