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

Retina display on 27" iMac

B

bluush

macrumors Yorkshire Terrier
Original poster
Apr 20, 2007
337
457
Sorry if this has been discussed before (I tried searching this forum with no luck), but I have an iPhone4 and the display continues to blow my mind. I was wondering what the likelihood of a 27" iMac with Retina Display would be? I have no idea if the cost of this technology is incredibly high nor if it would even be possible, the resolution would be something like 8,000 x whatever, it'd just be really really large and almost every image would look pixellated.

Do you think eventually though this will happen, and eventually 10,000x7,500 resolutions will become the norm? Kinda makes you think, as a web designer, about really bulking up the size of graphics/horizontal spans in regards to html5/css.

Thanks
 
Retina displays are obviously the way of the future... having said that, i'm not sure building a 27" display would be feasible at this stage without this thing ending up costing you an arm and a leg!!! Retina it's certainly the way to go but i'm sure we'll have to wait a few more years before they become standard in any Mac product :)
 
Yeah. I can only assume the next Apple product to get this display would be the iPad, which I think will look unbelievable. I really can't get over how alive the screen appears on the new iPhone, the crisp and clarity of it.. I would really love to work in Photoshop with a display like that.
 
stop believing the ************* apple feed you with their koolaid.

I'm sure the display on iP4 is fantastic but its already been proven that retina display description is just a plain lie.
 
archipellago said:
stop believing the ************* apple feed you with their koolaid.

I'm sure the display on iP4 is fantastic but its already been proven that retina display description is just a plain lie.
Click to expand...

What description? I simply think the Retina display is far superior to the display on my old iPhone, iPad and iMac. Whatever technical aspects Apple may tout means nothing to me. The quality improvement with the new display is impossible to deny.
 
archipellago said:
stop believing the ************* apple feed you with their koolaid.

I'm sure the display on iP4 is fantastic but its already been proven that retina display description is just a plain lie.
Click to expand...

It's undeniable though that 300+ pixels per inch is a significant feat.

Koolaid or not, if you can enjoy the screen for what it provides then it doesn't matter what Apple says about it.
 
lol, thanks you too for proving the point..

I agree the display is the best seen on an iPhone so far and its good that you can see thru the marketing lies that iCon perpetuates all the time...

now, if it could only make a call.... ;)
 
bluush said:
Sorry if this has been discussed before (I tried searching this forum with no luck), but I have an iPhone4 and the display continues to blow my mind. I was wondering what the likelihood of a 27" iMac with Retina Display would be? I have no idea if the cost of this technology is incredibly high nor if it would even be possible, the resolution would be something like 8,000 x whatever, it'd just be really really large and almost every image would look pixellated.

Do you think eventually though this will happen, and eventually 10,000x7,500 resolutions will become the norm? Kinda makes you think, as a web designer, about really bulking up the size of graphics/horizontal spans in regards to html5/css.

Thanks
Click to expand...

1. Images wouldn't look pixelated. If you had a monitor with say exactly three times the current resolution, and an image that was displayed without scaling at the current resolution, every pixel would now cover 3x3 pixels - but it would look exactly the same as it does now. Everything that is currently scaled in any way would look better. There may be multiple pixels, but they would be so small that you can see them.

2. HDMI can't handle that number of pixels. Displayport is more advanced and can't handle either. You'd need something like four DisplayPort connectors each running one quarter of the screen. So you need to wait for major breakthroughs in display connector technology.

3. Nine times more pixels requires nine times more power is needed for the graphics card (roughly. There are a few added efficiencies, there are inefficiencies because all caches run out of spaces, should roughly even itself out). So your current high end card is down to the performance of integrated graphics from three years ago :mad:

So I guess it will come maybe in ten years.


archipellago said:
stop believing the ************* apple feed you with their koolaid.

I'm sure the display on iP4 is fantastic but its already been proven that retina display description is just a plain lie.
Click to expand...

Nice to hear that you like the iPhone4 display. Please provide us with a link giving evidence that Apple is lying. What I found was calculations trying to demonstrate that a person with exceptionally good eyesight might, just might, under optimal conditions be able to detect pixels on the iPhone 4 display if they look really, really hard. A normal user doesn't see pixels.
 
Vylen said:
It's undeniable though that 300+ pixels per inch is a significant feat.

Koolaid or not, if you can enjoy the screen for what it provides then it doesn't matter what Apple says about it.
Click to expand...

Far from a significant feat- my 3 year old Japanese phone had 326ppi :p
 
The reason it is beneficial for an iphone to have a high pixel density display is because you hold it close to your face.

If you held a 27" iMac close enough to your face so that you could actually notice the difference you would die from eye cancer.
 
archipellago said:
lol, thanks you too for proving the point..

I agree the display is the best seen on an iPhone so far and its good that you can see thru the marketing lies that iCon perpetuates all the time...

now, if it could only make a call.... ;)
Click to expand...



are you serious? honestly, are you a pc fan?
 
OS X first needs fully working resolution independence to make this happen...
 
I'd sooner want oled for an iMac screen than a retina display. 300 dpi makes sense for iPhones since they're meant to be held close to one's eye. An iMac screen is 2-3 feet from a user's eye on average-- and from that distance it's hard to make out pixels. The real benefit that would come with the retina display on an iMac screen would be while using osx's built in zoom feature.

An oled screen would provide superb contrast ratio because it wouldn't need a backligiht, and the blacks would be truly black. Also since there's no backlight, users wouldn't have to worry about yellow tint and gray banding.
 
TMRaven said:
I'd sooner want oled for an iMac screen than a retina display...An oled screen would provide superb contrast ratio because it wouldn't need a backligiht, and the blacks would be truly black. Also since there's no backlight, users wouldn't have to worry about yellow tint and gray banding.
Click to expand...

One could dream-hopefully well see OLED on iMacs once the prices on them drop...
 
I haven't got the pleasure to see an iPhone 4 display face to face, but I have bough a Samsung Galaxy S with the Super AMOLED Display and I am very impressed with it so far. The contrast, black richness and colors are unmatched. It was the first display I've seen that really renders black as black. And the visibility in bright sun is very good. Would love to see something like that on my MacBook Pro :)
 
the last time I was in an Apple store...I asked about this

Not on the 27" iMac per say, but I asked a sales rep if he thinks the Retina Display will be incorporated into future Mac computers.

While this guy could not give me a definite answer he did tease by saying something along the lines of the iPhone 4 being the testing ground for this technology. I don't remember the exact words but that was jist.

Seriously, the Retina Display is the only element of the new iPhone that is making me sit up and take notice (I'm not a power user and am content with my iPhone 3GS).

I appreciate everyone mentioning the difference between the Retina Display and the OLED screens. From what you've mentioned the OLED would make more sense (and get rid of the pesky backlighting issues many of Apple's computers have).
 
It would be nice, although I don't think it would be feasible if it was just the iMac which had such a high resolution display... all PCs etc would need to have a similar pixel density so websites and applications are properly built for the display.. as you said, currently all websites would be either really small or images would be pixelated.
signature_silverapple.jpg
 
There would be such a huge number of problems to overcome with it. You would have to completely rebuild the GUI of OS X, along with redoing how it handles anything graphical. You would need a high end professional graphics chip to even get average performance. If you doubled the pixel density, there would be 4x the pixels (and 2560x1440 is already huge). It would require an entirely new resolution standard, and your eye wouldn't even be able to see the benefit from it unless you sat too close to even see the whole screen. So if we ever do see that, it is a long way off. The reason it works on the iPhone is because even though it is a high pixel density, it is still a relatively low resolution (only 960x640). It runs hardware similar to the iPad, so it has plenty of power and a slightly lower res
 
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