Why Apple didn't make 5K Cinema Display?

[sebseb]

When I saw the iMac 5K, I was almost sure that they also made a 5K ACD or Thunderbolt Display, but they didn't..was it to boost up iMac sales??

Since it's the same size and display panel, might as well make one too for Mac Pro owners? The nMP can definitely handle at least one of them!

Do you think they will make one?

 

[VirtualRain]

When I saw the iMac 5K, I was almost sure that they also made a 5K ACD or Thunderbolt Display, but they didn't..was it to boost up iMac sales??

Since it's the same size and display panel, might as well make one too for Mac Pro owners? The nMP can definitely handle at least one of them!

Do you think they will make one?

It requires a kludge to drive it (dual DP1.2 connections), which they probably don't mind doing on an all-in-one design like the iMac but would never do for a stand-alone display. They will likely offer a 5k ACD when DP1.3 is integrated into MBPs.

 

[sebseb]

So i went to an apple store and used the iMac 5K and the screen is gorgeous, BUT the screen doesn't flow as smooth as other displays like a thunderbolt connected to a Mac Pro or a retina on the MBP. I felt like swiping between fullscreen apps wasn't as smooth, the screen kinda would get stuck!

I think it has to do with that chip that manages the display, cause the graphics is power enough....i think

 

[Nosferax]

So i went to an apple store and used the iMac 5K and the screen is gorgeous, BUT the screen doesn't flow as smooth as other displays like a thunderbolt connected to a Mac Pro or a retina on the MBP. I felt like swiping between fullscreen apps wasn't as smooth, the screen kinda would get stuck!

I think it has to do with that chip that manages the display, cause the graphics is power enough....i think

You probably used one with the 290 GPU. That card is borderline usable for 5k.
I wonder why Apple even use it at all.

 

[jdphoto]

I'm still confused on why Apple went with 5k instead of 4k on this. They could have had a new Thunderbolt display and allowed target display mode on the iMacs. Now we have to wait for Thunderbolt/graphics cards to catch up to 5k.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

I'm still confused on why Apple went with 5k instead of 4k on this. They could have had a new Thunderbolt display and allowed target display mode on the iMacs. Now we have to wait for Thunderbolt/graphics cards to catch up to 5k.

Markering.

Person walks into Best Buy showroom and sees 4K TVs.... then walks into Apple Store and sees 5K iMac

 

[VirtualRain]

I'm still confused on why Apple went with 5k instead of 4k on this. They could have had a new Thunderbolt display and allowed target display mode on the iMacs. Now we have to wait for Thunderbolt/graphics cards to catch up to 5k.

Any old high pixel density display does not make it retina. Apple's definition of retina for computer displays is that they offer pixel doubled resolution over non-retina versions. A normal 27" iMac is 2560x1440. To offer a retina iMac thus requires double... 5120x2880. So, as you can see, Apple could not offer a retina 27" iMac with anything other than a 5K display.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Any old high pixel density display does not make it retina. Apple's definition of retina for computer displays is that they offer pixel doubled resolution over non-retina versions. A normal 27" iMac is 2560x1440. To offer a retina iMac thus requires double... 5120x2880. So, as you can see, Apple could not offer a retina 27" iMac with anything other than a 5K display.

negative.

steve jobs said it's all about the ppi and the distance from the screen.

 

[VirtualRain]

negative.

steve jobs said it's all about the ppi and the distance from the screen.

Agreed, but all retina displays in Apple computers are exactly double the resolution of their previous non-retina counterparts. It's not a coincidence... in addition to making sure there is enough PPI density to qualify as retina at normal viewing distances Apple also ensures there is no loss of desktop space when running at "best for Retina". So to be specific, to qualify for a retina display, the screen must have sufficient pixel density (>200PPI) and offer a best for retina desktop equal to non retina displays of the same size.

Only a 5K display at 27" meets these requirements.

For the same reasons, a 4K display will make a perfect retina 21" iMac as it also meets both these requirements.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Agreed, but all retina displays in Apple computers are exactly double the resolution of their previous non-retina counterparts. It's not a coincidence... in addition to making sure there is enough PPI density to qualify as retina at normal viewing distances Apple also ensures there is no loss of desktop space when running at "best for Retina". So to be specific, to qualify for a retina display, the screen must have sufficient pixel density (>200PPI) and offer a best for retina desktop equal to non retina displays of the same size.

Only a 5K display at 27" meets these requirements.

For the same reasons, a 4K display will make a perfect retina 21" iMac as it also meets both these requirements.

I agree it's obvious Apple picks resolutions that don't shrink the desktop space but that isn't a criteria for "retina."

btw iPhone 6 Plus is scaled.

 

[goMac]

I agree it's obvious Apple picks resolutions that don't shrink the desktop space but that isn't a criteria for "retina."

btw iPhone 6 Plus is scaled.

FWIW, I would have deemed a "scaled" display unacceptable. I need pixel accuracy. This is a professional display. Not a phone for playing Angry Birds.

I also wouldn't have been happy with a decrease in work area.

 

[VirtualRain]

FWIW, I would have deemed a "scaled" display unacceptable. I need pixel accuracy. This is a professional display. Not a phone for playing Angry Birds.



I also wouldn't have been happy with a decrease in work area.

Not that this may matter to you, but I think one of the great characteristics of Apple's HiDPI scaling algorithm is the provision for apps to display content pixel perfect and just scale the UI.

 

[lowendlinux]

Could anyone actually see text on a 5K 30" display and normal viewing distances without scaling? I have a hard time with some text at 30" 2560x1600 without bad vision.

 

[goMac]

Not that this may matter to you, but I think one of the great characteristics of Apple's HiDPI scaling algorithm is the provision for apps to display content pixel perfect and just scale the UI.

It doesn't provide pixel accuracy in a lot of cases. If you are working on a 1080p video, and you put it in a scaled context, it will not be outputting at 1080p even if it is in a 1080p window.

If you're working on graphics the output will be all wrong too.

The scaling is great for viewing content. Really bad for creating it. You just can't fake having real pixels there.

 

[VirtualRain]

Why Apple didn't make 5K Cinema Display?

It doesn't provide pixel accuracy in a lot of cases. If you are working on a 1080p video, and you put it in a scaled context, it will not be outputting at 1080p even if it is in a 1080p window.



If you're working on graphics the output will be all wrong too.



The scaling is great for viewing content. Really bad for creating it. You just can't fake having real pixels there.

I disagree... Aperture and Camtasia (the tools I've used most on my rMBP 2560x1600 scaled to 1680x1050) show the photos or video non scaled using the full resolution if there's enough pixels to do so. Thus working on 720p video in Camtasia, I see full detail and still have plenty of room for the timeline and other tools. In Aperture, my RAW images are 24MP so there is no desktop display that can show 1:1 pixels but you still see a lot more detail on a retina display than a non retina... And it helps. Photoshop does the same as far as I can tell as do most photo/video apps that are retina aware.

They talk about this feature in this recent review...
http://gizmodo.com/imac-with-retina-5k-display-review-do-those-extra-pixe-1652463922

 

[omvs]

Could anyone actually see text on a 5K 30" display and normal viewing distances without scaling? I have a hard time with some text at 30" 2560x1600 without bad vision.

Yes - I went into the apple store and on the 27" riMac set it to 5120x2880 - text was readable to me, though near my limit, and might need reading glasses in a few years.

Maybe 1-2 other people at my workplace can handle 3840x2160 @ 28", but a lot of them like the look of the retina 27 in the normal mode.

 

[goMac]

I disagree... Aperture and Camtasia (the tools I've used most on my rMBP 2560x1600 scaled to 1680x1050) show the photos or video non scaled using the full resolution if there's enough pixels to do so. Thus working on 720p video in Camtasia, I see full detail and still have plenty of room for the timeline and other tools. In Aperture, my RAW images are 24MP so there is no desktop display that can show 1:1 pixels but you still see a lot more detail on a retina display than a non retina... And it helps. Photoshop does the same as far as I can tell as do most photo/video apps that are retina aware.

They talk about this feature in this recent review...
http://gizmodo.com/imac-with-retina-5k-display-review-do-those-extra-pixe-1652463922

I just tried Photoshop. Changing the resolution changes the physical size of the image at 100% on the display, which means the image is being distorted when you use a scaled resolution. It is no longer pixel accurate.

If you're sitting at 2x perfectly, everything is ok. If you shift off to "More space" or "Larger text" your imagery is no longer accurate. Any time your display render resolution and your display's physical resolution do not match there will be distortion.

In your review they ONLY talk about 2x which is ok. What I'm talking about is using the "more space" feature in Displays, which, as I just tested, is distorting images.

If, when you change resolutions, the size of an image at 100% physically changes on the screen, then the image is being distorted.

That's why a 4k display with a "more space" setting won't work. The entire point of a higher physical resolution is to be able to fit more on the screen at once with picture accuracy. When you put a 5k image on a 4k display you lose quality.

If that wasn't true, we could have all just projected HD images on our SD sets, the quality would have been HD, and we all could have saved ourselves a bunch of money.

 

[VirtualRain]

I just tried Photoshop. Changing the resolution changes the physical size of the image at 100% on the display, which means the image is being distorted when you use a scaled resolution. It is no longer pixel accurate.

I don't have a recent copy of Photoshop on my rMBP so I can't comment.

In your review they ONLY talk about 2x which is ok. What I'm talking about is using the "more space" feature in Displays, which, as I just tested, is distorting images.

Not true, here's what the review says...

The iMac Retina behaves like the Retina Macbook Pro in that it will scale the OS X interface to a readable size while still displaying pictures and video content at its native resolution. That's important, because displaying OS X at the "smallest" setting makes everything, well, very very small.

Attached are a couple of screen shots of my own desktop. I have a 13" rMBP with a 2560x1440 display set for "More Space" which renders the UI at a size similar to 1680x1050, but content is displayed at full native resolution. In both both the Aperture and Camtasia screen shots, I have a 1920x1080 image at 100% that's showing full detail (no scaling of the image is occuring).

At least for me, retina scaling really is the best of both worlds for apps that support it.

 

[goMac]

Attached are a couple of screen shots of my own desktop. I have a 13" rMBP with a 2560x1440 display set for "More Space" which renders the UI at a size similar to 1680x1050, but content is displayed at full native resolution. In both both the Aperture and Camtasia screen shots, I have a 1920x1080 image at 100% that's showing full detail (no scaling of the image is occuring).

At least for me, retina scaling really is the best of both worlds for apps that support it.

Like I said, I just tested it, Photoshop did not preserve the pixel for pixel output size.

Maybe Photoshop doesn't support that. Doesn't change that a 4k Cinema Display rendering at 5k isn't workable if the software doesn't support it.

It also doesn't buy me much because if all my images are still rendered at 4k, I'm not getting any benefit from having 5k workspace. I can still only fit 4k worth of content on the screen.

 

[Cubemmal]

Any old high pixel density display does not make it retina. Apple's definition of retina for computer displays is that they offer pixel doubled resolution over non-retina versions. A normal 27" iMac is 2560x1440. To offer a retina iMac thus requires double... 5120x2880. So, as you can see, Apple could not offer a retina 27" iMac with anything other than a 5K display.

Actually I think it's even simpler; the 5k makes scaling trivial.

Cocoa (on iOS & Xcode) is an absolute positioning UI API, rather than relative like Android and others. This probably traces back to Next Step which was display Postscript, and at any rate is the only way to guarentee the best looking display always and all the time. Doing a doubling in pixels means Cocoa can just double scale the UI and it will look the same, but better and smoother. Going Retina with the MBP forced them to have a goofy scaling bit in the System Preferences which they probably don't like.

The point is more obvious on iOS where you can also see them struggling to provide more pixels in integral amounts.

 

[goMac]

Cocoa (on iOS & Xcode) is an absolute positioning UI API, rather than relative like Android and others. This probably traces back to Next Step which was display Postscript, and at any rate is the only way to guarentee the best looking display always and all the time. Doing a doubling in pixels means Cocoa can just double scale the UI and it will look the same, but better and smoother. Going Retina with the MBP forced them to have a goofy scaling bit in the System Preferences which they probably don't like.

Ehhhhh. This isn't true. Check out auto layout, and springs and struts before it (which was the system since 10.0 and before.)

Cocoa has also long decoupled the idea of points and pixels, and the scale is non-integer in the APIs. Support for things like 150% and 250% is still around. I think things got decoupled in 10.3 and 10.4. Apple at that point said they basically were no longer going to promise one point on the screen was one pixel in actual hardware. There was also a lot of work done around using vector artwork as well (which made sense, Postscript and PDF are heavily vector based.)

Android, before OS X and iOS got auto layout, had things a little better in that it had a relational layout language. But I wouldn't call OS X or iOS fixed at any point in their histories.

OS X was supposed to get fully dynamic scaling, and 2x scaling is still based on this foundation. You may still be able to activate 1.5x, 2.5x, etc with the Quartz Debug tool.

I'm not sure why they don't plug into this for the public facing scaling. I think it will try to pull 1.5x and 2.5x assets if you have them with the public facing scaling. Not sure what happens if you have vector assets.

 

[lombax54]

It requires a kludge to drive it (dual DP1.2 connections), which they probably don't mind doing on an all-in-one design like the iMac but would never do for a stand-alone display. They will likely offer a 5k ACD when DP1.3 is integrated into MBPs.

Since DP1.3 came out in September, would it be a reasonable expectation for Apple to come out with a 5k thunderbolt in early 2015 alongside an updated Mac line with DP1.3?

edit: or at least an upgrade to the prosumer mac lineup, i.e. Mac Pro, iMac, MBP?

 

[Nosferax]

Since DP1.3 came out in September, would it be a reasonable expectation for Apple to come out with a 5k thunderbolt in early 2015 alongside an updated Mac line with DP1.3?

edit: or at least an upgrade to the prosumer mac lineup, i.e. Mac Pro, iMac, MBP?

I don't think there is that much of a demand for 5k res display at the moment. The market as yet to sell us on 4k pannels. The vast majority of display being sold are still 1920x1080.

If it weren't for the cheap chinese A- and B display, like the CrossOver, even the 2560x1440 would be a really small niche product, especially in the home.

 

[lombax54]

I don't think there is that much of a demand for 5k res display at the moment. The market as yet to sell us on 4k pannels. The vast majority of display being sold are still 1920x1080.

If it weren't for the cheap chinese A- and B display, like the CrossOver, even the 2560x1440 would be a really small niche product, especially in the home.

If it weren't for Apple releasing a 5k iMac, I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Nosferax]

In my world, I would take an affordable competitor to the Wacom Cintiq 24HD touch (that isn't a cheaply made chinese knock off) over a 5k display. It would both be more fun and practical for me.