Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will an iMac ever have the screen resolution of an iPhone?
- Thread starter B.A.T
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
already well surpasses it. what you meant was pixle density, not resolution!
for the same density, not for a while
for the same density, not for a while
OLED is better than LCD in every way...sharper, better color, perfect blacks, response time, viewing angle, uses less power....the only problem is lifespan which significantly improved in the last couple of years...OLED is slowly being rolled out starting with mobile devices right now as more factories are being built
OLED is also fabulously expensive - Sony announced 17" and 25" OLED displays last month that will run ~$16,000 and $29,000 (both are 1920x1080). Prices will have to come way down before something like an iMac screen would be feasible.
Hi everybody,
here is an announcement from Samsung at SID 2010:
"Samsung expects to sell 1 Billion OLED Displays in 5 Years. Samsung is investing $2.2 billion to the 5.5 Gen OLED factory which starts production in 2012."
here is an announcement from Samsung at SID 2010:
"Samsung expects to sell 1 Billion OLED Displays in 5 Years. Samsung is investing $2.2 billion to the 5.5 Gen OLED factory which starts production in 2012."
Definitely not. There's no way in hell it will be cheap enough within 3 years to be used in the iMac.
possible if you want such a small iMac ...under 10 inch then you get the display of a iphone ..dont know how deep that iMac would be then ...
Last edited:
What most people forget about this "Retina" display thing is the viewing distance. iPhone is viewed at around 1 foot, i.e. close to your eyes. However, you won't, or at least should not, view your iMac from 1 foot. The distance is something like 2 feet. When the viewing distance doubles, your eyes can see see less. At 1 foot, your eyes are limited to 300PPI, where the Retina thing comes from. At 2 feet, the distance is twice as much so your eyes can see only half of what it saw at 1 foot, i.e. 150PPI.
27" iMac has a PPI of 108, so it is not that faraway from 150PPI. At 3 feet, it is already "Retina".
27" iMac has a PPI of 108, so it is not that faraway from 150PPI. At 3 feet, it is already "Retina".
Just to point out for everyone:
Resolution = pixel density. Not pixel count.
EDIT: thanks HellHammer, keep spreading the word!
Resolution = pixel density. Not pixel count.
EDIT: thanks HellHammer, keep spreading the word!
Thanks to you for pointing this out with your amazing graph (which I was too lazy to search) sometime ago
I didn't know about this until you explained it.
I've often wondered why screen zooming never smoothed out text myself. It would seem like a fairly simple thing given how (as I understand it) things are rendered onto the screen.
Thanks to you for pointing this out with your amazing graph (which I was too lazy to search) sometime ago
At the risk of tooting my own horn
Here it is:https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/10505516/
Good joke
The first time I've read that sentence was some time around 2005 or so. It has become sort of a running gag since then. If so, how come that the OLED displays you can actually buy can't even beat the IPS panel of the iPhone 4 in tests like this one or this one?
And the iPhone4 doesn't even have a wide color gamut display to boot.
I'd rather like to see Apple use even higher-end "conventional" displays for the time being. Features like 30bit color-depth, hardware-LUT and better AdobeRGB-coverage would be nice.
A couple of days ago I switched to verizon and ended up going with the HTC Droid Incredible (wanted a more open environment) and it has an AMOLED screen. Its very nice. It looks more...natural...than the iPhone 4 screen. It feels like the image is on the surface of the glass rather than behind it like the iPhone/iMac/every other display.
I'd be JUST FINE with apple moving to AM/OLED screens.
I'd be JUST FINE with apple moving to AM/OLED screens.
I've often wondered why screen zooming never smoothed out text myself. It would seem like a fairly simple thing given how (as I understand it) things are rendered onto the screen.
At the risk of tooting my own horn
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/10505516/
Nice chart.
Now I would venture to say that for people with really good eyesight it may be wrong. I know my eyes are 20-12 not 20-20 since my cataracts have been repaired. So sitting 8 feet away from a 46 inch 1080 tv I can see the pixels. Right now I am about 3.5 feet from my 27 inch iMac and I can't quite see the pixels but at 30 inches I can see them.
I would think the chart is based on 20 20 vision clarity not 20 - 12.
But most people don't correct to 20-12 with glasses or cataract surgery. There is a drawback with the 20-12 vision I need reading glasses for close up. So Apples move to small screen clarity is a waste for me. But from 2 feet out I see really well.
Of course it varies since none of us share the exact same eyes. I think that chart is generalization and it does good job at that. It would be great if someone (probably a doctor) who really knew about eyes would tell his input on this. I find this topic interesting.
I think what the OP means, is will there ever be an iMac screen with a resolution and pixel density that would be "retina" from any distance.
With my iPhone 4, I can't see a single pixel when holding the screen up to my eyeball let alone from 1 foot. If the 27" iMac could get above the retina curve on that graph, it still wouldn't be iPhone-like-retina unless it could get a PPI of 300 or more.
With my iPhone 4, I can't see a single pixel when holding the screen up to my eyeball let alone from 1 foot. If the 27" iMac could get above the retina curve on that graph, it still wouldn't be iPhone-like-retina unless it could get a PPI of 300 or more.