dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3206
share rss forum feed


intok

join:2012-03-15

1 edit

[rant] So wen will Apple make a Retina Cinema display?

While I couldn't possibly care less about iOS toys I'm still very interested in high pixel density displays, Some of us remember screens like IBM's T221 which was 3840x2400 at 22.2" for 204PPI, but required a monstrously complicated GPU setup, had a terrible refresh rate and cost as much as a new Honda Civic...

These days the best desktop display I've ever heard of is the Eizo Duravision FDH3601, which is 4096x2160 at 36.4"and they don't even list the price on their site...

That said though, with recent developments with GPU hardware with AMD's HD6000 series and newer supporting an output resolution of 16000x16000, Intel's Ivy Bridge supporting 4096x4096 shows that the hardware is finally there to make these kinds of screens that have been feasible for some years now available to the mass market.

Basically, Apple should hit the display market upside the head with displays at 300PPI, this would make 16:10 displays at 3840x2400 would be only 15" which is Macbook Pro range, now if we go for full Cinema style 5760x3600 would break 300PPI at 22.6" and for the behemoth top of the line you'd break 300PPI at 7680x4800 at 30.1".

So what do you think? Is there any chance of Apple laying waste to the display market with Retina grade Cinema displays?

Oh, and for those curious, What AMD is claiming would make a 75.4" 300PPI display...



mromero
Premium
join:2000-12-07
The O.C.
kudos:1

rumor of a macbook pro 13" and 15" retina screen coming in April...sooo I could see a retina thunderbolt display coming in 2013...


sk1939
Premium
join:2010-10-23
Mclean, VA
kudos:10
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon FiOS
reply to intok

I priced the Eizo Duravision for a discriminating client relatively recently, and at the time it was $33,000. The highest mass-market resolution is a rather high (still) 2560 x 1600, and is found on HP's ZR30w or Dell's U3011.

As far as high resolution displays, the cost to manufacture vs. the demand for such displays is still not there. The great majority of users are happy with 1920x1080 resolution (if that), and won't move to a higher resolution display until absolutely necessary. Additionally, those with poorer eyesight will not necessarily notice a change for the better with a higher resolution display.



Mospaw
My socks don't match.
Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
Mile High
kudos:1

said by sk1939:

The highest mass-market resolution is a rather high (still) 2560 x 1600, and is found on HP's ZR30w or Dell's U3011.

That's high resolution, but not high pixels per inch, which is what a "retina" display needs. I have a Samsung 305T, which is the same as those monitors in size and resolution. It's only about 100ppi. Not bad, but it's BIG, and nowhere near "retina".


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable

said by Mospaw See ProfileI have a Samsung 305T, which is the same as those monitors in size and resolution. It's only about 100ppi. Not bad, but it's BIG, and nowhere near "retina".

:

I have a 30" as well, and I cant tell any pixels sitting 2 feet away from it.


russotto

join:2000-10-05
West Orange, NJ
reply to intok

Unfortunately Apple isn't interested in 16:10, only 16:9. Too bad, I prefer 16:10 as well.



bbarrera
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1

16:9 is better if you care about the number of pixels on the screen, I use my computer screen for web/email/docs and 16:9 rules.



HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable

said by bbarrera:

16:9 is better if you care about the number of pixels on the screen, I use my computer screen for web/email/docs and 16:9 rules.

Huh... you must love scrolling then... 16:9 provides less vertical space.

16:9 should have never made it into computers. Same like glossy screens.
--
Tank Nation 2012



bbarrera
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1

I need some coffee Let me restate, I love the 16:10 (1920x1200) rather than the more common 16:9 (1920x1080).



Mospaw
My socks don't match.
Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
Mile High
kudos:1

I'm a 4:3 kinda guy myself. But I'm saying that while staring at a 16:10 monitor and a 3:4. Yes, 3:4 (it's a 4:3 on its side).



djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
reply to intok

They need to get DPI adjustment working first. Text is already too small on the 30" cinema display.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.



HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to bbarrera

said by bbarrera:

I need some coffee Let me restate, I love the 16:10 (1920x1200) rather than the more common 16:9 (1920x1080).

Hehe, that's more like it.


Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to intok

quote:
High-res Mountain Lion art could point to Retina Macs in 2012

Apple developers test-driving the latest Mountain Lion (10.8) release may have noticed some higher-res graphics erroneously popping up in "unexpected places," such as the double-size phone icon that appears alongside an audio chat invitation in Messages. One such dev reported his findings to Ars Technica, as you can see evidenced in the graphic above. This mild slip-up could imply that Apple plans to release Macs with high-density displays later this year, or, at the very least, that Mountain Lion will be Retina-ready. High-res support dates back to OS X Lion, which is reportedly equipped to play nice with HiDPI displays, should they eventually become available. Compatible icons are but a second piece of the puzzle, which could be completed to the tune of deliciously dense 2880 x 1800 (or higher) resolution 15-inch LCDs. Wouldn't you love to see that.

Ars Technica


»www.engadget.com/2012/03/23/high···na-macs/

»arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/···mmer.ars