Apple retina display 5120x2880

Xcelerate

n00b
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
62
There's rumors about a new iMac that will have a 5120x2880 display. At 14.7 megapixels this would dwarf everything else, including some medical imaging monitors that start at 10-15 grand. As much as I would LOVE this rumor to be true, I have a somewhat hard time believing that these panels could be in production.

So does anyone on here have some insight into this? I'm sure someone here has worked in the display industry and might have some knowledge about whether this sort of thing is feasible or if the defect rate (or something) would prevent this from being economical.

I know quite a few people were surprised when the new iPad actually had the rumored resolution, so I'm hoping this works out similarly. I've never owned a Mac product but I'm a sucker for high quality displays ;)
 

Godmachine

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
10,472
That would be some amazing monitor if true. I'm sure Retina technology would be incorporated somehow into Mac's monitors in some sort of line outside of the phone and tablet.

Guess we'll wait and see.
 

carch

n00b
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
12
I'm with you in wanting a lot more pixels. I think that 5120x2880 is not likely though. A lot of creative professionals are beginning to work with 4k video, including software on Macs. I would expect to see displays that can support this at a reasonable price. Resolution would be around: 3996 × 2160
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,112
Just rabid Maccie speculation. Every since Apple introduced the phrase "retina display" Mac fanboys have been claiming everything will have one. Not so much. Higher rez displays will happen, but they'll take time.
 

Xeth

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,624
DisplayPort 1.2 only pushes 9 megapixels at 60Hz so yeah... not gonna happen.

Edit: OTOH if they did release say a 3840x2160 version I'd be lined up at the apple store on launch day.
 
Last edited:

Namelessme

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
1,161
Overlooking the massive graphics requirement to push that many pixels, there is also the little problem of Mac OS not really doing dpi scaling like windows. It's not like Win 7, where the OS scales everything larger. You'll get super tiny, tiny text at that resolution. They need to get dpi scaling working properly before doing any major res increases.
 

slh28

Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
565
I think it's just speculation, somebody thought "Oh the new iPad has 4 times as many pixels as the old one so that must mean the same for the new iMac".

I don't think there are any cables that can push that resolution anyway.
 

1000

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
426
Too small for a 27" display. When it releases on a 32" I'm there
 

austinpike

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
200
DisplayPort 1.2 only pushes 9 megapixels at 60Hz so yeah... not gonna happen..
What about Thunderbolt? Doesn't it potentially allow for more bandwidth?

You'll get super tiny, tiny text at that resolution. They need to get dpi scaling working properly before doing any major res increases.
Based on the iPhone/iPad it seems they are just doubling everything, text would be the same size as on a 27" 2560x1440 display. Would be nice to have true resolution independence though, as things get sharper you could get away with making the text somewhat smaller. And as mentioned, doubling resolution on 27-30" monitors gets into bandwidth issues so some sort of in-between would be useful.
 

Ashok0

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
507
DisplayPort 1.2 has a throughput of 17.28Gbps. It supports 60Hz * 30bpp * 3840 * 2160 = 14.9Gbps. The new ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 680 has a DisplayPort 1.2 output and does support a 3840x2160 resolution. If Apple were to add DP1.2 to the iMac or respec Thunderbolt to incorporate DP1.2, there is no reason they could not launch a 4K iMac. :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
Curious where the OP heard this as this is the first I have heard of anything that high resolution on a larger display.

I have heard that the new macbook pro (which I will likely be buying just for the resolution, will have a 13.3 inch 2560x1440 display and 15.4 inch 2880x1800 display. This is almost 100% at this point (atleast the 15 inch 2880x1800). Should find out on June 12th.
 

Jonte

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
191
Curious where the OP heard this as this is the first I have heard of anything that high resolution on a larger display.

I have heard that the new macbook pro (which I will likely be buying just for the resolution, will have a 13.3 inch 2560x1440 display and 15.4 inch 2880x1800 display. This is almost 100% at this point (atleast the 15 inch 2880x1800). Should find out on June 12th.

So what panel type will they be then?
Still TN?
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
There's rumors about a new iMac that will have a 5120x2880 display.

I haven't seen on single rumor that said that.

I have seen many that said it would have 3840 * 2160, and LG even showed some promotional materials, and Intel said the will support up to that resolution on Ivy Bridge IGP.

So, I don't think it will be 5120 * 2880 when it comes. It will be 3840 * 2160.
 

Skripka

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,792
I'm with you in wanting a lot more pixels. I think that 5120x2880 is not likely though. A lot of creative professionals are beginning to work with 4k video, including software on Macs. I would expect to see displays that can support this at a reasonable price. Resolution would be around: 3996 × 2160

LOL. At a reasonable price. LOL.

Oh my, that was good.
 

Benny

Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
582
The most likely move is to introduce displays at 3840 * 2160 as it's a multiple of normal 1920 * 1080 HD.
Same as the current 27'' screens which are a multiple of standard 1280 * 720 HD TV resolution.

The need of going to quad 1280 * 800 on the iPad3 comes from the Apps looking crap if not scaled to an even multiple of the original resolution.
We don't have this problem on the desktop as everything is already built to be compatible with different screen sizes, so quad 2560 * 1600/1440 isn't needed for the software.
But anything smaller than 2048 * 1536 would be insufficient for iPad3 developers, so we'll likely see the current 27'' iMac having to move to a resolution larger than 2048 * 1536 in its next incarnation.

And everything seems to indicate that 3840 * 2160 will be the next step.
http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/120413.html
http://liliputing.com/2012/04/intel-retina-laptop-desktop-displays-coming-in-2013.html
 

dt3k

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
83
Sorry, I'm somewhat of a noob when it comes to display panels, but if they can fit 2048x1536 on a 9" Panel, then why is fitting a large amount of pixels onto a 27-30" display that unreasonable?
 
Last edited:

Cloud 69

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Messages
759
Overlooking the massive graphics requirement to push that many pixels, there is also the little problem of Mac OS not really doing dpi scaling like windows. It's not like Win 7, where the OS scales everything larger. You'll get super tiny, tiny text at that resolution. They need to get dpi scaling working properly before doing any major res increases.
Lion already has a high DPI mode, you can use it right now with remote desktop software for the new iPad. It doubles the resolution of UI elements.
 

Benny

Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
582
Sorry, I'm someone what of a noob when it comes to display panels, but if they can fit 2048x1536 on a 9" Panel, then why is fitting a large amount of pixels onto a 27-30" display that unreasonable?

Scaling the same pixel density to a larger screen as you have on a smaller one is risky for the manufacturer.
The chances of getting dead pixels is higher for higher resolutions.
If you make four 80 x 80 pixel screens and one of them has a defect you loose 1/4 of the displays but still have three that are fine.
If you make them in one 160x160 piece you'd loose the whole display.
So if you need to throw away one in ten modules of a 300ppi 7'' smartphone display due defective pixels, a 28'' 300ppi display, with 16 times the pixels would statistically always be defective.

But something like 27'' 3840 * 2160 should no longer be problematic, as the density isn't that high, the bandwidth of current connectors sufficient and operating systems have been moving to resolution independence for some time now.
 
Last edited:

Zangmonkey

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
4,451
wtf kind of resolution is that?

Why not push a 4k monitor so that we can use something that resembles the standard "the industry" has been promoting?
 

Benny

Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
582
wtf kind of resolution is that?

Why not push a 4k monitor so that we can use something that resembles the standard "the industry" has been promoting?

5120x2880?
four times the current iMac, or standard 27'' monitor, resolution.
.. and likely a number that came up by someone applying the same maths of 4* iPad2 = iPad3 to iMacs. (without actually thinking)
 

Jonte

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
191
Sorry, I'm somewhat of a noob when it comes to display panels, but if they can fit 2048x1536 on a 9" Panel, then why is fitting a large amount of pixels onto a 27-30" display that unreasonable?

Some factory can do that now for a reasonable price, but for how long has the Ipad 3 existed? :)
 

mmaker

n00b
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
59
doesnt mac use thunderbolt now, is thunderbolt able support that resolution maybe? Would think that people that actually work with 4k videos want a screen bigger then just 4k yes?
 

Namelessme

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
1,161
Lion already has a high DPI mode, you can use it right now with remote desktop software for the new iPad. It doubles the resolution of UI elements.

Is that an official part of Lion, or does it require xcode? I assumed it was sort of a hidden feature thing with limited use right now.

Although even if not officially supported yet, I guess it may be in mountain lion.
 

cvgd

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
421
Let me say at the start: I don't think this is likely.

Regardless, it presents an interesting problem. I want more resolution because I want to be able to fit more on the screen. I'm very happy with the pixel size on my 27" 2560x1440 monitor. If the pixels were doubled/quadrupled on this display, I suspect that I would have to double/quadruple the size of everything I work with, which would leave me with a crisper display, but fundamentally the same amount of information on the screen. The same lines of code, the same number of full browser pages, etc.

I want more on the screen. I think I'd realistically need this resolution at 37", and even then, it'd be more than double the pixel density of my current display.
 

Q1DM6

Gawd
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
713
Let me say at the start: I don't think this is likely.

Regardless, it presents an interesting problem. I want more resolution because I want to be able to fit more on the screen. I'm very happy with the pixel size on my 27" 2560x1440 monitor. If the pixels were doubled/quadrupled on this display, I suspect that I would have to double/quadruple the size of everything I work with, which would leave me with a crisper display, but fundamentally the same amount of information on the screen. The same lines of code, the same number of full browser pages, etc.

I want more on the screen. I think I'd realistically need this resolution at 37", and even then, it'd be more than double the pixel density of my current display.

The solid nature of the image is more the appeal than fitting more of x on screen. The iPad 3 is really turning me toward Apple as a realistic purchase from the PC world. The macbook pro might make me wet my pants.
 

mahdiy85

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
118
Overlooking the massive graphics requirement to push that many pixels, there is also the little problem of Mac OS not really doing dpi scaling like windows. It's not like Win 7, where the OS scales everything larger. You'll get super tiny, tiny text at that resolution. They need to get dpi scaling working properly before doing any major res increases.

Not true since there is a HighDPI mode under OSX that will scale things correctly, so this rumored resolution would work well with the 2560x1440 HighDPI mode. Format would appear the same, text would be a lot cleaner, high res graphics would look nice, and low res graphics would be scaled. Just like how it's done on the ipad3, which looks very impressive.

It's just a matter of time, and if not this year, then for sure next year. Right now on the 27" apple displays you cannot fully view the ipad3 display via software emulator anyway.

And MAN. HIGH PPI gaming is the future. 3D games that render @ 2048x1536 on the ipad3 look incredibly sharp (soul calibur, virtua tennis). So much better than regular monitors. All the cool display stuff is happening in the mobile space...oled, high density, etc.
 
Last edited:

HoffY

Gawd
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
940
All this talk is well and good. But i still think 4k should be at a 16:10 ratio for the desktop. Yeah.. i'm gonna be that guy! Screw 16:9! :p
 

suiken_2mieu

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
2,910
All this talk is well and good. But i still think 4k should be at a 16:10 ratio for the desktop. Yeah.. i'm gonna be that guy! Screw 16:9! :p

I threw aspect ratio to the wind when I got multimonitor. As long as it's an upgrade from the last monitor you get, you should be happy.

For the guy who says 1280x800 is better than 1920x1080, he's an idiot.

EDIT:plus they did that already, T221, 3840x2400 at 22". Enjoy paying out the ass for it. But if you do, take some picts.
 

Silenus

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
177
I threw aspect ratio to the wind when I got multimonitor. As long as it's an upgrade from the last monitor you get, you should be happy.

For the guy who says 1280x800 is better than 1920x1080, he's an idiot.

EDIT:plus they did that already, T221, 3840x2400 at 22". Enjoy paying out the ass for it. But if you do, take some picts.


Yes. I prefer 16:10..but certainly not at the expense of resolution. In other words:
2560x1600 (16:10) > 2560x1440 (16:9) > 1920x1200 (16:10) > 1920x1080 (16:9)
 

orijin

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
74
I love my acd would love a retina acd, still prefer the acd over my u3011 :(
 

J Macker

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
10,172
Scaling the same pixel density to a larger screen as you have on a smaller one is risky for the manufacturer.
The chances of getting dead pixels is higher for higher resolutions.

I'll wait for one of the A- lcds from my favorite South Korean seller.
3840x2160 would be 84% more pixels and probably 80% performance hit. I'm not ready to run Tri-SLI GTX 680s. I don't have that kind of money.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
It is kinda stupid that people can just make up rumors and talk about them like this.

Is there any LCD panel from LG or other that is coming into mass production like this?
If you search for this the top hit is this stupid post and another one is on mac rumors started by a guy who just says total speculation as in he made it up.
 

Godmachine

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
10,472
DisplayPort 1.2 only pushes 9 megapixels at 60Hz so yeah... not gonna happen.

Edit: OTOH if they did release say a 3840x2160 version I'd be lined up at the apple store on launch day.

Wrong :

DisplayPort version 1.2 was approved on December 22, 2009. The most significant improvement of the new version is the doubling of the effective bandwidth to 17.28 Gbit/s

There is already talk of a Displayport 1.3 standard pushing even more. Dual Link DVI could also be used :

Bitrate (Single link) 3.96 Gbit/s
(Dual link) Limited only by copper bandwidth limitations, DVI source limitations, and DVI sync limitations.

Even then you could use dual cables like older monitors use to , to provide the proper bandwidth. So dual Displayport 1.2 cables would give you an effective total of 34.56Gbit/s.
 
Top