Retina on the Desktop

X

XTF

Gawd
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
591
With 2048 x 1536 (4:3) and 2880 x 1800 (16:10) panels being available for tablets and notebooks, when can we expect improvements on the desktop?

30" is too expensive and big, 24" has been stuck at 1200p and 27" has been stuck at 1440p for years.

(I'm looking for a new display but don't want to invest in a 27" one if new models are around the corner)
 
Can we not use the term retina for describing monitor resolutions? It's just Apple's marketing - they have 326 ppi, 264 ppi and 220 ppi LCD screens and all of them are considered "retina" displays. I know they are different sizes, but that also means different "normal" viewing distances. What resolutions do you consider to be "retina" for a 27" desktop monitor?
 
I agree we need to stop using marketing terms to describe monitor resolutions.
 
alike said:
Can we not use the term retina for describing monitor resolutions? It's just Apple's marketing - they have 326 ppi, 264 ppi and 220 ppi LCD screens and all of them are considered "retina" displays. I know they are different sizes, but that also means different "normal" viewing distances. What resolutions do you consider to be "retina" for a 27" desktop monitor?
Click to expand...

Lol qft
 
At this point I'll take anything past the current resolutions of existing 30inches. I'm tired of waiting for something new.
 
It's more important to consider how GPUs are going to keep up if the panels do jump in resolution. Some of us don't want 2-3 graphics cards in our system with their 9 roaring fans belting out 100c exhaust. What single card would do ANYTHING near the retina resolutions at decent frame rates ? None of them.

Nvidia and AMD are purposefully only giving us fractional performance gains with each new GPU family.. this might make them pull their fingers out and deliver something substial for a change.
 
I'm predicting that the next refresh of the iMac will have a 4k "retina" panel, along with a new 27in ACD. It would make sense given what Apple did with the retina MBP - they'll probably have scaled up 1080p as the "best for retina" option, but also give you scaled up 1440p, and maybe even expose the native 4k since that would be usable on a 27in monitor.

I'm also guessing, since Apple will not be able to sell enough iMacs / ACDs to make it worthwhile for the panel manufacturers (they don't sell nearly as many of those as they do the iPad / MBP), the panel won't be exclusive, so we should see other non-Apple 4k monitors at the same time.
 
1000 said:
It's more important to consider how GPUs are going to keep up if the panels do jump in resolution.
Click to expand...

No it's not. There's more than gaming and nobody is forcing you to game at such high resolutions.

Thinking about it, I'd mostly like to see more vertical pixels. I've been using 1200 x 1920 for some days and the vertical space is great.
 
Given my experience with the U2711's relatively high pixel density (at least compared to my U3011), I'm not sure I would want a higher pixel density monitor. You can adjust the text size with win7's options, but not all apps apply or even recognize the change. As it was mentioned earlier, viewing distance is an important consideration when comparing resolutions. Generally speaking I sit a bit further away from my desktop monitor than a laptop or a tablet.
 
Honestly, I think pixel density is just fine at 1920x1200/1080 on 21"-24" monitors, and 2560 x 1440/1600 on 27"-32" monitors at typical desktop viewing distances. Having seen the retina displays in action, I will admit they were a bit more clear, but that was it, and it was just a bit. The returns are just not there in my opinion for doubling current density, or even increasing it by 50%.
 
Skripka said:
And when they do come, you won't be able to afford them for a while.
Click to expand...

Why is it that they can put 1536 vertical pixels in a 10" tablet for < $300 but they can't do the same for a normal monitor? Is it the physical size? I doubt it, but what's the reason?
 
GORANKAR said:
Honestly, I think pixel density is just fine at 1920x1200/1080 on 21"-24" monitors, and 2560 x 1440/1600 on 27"-32" monitors at typical desktop viewing distances. Having seen the retina displays in action, I will admit they were a bit more clear, but that was it, and it was just a bit. The returns are just not there in my opinion for doubling current density, or even increasing it by 50%.
Click to expand...

Agreed. High-ppi displays certainly look great, but I don't miss them when I don't have one available. I would say that the only devices that truly need them are mobile devices because of very close viewing distance.

I'm actually not really looking forward to large high-ppi displays. Websites already look like arse on the iPad 3 and retina MacBook Pro. Now imagine that on a 27".
 
XTF said:
Why is it that they can put 1536 vertical pixels in a 10" tablet for < $300 but they can't do the same for a normal monitor? Is it the physical size? I doubt it, but what's the reason?
Click to expand...

I'd wager corporatism/capitalism is at work.

Apple wants it, and tells FoxConn to make 10 million of those panels to be sold to Apple almost at cost/unit. Apple can do that due to the volume they move and who they are. Asus/Acer/Dell cannot. Those specific panels are also designed specifically for tablets, and the design probably isn't interchangeable.

There aren't very many large-population hardware surveys out....but on Steam's hardware survey most people, 25% of their users, are only on 1080 panels. There isn't much demand from most users for tons of mega pixels. And like it or not, we [H] folk who want such panels are only a fraction of a percent of the market.

That is my theory anyway.
 
GORANKAR said:
Honestly, I think pixel density is just fine at 1920x1200/1080 on 21"-24" monitors, and 2560 x 1440/1600 on 27"-32" monitors at typical desktop viewing distances.
Click to expand...

Megalith said:
Agreed. High-ppi displays certainly look great, but I don't miss them when I don't have one available. I would say that the only devices that truly need them are mobile devices because of very close viewing distance.
Click to expand...

This greatly depends on your vision as well as your preferences. I have 20/25 vision and can clearly see individual pixels on a 109ppi display from 2 feet away. In the text editors I use, I've actually decreased the default font sizes by 10% so that I can fit more on the screen. Given the choice I'd probably use a smaller size, but I can't because making the font any smaller means there aren't enough pixels in it to easily tell characters like "l" and "1" apart. However, average vision is considered to be 20/20, which means a good portion of the population sees better than I do and would clearly benefit from more detail even more than I would.

Just because you use the full resolution for reading, does not mean that you need to use it all for gaming. I run a lot of games at 1920x1080 on a 2560x1440 display because I have an older video card. When I decide to upgrade it I know that I can take advantage of the extra pixels during gaming, and in the meantime it makes working with static text or images at full resolution much more enjoyable.

When density becomes high enough we can even begin to consider scaling content on non-primary displays without significant loss of sharpness so that objects appear the same size on all displays. It would be possible to do this now, but at current densities everything would end up horribly blurry.

Moving to a higher pixel density would mean that dead pixels are no longer a significant concern and could improve useful panel yields. Imagine one dead pixel on a 300ppi display versus one on a 100ppi display. I'd gladly accept a few dead pixels that cannot be easily seen in exchange for a much higher resolution.

We've been stuck at 1080p far too long and I'd really like to buy a good display before my vision degrades over the next few decades.
 
alike said:
Can we not use the term retina for describing monitor resolutions? It's just Apple's marketing - they have 326 ppi, 264 ppi and 220 ppi LCD screens and all of them are considered "retina" displays. I know they are different sizes, but that also means different "normal" viewing distances. What resolutions do you consider to be "retina" for a 27" desktop monitor?
Click to expand...

Apple's current 27" monitors are 2560x1440. If they quadruple the resolution (which simplifies a whole bunch of issues) that gives you a 27" 5120x2880 monitor

30" 2560x1600 quadded = 5120x3200 = 201.26 ppi
27" 2560x1440 quadded = 5120x2880 = 217.57 ppi
24" 1920x1200 quadded = 3840x2400 = 188.68 ppi
24" 1920x1080 quadded = 3840x2160 = 183.58 ppi
19" 1440x900 quadded = 2880x1800 = 178.75 ppi


PLP fans consider:
27" 5120x2880 = 217.57 ppi = 23.53" × 13.24" display area
15.6" 2880x1800 = 217.71 ppi = 13.23" × 8.27" display area
The MacBook Pro's 2880x1800 display just happens to be 15.4"...
 
Sigh, I'm going to run out of options for wallpaper if they keep this up.
 
1000 said:
It's more important to consider how GPUs are going to keep up if the panels do jump in resolution. Some of us don't want 2-3 graphics cards in our system with their 9 roaring fans belting out 100c exhaust. What single card would do ANYTHING near the retina resolutions at decent frame rates ? None of them.

Nvidia and AMD are purposefully only giving us fractional performance gains with each new GPU family.. this might make them pull their fingers out and deliver something substial for a change.
Click to expand...

Ideally then, we'd get a monitor with a resolution of 3840x2160 (16:9). This would mean that we could game at 1080p, but keep the desktop at 3840x2160. In fact, both 1080p and 720p would look like "native" resolution when used due to the even multiple of the true native resolution. This would be the ideal monitor resolution for those who want a high resolution desktop, but also want 1080p/720p without compromises.
 
The IBM T221 would qualify. 3840x2400 at 22.5" for 204ppi. They require two dual-link DVI connections for full refresh rate (48Hz standard and 55Hz modified). The price for these monitors has fluctuated between $800 and $1700 in the past three years. There's one on eBay now: http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?itemId=290740681778&index=0&nav=SEARCH&nid=99583882364

There's a Yahoo group with lots of information about setup and compatibility. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/IBM_T2X_LCD/

The viewing angles are what you expect from an IPS panel. Black levels are great--better than my 2007FPs'. The anti-glare coating is pretty light--it has a semi-glossy look to it, similar to a matte photograph. Color rendition is pretty good.

Text looks even better than on the Retina iPad because of subpixel rendering. Even though the iPad is 263 ppi, it doesn't use subpixel rendering because it needs to be usable in different orientations.

The major downside: response time. This thing ghosts like Swayze. But you wouldn't want to use it for movies or games anyway.

You'll find more forum posts on this monitor if you search.
 
There are currently back and forth rumors about the next iMac also receiving "retina" branding for its display.
 
Apple might consider a "de facto" 4k resolution (3840 x 2160) monitor on 27" or less Retina if they see the average viewing distance larger than that of an iPad or Macbook
 
Salanmon said:
Apple might consider a "de facto" 4k resolution (3840 x 2160) monitor on 27" or less Retina if they see the average viewing distance larger than that of an iPad or Macbook
Click to expand...

I think we could see 3840x2400 or 3840x2160 on a ~21.5" iMac, and/or a 4K Cinema Display at 27+", but I don't think they'd market a 4K monitor as "Retina" at a PPI of less than 200.

A 4096x2400 Cinema Display would be useful for 4K content producers. Most 4K cameras on the market record at 4096x2160 or 4096x2304. Despite the lack of updates to the Mac Pro, I don't think Apple is abandoning its professional user base. I think we could see an updated Mac Pro and a 4K Cinema Display next year.

I very highly doubt there will be a 5120x2880 display for several years.
 
Medion said:
Ideally then, we'd get a monitor with a resolution of 3840x2160 (16:9). This would mean that we could game at 1080p, but keep the desktop at 3840x2160.
Click to expand...

Unless you were running on a 30" monitor, text would be just too small with a 3840x2160 desktop. Even then, it might be too small.
 
netwebber said:
I think we could see 3840x2400 or 3840x2160 on a ~21.5" iMac, and/or a 4K Cinema Display at 27+", but I don't think they'd market a 4K monitor as "Retina" at a PPI of less than 200.
Click to expand...

The 'Retina' term doesn't correspond to an absolute PPI threshold. It's a function of PPI and the viewing distance. That's why the 'Retina' iPhone 4 has a higher PPI than the 'Retina' iPad. You hold the iPhone closer to your face, so it needs a higher PPI.

Likewise, your monitor is (or at least should be) further from your face than an iPad, so a 'Retina' monitor doesn't necessarily have to have the same PPI as the iPad.
 
Okay, the rule of thumb is that with 20/20 vision, pixels must occupy less than 1 arc-minute of your visual field to not be individually visible (or qualify for the 'Retina' moniker).

Given the distance from your eyes to the monitor, we can calculate the necessary PPI with the following equation:

PPI = 1/(tan(1 arcminute) * <viewing distance>)

For a 20 inch viewing distance, that works out to be 172 PPI.

Here is a plot of viewing distance (x axis) vs necessary PPI (y axis): http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+1/(tan(0.000290888209)*x)+from+x=10+to+30
 
AgentQ said:
The 'Retina' term doesn't correspond to an absolute PPI threshold. It's a function of PPI and the viewing distance. That's why the 'Retina' iPhone 4 has a higher PPI than the 'Retina' iPad. You hold the iPhone closer to your face, so it needs a higher PPI.

Likewise, your monitor is (or at least should be) further from your face than an iPad, so a 'Retina' monitor doesn't necessarily have to have the same PPI as the iPad.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying a desktop monitor needs the same PPI as an iPad, or even as the MBP Retina Display. "Retina Distance" on the 13" on the iPad and 15" on the MBP. It would be 18" on a 3840x2160 23" iMac. That's 191 ppi so maybe they will go below 200, but I still think 200 is a psychological number people expect from a "Retina" display. I could be wrong.

A 27" 2160p display would be 163ppi, less than the original iPhone, and have a Retina viewing distance of 21". I know that "Retina" is a marketing term based on viewing distance, but it still seems like a marketing mistake to sell a display as "Retina" with the same ppi spec as one specifically replaced as non-Retina.

Besides, the 204 ppi T221 strikes me as a good desktop Retina benchmark.
 
Last edited:
netwebber said:
I'm not saying a desktop monitor needs the same PPI as an iPad, or even as the MBP Retina Display. "Retina Distance" on the 13" on the iPad and 15" on the MBP. It would be 18" on a 3840x2160 23" iMac. That's 191 ppi so maybe they will go below 200, but I still think 200 is a psychological number people expect from a "Retina" display. I could be wrong.

A 27" 2160p display would be 163ppi, less than the original iPhone, and have a Retina viewing distance of 21". I know that "Retina" is a marketing term based on viewing distance, but it still seems like a marketing mistake to sell a display as "Retina" with the same ppi spec as one specifically replaced as non-Retina.

Besides, the 204 ppi T221 strikes me as a good desktop Retina benchmark.
Click to expand...

I think you're over-thinking this. Apple has maintained from the start that their 'Retina' term is dependent on the viewing distance, not the PPI. If we start getting monitors with "only" twice the PPI, I can't imagine anyone is going to complain.
 
AgentQ said:
I think you're over-thinking this. Apple has maintained from the start that their 'Retina' term is dependent on the viewing distance, not the PPI. If we start getting monitors with "only" twice the PPI, I can't imagine anyone is going to complain.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. I wouldn't be disappointed by a 27" 4K display, no matter what it's called.
 
XTF said:
Why is it that they can put 1536 vertical pixels in a 10" tablet for < $300 but they can't do the same for a normal monitor? Is it the physical size? I doubt it, but what's the reason?
Click to expand...

There's one very, very big reason for that: Microsoft Windows.

And no, it's not a tinfoil hat theory about big corporates trying to slow down innovation and ruin all our lives ;) It's a simple, if unfortunate consequence of Microsoft's excellent backwards compatibility. Something that Apple doesn't much care about. Which is why Apple is able to push the technology envelope, and Microsoft isn't.

You see, fundamentally Windows 7 today is still constructing its layout in the exact same way that Windows 95 did back in the last millenium. Every single object onscreen is positioned by pixel coordinates. This was the only solution known/feasible back in the days, and it's also an incredible simple and effortless way to do things.

Unfortunately, it also has a fatal flaw: the entire system of pixel coordinates is one hundred percent resolution dependent. As a result, application developers need to target a specific resolution to be able to work. If you design your program with a 12 pixel gap in which a 10 pixel text is displayed, then everything is fine and dandy at your targeted resolution of ~90dpi (which has been the target resolution of the Windows desktop itself since at least XP, maybe longer), but go to 180 dpi and you can no longer read the text. And you also cannot increase the size of the text, because even though Windows supports that, you still only have that 12 pixel gap in which to display the text. As a result, you either end up with half the text diappearing into nothingness and remaining unreadable, or the text pushes the predefined boundaries away, in the process compeltely nuking the rest of your application's layout.

Now, at some point during the last 15 years, with videogames becoming more and more sophisticated, games developers invented something new: a resolution-independent, relative coordinate system. No longer would the entire game screen shrink or grow when you changed resolutions; no, the screen nowadays always looks the same, it's just more crisp or less crisp depending on your settings. Games were able to do this because they use their own screen renderers instead of relying on the OS to do it with its legacy pixel coordinate renderer.

Obviously this relative coordinate system has tons of advantages, so almost every new OS out there uses it. All the mobile OSes do - iOS, Android and so on all use it. Windows Phone does too, so it's not like Microsoft doesn't know about it. Apple even went and made OSX use it many years ago, in the process basically telling every single of their users something like: "here's your OS update, have fun buying every single program you ever used a second time, because none of the old stuff will run anymore".

Unfortunately for Microsoft, their users aren't quite as happy to dump armloads of cash into showing their friends that they have the latest version. And double unfortunately for them, 90% of the world is using Microsoft Windows, and have been doing so for decades. How the hell do you migrate THAT kind of userbase to a new screen renderer that is completely incompatible with almost all software ever developed? The answer is, of course: you don't. You stick to your pixel coordinate renderer at 90dpi and hope nobody notices.

Triple unfortunately... Apple noticed. And here we are today.

Fun fact: Microsoft already has a solution. Windows 8 has a resolution-independent, coordinate-based UI. It's called Metro, and everyone gives Microsoft massive shit about it without even knowing what they're dissing. But this is the ultimate consequence of 15 years of being nice to the end user and maintaining backwards compatibility. And think about it - Windows 8 also flawlessly emulates the old pixel coordinate desktop right alongside the new Metro UI. It's the single most gentle and under-the-radar technology migration I've ever seen an OS do. You don't even know it's happening - people will just use Metro more and more over time until the classic desktop becomes forgotten naturally.

But with Metro, high dpi resolutions are finally coming to Windows. And incredibly late start, but hey, it's finally here. And once it's on Windows, the big display manufacturers are certainly going to spread it across their entire portfolio. The next two-three years are going to be extremely interesting in this regard. :)


...ummm. ooops. Did I just write that wall of text? :D
 
AgentQ said:
Okay, the rule of thumb is that with 20/20 vision, pixels must occupy less than 1 arc-minute of your visual field to not be individually visible (or qualify for the 'Retina' moniker).

For a 20 inch viewing distance, that works out to be 172 PPI.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that 20/20 is an average, which means a good portion of people should see better than this.

To display an image indistinguishable from reality you also need to account for things like vernier acuity, which states that human's ability to tell if lines are parallel is much more accurate than the usual point-based metrics would suggest (as good as 0.13 arcminutes). Also, many letters/characters are made from straight lines. Using your equation gives a resolution of 1322 PPI at a 20 inch viewing distance to ensure vernier acuity works correctly.

One other note: Remember that most displays use a grid of square pixels and the PPI metric is calculated for the best-case scenario. Pixels along the diagonal are about 1.4 times this far apart.
 
|Omicron| said:
There's one very, very big reason for that: Microsoft Windows.
(WOT) :D
Click to expand...

Microsoft's solution is actually better than Apple's, IMHO. Apple requires two sets of resources, one regular and one retina. Microsoft suggests three: 100%, 140%, and 180%: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/03/21/scaling-to-different-screens.aspx

"Native" Retina mode sacrifices usable desktop space in favor of sharpness. Apple's solution for intermediate sizes (rendering at double, then scaling down) wastes resources and results in less than perfect sharpness. If you want more desktop space with a 1:1 pixel display, your only other option is to run at native resolution, which isn't even available by default. Microsoft gives you more control over the tradeoff between sharpness and desktop space.

Apple controls the native resolution of all of its products, but many of its products can also be used with external monitors. Its solution isn't horrible and is easier for developers, but Microsoft's solution makes sense if it wants Windows 8 to run on tablets and external displays of different resolutions. This leads to it being more customizable.
 
It's been done by a few people.

http://www.geeks3d.com/20111208/eiz...-monitor-with-an-insane-4096x2160-resolution/

this website demonstrates a person gaming on a RadiForce RX840. A 36.4-inch medical imaging LCD panel with a resolution of 4096×2160.

eizo-radiforce-rx840-dirt3-game.jpg
 
There are smaller, high-pixel density options as well but until recently higher-density displays were focused on medical markets.

2048x1536, 21.3" = 120 PPI NEC MD213MC

-- Art
 
Software able to take advantage of higher resolutions exists already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top