Retina display for desktop?

[vailr]

Anyone know whether Apple will be adding Retina display screen resolution to their line of iMacs?
With Apple's huge cash reserve, it seems they bought all the output of the few factories capable of producing Retina displays and dedicating all of those screens for the new iPad HD.
So: what are the chances for future iMacs being upgraded with Retina displays? Or maybe: a stand alone Apple branded 21.5", 23", 24" or 27" monitor with a 2048x1536 IPS screen.

 

[Soccerman06]

The updated mbp will have a 2880x1800 or something like that. But thats the most I know. Oh and apple doesnt make any physical hardware I think, they order from a supplier and ship it off to foxconn or someone similar to assemble.

 

[Snowshredder102]

Anyone know whether Apple will be adding Retina display screen resolution to their line of iMacs?
With Apple's huge cash reserve, it seems they bought all the output of the few factories capable of producing Retina displays and dedicating all of those screens for the new iPad HD.
So: what are the chances for future iMacs being upgraded with Retina displays? Or maybe: a stand alone Apple branded 21.5", 23", 24" or 27" monitor with a 2048x1536 IPS screen.

Not anytime soon, a 2048x1536 resolution on a 21.5 inch monitor would see be less than half the PPI than an iPhone. Let's put it this way a 3840x2400 22" monitor has a PPI of 204, which is about 130 less pixels per inch than an iPhone. These resolutions are incredibly expensive to put on larger displays. I guarantee a "Retina display monitor" will not be made in anywhere near soon.

 

[gladiatorua]

"Retina" for desktops and laptops shouldn't be as high as for tablets and phones, because the usual distance between human eye and the display is much higher than in case of mobile devices.
Is there a formula that determines at what distance what resolution is "retina"?

 

[Binky]

"Retina Display" is a marketing term. Just like "Double stuffed" Oreo's. Neither defines a quantity and you might sound a bit silly throwing the term around.

 

[superjim]

"Retina Display" is a marketing term. Just like "Double stuffed" Oreo's. Neither defines a quantity and you might sound a bit silly throwing the term around.

You sir, win at analogies, lmao

 

[alfa147x]

"Retina Display" is a marketing term. Just like "Double stuffed" Oreo's. Neither defines a quantity and you might sound a bit silly throwing the term around.

How about 264 - 326 pixels per inch displays for desktop...

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Not anytime soon, a 2048x1536 resolution on a 21.5 inch monitor would see be less than half the PPI than an iPhone. Let's put it this way a 3840x2400 22" monitor has a PPI of 204, which is about 130 less pixels per inch than an iPhone. These resolutions are incredibly expensive to put on larger displays. I guarantee a "Retina display monitor" will not be made in anywhere near soon.

How do you get 204?

And you don't need 320ppi for it to be 'retina' in a desktop. I have my monitor a full 60cm away, that's about double the distance I normally hold my phone. Given that, a pixel density of 160-ish would be sufficient. A 2560x1600 21.5" monitor would get about 140ppi, that would be pretty cool. It's about time someone put a higher-res display onto that size monitor.

 

[Lonyo]

Indeed. Apart from everything being smaller, there's no pixel difference between my 27" 2560x1440 monitor and my 32" 1920x1080 TV when I sit a usable distance away from each (not necessarily the same distance from each).

Compare that to holding a phone or tablet near my face, where pixels are more visible, it's a totally difference scenario and the 100ppi of my monitor is more than sufficient.

 

[alfa147x]

DELL U2711 (27", 2.560 x 1.440) 0,233 mm 109 ppi
DELL U3011 (30", 2.560 x .1600) 0,252 mm 100 ppi
DELL U2412 (24", 1.920 x 1.200) 0,269 mm 94 ppi

I hold an iPad 12 - 16 inches away from my face. My monitors (2x L2250P) at work are 18 - 20 inches away at home my 3x U2412m sit about 20 - 22 inches away.
Visual source: PPI/Distance inches
iPad (3rd gen): 22
Work: 5
Home: 4.7

Even though I took the shortest distance from my face to the monitors it shows how large of a difference there is. The iPad doesn't even have the PPI the iPhone 4s has (326).

I would love having a 300 PPI monitor. That would be amazing.

27" iMac: 108.79 PPI
11" MacBook Air: 135.09 PPI
Lenovo Thinkpad X300: 127.68 PPI
Apple LED Cinema Display (27" flat panel): 108.79 PPI
IBM T221: 221.85 PPI

To get to the iPhone 4/4s PPI you need a monitor like this:
7680x4800 @ 24 inch = 377 ppi. Just passed the iphone 4.
220.68 PPI Sony PS Vita
960x540 @ 4.3 HTC EVO 3D = 256.15 PPI
854x480 @ 3.7 Motorola Droid = 264.77 PPI
640x360 @ 3.2 Nokia N97 mini = 229.47 PPI

 

[dma0991]

Apple just loves giving catchy names to something that is somewhat near ordinary. To cram that much pixels into a >20" monitor would be too expensive for an ordinary user to purchase. We all love monitors like that, provided that it is affordable and provides a huge benefit.

I could certainly benefit a lot from having more pixels, it means that I could see more text on a single screen. In fact, I could already do that by having my monitor in portrait or get a multi display setup. The thing is, we're looking at our monitor from a distance and we can't tell the difference whether we have >300 PPI.

Just a while back when I was setting up my HTPC with a 1080P TV. I tried with 1080P initially, couldn't see a thing from 5 feet away. Tried 720P, way better and it is what I stick with. Surely I could resize every text and icon to fit but it is a hassle, 720P resolution is a fine tradeoff.

 

[alfa147x]

Apple just loves giving catchy names to something that is somewhat near ordinary.

How is it near ordinary?

Galaxy Tab: 149.45 PPI
Xyboard: 149.45 PPI
Transformer Prime: 149.45 PPI
iPad: 264 PPI

 

[JAG87]

You should be sitting at least 24" away from your desktop monitor, 100 ppi is sufficient to match the density of the iPhone. If you sit less than 2 ft away, you're doing it wrong.

326 ppi * 10" = 3260
264 ppi * 12" = 3168
100 ppi * 24" = 3000
42" 1080p TV = 52 ppi * 60" (5ft) = 3120

greater product = more perceived density
smaller product = less perceived density

 

[alfa147x]

You should be sitting at least 24" away from your desktop monitor, 100 ppi is sufficient to match the density of the iPhone. If you sit less than 2 ft away, you're doing it wrong.

According to what?

 

[alfa147x]

You should be sitting at least 24" away from your desktop monitor, 100 ppi is sufficient to match the density of the iPhone. If you sit less than 2 ft away, you're doing it wrong.

326 ppi * 10" = 3260
264 ppi * 12" = 3168
100 ppi * 24" = 3000
42" 1080p TV = 52 ppi * 60" (5ft) = 3120

smaller product = more perceived density
greater product = less perceived density

3.5" iPhone = 326 ppi / 10" = 32.6
9.7" iPad = 264 ppi / 12" = 22
23" Samsung 2343BW(102ppi) = 100 ppi / 24" = 4.166
42" 1080p TV = 52 ppi / 60" (5ft) = 0.866

TVs and monitors are two different things. You sit leisurely on a couch and watch tv. A monitor is used for many things including mass amounts of text.

Try reading an article on a 42 inch 1080p tv @ 5ft. That's no fun.

 

[Lonyo]

3.5" iPhone = 326 ppi / 10" = 32.6
9.7" iPad = 264 ppi / 12" = 22
23" Samsung 2343BW(102ppi) = 100 ppi / 24" = 4.166
42" 1080p TV = 52 ppi / 60" (5ft) = 0.866

TVs and monitors are two different things. You sit leisurely on a couch and watch tv. A monitor is used for many things including mass amounts of text.

Try reading an article on a 42 inch 1080p tv @ 5ft. That's no fun.

Try increasing the text size?
Apple didn't make everything smaller on the new iPad or iPhone, they just made things use more pixels to show the same amount of information.
Pixels doesn't correlate to size if you scale your UI/interface/etc,. just to detail.
Which is why you don't need a super high ppi on a monitor, because you don't need the extra detail due to the distance.

 

[dma0991]

How is it near ordinary?

Galaxy Tab: 149.45 PPI
Xyboard: 149.45 PPI
Transformer Prime: 149.45 PPI
iPad: 264 PPI

Even with nearly double the PPI, it doesn't that make Android's offerings less usable in terms of screen sharpness. I doubt that iPad 2 will be less usable just because it has half of the PPI on the iPad 3.

There is no disadvantage with having more pixels but more often than not, it becomes a marketing gimmick used to fool those who would buy because it is "better" than the previous. Then again, iPad 3 is claimed to be having battery life issues due to the pixel density.

 

[JAG87]

According to what?

According to medical doctors...

3.5" iPhone = 326 ppi / 10" = 32.6
9.7" iPad = 264 ppi / 12" = 22
23" Samsung 2343BW(102ppi) = 100 ppi / 24" = 4.166
42" 1080p TV = 52 ppi / 60" (5ft) = 0.866

TVs and monitors are two different things. You sit leisurely on a couch and watch tv. A monitor is used for many things including mass amounts of text.

Try reading an article on a 42 inch 1080p tv @ 5ft. That's no fun.

What does the quotient mean? Increasing viewing distance increases perceived density... that makes no sense.

 

[alfa147x]

According to medical doctors...

Source? Even at 2 - 3 feet you can see a difference.
PPI/Inch from display.

That's pixels per distance. Then you can say @ 100 ft you need x pixals...

Even with nearly double the PPI, it doesn't that make Android's offerings less usable in terms of screen sharpness. I doubt that iPad 2 will be less usable just because it has half of the PPI on the iPad 3.

There is no disadvantage with having more pixels but more often than not, it becomes a marketing gimmick used to fool those who would buy because it is "better" than the previous. Then again, iPad 3 is claimed to be having battery life issues due to the pixel density.

A laptop with 802.11G does it make is less usable...

[/B]

Try increasing the text size?
Apple didn't make everything smaller on the new iPad or iPhone, they just made things use more pixels to show the same amount of information.
Pixels doesn't correlate to size if you scale your UI/interface/etc,. just to detail.
Which is why you don't need a super high ppi on a monitor, because you don't need the extra detail due to the distance.

But you still end up with less than perfect text.

 

[Lonyo]

Even with nearly double the PPI, it doesn't that make Android's offerings less usable in terms of screen sharpness. I doubt that iPad 2 will be less usable just because it has half of the PPI on the iPad 3.

There is no disadvantage with having more pixels but more often than not, it becomes a marketing gimmick used to fool those who would buy because it is "better" than the previous. Then again, iPad 3 is claimed to be having battery life issues due to the pixel density.

Higher pixel density makes it harder for light to pass through, meaning you need a stronger backlight.
Most of the power required in portable devices is used by the screen. That's why Apple went from a 25Whr battery to a 42.5Whr battery and got the same battery life.

 

[JAG87]

Source?

Really dude? Whatever. Go sit 6 inches from your monitor and stare at your pixels. Can't help people who don't want to helped.

For anyone else that actually cares about the OP's question, perceived density on iPhone 4S from 10", iPad 3 from 12" and a 100 ppi monitor from 24" is the same. It's the mobiles catching up to computers, not the other way around.

 

[Ken g6]

Is there a formula that determines at what distance what resolution is "retina"?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

 

[Snowshredder102]

If you sit less than 2 ft away, you're doing it wrong

I sit about 2 feet away from my 2560x1600 monitor and still isn't anywhere near the perfection of my iPhone display. I'm not going to sit far away from my monitor, why would I take away my screen size? That's like people who get 100" 1080p projector displays that are so blown up the picture looks like crap unless you're super far away from it. I'd rather get a 50" and sit closer to it. I stand by what I've been saying, we're far away from having anything close to a retina display on monitors.

 

[natto fire]

nvm, thought this was OT.

 

[dguy6789]

Until you can not see jaggies/aliasing in a game at native resolution without turning on any kind of AA monitors are not high enough PPI to be called retina.