Is 4K+ coming soon from Apple?

4K monitors are ‘happening’, some are available today, others are in the pipeline one news article. How long before Apple delivers something at or higher than this resolution? (It was suggested in another conversation that Apple would need > 4K to claim ‘retina’)

2K is 1080p (1920 x 1080)
4K UHD is 2160p (3840 x 2160)
Wikipedia 4K link

See how things have progressed from the days of CGA (320 x 200) - also an interesting table about half way down in that article showing display resolution ‘popularity’ for web users and (Steam) game users in May 2012.
Wikipedia Display Resolution link

A Mac Pro + 4K ACD and/or iMac announcement soon would certainly be well received.

i4K ? :wink:

Here is my issue with the Apple 4K stuff. Apple does not currently ship a 1920 x 1080 display. Their sizes are (for example) 1440 x 900 and 2560 x 1440. 4K will give the required bandwidth for the Retina 1440 x 900, but not the 2560 x 1440. The Retina versions of these would be 2880 x 1800 and 5120 x 2880 respectively.

I don’t see Apple shipping an iMac or Thunderbolt Display with a lower perceived resolution than their current models. Yes, 4K would technically have more pixels than current models, but their actual usable space would be lower. Apple isn’t one to settle, so I don’t see that happening.

I think we’ll see Retina models available when they can move 5120 x 2880 resolutions down the pipe, which is likely to happen on the iMac before the Thunderbolt Display, given they can design a specialized connector for it.

The new Mac Pro supports 4K, the new Final Cut supports 4K, the new cinema format is 4K. :slight_smile: Apple will follow it for the new high-end machines, even using not Apple monitors. The cinema industry needs and uses 4K solutions, Apple will not be left behind.
The new Mac Pro can handle up to 3 displays. The Mac Pro has 6 Thunderbolt-2 ports. Each port can handle 20Gbps. The HDMI-2, capable to handle 4K displays at 60 fps, supports 18Gbps. Just wait… It’s coming.

Oh it’ll happen, no doubt. My point is that Apple won’t do it until they can do it to their exacting standards.

[quote=34186:@Thom McGrath]Here is my issue with the Apple 4K stuff. Apple does not currently ship a 1920 x 1080 display. Their sizes are (for example) 1440 x 900 and 2560 x 1440. 4K will give the required bandwidth for the Retina 1440 x 900, but not the 2560 x 1440. The Retina versions of these would be 2880 x 1800 and 5120 x 2880 respectively.

I don’t see Apple shipping an iMac or Thunderbolt Display with a lower perceived resolution than their current models. Yes, 4K would technically have more pixels than current models, but their actual usable space would be lower. Apple isn’t one to settle, so I don’t see that happening.

I think we’ll see Retina models available when they can move 5120 x 2880 resolutions down the pipe, which is likely to happen on the iMac before the Thunderbolt Display, given they can design a specialized connector for it.[/quote]

You could be right - who knows what Apple perceive as the key criteria.

Thom, maybe you can confirm or deny my maths on PPD (I hope that I got is right), apparently 53.53 was the threshold for Retina established for the iPhone.

(1) Current 27" ACD is 43 PPC, Retina MBP 15 is 87 PPC
(2) The viewing distance used for determining Retina eligibility for a MBP 13/15 was 51 cm

Current 27" ACD would have a PPD of 39 (rounded up)
Retina MBP 15 has a PPD of 78
Your proposed spec for a 27" @ 5120x2880 would have a PPD of 77

A 4K 27" ACD would have a PPD of 58

I reckon that (1) a 4K 27" ACD would ‘get by’ with 58 PPD if using the 53.53 PPD criteria and that is at the same viewing distance as expected for a MBP 13/15. I think Apple could argue that your viewing distance could increase for a 27" screen, amazingly enough I am 68cm (roughly) from my 27" ACD and at a viewing distance of 68cm the PPD for a 4K 27" ACD would be 77 !!

Interesting, maybe it is not so far away :slight_smile:

Since when does Apple “get by?” You can see the math yourself, current Retina computers have a higher PPD than a 4K 27" would, but a good margin. That’s not good enough for Apple. Besides, in terms of usable space, 1920 x 1080 is very different from 2560 x 1440. I’ve got both, I know. So Apple reducing their usable space I don’t think is in the cards. 5120 x 2880, or nothing.

Now, if they do a 22" Retina iMac, I could easily see the 1920 x 1080 (3840 x 2160) working at that size. But not at 27".

[quote=34186:@Thom McGrath]Here is my issue with the Apple 4K stuff. Apple does not currently ship a 1920 x 1080 display. Their sizes are (for example) 1440 x 900 and 2560 x 1440. 4K will give the required bandwidth for the Retina 1440 x 900, but not the 2560 x 1440. The Retina versions of these would be 2880 x 1800 and 5120 x 2880 respectively.

I don’t see Apple shipping an iMac or Thunderbolt Display with a lower perceived resolution than their current models. Yes, 4K would technically have more pixels than current models, but their actual usable space would be lower. Apple isn’t one to settle, so I don’t see that happening.

I think we’ll see Retina models available when they can move 5120 x 2880 resolutions down the pipe, which is likely to happen on the iMac before the Thunderbolt Display, given they can design a specialized connector for it.[/quote]

The 21.5" iMac says “Hi”. It has a 1080p display.

Ah, okay. I thought they discontinued that model. I’m fine with being wrong. Still, in my last post I said a 22" with a 1080 would work fine. Glad to see I wasn’t wrong on that bit :stuck_out_tongue:

‘Get by’ by their own definition not mine - it seemed a nicer way to highlight that a 27" 4K ACD would be Retina (just) at a 51 cm viewing distance and even more Retina at 68cm.

[quote=34284:@Thom McGrath]Besides, in terms of usable space, 1920 x 1080 is very different from 2560 x 1440. I’ve got both, I know./quote]
I agree, I have the 27" ACD in the centre and two 1920 x 1080 Samsung displays one on either side, oh and a 46" HD TV for checking presentations all on the same machine. Let me dream about Apple 4K and the new Mac Pro - I don’t really want Asus, LG, Dell, etc. monitors - just 2 x 4K Apple ACDs to keep me occupied for the next few years.

I don’t mind if it is 22", 27" or 31.5" at 4K, I would be even more happy if it was 5120 x 2880 but for me 4K will do. It may look a bit weak to ship a new Mac Pro and no new display. Anyway time will tell, there doesn’t have to be a wrong or right, just ideas about the future but now you have predicted 5120 x 2880 or nothing that is going to be harder to achieve but I will be even more happy if it happens soon.