Retina Display - when will they come to PCs?

When do you think Retina Displays will come to PCs?

Intel has said that 2013 they will, but as most of you know Apple has had the Retina display on both their iPhones and iPads for awhile and the competition has not yet caught up with them in those markets.

 

The futur High-Res screens will come on PC but won't be called Retina (specific to Apple). I expect these kind of screen to come by Early 2013 (Around February).

 

never. "retina display" is pure marketing, it's not a product.

 

It's also poor grammar. 'retina' is a noun, NOT an adjective or adverb, which would be appropriate here.

Proper wording would be 'Retinal Display', but that's not as much as an eye-catcher, is it? Retinal conjures up pictures of one's last colonoscopy exam...

 

I was more thinking an ophthalmology or optometry exam, but to each their own .

 

again...it is called a high resolution display.....how many times will i have to say this....

The new 4k/quad HD screens suck...we are going to 16:9 to 17.x/9. it keeps getting worse and worse for computers

 

After reading the Anandtech review of the new 'retina display' capable MBP, I hope that when they do come to PC's, they will be implemented at the O/S level in a much better fashion and will make much better/direct use of the GPU('s).

The amount of putzing around that OS/x and the GPU's have to do is simply stupid (and wasteful, imo) to get this kind of resolution - hope MS Win7 supports such high resolutions on a notebook properly when they're finally available.

If an OS/x type 'kludge' solution is used - I'll definitely pass on the PC side too until the issues are properly addressed.

 

Consider the Dell XPS One 27 $1999 direct Native Resolution 2560 x 1440

You will get similar viewing angles as the HP Omni 27 ($1,249 direct) and Apple iMac 27-inch (Thunderbolt) ($1,999). The screen itself is crisp and bright with decent viewing angles and 2,560 by 1,440 resolution. The screen is large enough to work as a mid-sized HDTV as well as a large screen all-in-one desktop PC.

Type Multimedia, All-in-one
Processor Speed 3.1 GHz
Processor Name Intel Core i7-3770S
RAM 8 GB
Storage Capacity 2032 GB 7200RPM
Graphics Card nVidia GeForce GT 630M
Monitor Type LCD Widescreen
Screen Size 27 inches
Native Resolution 2560 x 1440


Consider MacBook Pro 15-inch (Retina Display) $ 2184 Native Resolution 2880 x 1800

The Retina display itself is glorious. The resolution is 2,880 by 1,800, which sounds like a lot, but text is scaled so it doesn't look too small. Instead of making the letters smaller like on the iPhone 4 or 4S (to see this effect, use one to visit a non-mobile-optomized Website), Apple kept the font sizes consistent with what you'd expect in the real world and just made them smoother. In contrast, text on a MacBook Air looks smooth from your seat, but the individual letters are still jaggy close up. Text on the new MacBook Pro looks smooth from both far away and close up, as if it were laser printed on paper.

If there's any drawback to the Retina display, it's that all of your existing Mac applications will have to be updated for it (kind of like what happened with the iPhone 4/4S and latest iPad). Apple-sourced apps like Safari, Final Cut Pro, and Aperture look terrific, but non-optimized apps like Google Chrome will show upscaled and jaggy fonts. It's a problem that's likely to go away as more developers update their programs, but it's an annoyance right now.

Type General Purpose, Media, Business
Processor Speed 2.3 GHz
Processor Name Intel Core i7-3615QM
RAM 8 GB
Storage Capacity 256 GB Rotation Speed SSD
Graphics Card Nvidia GeForce GT 650M
Screen Size 15.4 inches
Native Resolution 2880 x 1800

 

why do u want it for?
why people are so brainwashed with apple crap ..

 

The internet is not ready for such a high resolution, nor are the people.

 

Exactly the same thing what i thought when i saw the retina display with my own eyes.

 

thats ridiculous...how are people and the internet not ready for it? If you mean QFHD video being streamed than sure but that doesn't mean that 99.9% of other applications wont benefit from it. To think that streaming QFHD is all that matters is stupid. I would love to own a 30 inche screen...maybe 4 that could fit 4 times the amount of stuff as my u2412m. I would use the crap out of opera tile.

 

one thing is 1600p which is visible another is 1800p
come on, a huge waste of space on the internet, no and I mean NO website is made for such resolution, for now

 

People were saying the same thing when they were running 800x600 resolutions about 1600x1200 resolution, or 1920x1200 resolutions.

More screen real estate/clearer screens aren't exactly a necessity, but they are definitely a great feature to have.

I will say that I would not buy the current Retina MacBook Pro now that I am seeing how many compromises they had to make with it, the GPU can barely handle that resolution and it isn't that well implemented in the OS side.

 

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7760/operatile.png

this is pointless on a 1920x1200 screen but it is use able at 2560x1600 but would be awesome on a 3,840x2,400 screen. a 30 inch screen with that res would be amazing for productivity. People who use excel, research stuff, bower browsers like me. I have like 30 tabs of webpages open 24/7. People who work in stock market...tons of areas could use this res very easily. Also PDF files would be awesome. You could have 4 PDF files open at once and read them all. Or have 2 open and have tons of information on the screen at once. I would love to have a 3,840x2,400 screen. If they are not stupid they will make a 16:10 version and once I finish college and get my real job I will buy 2-3 of them

 

They'll probably come out pretty quick if the demand is there.

I think IBM came out with high resolution LCD monitors like 10 years ago, just never caught on. It's nothing new...

 

it was also like 10 grand and custom made. requires special parts too

 

Yep, the T220 and T221 monitors. I think erik has one, actually.

I'd imagine that we'll see more higher-resolution and higher-DPI hardware with and soon after the W8 release. W8 handles resolution scaling better than previous Windows versions, and as resolutions as high as FHD makes it to tablets (Windows Surface Pro, Asus Transformer Pad Infinity, etc.), we'll see a natural evolution of the resolutions available on higher-end laptops as well.

 

Still not sure what would classify something as a retina display? Is it the high resolution, or is it the ratio of resolution to screen size? I've tried Sony's camera which has an electronic viewfinder with I think 1024×768 resolution on 0.5 inch screen. The thing is dangerously sharp.

 

300DPI is as high as most human eyes can see so that is far above it....well that also depends on range so view finders and DPI change at 1 inch from your eye so i dont know the actually ratio in range but from arms length 300DPI is max. Also retina is a marketing term please do not use it....it makes you sound like an apple fanboy or an average joe that is brainwashed by apple marketing. Please dont take it personally trying to help inform you on the differences.

 

A "Retina" display is a display that has a pixel density high enough for most human eyes to be unable to distinguish the individual pixels from normal viewing distances associated with the device.

Italicized are the words where subjectivity comes into play.

 

Not the same thing: a monitor will not normally apply sharpening to it's output - a camera's electronic view finder will (because it is such low resolution and viewed so close vs. a stand alone monitor.

'Dangerously sharp'? No. Simply sharpened/enhanced output to a known low res device (low res even at 1024x768 @ 0.5").

 

Window shopping for 4k, but 8k….Yeah 8k seems to be closing in faster than expected

8K UHDTV: How do you send a 48Gbps TV signal over terrestrial airwaves?

The BBC will be recording the 2012 London Olympics in UHDTV, streaming the footage to 15m display screens for public viewing.

Earlier in 2012, following various tech advances, NHK finally demonstrated the first shoulder-mounted UHDTV video camera — and now, the Japanese broadcaster has successfully transmitted UHDTV 4.2km (2.6 miles) over conventional, UHF airwaves.

This is no mean feat: At 120 frames per second (UHD allows for 24, 25, 50, 60, and 120 fps), a raw 7680×4320 video feed clocks in at 48 gigabits per second (Gbps). The Super Hi-Vision spec (SMPTE 2036) supports 22.2-channel sound, too, which comes in at around 50Mbps. After compression (NHK has developed a special codec for Super Hi-Vision), the entire stream clocks in at around 500Mbps. To put this into perspective, a 1080p TV channel signal (over the air) is around 10Mbps. The new 802.11ac WiFi standard can reach similar speeds (500Mbps), but over tens of meters — not 4.2km.

How does NHK transmit 500Mbps over a few miles, then? Using OFDM (orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing), MIMO (multiple-input, multiple-output, i.e. using more than one antenna), and two 8MHz UHF radio cahnnels. OFDM and MIMO, which are already used by many wireless technologies including digital terrestrial TV (DVB-T), 802.11ac and LTE, allow a vast amount of data to be squeezed into a single bandwidth block.

 

Thanks for the replies, I'm starting to understand now. And yes, I know retina is an Apple term, I was just too lazy to edit and add air-quotes "retina." I'm not too knowledgeable about screens and resolutions. For me, HD is 720p and Full HD means the 1080p, and was struggling to find a term to fit anything larger than 1080p.

 

With Intel's roadmap for 4k displays, the future looks promising. I too wish for higher resolution displays, I could care less about aspect ratio, if there are physically more pixels, it makes up for 16:9 or 21:9 aspect ratio if there are physically more pixels. What I dislike is 720p on a 16" laptop, absolute disgrace.

If Retina sells well, which I see no reason why it should, it should pave the way for the future for higher resolution displays.

 

Any idea on the cost/price bump with the higher res?

 

no one really knows yet. I asked in another thread and no one knows

 

The rumor is that it cost Apple about $100 more for the hi res display.

There are a lot of things that Apple does that doesn't really move computing forward but this isn't one of them. High PPI monitors are a good thing. Take a look at the MBP and compare with a 15" FHD monitor and the difference in text is noticable. It's unfortunate that it takes Apple to do it before the masses think they want it but that's just how today's tech world works right now.

PC makers complain that people aren't buying computers because the latest computer is overpowered for what they do outside of games. Their 3 year old PC is good enough. Well, having a high DPI screen will tax the system a bit more and has a very noticeable benefit. Yes, there is some software transition to support 220+ PPI screens but the sooner the hardware comes, the sooner the software will support it. The opportunity is there. Who wants to take it?

 

I remember that the panel cost for the mbp 15 was as follow (those are approximations)

- 1440*900 = 45
- 1680*1050 = 80
- 2880*1800 = 150-200 and that price is from a consulting firm that speculated on the price for the retina models, before the launch, the guy was right regarding the res IF I remember it correctly

 

+100......

 

It's about PPI, not some marketing name. Go to an Apple store and look at the new MBP. You can bring your laptop too. You will see a difference in crispness of text, especially for larger fonts where it's easier to see aliasing. It might matter to you or it might not, but you will see a difference.

But forget the Macbook. PC makers, aren't you embarrassed that the ARM based iPad has a higher resolution than any laptop you've ever made?

 

Were they not affordable? Why did they stop making them? According to the rumorville, the 220 PPI display currently costs Apple about $100 USD more than the 2011 displays (even as it has some of the best contrast and black levels -- see review). Apple probably marks up but that's their BOM. Plus it should decrease. I'm sure there are enough customers who are willing to pay the extra $100-150 USD for a 220 PPI display on Windows.

 

oh cource they weren't....it was 8 years ago.... ground breaking tech is never affordable...it was nearly a decade ago.

 

2560x1600 is already pushing boundaries on a 17" screen.

On a 15" I find 1920x1200 res to be the maximum.

I dont see the appeal of running a 2800x1800 res screen then having to scale it so that it appears to be running on a lower resolution.

 

it is currently done like that because programs dont support it..... I think 2560x1600 is perfect for 15-17 inch...a bit overkill but worth while. I think 1920x1200 is min for a 13-15inch. I hate anything less and i am stuck with a 1080p screen...grrrr

 

What do you mean? Can you explain.

 

my understanding is that apple runs everything at 1920x1200 or whatever to give a crisper image and also because many programs dont support the higher res....or at least that is what i thought i read from that anandtech article floating around the forums. I could be mistaken so if i am please let me know.

 

Hopelessly I you have it wrong man, way wrong.
This is gonna be a long read so I will put it in spoilers.

Lets first talk about resolution.

Spoiler

The most important benefit is to have more workspace (higher resolution=more content on the screen). 2560x1600 or higher resolutions have often been targeted at professionals and often end up as H-IPS or S-IPS panels (for professionals, once again).
When you work say in CAD, Video/picture editing, statistic analysis, and other fields. Programs require LARGE workspaces so that you can take advantage of all of the options and buttons. For example Premiere@1366x768 is darn near impossible to work with, all the buttons are too big, and you end up not being able to see your project. On a 2560x1600 screen, things change you can see multiple projects at once, and your productivity increases.

However resolution isn't the only key to the equation. The other equation is physical viewing space (LCD size). After all what does it matter if your LCD is 2560x1600 but because of the size of the LCD, you are looking at a .1mm button on the actual screen. Thus for higher resolution, you need physical space large enough to let the content be visible to the naked eye without straining the eye.

What apple has done is increased the resolution to 2880x1800 on a 15", meaning realistically you will never be able to utilize 2880x1800 resolution as it should be used because the content would end up too small.

Meaning if one were to leave the webpage or program as is, with a 1:1 pixel scaling. You would end up with a screen capable of fitting 3 webpages in the screen, but the webpages in the physical area will be unreadable thus what is the point of a resolution so high, you cannot use it?

Example of 1:1 no scaling (how it should be)
Here's a quick example, please view this on a 15" 1080P screen. Do not zoom in.
1366 res @15":
1080p res @15":
1800p resolution @ 15":

Tell me which one is easily readable. Thats why I said 1920x1080p~ is the maximum for a 15" screen.

What ends up happening with Apple with scaling is:
This is what you are paying a large premium for:

And this is what you are getting, effectively a 1920p screen:


Without scaling you end up with non readable content. Meaning it's useless.

All programs can handle 2880x1800 resolution. The problem is no one thought someone would be foolish enough to do a 15" Lcd with 2880x1800. Effectively wasting the #1 reason for higher resolution which is more work space.

 

what about the Samsung Gamer 7 laptops screen? its SUPER awesome they say..better than most laptops out right now.

 

Says who?

I for one am not impressed (just like the 'retina iPad' did not impress either.

Better? Sure.

Impressive (for the $$$...), no.

 

what does this even mean? there's a discussion about resolutions and scaling taking place here...

although this doesn't really jive with the Indrek reply that i'm a big fan of, i completely agree with this statement. i am a super-fine kinda guy and FHD on my 9150's 15.6" is too much even for me (let alone WUXGA). in my opinion, scaling defeats the purpose of using a given resolution *ahem, cough, cough* and i can't live without the added real estate, but man is it hard on the eyes. 'ctrl + click wheel' all day.

 

Having used a 1080p 17.3" for a month, going back to my other laptop's 1366x768 14" screen is horrible. Can't imagine using the myriad of 768p 15.6" laptops out there. My brother has a 1080p 15.6" laptop and I find it could definitely be higher than that because I have no trouble using it.

IMO, starting from now or in the near future, 15.6" laptops should be 1080p minimum. 2560x1440 would be really nice for 17.3".

 

even on my 11.6 inch series 3 1366x768 could still be higher. I dont know why 13in and up dont come standard 1080p or 1200p

 

I agree 768p on even on a small screen looks horrible!

Check this out: Review Asus Zenbook UX32VD Ultrabook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

It even has a decent graphics card! I need it! And its 1080P screen is ips with a contrast ratio of 1000:1 and a black value of only 0.3 cd/m it apparently look awesome! According to notebookcheck's review

 

As long as your eyesight can make out the UX32VD's screen without straining (and damaging) your eyes, no problem.

But even on my little Asus U30Jc's 13.3" 1366x768 screen the 1080p Zenbook's type looks very small (and unreadable) to me.

I would love this screen for my images - but I would still have to zoom in to read webpages (and then it would be effectively like the 12.5" 1366x768 screen in the comparison shot your link provides).

 

actually by default it runs most things at 900, resolution is divided by 2 both horizontally and vertically.

 

The whole idea of higher PPI is not to try to fit more text on the screen, but to make the text sharper. Windows needs to catch up on text scaling to support the higher resolutions. All the skeptics really just need to see a MBP in person to see the difference because otherwise it's just a lot of theory without real world experience.

 

Bought one, returned it 2 hours later when I realized what a let down the screen really was. I am going to just buy a workstation with a 10 bit IPS.

I wasn't aware text sharpness was an issue in Windows computers. Hasn't been since windows XP. It's called Cleartype, something OSX has lacked for a long time. Whether on a 1366x768 or 4k resolution, I've never had issues with text being legible. In fact it has always been sharper than OSX, I guess OSX finally decide to get text rendering API's.

The issue is Apple trying to make believe a sharper image... on a lower resolution source (web content for example) and then calling it revolutionary.

Anyways I am out of here, too much new-toy syndrome.

 

It's not that Windows text scaling itself is bad but that it is uneven. When changing the DPI in Windows, it can make layouts weird. Win 8 is supposedly better but I haven't tried it. Anyway, this whole discussion isn't about Apple. It's about high resolution. Some people care, some people don't but anyone who denies that 2,880x1,800 isn't noticable in a side by side comparison vs 1920x1080 on a 15" is being disengenous or need glasses.

 

Perfect!