Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.misc > #4714 > unrolled thread

Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.misc

Contents

  Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-07 13:34 +1200
    Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-07 19:10 +1200
    Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? heron stone <heron@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-07 23:05 -0700
      Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? heron stone <heron@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-07 23:13 -0700
      Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-08 18:17 +1200
        Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 03:59 -0400
          Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 09:59 -0400
            Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-08 07:15 -0700
              Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-08 10:49 -0400
                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-08 08:38 -0700
              Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-08 19:00 +0000
                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 16:51 -0400
                  Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-08 21:43 -0700
                    Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-09 18:12 +1200
                    Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-09 10:32 +0000
                      Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Joe <joe@nospam.com> - 2015-04-09 21:27 -0500
            Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-09 09:11 +1200
              Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Joe <joe@nospam.com> - 2015-04-09 21:32 -0500
                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-09 22:54 -0400
                  Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Joe <joe@nospam.com> - 2015-04-10 07:04 -0500
                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-10 18:13 +1200
                  Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-10 14:07 +0000
                    Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-10 19:56 -0700
                      Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-11 16:11 +1200
                        Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-11 07:48 -0700
                          Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 11:14 -0400
                            Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-11 15:33 +0000
                          Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-11 15:28 +0000
                            Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-11 16:08 -0700
                              Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-12 01:02 +0000
                                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-11 18:26 -0700
                              Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-12 14:01 +1200
                          Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-11 19:30 +0000
                      Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-11 19:27 +0000
                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-10 11:46 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#4714 — Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!?

From MacRumors.com ...

    LG Display Claims Apple Will Release the 'iMac 8K' Later This Year
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    While it could be a factual error, Reddit points us towards an
    interesting comment on the LG Display blog last week that claims
    Apple announced it will release a new iMac with 8K display later
    this year. Apple, of course, has not made any announcements about
    a new iMac since last year, and 8K displays are not expected
    until 2016.

        "It has become clear that Japan is planning to 
         launch an 8K SHV test broadcast and then promptly
         restructure the UHD service. *Apple has also 
         announced that they will release the ŒiMac 8K¹ 
         with a super-high resolution display later this
         year.* Korea is also preparing to offer an 8K
         service demonstration at the 2018 Pyeongchang 
         Winter Olympics. LG Display displayed a new 
         beacon of the 8K era by revealing their 98-inch 
         8K Color Prime Ultra HDTV at CES 2015."

    VESA's new DisplayPort 1.4a standard paves the way for future
    displays at 7,680 x 4,320 pixels, but Apple has not made any
    announcements about releasing a Mac with an 8K display. 
    Apple's highest-resolution Mac is the iMac with Retina 5K 
    Display, which has a resolution of 5,120 x 2,880 pixels.

    While this report should be treated lightly until further
    information surfaces, it still proves interesting that LG 
    Display would make a public-facing comment like this on its
    website. The most likely scenario is that LG will eventually
    remove or modify the comment now that it has been put in the
    spotlight.



Forget 8K ... just wait for the 64K iMac, you won't be able to see the
pixels even with your nose pressed against the glass. This "K-race" is
almost as silly as the "mega/gigshertz race".  :-\

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4715

In article <070420151334193213%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
> From MacRumors.com ...
> 
>     LG Display Claims Apple Will Release the 'iMac 8K' Later This Year
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------
>     While it could be a factual error, Reddit points us towards an
>     interesting comment on the LG Display blog last week that claims
>     Apple announced it will release a new iMac with 8K display later
>     this year. Apple, of course, has not made any announcements about
>     a new iMac since last year, and 8K displays are not expected
>     until 2016.
> 
>         "It has become clear that Japan is planning to 
>          launch an 8K SHV test broadcast and then promptly
>          restructure the UHD service. *Apple has also 
>          announced that they will release the ŒiMac 8K¹ 
>          with a super-high resolution display later this
>          year.* Korea is also preparing to offer an 8K
>          service demonstration at the 2018 Pyeongchang 
>          Winter Olympics. LG Display displayed a new 
>          beacon of the 8K era by revealing their 98-inch 
>          8K Color Prime Ultra HDTV at CES 2015."
> 
<snip>

MacRumors.com has posted an update saying that the above comment about
the release of an "iMac 8K" has been removed from LG Display's blog.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4716

> This "K-race" is
> almost as silly as the "mega/gigshertz race".  :-\


i disagree

i create art with my 5k imac and i can can see a HUGE difference...
especially in reading text, but in my art as well

once i spent 15 minutes with a hi-res screen i was hooked and knew i'd
never be able to go back

look at an ipad with retina display

5k is amazing
8k would be better

and on a 40" monitor, i'd at least 16k... maybe more

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4717

In article <070420152305222486%heron@invalid.invalid>, heron stone
<heron@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > This "K-race" is
> > almost as silly as the "mega/gigshertz race".  :-\


and now that i think about it, the mega/gigahertz race wasn't silly at
all

my first mac was the original one... @ 8 MHz Motorola 68000

my imac is a 4 GHz Intel Core i7

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4718

In article <070420152305222486%heron@invalid.invalid>, heron stone
<heron@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > This "K-race" is almost as silly as the "mega/gigahertz race".  :-\
> 
> i disagree
> 
> i create art with my 5k imac and i can can see a HUGE difference...
> especially in reading text, but in my art as well
> 
> once i spent 15 minutes with a hi-res screen i was hooked and knew i'd
> never be able to go back
> 
> look at an ipad with retina display
> 
> 5k is amazing
> 8k would be better
> 
> and on a 40" monitor, i'd at least 16k... maybe more

Unless you're sitting with your nose pressed against the glass, you're
not going to see any real difference between 4K / 5K and 8K on the same
physical size screen at a sensible viewing distance. The human eye
simply isn't that accurate.

Even sillier is the TV manufacturers who are already going to 8K 
despite the fact that there's no real 4K content, no 4K players to play
disc content with, and most people's download speeds / datacaps can
barely handle HD. It's simply a case of using numbers to fool the
public into buying a new TV they don't need.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4719

On 15-04-08 02:17, Your Name wrote:

> Even sillier is the TV manufacturers who are already going to 8K 

My TV is 52" * 30".  @72dpi, this yields 3,744 * 2160 pixels

The standard for 4K is 4096*2160.  So my old TV, assuming it has old
72dpi density, is almost 4K capable for the circuitry that drives the
display, even if the inputs are only 1080p capable.

So it becomes rather easy for TV manufacturers to produce displays that
are capable of 4K or 8K displays. The rest is just enough CPU
hosrsepower to process the data to 4K or 8K throughput.

And considering TV are supposed to last a long time, making TVs of today
capable of content that might become more available in a couple of years
makes sense.


Since movies are now produced, ediuted and distributed digitally often
in 4K and probably 8K content soon, it makes sense to have computers
that can display such content at 1:1 pixel scale.

For the average person though, this resolution on a desktop doesn't make
that much sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4720

In article <5524dfe5$0$44539$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> And considering TV are supposed to last a long time,

Hah. That used to be true. There are some old teevees from the 50s that 
still work, if you can get a signal. This modern Chinee crap won't last 
that long - 5 years maybe?

And this 8k stuff reminds me of the 3D fad a few years ago. That kinda 
fizzled didn't it. That Titanic canajun guy was into it. Now we got 
Christopher Nolan touting 8k and making simpering-whimpering-gooey time 
travel movies; Everyone Learns a Valuable Lesson (tm). The science was 
good though.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4721

In article <55253459$0$24990$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <5524dfe5$0$44539$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> > And considering TV are supposed to last a long time,
> 
> Hah. That used to be true. There are some old teevees from the 50s that 
> still work, if you can get a signal. This modern Chinee crap won't last 
> that long - 5 years maybe?
> 
> And this 8k stuff reminds me of the 3D fad a few years ago. That kinda 
> fizzled didn't it. That Titanic canajun guy was into it. Now we got 
> Christopher Nolan touting 8k and making simpering-whimpering-gooey time 
> travel movies; Everyone Learns a Valuable Lesson (tm). The science was 
> good though.

And what's with this curved screen thing?  Is there really any benefit
to it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4722

In article <080420150715582538%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> And what's with this curved screen thing?  Is there really any benefit
> to it?

short answer: no

the idea is that the screens are so big that the angle of view to the
edge affects the image so they curve it so you see everything at a
perpendicular angle. however, that really only works for one viewer.
it's also not *that* big of a deal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4723

In article <080420151049566156%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > And what's with this curved screen thing?  Is there really any benefit
> > to it?
> 
> short answer: no
> 
> the idea is that the screens are so big that the angle of view to the
> edge affects the image so they curve it so you see everything at a
> perpendicular angle. however, that really only works for one viewer.
> it's also not *that* big of a deal.

That is what I thought.  Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4724

In message <080420150715582538%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> And what's with this curved screen thing?  Is there really any benefit
> to it?

It's a gimmick.

The only person I know who cares at all is a guy who uses a curved
screen for gaming. It's something like 60" and he sits pretty close.

-- 
'It must have been Fate that brought you here,' said Twoflower. 'Yes,
it's the sort of thing he likes to do,' said Rincewind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4725

In article <slrnmiaunm.cqm.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <080420150715582538%michelle@michelle.org> 
>   Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > And what's with this curved screen thing?  Is there really any benefit
> > to it?
> 
> It's a gimmick.
> 
> The only person I know who cares at all is a guy who uses a curved
> screen for gaming. It's something like 60" and he sits pretty close.

I was thinking about that kind of thing. If I was buying an 80" (or 
bigger) tv, I'd look at the 4k curved ones, I guess. You need a good big 
room for that kind of size. And a good big bank account.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4727

On 4/8/15   PDT 1:51 PM, Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <slrnmiaunm.cqm.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <080420150715582538%michelle@michelle.org>   Michelle
>> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> > And what's with this curved screen thing?  Is there really any benefit
>> > to it?
>>
>> It's a gimmick.
>>
>> The only person I know who cares at all is a guy who uses a curved
>> screen for gaming. It's something like 60" and he sits pretty close.
>
> I was thinking about that kind of thing. If I was buying an 80" (or
> bigger) tv, I'd look at the 4k curved ones, I guess. You need a good big
> room for that kind of size. And a good big bank account.

Nah. You can pick up a 78" Sammy UHD TV for about $5K..... The curved 
one I viewed recently was delicious.

Is that expensive, or cheap, or in between?..... Based on prices of 
inferior TVs ten years ago, it's a bargain!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4728

In article <mg4vv5$9i2$1@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/8/15   PDT 1:51 PM, Warren Oates wrote:
> > In article <slrnmiaunm.cqm.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> In message <080420150715582538%michelle@michelle.org>   Michelle
> >> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> >> > And what's with this curved screen thing?  Is there really any benefit
> >> > to it?
> >>
> >> It's a gimmick.
> >>
> >> The only person I know who cares at all is a guy who uses a curved
> >> screen for gaming. It's something like 60" and he sits pretty close.
> >
> > I was thinking about that kind of thing. If I was buying an 80" (or
> > bigger) tv, I'd look at the 4k curved ones, I guess. You need a good big
> > room for that kind of size. And a good big bank account.
> 
> Nah. You can pick up a 78" Sammy UHD TV for about $5K..... The curved 
> one I viewed recently was delicious.
> 
> Is that expensive, or cheap, or in between?..... Based on prices of 
> inferior TVs ten years ago, it's a bargain!

Based on prices 3D-holovision TVs with Super-Duper-Surround-Senses and
Smellovision in 10 years time, it's massively over-priced! By then
you'll be able to pick up a curved SUHD-3D-smart TV for free from the
kerbside as people throw 'em out to get the latest gimmicky TV sets. 
;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4729

In message <mg4vv5$9i2$1@dont-email.me> 
  John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/8/15   PDT 1:51 PM, Warren Oates wrote:
>> In article <slrnmiaunm.cqm.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <080420150715582538%michelle@michelle.org>   Michelle
>>> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>> > And what's with this curved screen thing?  Is there really any benefit
>>> > to it?
>>>
>>> It's a gimmick.
>>>
>>> The only person I know who cares at all is a guy who uses a curved
>>> screen for gaming. It's something like 60" and he sits pretty close.
>>
>> I was thinking about that kind of thing. If I was buying an 80" (or
>> bigger) tv, I'd look at the 4k curved ones, I guess. You need a good big
>> room for that kind of size. And a good big bank account.

> Nah. You can pick up a 78" Sammy UHD TV for about $5K..... The curved 
> one I viewed recently was delicious.

I bought a 1080p projector 3 years ago and a 10' screen for under $2000.
Since then I bought one repalcement bulb (3rd party) for under $100 and
I need to buy another one.

No complaints about the image quality from anyone so far. It's at least
as good as the local discount theatre and the seats are much more
comfortable.

I think $5000 for a TV that is unlikley to last much past 5-10 years is
expensive, myself. My 3yo Samsung 42" has already been relegated to
Nintendo duty and no long has working digital audio.

-- 
WORDS IN THE HEART CANNOT BE TAKEN --Feet of Clay

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4730

On 4/9/2015 5:32 AM, Lewis wrote:
> I bought a 1080p projector 3 years ago and a 10' screen for under $2000.
> Since then I bought one repalcement bulb (3rd party) for under $100 and
> I need to buy another one.
>
> No complaints about the image quality from anyone so far. It's at least
> as good as the local discount theatre and the seats are much more
> comfortable.
>
> I think $5000 for a TV that is unlikley to last much past 5-10 years is
> expensive, myself. My 3yo Samsung 42" has already been relegated to
> Nintendo duty and no long has working digital audio.
>

I'm glad to see *someone* is thinking sensibly!  My opinion is that 
unless you're watching TV in a brightly-lit room, for screen sizes over 
70 inches or so diagonally, just go with front projection.


- Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4726

In article <55253459$0$24990$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <5524dfe5$0$44539$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > And considering TV are supposed to last a long time,
> 
> Hah. That used to be true. There are some old teevees from the 50s that 
> still work, if you can get a signal. This modern Chinee crap won't last 
> that long - 5 years maybe?
> 
> And this 8k stuff reminds me of the 3D fad a few years ago. That kinda 
> fizzled didn't it. That Titanic canajun guy was into it. Now we got 
> Christopher Nolan touting 8k and making simpering-whimpering-gooey time 
> travel movies; Everyone Learns a Valuable Lesson (tm). The science was 
> good though.

Yep, CRT TVs used to usually last for many years and you simply watched
TV. 

These days it's all become a massive gimmick fest by TV makers to try
and con the public into throwing away their current equipment every
year or two and buying a new over-priced TV set, set-top boxes, and /
or services they don't really need.

 - LCD / Plasma / LED
 - DVD / Blu-ray / 4K Blu-ray 
 - DVD recorder / Blu-ray recorder / Digital recorder
 - TV / HDTV / UHDTV / SUHDTV / 4K / 8K
 - Widescreen / Extra-widescreen / 3D / Curved / Smart
 - Freeview / Freeview Plus / Sky / Streaming
 - etc.

Unfortunately in this throw-away society, it's not just TV. The same is
happening with mobile phones, computers, etc. as a newer, flashier
model is released every year and fools rush to constantly upgrade.  :-\

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4731

On 4/8/2015 4:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
> These days it's all become a massive gimmick fest by TV makers to try
> and con the public into throwing away their current equipment every
> year or two and buying a new over-priced TV set, set-top boxes, and /
> or services they don't really need.
>
>   - LCD / Plasma / LED
>   - DVD / Blu-ray / 4K Blu-ray
>   - DVD recorder / Blu-ray recorder / Digital recorder
>   - TV / HDTV / UHDTV / SUHDTV / 4K / 8K
>   - Widescreen / Extra-widescreen / 3D / Curved / Smart
>   - Freeview / Freeview Plus / Sky / Streaming
>   - etc.
>

Hopefully you realize there is no such thing as an "LED" TV; it's just 
another marketing gimmick.  The screen is still LCD, but the 
*backlighting* is LED instead of a CCFL.

If the backlighting in an LCD TV were candles, I suppose marketing 
departments would call it a "Candle TV."  :)


- Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4732

In article <55273648$0$20134$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, Joe
<joe@nospam.com> wrote:

> Hopefully you realize there is no such thing as an "LED" TV; it's just 
> another marketing gimmick.  The screen is still LCD, but the 
> *backlighting* is LED instead of a CCFL.

led tv is shorthand for led backlit lcd tv.

not a big deal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4735

On 4/9/2015 9:54 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <55273648$0$20134$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, Joe
> <joe@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Hopefully you realize there is no such thing as an "LED" TV; it's just
>> another marketing gimmick.  The screen is still LCD, but the
>> *backlighting* is LED instead of a CCFL.
>
> led tv is shorthand for led backlit lcd tv.
>
> not a big deal.
>

Until TVs with actual LED screens show up, that is.  (At least OLED TVs 
sidestepped that marketing dilemma.)

And don't get me started on how the "4K" moniker is being wrongly used 
to market UHD TVs!


- Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.misc

csiph-web