5 ms·

I thought 4k was just for large tvs, can you tell a difference over a retina display? Aren't they called retina because that's the most your eye can see? Genu

I thought 4k was just for large tvs, can you tell a difference over a retina display? Aren't they called retina because that's the most your eye can see? Genuinely curious, thanks!

jamesaguilar 13y ago
My understanding is that a 4k 30" monitor is a retina display at 30 inches. I know that I can see pixel edges on my Dell Ultrasharp, and it's 2560x1440. My guess is that I would not be able to see pixel edges if the resolution was quadrupled (4k).
jholman 13y ago
No. They're called "retina" because the people who name things at Apple are professionally focused on deceiving you. What a surprise. I've seen lots of articles about this over time, here's one I googled just now: http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/ http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-featu... Combine this with what jamesaguillar already said, about wanting a larger screen and also wanting high PPI, and why wouldn't you want higher res?
__david__ 13y ago
Actually, 4k screens are useless for TVs (despite what all the TV manufactures want you to believe), since you generally sit so far away from them. A 4k monitor would be very nice, since it would be large but still very high DPI (ie, "Retina").
masklinn 13y ago
> I thought 4k was just for large tvs 4k is nothing more than the double resolution from 1080p > can you tell a difference over a retina display? A 21" Retina Display iMac would be 4k (the current 21" iMac is 1920x1080). A 27" Retina Display iMac would be way beyond 4k (it would have a 5120x2880 display) > Aren't they called retina because that's the most your eye can see? That's more of a marketing moniker and incomplete. The original point/qualifier is that they fall beyond the eye's angular resolution so you can't "see" individual pixels anymore. That's not "the most your eyes can see" though, many arthropods create details & colors through nanometric structures.

I thought 4k was just for large tvs, can you tell a difference over a retina display? Aren't they called retina because that's the most your eye can see? Genuinely curious, thanks!

jamesaguilar 13y ago

My understanding is that a 4k 30" monitor is a retina display at 30 inches. I know that I can see pixel edges on my Dell Ultrasharp, and it's 2560x1440. My guess is that I would not be able to see pixel edges if the resolution was quadrupled (4k).

jholman 13y ago

No. They're called "retina" because the people who name things at Apple are professionally focused on deceiving you. What a surprise. I've seen lots of articles about this over time, here's one I googled just now: http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/ http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-featu... Combine this with what jamesaguillar already said, about wanting a larger screen and also wanting high PPI, and why wouldn't you want higher res?

__david__ 13y ago

Actually, 4k screens are useless for TVs (despite what all the TV manufactures want you to believe), since you generally sit so far away from them. A 4k monitor would be very nice, since it would be large but still very high DPI (ie, "Retina").

masklinn 13y ago

> I thought 4k was just for large tvs 4k is nothing more than the double resolution from 1080p > can you tell a difference over a retina display? A 21" Retina Display iMac would be 4k (the current 21" iMac is 1920x1080). A 27" Retina Display iMac would be way beyond 4k (it would have a 5120x2880 display) > Aren't they called retina because that's the most your eye can see? That's more of a marketing moniker and incomplete. The original point/qualifier is that they fall beyond the eye's angular resolution so you can't "see" individual pixels anymore. That's not "the most your eyes can see" though, many arthropods create details & colors through nanometric structures.