@Tao - the tech existed, the price was probably also on an acceptable level, but the companies needed to make cash and if they'll put new tech into boxes at that point of time they wouldn't be able to sell all those low res lcd screens and make huge profit on them. I'm glad that apple once again decided to be a gamemaster so hopefully we gonna see a change that will influence both pc and mac users.

I have been trying to decide which laptop to buy to replace my dead hp. I think Apple has just made up my mind.

Finely they are starting to upgrade monitors! Retina displays are not the only one's that can produce the resolution though. Every single existing technology (including Retina) can produce higher resolution than they have been releasing for 10 years now. The focus of 768, 1080 and 1200 has been driven by the TV HD standard. Now that it is all in place, maybe we can finely see companies moving the bar again.
The new Macbook Pro now has a hight res of 1900 - if I read that correct. 10 years ago I was at a trade show where they were showing laptop size monitors with a resolution around 2400. The tech has existed, the hardware and hardware to drive such resolutions was not general consumer ready or cost too much. Hopefully that has all changed.

I was referring less to the ipad3 (though thats a good example) but the newer computers (such as the macbook pro) with retina displays. while the ipad3 is nice for viewing, its not really useful for actual work, but with the new macs with retina, we might actually start working with retina.

DutchNikon said:
>> Imagine if I could have a screen that would perfectly show at the pixel level how an image would look printed <<

This is not gonna happen: Paper shows a "reflected Light Image" your screen is a light source by it self, so there will always be a differrence ...

Yup, I agree. We adjust our displays to show the maximum in contrast, color depth, etc., so as to enjoy the image like a transparency. However, by adjusting the various sliders, the rendition can look like a print....generally, pretty darn aweful!

sevencrossing said:

"How many of you feel the need to get these displays now?"

Yes, I have an iPad 3. love it

Yep, got my first iPad last month, a mk3, the screen is all it's hyped up to be. Quite an incredible device for viewing my pictures on.

Retina display sure looks nice when your holding a tiny gadget to your eyes, but in reality there is no need for such resolution in normal displays. Super Amoled is about equally good, black is black, colors look more vivid, but you will see the pixels and gingerbread status bars tend to burn into them ;)

>> Imagine if I could have a screen that would perfectly show at the pixel level how an image would look printed <<

This is not gonna happen: Paper shows a "reflected Light Image" your screen is a light source by it self, so there will always be a differrence ...

Apple has unveiled a new version of its MacBook Pro notebook featuring a Retina display with more than five million pixels

nevermind

"I wonder if we're going to see higher res pictures more of a common request than before?"

- Yes, already happening. Clients no longer want low res images "just for the web"

"How many of you feel the need to get these displays now?"

Yes, I have an iPad 3. love it

resusitating this old thread now with apple's recent products.

Now that the "age of retina" seems to be upon us, and people with faster and faster connections, i wonder if we're going to see higher res pictures more of a common request than before? How many of you feel the need to get these displays now? Will your work require it?

Those displays are nice, but what we really need in our OS's is resolution independence...

I don't know much about Retina Display, but I have heard plenty of info about it. I still think Samsung's Super AMOLED Display has better functionality. Apple originally wanted to equip their iPhones with Super AMOLED Display but they were not satisfied with its production capability (I heard its selling like crazy and its running out of supply). Recently Samsung created a transparent Super AMOLED display and I'm very excited to see that on products.....

Its just my personal opinion. We'll just have to wait until we see Retina Display to come out for good comparison..

So any of you who post here regularly know about my affinity for Apple products, but all the internet buzz has got me pondering the significance of the retina display. I've always found the difference between print quality and display quality to be a bit irritating. For instance, my imac's resolution is 1920 X 1200 or about 2.3 MP's Even my D40's images more than fill up the screen. Now I don't have a ruler handy, but using the length of letter paper, I'd estimate my 24inch display works out to about 20 X 13 inches. At 300 DPI, I'd need 23.4 mp's to fill the same space. That's a pretty big difference.

The real gotcha, however, is that I have blow up the picture to huge sizes on screen in order to see pixel for pixel how an image will look printed. Because of the low pixel density of my screen, it usually looks kind of crappy at 100%. Imagine if I could have a screen that would perfectly show at the pixel level how an image would look printed. Well it turns out with the iPhone 4, we can do just that... except its tiny.

How long before we get full size displays with that kind of pixel density... if we can do it on a phone, how come nobody has figured it out already on a desktop? Is it just to many pixels for modern day graphics processors to manage? Is it because Apple \ Microsoft didn't design the OS's to display things large enough on that kind of pixel density? What are your thoughts.

When will the age of the retina display be upon us? I say the sooner the better...