iMac Retina and resolution of current cameras

I remember years ago when I upgraded my graphics card so I could move from 640x480 to 800x600 and thinking how awesome it was, that's barely a thumbnail preview now. It's strange to think that our current camera's images in 10-20 years will be like looking back on VHS tapes in the current era of HD!

The higher resolution the better when it comes to displaying images and video and our cameras need to keep up. As it stands a full res image from my 70d would only just fill these new 5K monitors. My preference would always be to have more pixels in the image so I can scale it down or so I can crop and still be able to display it at 1:1 so I would hope that camera megapixel numbers keep rising!

Tony_Stark wrote in post #17218212
1920 x 1080 is FullHD, 1080p for example, that is not 2K.

It's 2k !!
you are counting the pixels verticaly (horizontal lines) ! and make a mix with p (progressive) > it's another way to say full HD
As 720p is HD (ready) which is 1280x720 which in "K" language ( ) is 1K

so when you speak in a "K" language > 1920 is the number of horizontal pixels (vertical line) = it's a 2k !

It's really 2880p, not 5K....

To be proper, 2K is for movie projectors, 2048X1080. 1920X1080 is Referred to as 1080 or Full HD not 2K.

K Soze wrote in post #17219266
To be proper, 2K is for movie projectors, 2048X1080. 1920X1080 is Referred to as 1080 or Full HD not 2K.

Yes i agree, but over all is same BS as 4k

"4K has become the common name for ultra high definition television (UHDTV), although its resolution is only 3840 x 2160 (at a 16:9, or 1.78:1 aspect ratio), which is lower than the 4K industry standard of 4096 x 2160 (at a 19:10 or 1.9:1 aspect ratio)." From wikipedia

So 3840 x 2160 is not 4k because it didn't reach the 4000 pixels wide mark
and yes ok a 1920 with it's huge difference of 80 pixels it's not 2k.

tkbslc wrote in post #17219213
It's really 2880p, not 5K....

But at least it has >5k horizontal pixels, even if it is a measly 16x9 aspect ratio

Unfortunately most of the internet still hasn't adjust itself to the current retina displays, so I think it's gonna take some time before everything will look equally good on new iMac's screen. For now and at least for a year or two - there will be a a lot of websites not ready for a retina display with this resolution, which means most of the photos on the websites will look bad, that includes these forums here. I hated looking at photo threads on my retina macbook pro, all the photos were pixelated and scaled up. Not even gonna mention watching movies that are not in good enough quality

chris panas wrote in post #17220095
Unfortunately most of the internet still hasn't adjust itself to the current retina displays, so I think it's gonna take some time before everything will look equally good on new iMac's screen. For now and at least for a year or two - there will be a a lot of websites not ready for a retina display with this resolution, which means most of the photos on the websites will look bad, that includes these forums here. I hated looking at photo threads on my retina macbook pro, all the photos were pixelated and scaled up. Not even gonna mention watching movies that are not in good enough quality

I wondered about text and web pages when the pixel density is so great - I've yet to see a retina Macbook display . I assume there is a scaling to make fonts bigger and legible and that it isn't great for photos - is there a preference to leave images unscaled to preserve them, or do they just need a better upscaler for browsing with?.

I don't know what's the solution for forums but for sure you would have to upload big images. Just check any of the photo threads here on any retina display at Apple store - impossible to enjoy.

I would have expected the images simply to be smaller - same number of pixels, fewer inches... I'll check them out next time I'm near the store.

chris panas wrote in post #17220120
I don't know what's the solution for forums but for sure you would have to upload big images. Just check any of the photo threads here on any retina display at Apple store - impossible to enjoy.

I agree completely, many things are just not caught up. When I first got my retina macbook I noticed the same thing, viewing photos just wasn't as good online as it was in PS or on a standard display. Apple's own website is scaled properly and looks fantastic but outside of that not much else is.

When viewing photos on this forum I noticed that some member's photos looked good and retained sharpness on the retina display, while the majority shared the lack of sharpness problem. I saw that the photos from members that looked good were uploading larger files than normal and linking them from flickr but linking a smaller size (using the "BB Code" link method). It was scaling them down from the larger native file but retaining the sharpness on the retina display. Flickr seems to have changed something though because shortly after I started doing the same thing, but now the images don't look as good as they did previously doing it this way (uploading large, linking to a smaller size). This goes for every image now, even the ones that previously looked sharped doing it this way.

I have a standard mac display and a retina macbook and viewed them side by side to confirm this. It was working, for a little while, to upload about double the size I would normally upload and then BB-code link a to a smaller size. Now you have to click the linked-image (opens in flickr) to get it to look sharp.

AJSJones wrote in post #17220105
I wondered about text and web pages when the pixel density is so great - I've yet to see a retina Macbook display . I assume there is a scaling to make fonts bigger and legible and that it isn't great for photos - is there a preference to leave images unscaled to preserve them, or do they just need a better upscaler for browsing with?.

With such a high density screen, I am always zooming in my browser just to read. It scales up nicely. Using LR and PS is a dream on a 4K screen, only issue is the text is so damn small and takes a while to get used to

I love the retina display on my Macbook Pro

tkbslc wrote in post #17219213
It's really 2880p, not 5K....

That is NOT RIGHT, it is 5120 X 2880 and that make the 5K, just like a 1980 X1080

N2bnfunn wrote in post #17220806
That is NOT RIGHT, it is 5120 X 2880 and that make the 5K, just like a 1980 X1080

Yes.
It look like some people misunderstood the counting in vertical lines with the horizontal lines