'Apple Studio Display' With 7K Resolution Reportedly in Development (macrumors.com) 29
Apple is working on a new "Apple Studio Display" with a 7K resolution, according to 9to5Mac. The display is also expected to feature a dedicated Apple silicon chip. MacRumors: Bloomberg's Mark Gurman was first to report that Apple was working on at least one new external display, but he said that display would have a lower price with reduced brightness and contrast ratio. By the sounds of it, the new 7K model would be slotted above the Pro Display XDR in the lineup, so it is possible that Apple plans to offer displays at several price points as it did with its Cinema Display lineup in the 2000s.
Which 7k is that? (Score:2)
The whole K resolution system stinks.
Re: Which 7k is that? (Score:2)
Serious question, why does no one appreciate the fact that this not consumer equipment? Bitching about the stand is akin to bitching about the cost of a RED CAMERA microphone that comes in at $1299. The microphone is engi
Re: (Score:2)
These people missed the era when you could spend $250k on a deskside SGI Crimson. How dare Apple charge $50k for a top of the line workstation!
Meanwhile you could option something similar from Dell for even more than $50k.
Re: (Score:2)
meaningless numbers. You can also spend a million dollars on a car. So what?
Re: (Score:2)
"...they made the monitor extremely attractive price wise to its rivals in the marketplace of color-perfect displays."
Did they though? And "color-perfect"? No such thing.
"...why does no one appreciate the fact that this not consumer equipment?"
Because Apple only makes consumer equipment. It is consumer equipment.
"Bitching about the stand is akin to bitching about the cost of a RED CAMERA microphone that comes in at $1299."
A stand provides literally no content creation function. This is bullshit equivale
Re: (Score:2)
I'm filing this under I don't need it but I can see why people producing video content want to see the current mainstream high-def content 1:1 on their screen plus room for editing tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the one they decided to pitch against the Sony pro one then made up a bunch of manifestly incorrect claims about how theirs was comparable at 1/5 of the price?
Re: (Score:2)
IDK but the article references this as the upgrade to their Apple Pro Display XDR 6k which does in fact have a 6016 x 3384 resolution.
So it's a 3.4K monitor, then.
Don't let the industry define its own terminology, they will lie every single time (see also: USB speeds; HDMI speeds).
Re: (Score:2)
Display stand (Score:2)
The display stand, which will feature the lack of tilt and swivel, shall be machined from a single block of aluminum, and cost $7K. Because Apple.
Re: Display stand (Score:2)
Cinama Display was too bright... (Score:2)
The Apple Cinema Display of the 2000s was a failure because it's backlight was so strong it was blinding in almost all uses. Let's not bring this up again.
Re: (Score:2)
They got dimmer with age so starting out bright was a good thing. Mine is still just a few bumps above the lowest setting with it only being a bit bright on the lowest setting when I bought it 20 years ago. Still working; the color quality is slightly down but re-calibration compensated reasonably well. It's not as good as the new mid-range Samsung QLED, sitting right next to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because nobody bothered to calibrate their monitor properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Mine was, and is, just fine.
Size? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that it is a "Retina"-counterpart to the 34" 21:9-aspect "ultrawide" that have become quite common for PC users.
Most screens in that form factor for PC's are 3440Ã--1440 at 110 PPI.
"7K" would be almost precisely twice that.
Most screens are more or less curved. Flat ones do exist but screens with a curve radius of 1800 seem to be the most common. Screens curved at 1500 or even 1000 mm radius also exists but are more extreme, and more geared for PC gamers who want the screen to fill their vi
7K? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea I thought 8K was the new fad?
Re: (Score:2)
Yea I thought 8K was the new fad?
I also thought the Ks were supposed to increase geometrically. 1, 2, 4, 8, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has never used the K-numbers wrong for displays.
Their "4K" displays has had 4096 horizontal pixels, like the cinema standard.
1920*4 = 7680 = 7.5 * 1024. Round down and, you'd get 7K.
But I think it is more likely that we are going to see a 34" ultra-wide 21:9-aspect display, which in 7K would have about 220 PPI - which is "Retina" for a desktop display.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has never used the K-numbers wrong
7.5 * 1024. Round down
Yeah because rounding down 7.5 is perfectly normal and not wrong in the slightest...
I rather have a better Finder (Score:1)