PDA

View Full Version : A Closer Look at the New MacBook Pro's Retina Display




MacRumors
Jun 12, 2012, 12:45 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/a-closer-look-at-the-new-macbook-pros-retina-display/)


AnandTech takes a closer look (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis) at the new MacBook Pro's 2880x1800 Retina display, revealing just how well the display stacks up against its predecessor and other notebook displays and delving into the details of how it handles various resolutions.

In looking at scaling, the report explains the new slider option in System Preferences that allows users to select from a spectrum of resolutions that include not only the 1440x900 resolution in Retina quality using the full 2880x1800 pixels, but also larger desktop spaces at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050.Retina Display MBP owners now get a slider under OS X's Display Preferences that allow you to specify desktop resolutions other than 1440 x 900. At 1440 x 900 you don't get any increase in usable desktop resolution compared to a standard 15-inch MacBook Pro, but everything is ridiculously crisp. If you're like me however and opted for the 1680 x 1050 "high-res" upgrade last generation, this won't do. Thankfully Apple offers 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 scaling options that trade a bit of image quality and performance for added real estate.http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/retina_macbook_pro_display_preferences.jpg


AnandTech's report also describes how Apple's display design has done away with the cover glass that in some circumstances suffers from significant glare on the standard non-Retina MacBook Pro. Phil Schiller noted during the keynote introduction that glare has been reduced 75% from the previous MacBook Pro, and AnandTech calls the Retina MacBook Pro's glare "remarkably close" to that seen on an earlier-generation matte MacBook Pro.

Comparing color and contrast, AnandTech discovered that the Retina MacBook Pro's display has remarkably improved black levels, which help compensate for slightly lower brightness. Contrast is also excellent, making for crisp and vivid content display.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/macbook_pro_retina_contrast.jpg


As with Retina displays on iOS devices, Apple automatically scales text to display at the crisper Retina resolution, but it is dependent on apps using Apple's text rendering. AnandTech notes that Google Chrome currently uses its own text rendering engine and is thus unable to take advantage of the sharper text available in Safari.

Finally, the report takes a look at how games handle the Retina display, with Diablo III taking full advantage of the 2880x1800 display as touted by Apple during the keynote. Some games are able to see the full resolution while others are limited to the "non-Retina" resolutions topping out at 1920x1200, but it seems reasonable to believe that over time game developers will be building in support for the ultra-high resolution of the new MacBook Pro.

Article Link: A Closer Look at the New MacBook Pro's Retina Display (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/a-closer-look-at-the-new-macbook-pros-retina-display/)



jasonxneo
Jun 12, 2012, 12:46 PM
wow i can't believe the zenbook beat-out the new macbook display. I haven't really seen the zenbook display before

applefan289
Jun 12, 2012, 12:47 PM
All I know is that is one sexy computer.

Littleodie914
Jun 12, 2012, 12:48 PM
If you were to select a resolution that wasn't exactly the native pixel density (2880x1800) or exactly half (1440x900), and were to instead pick a larger resolution like 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 (as mentioned in the article) wouldn't you experience fuzzing as the software tries to compensate for the hardware vs. software pixel boundaries?

chrmjenkins
Jun 12, 2012, 12:49 PM
The benefit of that resolution is not needing AA and AF in games, but few laptop cards are up to it on modern games at any sort of high setting.

ChazUK
Jun 12, 2012, 12:52 PM
First off, that machine looks stunning. Possibly the best laptop around today but this would worry me if I was going to do any kind of gaming on the thing:

Diablo III is actually quite playable at 2880 x 1800, at least in the earlier levels (I haven't had time to make it far enough in the game to tell how bad it can get). I managed to average 20 fps at 2880 x 1800 in the most stressful scene I have presently unlocked.

----

The benefit of that resolution is not needing AA and AF in games, but few laptop cards are up to it on modern games at any sort of high setting.

You'd still need AF wouldn't you to clear up fuzzy textures?

ArtOfWarfare
Jun 12, 2012, 12:52 PM
Hmmm... I'm going to have to stop by my Apple Store and test drive this new Mac Book Pro... I'm seriously considering the possibility of doing away with my iMac & MBA set up (both from 2007) and just having this laptop replace both of them...

Everything but the DVD drive + raw inches of my iMac, coupled with being nearly as portable as the MBA... sounds hard to beat.

Diablo III is actually quite playable at 2880 x 1800, at least in the earlier levels (I haven't had time to make it far enough in the game to tell how bad it can get). I managed to average 20 fps at 2880 x 1800 in the most stressful scene I have presently unlocked.

On the one hand, ew. On the other hand, I haven't actually tested Diablo III on my iMac yet (which doesn't even have that many pixels,) so I don't actually know if that's better or worse.

BrightonMB
Jun 12, 2012, 12:53 PM
The 75% reduction in glare is the most interest to me - hoping they might take this into the next iMac refresh to make it more viable for pros perhaps?

steve-p
Jun 12, 2012, 12:55 PM
If you were to select a resolution that wasn't exactly the native pixel density (2880x1800) or exactly half (1440x900), and were to instead pick a larger resolution like 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 (as mentioned in the article) wouldn't you experience fuzzing as the software tries to compensate for the hardware vs. software pixel boundaries?

Yes. Also not much point paying for an expensive 2880 screen and running it at 1680 when a native 1680 screen would be both sharper and cheaper, if they offered it.

Stetrain
Jun 12, 2012, 12:56 PM
If you were to select a resolution that wasn't exactly the native pixel density (2880x1800) or exactly half (1440x900), and were to instead pick a larger resolution like 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 (as mentioned in the article) wouldn't you experience fuzzing as the software tries to compensate for the hardware vs. software pixel boundaries?

When you pick the "more space" option, which is equivalent to 1920x1200, OSX actually renders it at double that size in both directions, or 3840x2400, using the retina quality graphics. It then smoothly downscales to 2880x1800.

It probably isn't perfect, I haven't seen one in person yet, but it should be much better than simply setting a display to a non-native resolution.

Instead of upscaling a low resolution image, it's downlscaling a high resolution one.

gregwyattjr
Jun 12, 2012, 12:57 PM
I'm scared to look at this beautiful new display. It'll make my 1280x800 MacBook display look like a Lite-Brite.

jclardy
Jun 12, 2012, 12:57 PM
If you were to select a resolution that wasn't exactly the native pixel density (2880x1800) or exactly half (1440x900), and were to instead pick a larger resolution like 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 (as mentioned in the article) wouldn't you experience fuzzing as the software tries to compensate for the hardware vs. software pixel boundaries?

You would, but I doubt it will be noticeable as we are talking pixels that are a quarter of the size that they currently are. But fonts will still be rendered sharp because the OS is scaling them to whatever resolution, so only interface graphics will be scaled.

But having the option for 1920x1200 usable space makes me want this even more...


My question: How does it work when plugging in to an external display? If you drag a window from the retina to non-retina does it scale correctly? (The non-retina would be 1x size versus 2x on the retina, meaning the non-retina would have to be scaled to 50% on the fly unless the system loads both graphics simultaneously.)

Asclepio
Jun 12, 2012, 12:58 PM
Asus Rocks.

Stetrain
Jun 12, 2012, 12:58 PM
Yes. Also not much point paying for an expensive 2880 screen and running it at 1680 when a native 1680 screen would be both sharper and cheaper, if they offered it.

Anandtech specifically says that the '1680x1050' mode on the Retina Macbook Pro looks better than the old 1680x1050 display:

Even at the non-integer scaled 1680 x 1050 setting, the Retina Display looks a lot better than last year's high-res panel. It looks like Apple actually renders the screen at twice the selected resolution before scaling it to fit the 2880 x 1800 panel (in other words, at 1920 x 1200 Apple is rendering everything at 3840 x 2400 (!) before scaling - this is likely where the perf impact is seen, but I'm trying to find a way to quantify that now). Everything just looks better. I also appreciate how quick it is to switch between resolutions on OS X. When I'm doing a lot of work I prefer the 1920 x 1200 setting, but if I'm in content consumption mode I find myself happier at 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050.

The scaling that Apple is doing is very different than just running a display at a non-native resolution.

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2012, 12:59 PM
If you were to select a resolution that wasn't exactly the native pixel density (2880x1800) or exactly half (1440x900), and were to instead pick a larger resolution like 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 (as mentioned in the article) wouldn't you experience fuzzing as the software tries to compensate for the hardware vs. software pixel boundaries?

Will have to see in store I guess, the article doesn't seem to make any mentions of this unfortunately, and we all know how bad LCDs get when run at anything but proper fractions of the native resolution.

You have to use blending when downscaling in order to interpolate pixels. Unless the display still runs at native resolution (2880x1800) and scaling is down in software to provide a "1680x1050" desktop (which is still displayed using 2880x1800 actual pixels, using some kind of nearest neighbor or other hard scaling which creates no fuzzyness/blending).

Stetrain
Jun 12, 2012, 01:01 PM
Will have to see in store I guess, the article doesn't seem to make any mentions of this unfortunately, and we all know how bad LCDs get when run at anything but proper fractions of the native resolution.

If you go to the actual source article at Anandtech it does talk about that. I quoted one of the relevant parts above.

fun173
Jun 12, 2012, 01:01 PM
So does this mean you will have the same usable space on the new 15" as you would on the old 17"?

BornAgainApple
Jun 12, 2012, 01:02 PM
I was fortunate enough to check one out at the Apple Store yesterday and was really impressed. They had a slideshow running side-by-side a regular 15" MBP and the difference was stunning. They also had a 13" MBA next to it and the new MBP was just slightly heavier. Let the Apple haters chew on this while the W8 PC's play catch-up.

JohnDoe98
Jun 12, 2012, 01:02 PM
Anandtech specifically says that the '1680x1050' mode on the Retina Macbook Pro looks better than the old 1680x1050 display:



The scaling that Apple is doing is very different than just running a display at a non-native resolution.

It's a shame MacRumors didn't add the little except you mentioned, it seems that was the most important conclusion of Anandtech's report.

steve-p
Jun 12, 2012, 01:02 PM
Anandtech specifically says that the '1680x1050' mode on the Retina Macbook Pro looks better than the old 1680x1050 display:



The scaling that Apple is doing is very different than just running a display at a non-native resolution.
I'm waiting to see one in person but it sounds promising. I'm still hoping they will add a hi res retina screen option which is doubled up 1680x1050 though, then it would be moot.

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2012, 01:02 PM
If you go to the actual source article at Anandtech it does talk about that. I quoted one of the relevant parts above.

It's not clear what he means by that. I did read it. Check out my edit. If it is working that way, it's not actually changing the resolution of the screen, you're running at the LCD's native 2880x1800.

smithrh
Jun 12, 2012, 01:02 PM
I've looked around a little bit but haven't found anything definitive about units being in the store on display - anyone know an ETA for that?

Some things just have to be seen in person, this is probably one of those things.

Edit: I see BornAgainApple had a post at the same time as me indicating he's seen one in a store.

Where are my car keys?

Piggie
Jun 12, 2012, 01:03 PM
Can someone, who knows there stuff sensibly and not just a fan boy of course Its better mode, please do the maths on how close the human eye has to be, with normal vision to see the difference in the old MacBook and the new MacBook's screen.

Clubber
Jun 12, 2012, 01:03 PM
I'm excited. I learned a long time ago that the display is one of the most important things of a computer. It's the thing you stare at the entire time, and it's 1/2 of the equation of using the thing.

I remember paying over $1000 for a used 21" CRT. I was motivated to do so much more of my side project work at the time.

MacInTO
Jun 12, 2012, 01:04 PM
I think they've gone a little to OCD now. I have the non-glare screen (1680x1050) and it looks just as good as an iPad 2.

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2012, 01:04 PM
Can someone, who knows there stuff sensibly and not just a fan boy of course Its better mode, please do the maths on how close the human eye has to be, with normal vision to see the difference in the old MacBook and the new MacBook's screen.

The old 15" 1440x900 is atrociously low PPI.

chrmjenkins
Jun 12, 2012, 01:04 PM
You'd still need AF wouldn't you to clear up fuzzy textures?

Depends on the game, but probably yes. Just not as necessary as before.

Moonjumper
Jun 12, 2012, 01:06 PM
The 75% reduction in glare is the most interest to me - hoping they might take this into the next iMac refresh to make it more viable for pros perhaps?

Retina sounds fantastic, and the reduction in glare is great. But is the reduction enough?

It seems the reduction is due to removing one of the layers of glass, but other glass layers still remain. I hope they also add an anti-reflective treatment in the future. Apparently glass typically reflects 8% of light. Nippon Electric's "invisible glass" reduces that to 0.5%. Something like that would be most welcome. The best of glossy and matte combined.

ristlin
Jun 12, 2012, 01:07 PM
I'm scared to look at this beautiful new display. It'll make my 1280x800 MacBook display look like a Lite-Brite.

http://cdn.babble.com/toddler-times/files/morevintagetoys/01.jpg

Stetrain
Jun 12, 2012, 01:07 PM
It's not clear what he means by that. I did read it. Check out my edit. If it is working that way, it's not actually changing the resolution of the screen, you're running at the LCD's native 2880x1800.

Yes, it looks like the scaling is done completely in software, so it's always outputting a 2880x1800 image to the display, no matter which scaling mode you pick.

wordoflife
Jun 12, 2012, 01:09 PM
That's awesome - so its almost like having a few different kinds of displays available to you that you can change at will instead of having to pick up front when ordering.

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2012, 01:11 PM
Yes, it looks like the scaling is done completely in software, so it's always outputting a 2880x1800 image to the display, no matter which scaling mode you pick.

But hard scaling algorithms that wouldn't result in any blending (thus no fuzzyness) are just atrocious. Remains to be seen, in person, what it actually looks like. This is not something you can see in screenshots properly. It's too bad he glances over it, and just says "it looks better!". Typical Anand, always pleasing the vendor to get more hardware to review (he's been like that since his site opened in the 90s).

ValSalva
Jun 12, 2012, 01:14 PM
I'm waiting to see one in person but it sounds promising. I'm still hoping they will add a hi res retina screen option which is doubled up 1680x1050 though, then it would be moot.

Before AnandTech's article I thought the same thing. This higher pixel density is either too expensive, has too low a yields for that screen size, or Apple is just holding out to have something new for next year.

At least it's better than the 2011 hi res 15" MBP display, which is saying something something because that display is already excellent.

drewisanapple
Jun 12, 2012, 01:14 PM
Cannot wait to see this sweet device. I think the screen would be a dream come true for video and photos. The SSD sounds nice too, going to wait until July to get one. Mountian Lion will be out then too.

killmoms
Jun 12, 2012, 01:15 PM
Considering that every other place OS X scales large images down it already uses blended interpolation, I don't think you have anything to worry about. There's no way they'd be using "nearest neighbor" to scale down. Will it look as hard-edged perfect as the native resolution in every case? No. Will it be easily distinguishable from actual 1920 x 1200 15.4" panels? Only in that it will look better, I'd imagine.

As to having to see it in person: nonsense. Just take one of the unscaled images from Anand's article and scale it down to 2880 x 1800 and see how it looks.

I'm eager to see it for myself.

satchow
Jun 12, 2012, 01:16 PM
If anybody's wondering, if you're a student or parent of a student you can get the new MacBook Pros for $200 off and a $100 back to school gift card. Even though school just ended for most students last week.

DualShock
Jun 12, 2012, 01:18 PM
Anyone have info on what resolution the machine uses when running Windows under Boot Camp?

skywalkerr69
Jun 12, 2012, 01:21 PM
Asus Rocks.

It does and its less than 1/2 the cost retina.

oiuh151
Jun 12, 2012, 01:22 PM
If you look at their photos of the different workspace options they posted you can see all of the images are still in the native resolution. Fuzziness should not be an issue like it is on typical monitors. The resolution on the screen is always the same with this new MacBook Pro, they just change the HiDPI mode.

catalyst6
Jun 12, 2012, 01:24 PM
This is a confusing subject, but people need to make an important distinction:

Given the "resolution" settings shown in this article, OS X will ALWAYS be outputting a 2880x1800 signal to the LCD. All that is happening is that the software is doing scaling to simulate the desktop size and feel of a traditional 1920x1200 monitor.

The real curious part is what the monitor will look like when you are NOT operating directly in OS X. An example would be a game like Diablo 3. When you select 1440xwhatever in the game, the signal being sent to the LCD will need to be UPSCALED. The argument is that the pixel density is so high that any traditional non-native resolution blurring will be unnoticeable.

What is unclear to me is during this entire process, I expect OS X is still running complex scaling in the background. I would expect there to be performance hits due to all this behind the scenes magic. I'm super excited about this transition to retina, but this change in tech will shake up the traditional notions of display resolutions considerably.

brueck
Jun 12, 2012, 01:30 PM
wow i can't believe the zenbook beat-out the new macbook display. I haven't really seen the zenbook display before

It doesn't really. The zenbook has more whites (is brighter) than the MBP Retina, but has less blacks. The contrast is higher, but that doesn't mean it's a better screen.

russofris
Jun 12, 2012, 01:31 PM
The benefit of that resolution is not needing AA and AF in games, but few laptop cards are up to it on modern games at any sort of high setting.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to have told the tech over at Annand. You will see in the screenshots that they are running Diablo3 at native res but has AA enabled.


F

ethana
Jun 12, 2012, 01:33 PM
Someone please do a test on FAN NOISE!

Also "Google Chrome currently uses its own text rendering engine and is thus unable to take advantage of the sharper text available in Safari"...

Again another bite at Google here.

FlameofAnor
Jun 12, 2012, 01:35 PM
wow i can't believe the zenbook beat-out the new macbook display. I haven't really seen the zenbook display before

The Zenbook's overall contrast ratio is higher, yes. Is it a better display though? The Asus isn't a "retina" quality display, and it's black levels aren't as good as the new MacBook Pro. The Zenbook has brighter white levels, which is why it edges ahead in overall contrast.

Personally, I'd much rather have the deepest black levels, than the brighest white levels. I never turn my brightness levels up that high to begin with. Deep blacks and saturated colors make for the most pleasing viewing experience.... just like on the new iPad.

pgiguere1
Jun 12, 2012, 01:35 PM
Scaled at 1680x1050:
http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2078/Screen%20Shot%202012-06-11%20at%204.35.55%20PM_thumb.png (http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2078/Screen%20Shot%202012-06-11%20at%204.35.55%20PM.png)
(Click to enlarge)

Scaled at 1920x1200 :
http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2078/Screen%20Shot%202012-06-11%20at%204.35.55%20PM_thumb.png (http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2078/Screen%20Shot%202012-06-11%20at%204.36.07%20PM.png)
(Click to enlarge)


The downscaled elements themselves are not fuzzy at all as you can see. Now we just need to see how they look when displayed on the higher resolution Retina Display, but with such a high PPI I imagine it can't be that bad.

EDIT: Just noticed the bottom left corner of the Dock looks weird at 1680x1050. That's probably just a display bug that will be fixed though as all the rest is smooth and it's fine at 1920x1200.

EDIT2: As KnightWRX pointed out, the scaled images are actually rendered at twice their linear resolution (4 times the pixels) by OS X and then downscaled to 2880x1800 when displayed, so for example instead of simply being upscaled from 1680x1050 to 2880x1800, it's rendered at 3360x2100 and then downscaled to 2880x1800 to be displayed. This should allow to display more details than if you were simply using a 1680x1050 display, but the downscaling process (from 3360x2100 to 2880x1800) will still make you lose a bit of sharpness when compared to native 2880x1800 or 1440x900 HiDPI.

chrmjenkins
Jun 12, 2012, 01:38 PM
Unfortunately, nobody seems to have told the tech over at Annand. You will see in the screenshots that they are running Diablo3 at native res but has AA enabled.


F

Anand is smart enough to know that. It's still useful for testing/benching purposes.

kazmac
Jun 12, 2012, 01:38 PM
I was glad I didn't pull the trigger yesterday. I appreciated the mention of the discrepancies between the clarity and the actual resolution in many threads here at Macrumors. Folks have been amazing here, but it's helpeful to read a real world field test.

My vision isn't great, but it's been pretty steady over the past six years despite all the web design and writing/classes I slogged through. I don't see much of a difference between the Retina in the new iPad and iPad 2, but then again, I'm not reading much beyond comicbooks and I limit myself to about an hour or two a week at most.

For something as important as a computer where I will be using it day-to-day, I'll keep my eyes peeled for more field reports and test when I actually need a machine.

Basic75
Jun 12, 2012, 01:43 PM
I just can't help the feeling that OS X is incredibly crappy and backward, even on the later versions of Amiga OS, in particular with MUI-based applications, it was possible to change the font size of ... basically everything.

I could change the font size of the meny bar that, like on Mac OS, had its fixed place at the top of the screen, and I could change the font size of nearly everything, and the layout would automatically adapt.

Why is the same level of configuration of the GUI parameters not even remotely possible on OS X? I'd love to run the Retina MacBook at its full native resolution, without pixel-doubling games, just with slightly larger fonts...

But I can't, because Mac OS X is on the level of Amiga OS 1.3, not 3.1.

edk99
Jun 12, 2012, 01:44 PM
I wonder how Windows and Linux are going to look through a VM like Parallels, VMware Virtualbox.

miniroll32
Jun 12, 2012, 01:46 PM
I think it's almost inevitable that this new MacBook Pro will pave the way for the next iMac lineup. By removing that large optical drive and HDD, they could easily shave more meat off the chassis and use the new fan system to cool the machine even better. Combine that with the new way to fit the LED panel and you have one very attractive iMac...

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2012, 01:46 PM
Scaled at 1680x1050:
Image (http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2078/Screen%20Shot%202012-06-11%20at%204.35.55%20PM.png)
(Click to enlarge)

Look at the size of the image. It's a 3,360px × 2,100px image. Basically, it's a pixel perfect rendition of a retina 1680x1050 image. That's no good to evaluate the downscaling algorithm used to display it in full screen on a 2880x1800 screen.

Sure we can use Photoshop or Gimp to downscale it, but then we have Photoshop or Gimp's downscaling algorithm coming into play. What we need to know and see is a 2880x1800 shot of the 3360x2100 shot downscaled using the same code OS X uses.

That's why I say Anand's comparison is bunk, it's not possible to see what it actually looks like on the screen.

I'll wait to see it in store. Feel free to downrank me for not "believing" blindly.

TSE
Jun 12, 2012, 01:46 PM
Definitely a sick upgrade... I always wanted 1920x1200 resolution on the 15" MacBook Pros, now we have it and it's even better.

Hopefully in a few years the battery life increases and SSDs in the 512 - 1 TB range are more reasonable by the time I want to purchase a new machine.

manu chao
Jun 12, 2012, 01:49 PM
My question: How does it work when plugging in to an external display? If you drag a window from the retina to non-retina does it scale correctly? (The non-retina would be 1x size versus 2x on the retina, meaning the non-retina would have to be scaled to 50% on the fly unless the system loads both graphics simultaneously.)
The window displayed alone on an external display will be displayed exactly as it is displayed with other computers. The physical size of the window may change when you drag depending on what the actual display dpi is, as it currently does as well. These different modes only apply to a given display, ie, the internal one, you still set the resolution for the external display separately, the same way you do it now.

NStocks
Jun 12, 2012, 01:50 PM
I think it's a nice touch that they have written " Here's to the crazy ones..." in the system pref. panel preview.

Always reminds me of Steve.

nefan65
Jun 12, 2012, 01:53 PM
It does and its less than 1/2 the cost retina.

Then the MBP w/ Retina isn't for you...

AnonMac50
Jun 12, 2012, 01:54 PM
This looks great!!! Would love the 1920x1200 option. I'm just worried about Boot Camp though.

lifeinhd
Jun 12, 2012, 01:55 PM
I wanted to see the machine in person to find out a) if I can adjust to 1920x1200, b) if the glare was sufficiently mitigated and c) just how good/bad apps look in 2x mode. This answers 2/3 questions, which is enough for me to decide I'm buying. Not that I was exactly on the fence to begin with :p

bhtooefr
Jun 12, 2012, 01:56 PM
Look at the size of the image. It's a 3,360px × 2,100px image. Basically, it's a pixel perfect rendition of a retina 1680x1050 image. That's no good to evaluate the downscaling algorithm used to display it in full screen on a 2880x1800 screen.

Sure we can use Photoshop or Gimp to downscale it, but then we have Photoshop or Gimp's downscaling algorithm coming into play. What we need to know and see is a 2880x1800 shot of the 3360x2100 shot downscaled using the same code OS X uses.

That's why I say Anand's comparison is bunk, it's not possible to see what it actually looks like on the screen.

I'll wait to see it in store. Feel free to downrank me for not "believing" blindly.

And, because the scaling is done in the GPU, you're not getting a screenshot.

Closeup photo of the machine's actual screen is the only way to do it 100%. (I did go ahead and scale stuff, though, to get an idea.)

ValSalva
Jun 12, 2012, 01:57 PM
I was glad I didn't pull the trigger yesterday. I appreciated the mention of the discrepancies between the clarity and the actual resolution in many threads here at Macrumors. Folks have been amazing here, but it's helpeful to read a real world field test.

My vision isn't great, but it's been pretty steady over the past six years despite all the web design and writing/classes I slogged through. I don't see much of a difference between the Retina in the new iPad and iPad 2, but then again, I'm not reading much beyond comicbooks and I limit myself to about an hour or two a week at most.

For something as important as a computer where I will be using it day-to-day, I'll keep my eyes peeled for more field reports and test when I actually need a machine.

I think one can always find justification for buying or not buying hardware in these forums ;) It just depends on which 'facts' you want to focus on and which you want to ignore.

I'm certainly guilty of doing both :rolleyes:

pgiguere1
Jun 12, 2012, 01:59 PM
Look at the size of the image. It's a 3,360px × 2,100px image. Basically, it's a pixel perfect rendition of a retina 1680x1050 image. That's no good to evaluate the downscaling algorithm used to display it in full screen on a 2880x1800 screen.

Sure we can use Photoshop or Gimp to downscale it, but then we have Photoshop or Gimp's downscaling algorithm coming into play. What we need to know and see is a 2880x1800 shot of the 3360x2100 shot downscaled using the same code OS X uses.

That's why I say Anand's comparison is bunk, it's not possible to see what it actually looks like on the screen.

I'll wait to see it in store. Feel free to downrank me for not "believing" blindly.

You're right. I did say we'd have to see how it actually looks once upscaled on the actual Retina Display, but I didn't notice that it would actually be downscaled since it's rendered at 3360×2100 and not 1680x1050. Either way, with a PPI that high the fuzziness can't be as noticeable as on the average ~115ppi laptop.

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2012, 02:02 PM
You're right. I did say we'd have to see how it actually looks once upscaled on the actual Retina Display, but I didn't notice that it would actually be downscaled since it's rendered at 3360×2100 and not 1680x1050. Either way, with a PPI that high the fuzziness can't be as noticeable as on the average ~115ppi laptop.

It's not the fuzzyness that I'm afraid of. You can downscale images with 0 fuzzyness (see nearest neighbor scaling), it's the loss of detail of such algorithms. I wish I had some examples handy, I actually implemented nearest neighbor recently in an iOS app I'm making.

mkoesel
Jun 12, 2012, 02:03 PM
I wonder why they chose to omit 2560x1600 as an option? It seems it would be a nice option if you wanted to mirror a 30" 16:10 display for example.

dank414
Jun 12, 2012, 02:06 PM
If anybody's wondering, if you're a student or parent of a student you can get the new MacBook Pros for $200 off and a $100 back to school gift card. Even though school just ended for most students last week.

That's my exact game plan for this puppy. Anyone smart should enroll in a CC at least for hundred bucks and then get the new MBP. Cheap education and a discount.

bedifferent
Jun 12, 2012, 02:07 PM
Look at the size of the image. It's a 3,360px × 2,100px image. Basically, it's a pixel perfect rendition of a retina 1680x1050 image. That's no good to evaluate the downscaling algorithm used to display it in full screen on a 2880x1800 screen.

Sure we can use Photoshop or Gimp to downscale it, but then we have Photoshop or Gimp's downscaling algorithm coming into play. What we need to know and see is a 2880x1800 shot of the 3360x2100 shot downscaled using the same code OS X uses.

That's why I say Anand's comparison is bunk, it's not possible to see what it actually looks like on the screen.

I'll wait to see it in store. Feel free to downrank me for not "believing" blindly.

For once, on this you and I agree.

ValSalva
Jun 12, 2012, 02:08 PM
I wonder why they chose to omit 2560x1600 as an option? It seems it would be a nice option if you wanted to mirror a 30" 16:10 display for example.

Maybe because text and menu items would be teeny tiny. It seems like there is certainly no software limitation for Apple to scale it to this size.

dank414
Jun 12, 2012, 02:11 PM
I can't wait to see the ifixit folks tear the new mbp down. I'd love to see what else they discover.

Porco
Jun 12, 2012, 02:12 PM
Options are good, and I think this looks really well thought-out. This new MacBook Pro was easily the high-point of the keynote for me (I was fairly bored by most of the software announcements really), and if I had the cash spare I'd have ordered one already, it looks like it's a stunning machine all-round.

MacSince1990
Jun 12, 2012, 02:31 PM
Wow! This article answered absolutely all my questions and concerns about the new display related to scaling/quality etc... my next laptop is gonna have a "retina" display =)

skygremlin
Jun 12, 2012, 02:33 PM
How is this going to look on a HD TV via the HDMI port?

ls1dreams
Jun 12, 2012, 02:35 PM
It does and its less than 1/2 the cost retina.

I wouldn't mind switching back to a PC at all if someone could just fix 2 issues:

1. A decent trackpad. Why can't ANY windows machine have a decent trackpad?

2. A magsafe equivalent. I've broken DC jacks on 3 separate laptops, and don't want to deal with that headache in the future. This patent shouldn't be TOO expensive, as cooking equipment used a similar attachment in the past. It's not exactly an apple invention.

hazmatzak
Jun 12, 2012, 02:37 PM
It should be noted that Phil actually said glare is reduced "up to" 75%

Consultant
Jun 12, 2012, 02:38 PM
wow i can't believe the zenbook beat-out the new macbook display. I haven't really seen the zenbook display before

Asus Rocks.

MacBook Pro Retina display beats the Asus in the Black Level test.

Contrast ratio =/= display quality.

l2yangop
Jun 12, 2012, 02:39 PM
I always thought that a boost in resolution would mean being able to fit more on the screen. That is apparently not the case. How do you determine what resolutions give you "crispness" vs "useable space"?

doelcm82
Jun 12, 2012, 02:39 PM
Can someone, who knows there stuff sensibly and not just a fan boy of course Its better mode, please do the maths on how close the human eye has to be, with normal vision to see the difference in the old MacBook and the new MacBook's screen.

I think you should get to an Apple Store and see it for yourself. If reading the article linked to in this post didn't satisfy you, then you have a clear bias and no one else's opinion will satisfy you.

That's my totally unbiased, objective opinion.:D

So Random
Jun 12, 2012, 02:43 PM
The Zenbook isn't Retina display. Not even in the same league, people.

It's just contrast ratio.

uknowimright
Jun 12, 2012, 02:43 PM
Asus Rocks.

yessir

Osnabrueck
Jun 12, 2012, 02:44 PM
It seems like the way Apple has framed the display options is causing confusion.

OSX has been built to be resolution independent - Applications that make use of Core UI elements will already be 'retina' by virtue of how OSX renders things like buttons, windows, type, etc.

There's lots of exceptions to this - but it's hard to discuss without spiraling into an academic discussion of how graphics behave. In short - non-updated applications won't be a fuzzy mess, but they may contain elements (custom buttons for instance) that will suffer from 'fuzz.'

This is a great moment for OSX. As a designer, I've been waiting ages for the resolution-independent era to arrive.

Displays like these are going to turn the world of Web design on its head, as we will have to start thinking about screen space in terms of 'inches on screen' instead of 'pixels.'

7enderbender
Jun 12, 2012, 02:45 PM
Yes. Also not much point paying for an expensive 2880 screen and running it at 1680 when a native 1680 screen would be both sharper and cheaper, if they offered it.

They do, only on the old version. What I'd be interested in is 1920x1200. Can anyone say how that looks on the new retina MBA?

If that looks OK and IF the color gamut and calibration options are halfway decent for photography needs I may reconsider.

Leaves only one question then: how hard is it to replace the SSD later? Is it possible at all? I still think that I liked the "old" form factor better, especially given the option to replace the optical drive with a second HD for space. I still don't get why everything has to be thinner when they should rather be looking at leaving less space around the screen and the keyboard on the sides.

Maybe I'm still on board with going Mac if 1920x1200 works.

GenesisST
Jun 12, 2012, 02:47 PM
Someone please do a test on FAN NOISE!

Also "Google Chrome currently uses its own text rendering engine and is thus unable to take advantage of the sharper text available in Safari"...

Again another bite at Google here.

Nothing that a well placed "* 2.0" won't fix... (ok, a bit more that this to support Windows, Linux, Mac non-retina, but you get my drift).

Chrome is not the only software that is not ready for retina. Mind you most apps' text will be retina even if they only have @1x images.

It was released yesterday and it ain't exactly crippling...

Tech198
Jun 12, 2012, 02:47 PM
I'll assume this is in Mountain Lion.

I'd rather "see" the resolutions.....what i want to change to, then to just have "generic" options available.

I can see it easier for the average jo. but most users would probably be confused be this...

What are these options resolutions exactly ?:eek:

Or are these still available ?

Regarding games, I won't bloat over "non-retina" games ONLY being 1920x1200.. This is still better than current MacBook Pro's

futbalguy
Jun 12, 2012, 02:48 PM
I always thought that a boost in resolution would mean being able to fit more on the screen. That is apparently not the case. How do you determine what resolutions give you "crispness" vs "useable space"?

I would say that was pretty much the case up until recent high resolution displays came out and it didnt make sense to make the usable space any bigger. At a certain point you cant see the text because its so small and that would be the case with the retina screens apple has been releasing recently. Really, this is a pretty new issue and I think you would just have to understand what you are buying.

coldmack
Jun 12, 2012, 02:48 PM
The Zenbook's overall contrast ratio is higher, yes. Is it a better display though? The Asus isn't a "retina" quality display, and it's black levels aren't as good as the new MacBook Pro. The Zenbook has brighter white levels, which is why it edges ahead in overall contrast.

Personally, I'd much rather have the deepest black levels, than the brighest white levels. I never turn my brightness levels up that high to begin with. Deep blacks and saturated colors make for the most pleasing viewing experience.... just like on the new iPad.

But, which has the better color gamut, with higher accuracy, that's the real question.

bhtooefr
Jun 12, 2012, 02:48 PM
I always thought that a boost in resolution would mean being able to fit more on the screen. That is apparently not the case. How do you determine what resolutions give you "crispness" vs "useable space"?

More resolution means that you can resolve more detail.

Historically, this has been used to fit more on the screen.

Apple's using it to give you the same size, but twice as much resolution in each direction. And then, they're offering other options to trade crispness for size, or vice versa (but not in the most optimal way).

By default, it has exactly as much size as it had in the 1440x900 MacBook Pro 15".

However, you can make things bigger (as big as they would be on a theoretical 1024x640 MBP 15"), and smaller (as big as they would be on a theoretical 1920x1200 MBP 15"). Quality can suffer at the larger sizes/smaller pixel areas (as it's still doing upscaling, just like if you had run a 1440x900 MBP at 1024x640, but it's less noticeable due to how high resolution it's actually running), but it's not a bad approach.

sambaphoto
Jun 12, 2012, 02:50 PM
What I'd like to know is, if Photoshop and all the other Adobe Products need an update to offer their full functionality on a Retina display?

pubwvj
Jun 12, 2012, 02:55 PM
On the Apple web site I see options for 512GB and 768GB SSD, not 256GB.

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC976LL/A?

7enderbender
Jun 12, 2012, 03:05 PM
What I'd like to know is, if Photoshop and all the other Adobe Products need an update to offer their full functionality on a Retina display?

I think that was hinted at yesterday. Supposedly they are working with Adobe on something. Which in return means that my CS5 and LR3 would likely not see an update while I could see that they make this available for the currently released CS6 and LR4. Not Apples fault but adds another wrinkle to everyone who is into photography - and hasn't "upgraded" to CS6/LR4 yet for reasons other than the money involved.

May I say that I find everything in the hardware and software world pretty exasperating at the moment? I understand that we live in exciting times with lots of milestone transitions. But even when you're willing to shell out some significant doe it appears there is still always a compromise involved.

Consultant
Jun 12, 2012, 03:07 PM
On the Apple web site I see options for 512GB and 768GB SSD, not 256GB.

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC976LL/A?

The $2199 one has 256GB SSD:
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC975LL/A?

7enderbender
Jun 12, 2012, 03:08 PM
On the Apple web site I see options for 512GB and 768GB SSD, not 256GB.

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC976LL/A?

Do you know if this is "unofficially" user exchangeable later? Or did they solder those in as well like it appears they did with the RAM?

Does anyone know if there is any space/connectivity for a second hard drive? Or any chance this could be swapped for a regular drive?

mirko.meschini
Jun 12, 2012, 03:13 PM
This is amazing, really. It seems to be a real resolution indipendence, system that render all things at double the resolution and then scaling all at LCD native resolution. Now the question is if it works even on 3rd party external displays, to allow retina or near-retina quality on future high density (but not 4x) screens.

pgiguere1
Jun 12, 2012, 03:15 PM
It's not the fuzzyness that I'm afraid of. You can downscale images with 0 fuzzyness (see nearest neighbor scaling), it's the loss of detail of such algorithms. I wish I had some examples handy, I actually implemented nearest neighbor recently in an iOS app I'm making.

How could an image downscaled from 3360x2100 to 2880x1800 have less detail than one at 1680x1050? Shouldn't it be the other way around? And why would they use nearest neighbor scaling? That's the worse form of scaling when you're not resizing by an integer factor in that kind of scenario.

I'm not sure what kind of interpolation the downscaling will use but I'm sure it won't be as bad as nearest neighbor. If it's anything close to Photoshop's bilinear interpolation (the simplest interpolation besides nearest neighbor), it should look pretty good (see attached image).

Consultant
Jun 12, 2012, 03:15 PM
Definitely a sick upgrade... I always wanted 1920x1200 resolution on the 15" MacBook Pros, now we have it and it's even better.

Hopefully in a few years the battery life increases and SSDs in the 512 - 1 TB range are more reasonable by the time I want to purchase a new machine.

My unibody 17" MBP has 1920x1200. That resolution is too small for text. For video editors the resolution is useful, but not for reading.

I use it with 1680 x 1050

charlieegan3
Jun 12, 2012, 03:18 PM
So does this mean you will have the same usable space on the new 15" as you would on the old 17"?

yes, only smaller in the 15" screen.

Moonjumper
Jun 12, 2012, 03:21 PM
Yes. Also not much point paying for an expensive 2880 screen and running it at 1680 when a native 1680 screen would be both sharper and cheaper, if they offered it.

I noticed base 15" MBP has the same processor as the base Retina MBP, but worse GPU and RAM. If you configure the MBP to have the same size SSD as the base Retina MBP, you have a more expensive machine, but still lower specs. Similar happens when comparing the upper spec machines (which are closer in other specs). Built-to-order will have an effect on this, but I doubt it is enough to more that close the gap.

So the retina screen doesn't appear to have an effect on prices. If so, that bodes well for quick adoption by the rest of the Mac range. They need to, because anything not retina seems like old tech now.

redkamel
Jun 12, 2012, 03:22 PM
I always thought that a boost in resolution would mean being able to fit more on the screen. That is apparently not the case. How do you determine what resolutions give you "crispness" vs "useable space"?

Resolution, as someone said, just means how much detail you can resolve.

"Fitting more on the screen" come from putting more pixels in the same physical space....you can fit more 256x256 icons for example on a 1920x screen than a 1024x, if both screen are 20 inches wide. Notice the icon size is constant.

Apple has put more pixels in the same space, but also made all the icons and text larger (in terms of pixels), but they stay the same size (in inches) because of the increase in pixels.

Thus the screen will likely have the same work area in terms of icons and windows as the previous MBP...just much sharper.

You have the option of making the icons and windows smaller (in terms of pixels) which also makes them smaller (in terms of inches) thus giving you more room to work.

Osnabrueck
Jun 12, 2012, 03:23 PM
May I say that I find everything in the hardware and software world pretty exasperating at the moment? I understand that we live in exciting times with lots of milestone transitions. But even when you're willing to shell out some significant doe it appears there is still always a compromise involved.

The leap from resolution fixed UIs to resolution independent UIs is pretty huge.

The coordination involved in developing resolution independent software and content turns lots of entrenched standards on their head - expect strangeness for the next couple of years.

Heck, here we are years after the ubiquity of HDTV and many shows are still broadcast in 720p.

TSE
Jun 12, 2012, 03:25 PM
My unibody 17" MBP has 1920x1200. That resolution is too small for text. For video editors the resolution is useful, but not for reading.

I use it with 1680 x 1050

Really? I've used my father's 17" MacBook Pro and reading on it was fantastic, I'm not sure if I would mind it on the 15" MacBook Pro or not. I would have to see it. Might be too small.

I love my 1680x1050 Anti-Glare display, but sometimes I wish I had a bit more screen real estate. I don't plan on upgrading anytime soon, however. :)

redkamel
Jun 12, 2012, 03:25 PM
Do you know if this is "unofficially" user exchangeable later? Or did they solder those in as well like it appears they did with the RAM?

Does anyone know if there is any space/connectivity for a second hard drive? Or any chance this could be swapped for a regular drive?

I think it is just like the macbook air. Everything is soldered in.

Space for a second drive? :p Where would you put it? What would you take out? You want to put a harddrive where a small array of RAM chips are?

If you want an HD and an SSD you're better off buying the regular MBP and swapping the OD for an SSD aftermarket.

GK1
Jun 12, 2012, 03:26 PM
Thank You for the Awesome report on this Fantastic Display inovation.
However, could you explain what the impli-fi-cation shold be if someone is considering the purchase of a new apple free standing solo-display/ monitor.

How does the output resolution measure compared to the stand alone displays?
Will It be a waste to buy the big real estate at this time?

What are your thoughts for a body needing real estate in the next 60 days,
Besides the obvious,,,wait?

sambaphoto
Jun 12, 2012, 03:29 PM
I think that was hinted at yesterday. Supposedly they are working with Adobe on something. Which in return means that my CS5 and LR3 would likely not see an update while I could see that they make this available for the currently released CS6 and LR4. Not Apples fault but adds another wrinkle to everyone who is into photography - and hasn't "upgraded" to CS6/LR4 yet for reasons other than the money involved.

May I say that I find everything in the hardware and software world pretty exasperating at the moment? I understand that we live in exciting times with lots of milestone transitions. But even when you're willing to shell out some significant doe it appears there is still always a compromise involved.

Thanks for the answer! I'm already on CS6 so hopefully they will bring something soon. I'm really thinking about to buy a retina version. But I will wait for some more information available. Thanks again!

Osnabrueck
Jun 12, 2012, 03:30 PM
Thus the screen will likely have the same work area in terms of icons and windows as the previous MBP...just much sharper.

You have the option of making the icons and windows smaller (in terms of pixels) which also makes them smaller (in terms of inches) thus giving you more room to work.

Feels like this is where everybody is getting stuck.

We're used to thinking "high res display mode = Smaller UI, Sharper Graphics, More Workspace" – "low res display mode = Larger UI, Chunky Graphics, Less Workspace."

This doesn't apply anymore. With a Retina display the question is "How big do you want your UI?" No matter how big or small you make your UI, the graphics will always be sharp.

Wikipedia has a great illustration of this - Just google 'Resolution Independence.'

steve-p
Jun 12, 2012, 03:34 PM
My unibody 17" MBP has 1920x1200. That resolution is too small for text. For video editors the resolution is useful, but not for reading.

I use it with 1680 x 1050

Hmmmm, it looks very nice to me for text. Have you considered reading glasses ;)

sciwizam
Jun 12, 2012, 03:36 PM
The Zenbook isn't Retina display. Not even in the same league, people.

It's just contrast ratio.

Close enough, Zenbook Prime has 1920x1080 @ 11.6" => 190 ppi.

Astroexe
Jun 12, 2012, 03:37 PM
Here's to the crazy ones..

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/371/screenshot20120611at435.png

l2yangop
Jun 12, 2012, 03:40 PM
More resolution means that you can resolve more detail.

Historically, this has been used to fit more on the screen.

Apple's using it to give you the same size, but twice as much resolution in each direction. And then, they're offering other options to trade crispness for size, or vice versa (but not in the most optimal way).

By default, it has exactly as much size as it had in the 1440x900 MacBook Pro 15".

However, you can make things bigger (as big as they would be on a theoretical 1024x640 MBP 15"), and smaller (as big as they would be on a theoretical 1920x1200 MBP 15"). Quality can suffer at the larger sizes/smaller pixel areas (as it's still doing upscaling, just like if you had run a 1440x900 MBP at 1024x640, but it's less noticeable due to how high resolution it's actually running), but it's not a bad approach.

Thanks for the explanation. So I was thinking of getting the 13.3 inch air over the 11 inch because the 11inch has 1366 by 768 and the 13 inch has 1440 by 900. Will i have more "useable" space on the 13inch?

fun173
Jun 12, 2012, 03:41 PM
yes, only smaller in the 15" screen.

ok thanks for clarification :)

Marx55
Jun 12, 2012, 03:48 PM
No matte display, no purchase. At least as an option. Even if more expensive. Sign the petition at MacMatte (matte petition) http://macmatte.wordpress.com

a.gomez
Jun 12, 2012, 03:48 PM
most be the most idiotic technologies in ages - 1440X900 with a denser pixel, what for? - 1920X1200 on a 15 is a pain - so you left with 1680x1050 on a 15 something you could do before.

technology for technology sake - it is useless

Navdakilla
Jun 12, 2012, 03:50 PM
Hmm. I'm not sure how I feel about this scaling.

Still a pretty sexy laptop tho

Astroexe
Jun 12, 2012, 03:50 PM
Thanks for the explanation. So I was thinking of getting the 13.3 inch air over the 11 inch because the 11inch has 1366 by 768 and the 13 inch has 1440 by 900. Will i have more "useable" space on the 13inch?

Both of those devises aren't retina so yes, you would theoretically get more space on the 13" as you'd have a taller screen. The difference here is that the 11" and the 13" have different display sizes, whereas previous MBP 15" had the same size space to use, but at optimum retina-ness it's just crisper. It's exactly the same technology used in the iPhone and iPad - the size of the device hasn't changed, the screen just got a whole lot crisper. :)

Osnabrueck
Jun 12, 2012, 03:54 PM
Thanks for the explanation. So I was thinking of getting the 13.3 inch air over the 11 inch because the 11inch has 1366 by 768 and the 13 inch has 1440 by 900. Will i have more "useable" space on the 13inch?

Yes. You will have more actual workspace on the 13".

----------

most be the most idiotic technologies

I take it you're one of those people who can't see the difference between 480p and 1080p.

edk99
Jun 12, 2012, 03:57 PM
No matte display, no purchase. At least as an option. Even if more expensive. Sign the petition at MacMatte (matte petition) http://macmatte.wordpress.com
The screen is reportedly not as glossy as the current MBP. I would check it out first before wasting your energy on a stupid petition.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis
Fewer Reflections, Hugely Improved Contrast

In the standard (glossy) MacBook Pro, Apple had a standard LCD arrangement with two sheets of glass plus a third piece of cover glass that gave it the seamless edge-to-edge glass appearance. The MacBook Air and the high-res/matte display on the other hand did not have any cover glass and instead hid the LCD panel behind a bezel. The MacBook Pro with Retina Display uses a similar LCD construction to the MacBook Air/matte-MBP, without a cover glass. Instead the Retina Display's two glass layers are different sizes, which you can sort of see in the cross section below:

By removing the cover glass Apple reduces the number of reflections and thus glare, however it's important to point out that this still isn't a matte display. I've never been particularly bothered by glossy screens so I'm really the wrong person to ask whether or not the reduction in reflections makes it usable. Compared to my matte MacBook Pro, the Retina Display is obviously more glossy but at the same time remarkably close. I'll reserve my final judgement until I've used the display in more varied conditions however.

7enderbender
Jun 12, 2012, 04:00 PM
I think it is just like the macbook air. Everything is soldered in.

Space for a second drive? :p Where would you put it? What would you take out? You want to put a harddrive where a small array of RAM chips are?

If you want an HD and an SSD you're better off buying the regular MBP and swapping the OD for an SSD aftermarket.

I'm thinking that. Come to think of it - the MBP 15" with hi res matte and now with USB3 is actually exactly what I need. Or maybe even a good deal on the 17". I still don't get why people complained about fonts being too small and such. I'm over 40 and I wear glasses - and I still find that pretty much everything on a Mac looks ridiculously huge and as if made for the visually impaired. Logos, fonts, screen elements - really everything. So in that the 1920x1200 (if working for Photoshop and such) would be even better at 15" for me. But I think the inability to swap anything later makes it a deal breaker. I don't care if it's thin or not. Plus it just doesn't have enough space no matter what. Photos, videos, audio recording files eat up tons of space so there is no way going back to such small drives.

Basic75
Jun 12, 2012, 04:01 PM
OSX has been built to be resolution independent - Applications that make use of Core UI elements will already be 'retina' by virtue of how OSX renders things like buttons, windows, type, etc.

There's lots of exceptions to this - but it's hard to discuss without spiraling into an academic discussion of how graphics behave. In short - non-updated applications won't be a fuzzy mess, but they may contain elements (custom buttons for instance) that will suffer from 'fuzz.'


The pixel-doubling and HiDPI stuff is basically an admission that they failed at resolution independence; this is also shown that, as I argued somewhere above, the fact that you can't really change the sizes of UI elements, in particular of fonts, throughout the system, as was possible e.g. on the Amiga, which, in particular with the MUI library, was much closer to true resolution independence than the Mac is...

a.gomez
Jun 12, 2012, 04:03 PM
I take it you're one of those people who can't see the difference between 480p and 1080p.

no, just the difference between a line drawn with a pencil and one made with a brushed aluminum pencil.

killmoms
Jun 12, 2012, 04:06 PM
The pixel-doubling and HiDPI stuff is basically an admission that they failed at resolution independence; this is also shown that, as I argued somewhere above, the fact that you can't really change the sizes of UI elements, in particular of fonts, throughout the system, as was possible e.g. on the Amiga, which, in particular with the MUI library, was much closer to true resolution independence than the Mac is...
But if it enables the same basic end result, does it really matter? The "render at double size and scale final output up or down" method is easier on the developer side and has no ill effects for the end user, especially when the panels are so much higher res than what came before. You can now "scale" the UI to different sizes. No, you can't do it to individual elements, but that was never part of Apple's design goals for OS X's interface. In that sense OS X is "less advanced" than Windows 3.1. :rolleyes:

baryon
Jun 12, 2012, 04:07 PM
If you were to select a resolution that wasn't exactly the native pixel density (2880x1800) or exactly half (1440x900), and were to instead pick a larger resolution like 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 (as mentioned in the article) wouldn't you experience fuzzing as the software tries to compensate for the hardware vs. software pixel boundaries?

I was thinking that myself, but I think that's not the case: what's actually happening is that OS X is using larger or smaller interface elements, and scaling text accordingly too.

It's not actually doing what other screens would do at smaller-than-native resolutions, which is basically representing each software pixel with more than one hardware pixel with interpolation, which makes things look bad.

I think in every case, every individual hardware pixel on the screen acts as a single software pixel, and it is only the interface elements that get scaled bigger or smaller, actually changing their level of detail.

So for example, if you choose the "bigger text" option, buttons also get bigger, but without losing resolution: they instead are more detailed, bigger versions of the button. The "more space" option will give you smaller text, and smaller interface elements. This is just like when you pinch to zoom in and out in Safari: the text actually gets more detailed when you zoom in, and not pixellated, because it's being re-rendered at a higher resolution. So do the interface elements, and the only thing that can't be scaled perfectly are images.

By the way, will a website that has been designed to be 500 pixels wide be automatically scaled to be actually 1000 pixels wide, using the "retina" setting?

killmoms
Jun 12, 2012, 04:11 PM
So for example, if you choose the "bigger text" option, buttons also get bigger, but without losing resolution: they instead are more detailed, bigger versions of the button. The "more space" option will give you smaller text, and smaller interface elements. This is just like when you pinch to zoom in and out in Safari: the text actually gets more detailed when you zoom in, and not pixellated, because it's being re-rendered at a higher resolution. So do the interface elements, and the only thing that can't be scaled perfectly are images.
Not quite. The "Larger Text" option renders the OS X desktop at 2048 x 1280 (in HiDPI mode, so with 2x text and widgets and so forth) internally and then scales it UP to the panel's native 2880 x 1900. So, in "Bigger Text" mode on this panel, things will be slightly fuzzy. But my guess is that slight fuzziness will be hidden by the fact that the panel is so high-res and the HiDPI mode still will look way better than an old-style 1024 x 640 screen scaled up to a non-Retina 1440 x 900 panel. And since this mode is pretty much tailor-made for people with poor eyesight, I doubt the tiny amount of blurriness from upscaling will be noticed at all.

Conversely, in "More Space" mode, it'll be rendered at 3840 x 2400 in HiDPI mode and then scaled DOWN to 2880 x 1080. So individual interface elements will have less detail than they would at the native resolution, but each individual display pixel will still have unique content, so to speak (rather than stretched content across multiple display pixels).

Basic75
Jun 12, 2012, 04:15 PM
But if it enables the same basic end result, does it really matter? The "render at double size and scale final output up or down" method is easier on the developer side and has no ill effects for the end user, especially when the panels are so much higher res than what came before. You can now "scale" the UI to different sizes. No, you can't do it to individual elements, but that was never part of Apple's design goals for OS X's interface. In that sense OS X is "less advanced" than Windows 3.1. :rolleyes:

Well, I would have liked the flexibility of true scaling like with MUI on the Amiga, for example because it allows an individual setting for each application.

And it would save some battery if the 1680x1050-simulation-mode didn't have to render at 3360x2100 and then scale down, but you could get the same look and feel by selecting an appropriately sized base-font that everything is adapted to.

But yeah, they didn't shoot so high, and at least they seem to have finally managed this dumbed-down resolution-independence, and the new display must be really great!

Perhaps if I wait a bit there will be an update with a pixel-doubled 1680x1050 display instead of the current 1440x900 ;-)

Osnabrueck
Jun 12, 2012, 04:20 PM
By the way, will a website that has been designed to be 500 pixels wide be automatically scaled to be actually 1000 pixels wide, using the "retina" setting?

It will be scaled. Just imagine what happens when you visit a website on The New iPad. Same thing.

This is a very exciting and somewhat awkward moment for those in the web development business because we now have to target more screens than ever, and delivering an optimized viewing experience for those with HiDPI displays will be difficult.

We're also moving into a time where we may just start thinking in terms of 'inches' regarding display real estate instead of pixels. It doesn't apply quite yet, but a few years down the road when HiDPI becomes common for new hardware we will begin to approach screen design more like we do the physical page.

a.gomez
Jun 12, 2012, 04:31 PM
It will be scaled. Just imagine what happens when you visit a website on The New iPad. Same thing.

This is a very exciting and somewhat awkward moment for those in the web development business because we now have to target more screens than ever, and delivering an optimized viewing experience for those with HiDPI displays will be difficult.

We're also moving into a time where we may just start thinking in terms of 'inches' regarding display real estate instead of pixels. It doesn't apply quite yet, but a few years down the road when HiDPI becomes common for new hardware we will begin to approach screen design more like we do the physical page.

not any time soon... a 2200 laptop on a company that hold 4% share will not even be a blip on the analytics of a site. It would be a waste of time and energy for me to put my designers to deal optimizing viewing experience with this nonsense any time soon.

baryon
Jun 12, 2012, 04:45 PM
Not quite. The "Larger Text" option renders the OS X desktop at 2048 x 1280 (in HiDPI mode, so with 2x text and widgets and so forth) internally and then scales it UP to the panel's native 2880 x 1900. So, in "Bigger Text" mode on this panel, things will be slightly fuzzy. But my guess is that slight fuzziness will be hidden by the fact that the panel is so high-res and the HiDPI mode still will look way better than an old-style 1024 x 640 screen scaled up to a non-Retina 1440 x 900 panel. And since this mode is pretty much tailor-made for people with poor eyesight, I doubt the tiny amount of blurriness from upscaling will be noticed at all.

Conversely, in "More Space" mode, it'll be rendered at 3840 x 2400 in HiDPI mode and then scaled DOWN to 2880 x 1080. So individual interface elements will have less detail than they would at the native resolution, but each individual display pixel will still have unique content, so to speak (rather than stretched content across multiple display pixels).

Thanks for explaining! So for example, in Photoshop, the only way to avoid trouble with software image pixels not being real pixels is to use the default Retina setting? Otherwise if you'd paint a single 1-pixel black dot on the canvas, you'd either end up seeing it as a faint grey pixel as it's supposed to be smaller than a pixel, or as more than one pixel?

I guess true resolution independence is impossible to achieve today, since many things simply can't be vector-based, like images. But wouldn't it be easy to design a vector-based OS interface? Then only images would be scaled, and pretty much everything else would be perfectly crisp at any size?

faroZ06
Jun 12, 2012, 05:17 PM
I really want to try one of these but not buy. Maybe if I ever become a professional photographer, which is not likely...

JohnDoe98
Jun 12, 2012, 05:19 PM
I really want to try one of these but not buy. Maybe if I ever become a professional photographer, which is not likely...

Buy then return for refund within 14 days = trial of the RMBP.

faroZ06
Jun 12, 2012, 05:21 PM
most be the most idiotic technologies in ages - 1440X900 with a denser pixel, what for? - 1920X1200 on a 15 is a pain - so you left with 1680x1050 on a 15 something you could do before.

technology for technology sake - it is useless

It's very useful for some people (professionals and photographers) but apparently not you. Even if I didn't need it, I'd buy it if I had money to burn just because it looks so great.

----------

Buy then return for refund within 14 days = trial of the RMBP.

That's annoying to do, and it abuses the return system. I just want to go to the Apple Store and try it out. Do they have them there yet? Because tomorrow, I have to go there anyway to ask them why my mom's MacBook Pro's CPU went above boiling point when I used 90% of the CPU power.

scottrichardson
Jun 12, 2012, 05:25 PM
Wait......... can someone confirm or deny..

Can I use this new Retina Macbook in 'normal' 2880 x 1800 pixels? As in, seeing four times as much screen real-estate? I understand everything would be teeny, but that's okay.

Possible?

In other words, can I disable the hiDPI mode?

JohnDoe98
Jun 12, 2012, 05:27 PM
Wait......... can someone confirm or deny..

Can I use this new Retina Macbook in 'normal' 2880 x 1800 pixels? As in, seeing four times as much screen real-estate? I understand everything would be teeny, but that's okay.

Possible?

In other words, can I disable the hiDPI mode?

No you can't, officially.

scottrichardson
Jun 12, 2012, 05:34 PM
Surely it could be disabled via terminal?

JohnDoe98
Jun 12, 2012, 05:41 PM
Surely it could be disabled via terminal?

You can disable HiDPI mode probably, but I don't think over 1900x1200 will be natively supported in the display settings, so you'd need some kind of hacking to accomplish that feat, though things would be so small it hardly seems worth it.

iansilv
Jun 12, 2012, 05:56 PM
Is this going to change with Mountain Lion? As in, native resolution stuff?

bhtooefr
Jun 12, 2012, 05:58 PM
Why wouldn't it let you over 1920x1200, though? I don't see any inherent reason except for something blocking it in the HiDPI handling, and that's when it's in HiDPI mode. If it's working like I think it is, with HiDPI off, I think these may be the modes available:

2048x1280
2560x1600
2880x1800
3360x2100
3840x2400

Also, there is always booting into Windows and getting 2880x1800 native there, that's been confirmed as possible IIRC.

Sean4123
Jun 12, 2012, 06:03 PM
I think they've gone a little to OCD now. I have the non-glare screen (1680x1050) and it looks just as good as an iPad 2.

Well the iPad 2 looks terrible terrible terrible compared to the iPad 3 so there's that

Shacklebolt
Jun 12, 2012, 06:11 PM
No matte display, no purchase. At least as an option. Even if more expensive. Sign the petition at MacMatte (matte petition) http://macmatte.wordpress.com

http://ideaconnection.com/right-brain-workouts/images/sisyphus-sign.jpg

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2012, 06:14 PM
It seems like the way Apple has framed the display options is causing confusion.

OSX has been built to be resolution independent - Applications that make use of Core UI elements will already be 'retina' by virtue of how OSX renders things like buttons, windows, type, etc.'

Hum... no. OS X is not resolution independent at all. It uses bitmap objects for the UI and the UI becomes smaller and smaller as you raise the pixel count.

Resolution independent would be using vectors to render buttons/windows/types, etc.. No OS does that. Some Linux window managers do support SVG in a few of their UI elements, but that's about it.

Consultant
Jun 12, 2012, 07:05 PM
Really? I've used my father's 17" MacBook Pro and reading on it was fantastic, I'm not sure if I would mind it on the 15" MacBook Pro or not. I would have to see it. Might be too small.

I love my 1680x1050 Anti-Glare display, but sometimes I wish I had a bit more screen real estate. I don't plan on upgrading anytime soon, however. :)

I bet it's 1680x1050. Most 17" MBP are 1680x1050 (there were some BTO for high res)

MBP 17" Unibody: 1920x1200.

snakebitesmac
Jun 12, 2012, 07:25 PM
This conversation is quite interesting. I look at this from a different point of view. I don't typically use the display while at my desk. I like to keep the lid closed and use my 30" monitor.

Even with all the odd resolution nonsense (I'm an engineer, uggh); that just means that while traveling I could get the same workspace of the "Hi Res" 15" MBP. Ok, that seems alright.

The improved air flow sounds key (I've been waiting for them to figure out how to pull air from under the chassis for a long time) for running the machine while the lid is shut. Everyone knows all of the generations before have issues with pulling air in through the reduced opening when the hinge is in the shut position. If I can work with it using a ton of cpu power while shut and driving 2x 30" monitors or 2x 27 Apple displays. I would call it a winner.

Winner, even though I am going to have to cart around my emergency (now external) drive now. *sigh*

Regarding money. If you take the standard (2.3Ghz) MBP and add a 240GB SSD (349$ from OWC) and upgrade to 8gb of ram ($100) w/ HiRes Display ($100) you have a price of $2,348. Thats the same hardware sans the retina display for $148 more.

For that $148 more you get ethernet, cd rom and one less thunderbolt port. I already live without a cd rom drive in my MBP, its really a non issue.

Everything considered; if you use your MBP for work; the "MBP-R(etina)" is actually cheaper. They equal out in price if you move to 16gb of ram because Apple gets you there versus buying it from OWC.

jouster
Jun 12, 2012, 07:44 PM
No you can't, officially.

As in "I doubt if it'll be long before this becomes possible through the hacking community"...

I'd give it a week.

TSE
Jun 12, 2012, 07:52 PM
I bet it's 1680x1050. Most 17" MBP are 1680x1050 (there were some BTO for high res)

MBP 17" Unibody: 1920x1200.

No, it's 1920x1200 as it's a 2010 Unibody model. Different preferences, I guess.

twoodcc
Jun 12, 2012, 08:30 PM
So can you set it to the full resolution if you want?

bhtooefr
Jun 12, 2012, 08:34 PM
So can you set it to the full resolution if you want?

The smart-ass answer: It comes that way out of the box. (Resolution is a measurement of the ability to resolve detail, not of how much content you can put on a screen.)

The answer you're looking for (and was answered already on this page): Not yet, at least not within OS X, but there may be (read: almost certainly will be) a hack for this. (Within Windows, it is already possible.)

kalsta
Jun 12, 2012, 09:25 PM
Hum... no. OS X is not resolution independent at all. It uses bitmap objects for the UI and the UI becomes smaller and smaller as you raise the pixel count.

Resolution independent would be using vectors to render buttons/windows/types, etc.. No OS does that. Some Linux window managers do support SVG in a few of their UI elements, but that's about it.

Nothing about the concept of resolution independence requires vector graphics. It's about graphics appearing the same physical size on displays of differing resolutions. Looking at that new display preferences panel, it would appear that Apple has given us that. Presumably, when a Retina display is set to 'Best (Retina)', all the UI elements are very close to the same size that they appear on a lower-resolution display set to its default scaling. That is an implementation of resolution independence—using a combination of bitmap graphics (UI elements) and vectors (fonts).

iChrist
Jun 12, 2012, 09:45 PM
It's not clear what he means by that. I did read it. Check out my edit. If it is working that way, it's not actually changing the resolution of the screen, you're running at the LCD's native 2880x1800.

You should read anantech article. Not skim.

Mike1984
Jun 12, 2012, 09:53 PM
How small are the Fonts going to go?
How much eye strain is this display going to cause?!?

There's a reason people pick the 17 inch,
Not just more desktop,
but bigger more readable Fonts.

----------

Hum... no. OS X is not resolution independent at all. It uses bitmap objects for the UI and the UI becomes smaller and smaller as you raise the pixel count.


Exactly, who is designing these, someone with eyesight better then eagles?
- Smaller Icons.
- Smaller Font Text sizes.
There's a Reason people pick the 17 inch.

And Apple SUPPRESSES the sale of the 17 inch, by always releasing the 15 inch FIRST, hurting the 17 inch sales numbers.

----------

Presumably, when a Retina display is set to 'Best (Retina)', all the UI elements are very close to the same size that they appear on a lower-resolution display set to its default scaling.

The applications used in the demo's have VERY small icons now.

terraphantm
Jun 12, 2012, 09:54 PM
But hard scaling algorithms that wouldn't result in any blending (thus no fuzzyness) are just atrocious. Remains to be seen, in person, what it actually looks like. This is not something you can see in screenshots properly. It's too bad he glances over it, and just says "it looks better!". Typical Anand, always pleasing the vendor to get more hardware to review (he's been like that since his site opened in the 90s).

It is entirely possible that the pixel density is high enough that the pixellation and/or fuzzing is not readily noticeable. Think about how pictures look when scaled down - it's really not all that bad. And since OSX is apparently handling text rendering independently of the desired resolution, it probably looks pretty good

coldmack
Jun 12, 2012, 09:56 PM
Anyone know what the color gamut of this is vs the regular 15in(1440x900) and the model with the option display? Thanks

terraphantm
Jun 12, 2012, 09:57 PM
How small are the Fonts going to go?
How much eye strain is this display going to cause?!?

There's a reason people pick the 17 inch,
Not just more desktop,
but bigger more readable Fonts.

----------



Exactly, who is designing these, someone with eyesight better then eagles?
- Smaller Icons.
- Smaller Font Text sizes.
There's a Reason people pick the 17 inch.

And Apple SUPPRESSES the sale of the 17 inch, by always releasing the 15 inch FIRST, hurting the 17 inch sales numbers.

----------



The applications used in the demo's have VERY small icons now.

With pixel doubling the UI elements should be the same size as before. The icon sizes have always been customizable - they probably just made the limits even lower since they can still be displayed without losing out on a whole lot of information

encaputxat
Jun 13, 2012, 03:41 AM
Does anybody tried to use "new display settings" for old 17"mbp, the font size of UI and some software its a bit small, the native resolution display 1900x1200.

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 04:10 AM
Nothing about the concept of resolution independence requires vector graphics. It's about graphics appearing the same physical size on displays of differing resolutions. Looking at that new display preferences panel, it would appear that Apple has given us that. Presumably, when a Retina display is set to 'Best (Retina)', all the UI elements are very close to the same size that they appear on a lower-resolution display set to its default scaling. That is an implementation of resolution independence—using a combination of bitmap graphics (UI elements) and vectors (fonts).

Apple didn't give us that. The slider isn't analog, I can't set it to about any resolution and still get the desktop displayed at the same size.

I can't run the screen at 640x480 and 2880x1800 and get the same UI size with the elements being drawn pixel perfect at each 1 pixel increment on each axis. The UI is very much dependent on the pixel count.

That's not resolution independence. Brute forcing bitmap elements of varying size or scaling them and using filtering to make them look good is not resolution independence. It's still quite dependent on the resolution. It just happens to work at a couple of different ones.

----------

It is entirely possible that the pixel density is high enough that the pixellation and/or fuzzing is not readily noticeable. Think about how pictures look when scaled down - it's really not all that bad. And since OSX is apparently handling text rendering independently of the desired resolution, it probably looks pretty good

Yes it is possible. Hence what I've been saying this whole thread : we'll need to see it to know.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm saying Anand isn't providing the material needed to pass proper judgement. The technique he describes seems like quite the ingenuous one, remains to see what the results are like (and what the performance hit is in rendering a huge buffer and downscaling it in real-time).

----------


Exactly, who is designing these, someone with eyesight better then eagles?
- Smaller Icons.
- Smaller Font Text sizes.
There's a Reason people pick the 17 inch.

And Apple SUPPRESSES the sale of the 17 inch, by always releasing the 15 inch FIRST, hurting the 17 inch sales numbers.

I'm sorry, there's no "eagle" eyesight here. 1440x900 on a 15" display is atrociously big pixels and UI elements. It's just god awful.

Around 160 PPI is the sweet spot for OS X I find, with the 11" MBA's 135 and the 13" MBA's 127 PPI being about the minimum I can tolerate before everything becomes "fischer price" looking.

1920x1200 on a 15" screen is 147 PPI, if you can't read on that, your eyesight needs fixing by corrective lenses, the resolution isn't the problem.

baryon
Jun 13, 2012, 04:44 AM
Wait......... can someone confirm or deny..

Can I use this new Retina Macbook in 'normal' 2880 x 1800 pixels? As in, seeing four times as much screen real-estate? I understand everything would be teeny, but that's okay.

Possible?

In other words, can I disable the hiDPI mode?

That's what I'd like to know too… I would think it should be possible, but knowing Apple, what if they might have just said "This doesn't look good, so we're not allowing it".

Basic75
Jun 13, 2012, 04:50 AM
That's what I'd like to know too… I would think it should be possible, but knowing Apple, what if they might have just said "This doesn't look good, so we're not allowing it".

Exactly, it's currently not allowed. Perhaps it will be in Mountain Lion if enough people want it, or there will be some 3rd party tool that enables it, seeing that Apple likes to restrict possibilities for the best of the user...

mscice
Jun 13, 2012, 05:21 AM
Does anyone know for a fact that 13" models will get retina this year?

steve-p
Jun 13, 2012, 05:22 AM
Does anyone know for a fact that 13" models will get retina this year?
A few people at Apple maybe, otherwise, no.

baryon
Jun 13, 2012, 05:52 AM
Does anyone know for a fact that 13" models will get retina this year?

If anyone knew for a fact on this forum, that would be quite a big deal.

I'm sure Apple's idea is to eventually make all of their notebooks Retina. Obviously, they couldn't do it in one quick step, due to price limitations, as well as some people really wanting the hard drive, replaceable RAM and DVD drive, as well as the Ethernet and FW800 ports.

I'm sure that within a few years, all Apple notebooks will become Retina, and slimmer like the Next Gen MBP. I doubt this would happen this year though, there normally aren't such closely spaced major releases in the same product line.

mmankai
Jun 13, 2012, 05:53 AM
Does the new Retina MBP have a mini Display Port? I cannot see it in the photos!

bhtooefr
Jun 13, 2012, 05:56 AM
Does the new Retina MBP have a mini Display Port? I cannot see it in the photos!

It has two Thunderbolt ports, which in Apple applications serve as mini DisplayPorts as well.

kvdv
Jun 13, 2012, 06:35 AM
Because I currently have the 17" MBP, I wonder if the new Retina display (on 15.4") will actually compensate for the loss of real estate when working with LR and PS. (I never work at home, so connecting a large display for specific detailed work isn't an option I'm afraid, and 17" was just big enough for me).

juannacho
Jun 13, 2012, 06:43 AM
And, because the scaling is done in the GPU, you're not getting a screenshot.

Closeup photo of the machine's actual screen is the only way to do it 100%. (I did go ahead and scale stuff, though, to get an idea.)

Hang on a minute?!

So if you screen capture whilst in the 'virtual' 1920X1200 mode, you don't get a grab at the screen's display resolution of 2880x1800 but instead get the pre-scaled 3840x2400 image??!!

It makes sense I guess. Slightly confusing, but yes, does make sense...

killmoms
Jun 13, 2012, 07:13 AM
Thanks for explaining! So for example, in Photoshop, the only way to avoid trouble with software image pixels not being real pixels is to use the default Retina setting? Otherwise if you'd paint a single 1-pixel black dot on the canvas, you'd either end up seeing it as a faint grey pixel as it's supposed to be smaller than a pixel, or as more than one pixel?Not sure. There might be an API where you can force a certain view to always conform to the screen-pixel dimensions of the display area? Not sure though, I guess it depends on whether the scaling stuff is happening after the whole desktop is being composited (in the framebuffer) or if it's a little more subtle than that (within Quartz).

steve-p
Jun 13, 2012, 07:14 AM
Hang on a minute?!

So if you screen capture whilst in the 'virtual' 1920X1200 mode, you don't get a grab at the screen's display resolution of 2880x1800 but instead get the pre-scaled 3840x2400 image??!!

It makes sense I guess. Slightly confusing, but yes, does make sense...

In what way does it make sense that a screen capture would not be at 1920x1200 if that's the resolution you have chosen :confused:

killmoms
Jun 13, 2012, 07:20 AM
I'm sorry, there's no "eagle" eyesight here. 1440x900 on a 15" display is atrociously big pixels and UI elements. It's just god awful.

Around 160 PPI is the sweet spot for OS X I find, with the 11" MBA's 135 and the 13" MBA's 127 PPI being about the minimum I can tolerate before everything becomes "fischer price" looking.

1920x1200 on a 15" screen is 147 PPI, if you can't read on that, your eyesight needs fixing by corrective lenses, the resolution isn't the problem.

Different strokes for different folks. My close-up vision is fine (I wear corrective lenses for distance), but I find the 1920 x 1200 screen on the 17" MBP makes interface elements a little too small—not in the general OS as much as in pro apps where interface text is much smaller. The default OS X interface sizes at 1920 x 1200 on a 15" screen would be far too small for me to view comfortably. Fortunately, because of HiDPI mode, the Retina display, and smart scaling, people have multiple options, ALL of which look better than what was available before. I'd imagine I will leave my 15" Retina MBP at its default setting most of the time for comfort's sake.

----------

In what way does it make sense that a screen capture would not be at 1920x1200 if that's the resolution you have chosen :confused:

They're not even listing dimensional measurements for this screen when you pick "resolutions," which I think is a good thing. Regular users really don't need to know or care what's going on. Simplifying it to "Larger Text" vs "Best" vs "More Space" was a good move on their parts.

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 07:36 AM
In what way does it make sense that a screen capture would not be at 1920x1200 if that's the resolution you have chosen :confused:

What is being discussed here is not changing the resolution. It seems Apple provides you a 1920x1200 work area by rendering a 3840x2400 into 2880x1800 pixels.

So your LCD's resolution is still its native 2880x1800 and you get a 1920x1200 work area. The screen grab is grabbing the frame buffer which is a whopping 3840x2400 before being downscaled in realtime by the GPU.

----------

Different strokes for different folks. My close-up vision is fine (I wear corrective lenses for distance), but I find the 1920 x 1200 screen on the 17" MBP makes interface elements a little too small

And that is why we can't have nice things and Apple sticks to ridiculously low resolutions on their MBP line-up :(. Because some people just can't admit to poor eyesight.

bhtooefr
Jun 13, 2012, 07:49 AM
In what way does it make sense that a screen capture would not be at 1920x1200 if that's the resolution you have chosen :confused:

You don't actually choose a "1920x1200" display mode, you just choose "More Space".

This (behind the scenes) selects the mode that Apple has previously referred to as "1920x1200 (HiDPI)", which is a 3840x2400 mode with display elements that are twice as tall and wide as normal.

So, objects on the screen are the same physical size as they'd be on a 1920x1200 monitor, but rendered at 3840x2400. That's where the screenshot takes place.

Then it's scaled down from there to 2880x1800 to fit on the MBPR display.

steve-p
Jun 13, 2012, 07:52 AM
You don't actually choose a "1920x1200" display mode, you just choose "More Space".

This (behind the scenes) selects the mode that Apple has previously referred to as "1920x1200 (HiDPI)", which is a 3840x2400 mode with display elements that are twice as tall and wide as normal.

So, objects on the screen are the same physical size as they'd be on a 1920x1200 monitor, but rendered at 3840x2400. That's where the screenshot takes place.

Then it's scaled down from there to 2880x1800 to fit on the MBPR display.
I understand how it's working, I just wonder how the average user is going to take to it when their screen capture files are huge.

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 08:02 AM
I understand how it's working, I just wonder how the average user is going to take to it when their screen capture files are huge.

They probably won't care.

I know I wouldn't.

bhtooefr
Jun 13, 2012, 08:09 AM
And that is why we can't have nice things and Apple sticks to ridiculously low resolutions on their MBP line-up :(. Because some people just can't admit to poor eyesight.

Hardly just Apple, although Sony and now Asus have been pushing resolution limits recently on smaller machines.

As far as total pixel area, before Monday, the best laptop display was DISCONTINUED in 2005, and only three laptops used that display from the factory - NEC Versa Pro NX VA20S/AE in 2002, a rare medical configuration (IIRC the OPTION was $1400) of the ThinkPad R50p in 2004, and the NEC LaVie G Type C with the optional QXGA display in 2005. I don't have exact pricing on the base config of the latter two machines, but in 2012 US dollars, you were looking at nearly $5000 for the first in a base config (with a P4, woo!), and around $3500-6300 for the others ($3865.32 for a "typical" config, $6266.06 in today's money for the newer NEC in a maxed out config).

The problems cited there were related to cost and user comfort, IIRC. (NEC actually wanted a HiDPI-like approach to be used, so you had the desktop area of a 1024x768 display, but with better font rendering for Kanji, but IIRC they couldn't get Microsoft to do it.) Didn't help that the cost of that thing as well as the T221 put the IDTech joint venture out of business.

Although, I have one of those panels in my current ThinkPad from when warehouses were dumping them, and I can use it comfortably without assistance with 20/20 vision on my left eye, without using any of the Windows scaling functions. However, I need assistance for my right eye, and correcting one eye requires correcting the other to not break depth perception, so I have bifocals on top of the left eye, which means I can use crazy high resolution displays. I can still see the pixels on a retina display at recommended viewing distances. ;))

juannacho
Jun 13, 2012, 08:12 AM
They probably won't care.

I know I wouldn't.

They should be pleased even! Bigger is better eh ;)

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 08:14 AM
They should be pleased even! Bigger is better eh ;)

Anyway, you're always going to downscale your screenshots, even if they were 1920x1200. Thumbnails were invented in the 90s. We still use them today.

I'd be more concerned with finding wallpapers. Already tough enough finding decent wallpapers for 2560x1600 30" monitors.

bhtooefr
Jun 13, 2012, 08:18 AM
There's a surprising amount of 3840x2400 wallpapers already out there. (They're kinda needed for an IBM T221.)

Quite a lot of it is astronomy images, though.

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 08:34 AM
There's a surprising amount of 3840x2400 wallpapers already out there. (They're kinda needed for an IBM T221.)

Quite a lot of it is astronomy images, though.

Yeah, try finding it for Anime wallpapers. 1280x800 seems to be about the standard resolution those guys use. :(

J400uk
Jun 13, 2012, 08:34 AM
What happens if you use it on Windows in Bootcamp, does that offer the same scaling?

bhtooefr
Jun 13, 2012, 08:49 AM
What happens if you use it on Windows in Bootcamp, does that offer the same scaling?

No.

Your options are Windows scaling, which sucks the big one in practice (it was a good idea, but convincing software developers to make their stuff compatible with it never happened due to the challenges in doing so - hence Apple's more primitive approach to scaling), and running at a lower resolution, which is a sub-optimal answer.

Or, having everything on-screen be tiny, which is actually what I want.

sambaphoto
Jun 13, 2012, 10:19 AM
Hi, it would be interesting to know, what the up and downscaling costs ( processor power ). Has a regular MacBook Pro without retina better performance for photoshop or Finalcut work or is it insignificant?

Sorry, if this question has already been treated... didn't find it.

thanks for the replies.

jdiamond
Jun 13, 2012, 12:14 PM
I don't know why Apple doesn't allow us to access the full desktop resolution with the normal APIs - I would kill for that. Sure, maybe they thought the menus were unusably small, but can't you make them larger?

I can only hope that soon enough, people will figure out how to edit configuration files to enable full resolution workspaces. And think how much faster and crisper everything will be rather than rendering 4x the desktop and interpolating it down - think of the power savings...

Not that 1,920 x 1,200 is bad - it's what I use now on my 17". But it doesn't seem like much of an upgrade if you can't go higher...

bhtooefr
Jun 13, 2012, 12:19 PM
I don't know why Apple doesn't allow us to access the full desktop resolution with the normal APIs - I would kill for that. Sure, maybe they thought the menus were unusably small, but can't you make them larger?

I can only hope that soon enough, people will figure out how to edit configuration files to enable full resolution workspaces. And think how much faster and crisper everything will be rather than rendering 4x the desktop and interpolating it down - think of the power savings...

Not that 1,920 x 1,200 is bad - it's what I use now on my 17". But it doesn't seem like much of an upgrade if you can't go higher...

You can only make them 2x as tall and 2x as wide, which is the default.

Basically, the MBPR has five video modes available and exposed to OS X users:

2048x1280
2560x1600
2880x1800 (native)
3360x2100
3840x2400

All of these modes are being used in HiDPI mode, which halves both horizontal and vertical working space (so that it's back to the ballpark that it was at in the non-Retina machines, at least for the 2880x1800 and 3360x2100 modes).

Turning off HiDPI, the GPU will still work just as hard, but you'll get a lot more on the screen.

In any case, here's a thread I posted about maybe getting HiDPI disabled: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1386034

Basic75
Jun 13, 2012, 03:20 PM
I don't know why Apple doesn't allow us to access the full desktop resolution with the normal APIs - I would kill for that. Sure, maybe they thought the menus were unusably small, but can't you make them larger?


Mac OS X does not really support resolution independence, you can't even change the size of the font in the menu bar (something that the Amiga could nearly 20 years back), that's why they chickened out and only offer this 2x "HiDPI" mode...

kazmac
Jun 13, 2012, 07:20 PM
I think one can always find justification for buying or not buying hardware in these forums ;) It just depends on which 'facts' you want to focus on and which you want to ignore.

I'm certainly guilty of doing both :rolleyes:

Boy, I've been guilty of flip-flop on both sides of that coin.

I don't want to repeat the multiple Mac tests/returns insanity of 2010-2011.

Hoping I can upgrade my 2010 iMac's ram capacity (the memory plate screws look stripped) so I won't have to buy something more powerful for design work/studies. If the screws are stripped, I'll make do until I can't any more. Can't justify putting that much $ out for a laptop, but I sure understand why people want and/or need it.

ac3boy
Jun 13, 2012, 11:10 PM
All the scaled resolutions look amazing. No issues with blurriness. I also saw no performance issues at all running 1920x1200. I also watched a 1080p trailer at all scaled choices and retina mode. Retina mode was amazing but the others looked great as well. I will be ordering one tomorrow to replace my 2011 17".

ChicoJoe
Jun 13, 2012, 11:42 PM
... and I was impressed.

However, I found Safari didn't scroll smoothly on some webpages, an issue I didn't have on the other new, non-retina MacBooks in store. This page especially had problems: http://store.apple.com/ As of this evening, the page wasn't yet optimized for the retina display (unlike the Apple homepage) and Safari stuttered hard when scrolling through the large image in the center of the page.

Is this a rendering issue that will be resolved when Mountain Lion hits shelves? I'm 99% convinced the retina display is the way to go, but this makes me wonder if the specs on this machine are slightly too low to handle such a monitor. :(

BTW, this was on the 2.3GHz version, the only model on display at the Apple Store on Chestnut St. in San Francisco

jnpy!$4g3cwk
Jun 14, 2012, 08:59 AM
No matte display, no purchase. At least as an option. Even if more expensive. Sign the petition at MacMatte (matte petition) http://macmatte.wordpress.com

I haven't seen it yet, but, even though I personally like true matte screens, I have seen reduced glare screens like this before and they are fine for normal use. There is a "moral issue" with offering true glossy only, but, I think that this new screen will be perfect for most of us and addresses that.

To be explicit: I have actually avoided purchasing the previous glossy systems-- lost revenue for Apple. If the new Retina screen looks like I think it will, I will not avoid purchasing it. (I am a little annoyed that the MBPR doesn't have built-in FireWire 800 though.)

So, no petition this time for me, unless I come back from the store blinded by the glare-- but based on reports, that is not going to happen.

Crissov
Jun 15, 2012, 08:21 AM
In looking at scaling, the report explains the new slider option in System Preferences that allows users to select from a spectrum of resolutions that include not only the 1440x900 resolution in Retina quality using the full 2880x1800 pixels, but also larger desktop spaces at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050.http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/retina_macbook_pro_display_preferences.jpg

I hope other computers that are not specifically marketed as “Retina” will get that handling, too, with Mountain Lion. I’d try-out 1280, 1152, 1024 or 960 px wide resolutions with my 1366*768 px MBA, because text on it sometimes is just too small, but the current scaling produces ugly results.

bhtooefr
Jun 15, 2012, 08:40 AM
I hope other computers that are not specifically marketed as “Retina” will get that handling, too, with Mountain Lion. I’d try-out 1280, 1152, 1024 or 960 px wide resolutions with my 1366*768 px MBA, because text on it sometimes is just too small, but the current scaling produces ugly results.

The thing is, this method actually is the current scaling, just with everything at twice the resolution it was before, so it looks like crap if you're a few inches from the screen, but at normal viewing distances, it's hard or impossible to tell.

Then again, scaling a 2048x1152 image with the desktop area of a 1024x576 image down to 1366x768 wouldn't be terrible... except for the performance implications. The best I think you'll get is 1280x720 desktop area, HiDPI'd to 2560x1440, and then scaled down to 1366x768, if they go for that approach.

john123
Jun 16, 2012, 11:59 PM
I've been using the matte screens ever since Apple re-introduced them (in fact, I refused to buy the unibodies because of the glare). So, glare has been the question on my mind, and prompted me to go to the Apple Store to snap some pictures with my iPhone. I intentionally set my flash to "on" just to add a little bit of extra glare, in addition to the store lights.

I hate it when people include IMG tags when posting a series of images (and therefore make scrolling painful), so I'll just put Dropbox links below. But in summary, the Retina display does exhibit quite a bit more glare of ambient light than the matte display. Looking at the Retinas next to the glossy 15" ones, the improvement is noticeable -- and probably enough for most users. But for people like me who use their computers outside or in high ambient light situations, there may be cause for pause.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_01.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_02.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_03.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Matte_01.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Matte_02.jpg

AirThis
Jun 17, 2012, 02:48 PM
Looking at the Retinas next to the glossy 15" ones, the improvement is noticeable -- and probably enough for most users. But for people like me who use their computers outside or in high ambient light situations, there may be cause for pause.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_01.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_02.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_03.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Matte_01.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Matte_02.jpg

Thanks for the photos. :) I'm still hesitating between the regular MBP and the retina. Screen glare is a major deciding factor for me. The retina almost looks acceptable in your photos.

john123
Jun 17, 2012, 05:01 PM
Thanks for the photos. :) I'm still hesitating between the regular MBP and the retina. Screen glare is a major deciding factor for me. The retina almost looks acceptable in your photos.

I think for most people, it will be acceptable. If you have fluorescent lights directly behind you at work, that could be distracting -- and while those lights would have almost no impact on the matte screen (worst case scenario is something like my Matte_02 image, where it's a solid color and the light is visible but blurred), the Retina is still a big improvement over the default glossy screens.

I just tossed another picture that I didn't originally post up -- https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_04.jpg. This is a little more "real world" in that it isn't a solid color. It's the same angle as the other Retina shots, so the glare you notice in the middle-right is the same glare you see in the Retina_01 picture. And, of course, the iPhone flash is quite bright, but that's not a relevant real-world event.

TL/DR: It isn't perfect, but it's pretty reasonable.

Tech198
Jun 17, 2012, 11:36 PM
So, if I got this straight :-

The 5 resolutions (Left to Right)

1,024 by 640 (Larger Text)
1,280 by 800
1,440 by 900
1,680 by 1,050
1,920 by 1,200 (More Space)


With 1440x900 being the default resolution out of the box.

So, basically all of Apple apps, including any Retina enabled apps will take advantage of 2880x1800, while non-Retina apps, (most others including open source e.g. Toast/Parallels etc...) will be 1440x900...

Either way, sounds like you cannot set it to its 'native' resolution, which is always gonna be better by all means. I might stick with my current Macbook Pro.... But 1920x1200 is still good at the least...

I'll just see what happens.... I could always return it.

Seems 2880x1800 is "pixel destiny" doubled. not screen resolution as people may think. This is how Apple did it in the iPad 3 too.

Still ok to me.

AirThis
Jun 18, 2012, 01:13 AM
I think for most people, it will be acceptable...

I just tossed another picture that I didn't originally post up -- https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_04.jpg.

TL/DR: It isn't perfect, but it's pretty reasonable.

Thanks for your insight. I could definitely use the more powerful hardware, so the screen isn't the only deciding factor. I think I'll wait a bit...

houkouonchi
Jun 18, 2012, 06:29 AM
Seems 2880x1800 is "pixel destiny" doubled. not screen resolution as people may think. This is how Apple did it in the iPad 3 too.


With a third party app you can get the native 2880x1800 (no scaling/doubling) with full desktop real-estate.

See:

http://cloudmancer.com/images/trueretina.jpg

and

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1389277

KnightWRX
Jun 18, 2012, 09:08 AM
I hope other computers that are not specifically marketed as “Retina” will get that handling, too, with Mountain Lion. I’d try-out 1280, 1152, 1024 or 960 px wide resolutions with my 1366*768 px MBA, because text on it sometimes is just too small, but the current scaling produces ugly results.

The technique works precisely thanks to the Retina display. On a non-retina display, the downscaled images wouldn't look as good since you'd end up with much less pixels of details and the "cuts" would be more evident.

----------

Seems 2880x1800 is "pixel destiny" doubled. not screen resolution as people may think. This is how Apple did it in the iPad 3 too.

Thanks for pointing it out, but I think we had all figured it out by now that we're getting a "1440x900" desktop with sharper text with the Retina notebook. You do know this stuff has been out for a whole 2 years now on the iPhone 4 right ? ;)

MorphingDragon
Jun 18, 2012, 09:13 AM
Thanks for pointing it out, but I think we had all figured it out by now that we're getting a "1440x900" desktop with sharper text with the Retina notebook. You do know this stuff has been out for a whole 2 years now on the iPhone 4 right ? ;)

Actually, It's a bit of an improvement as a programmer IMO at full resolution. On Mac OSX text always seemed to be "fat" because of the Quartz2D AA. It now looks like Linux when using the Patent Encumbered Freetype libraries, which is a welcome improvement.

KnightWRX
Jun 18, 2012, 09:48 AM
Actually, It's a bit of an improvement as a programmer IMO at full resolution. On Mac OSX text always seemed to be "fat" because of the Quartz2D AA. It now looks like Linux when using the Patent Encumbered Freetype libraries, which is a welcome improvement.

As a programmer, I doubt you'd be using 1440x900 mode anyhow, 1920x1200 is too full of win ;)

MorphingDragon
Jun 18, 2012, 09:53 AM
As a programmer, I doubt you'd be using 1440x900 mode anyhow, 1920x1200 is too full of win ;)

I code a lot of personal projects in Haskell now, having as much text on screen as possible ceases to be a boon for productivity. Seeing the text clearly just helps the eyes.

But, I have two 1080p screens, which makes coding an exercise in clicking links in documentation. ;) You know, whenever Cinnamon isn't freezing from the java bug. I like Eclipse but i also like Cinnamon. :/

utezduyar
Jun 24, 2012, 02:09 PM
Is this screen shot really true? It is saying "Looks like 1920 x 1200" on the left side for default retina mode which shouldn't be true. Any clue?

Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/a-closer-look-at-the-new-macbook-pros-retina-display/)


AnandTech takes a closer look (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis) at the new MacBook Pro's 2880x1800 Retina display, revealing just how well the display stacks up against its predecessor and other notebook displays and delving into the details of how it handles various resolutions.

In looking at scaling, the report explains the new slider option in System Preferences that allows users to select from a spectrum of resolutions that include not only the 1440x900 resolution in Retina quality using the full 2880x1800 pixels, but also larger desktop spaces at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050.Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/retina_macbook_pro_display_preferences.jpg)


AnandTech's report also describes how Apple's display design has done away with the cover glass that in some circumstances suffers from significant glare on the standard non-Retina MacBook Pro. Phil Schiller noted during the keynote introduction that glare has been reduced 75% from the previous MacBook Pro, and AnandTech calls the Retina MacBook Pro's glare "remarkably close" to that seen on an earlier-generation matte MacBook Pro.

Comparing color and contrast, AnandTech discovered that the Retina MacBook Pro's display has remarkably improved black levels, which help compensate for slightly lower brightness. Contrast is also excellent, making for crisp and vivid content display.

Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/macbook_pro_retina_contrast.jpg)


As with Retina displays on iOS devices, Apple automatically scales text to display at the crisper Retina resolution, but it is dependent on apps using Apple's text rendering. AnandTech notes that Google Chrome currently uses its own text rendering engine and is thus unable to take advantage of the sharper text available in Safari.

Finally, the report takes a look at how games handle the Retina display, with Diablo III taking full advantage of the 2880x1800 display as touted by Apple during the keynote. Some games are able to see the full resolution while others are limited to the "non-Retina" resolutions topping out at 1920x1200, but it seems reasonable to believe that over time game developers will be building in support for the ultra-high resolution of the new MacBook Pro.

Article Link: A Closer Look at the New MacBook Pro's Retina Display (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/a-closer-look-at-the-new-macbook-pros-retina-display/)

SirHaakon
Jun 24, 2012, 05:23 PM
Went to the Apple store today and this was the list of choices under the display menu on the RMBP.

Did something change, or did someone install something to modify the standard options?

bhtooefr
Jun 24, 2012, 06:25 PM
Someone on the IBM_T2X_LCD Yahoo Group reported that a store machine was "glitched" to that.

john123
Jul 25, 2012, 02:31 AM
Figured I'd post my thoughts here after a couple weeks of use, since searching for threads about glare is what initially led me to this thread.

In short: yes, the glare problem is still there, even in a "real world" setting. You definitely don't want a lamp or anything like that in any place where it could introduce glare. It's not terrible, but it's not subtle either.

If you are like I was, and on the fence between the Retina and the high-res antiglare matte regular MBP, it's definitely not a no-brainer. I think I'm overall happy with my choice -- mostly because I'm using the Retina at the max resolution, which obviously isn't possible on the regular MBP. But it's a close call.