PDA

View Full Version : Running the Retina MacBook Pro at Full 2880x1800 Resolution




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jun 21, 2012, 02:10 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/21/running-the-retina-macbook-pro-at-full-2880x1800-resolution/)


While Apple's new Retina MacBook Pro includes a display measuring 2880x1800 pixels, the default display options do not allow users to run their systems at that raw resolution. Instead, the extra pixels are used to display a higher level of detail on a canvas representing the previous 1440x900 resolution. As a result, windows and user interface elements appear to be the same relative size as on a 1440x900 15" display, but with four times the detail. Users who wish to use a desktop with apparent resolution higher than 1440x900 can still do so, as System Preferences offers several different options (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/a-closer-look-at-the-new-macbook-pros-retina-display/) ranging up to 1920x1200.

Those users who want even more screen real estate by tapping into the full 2880x1800 resolution mode of the display can also do so, but the option involves a workaround that is not authorized by Apple. Macworld has more details (http://www.macworld.com/article/1167366/macbook_pro_with_retina_display_putting_the_video_to_the_test.html) on the process, which involves using either a third-party app like the paid SwitchResX (http://www.madrau.com/indexSRX4.html) (as noted in our forums (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1387363)) or one of a number of free options that have sprung up such as Change Resolution (http://wineskin.doh123.com/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=51).

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/retina_macbook_pro_2880-500x365.jpg

(http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/retina_macbook_pro_2880.jpg)
Retina MacBook Pro running at 2880x1800
(Click for larger)
Running a 2880x1800 desktop on a screen measuring only 15.4 inches diagonally obviously results in very small text and user interface elements, but for those willing to sit close enough to their screens to make the onscreen content readable, it may be an interesting option.

As noted (https://twitter.com/stroughtonsmith/status/215181759980126208) by developer Steven Troughton-Smith, users running Windows on the new Retina MacBook Pro can also take advantage of the full display resolution, simply setting the resolution in preferences within Windows.

Article Link: Running the Retina MacBook Pro at Full 2880x1800 Resolution (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/21/running-the-retina-macbook-pro-at-full-2880x1800-resolution/)



MultiMediaWill
Jun 21, 2012, 02:11 PM
laggy pos i heard

Dr McKay
Jun 21, 2012, 02:11 PM
This is what I wanted to see :D

laggy pos i heard

You heard wrong.

gpat
Jun 21, 2012, 02:13 PM
I have been sooo waiting for this.

GREEN4U
Jun 21, 2012, 02:14 PM
The rMBP is definitely overrated.

jayhawk11
Jun 21, 2012, 02:14 PM
Seems like this would be barely usable, but cool trick nonetheless.

mkoesel
Jun 21, 2012, 02:14 PM
It seems to me that if you adjusted your font size and icon size this would be quite usable.

GFLPraxis
Jun 21, 2012, 02:15 PM
Actually surprised this requires a hack.

I have great eyesight so I would actually love this.

WiiDSmoker
Jun 21, 2012, 02:17 PM
Requires a hack in Mac OSX, but a simple setting in Windows....not surprised.

8CoreWhore
Jun 21, 2012, 02:17 PM
I smell a lawsuit.

covertsurfer
Jun 21, 2012, 02:19 PM
I smell a lawsuit.

Seriously? I don't think so somehow.

QCassidy352
Jun 21, 2012, 02:20 PM
Actually surprised this requires a hack.

I have great eyesight so I would actually love this.

I'm surprised too. I figured this was a native option.

paul55br
Jun 21, 2012, 02:20 PM
The full display resolution will be available with Mountain Lion.

mohsy90
Jun 21, 2012, 02:21 PM
damn that looks amazing, but I don't think my eyesight is that good

echobucket
Jun 21, 2012, 02:21 PM
It seems to me that if you adjusted your font size and icon size this would be quite usable.

Um, this is what the retina display does by default.

How can you make the font size bigger without making the UI elements that contain the fonts bigger as well?

Dr McKay
Jun 21, 2012, 02:22 PM
Requires a hack in Mac OSX, but a simple setting in Windows....not surprised.

Both OS's have their advantages and disadvantages.


Um, this is what the retina display does by default.

How can you make the font size bigger without making the UI elements that contain the fonts bigger as well?

Is there a setting like this in OS X?

http://i.imgur.com/fyR57.jpg

iVoid
Jun 21, 2012, 02:23 PM
Seriously? I don't think so somehow.

Actually, this is apple's description in the rMBP specs:

Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels


So if you can't set it to 2880x1800 directly without the hack, then the specs are false.

Lawyers have sued over much, much less. (eg. the recent fine from the Aussie government).

Mac2133
Jun 21, 2012, 02:23 PM
The full display resolution will be available with Mountain Lion.

..and I suppose Tim Cook mentioned this to you?

RalfTheDog
Jun 21, 2012, 02:24 PM
When I look at the image on my screen, it looks the same. Are you sure it is any different?










:)

e-coli
Jun 21, 2012, 02:24 PM
laggy pos i heard

Whaaaaa? :confused:

Anyhow...

The display looks pretty readable to me. Should be a native option.

cvaldes
Jun 21, 2012, 02:26 PM
laggy pos i heard
You clearly have self-confidence issues. You should seek professional help.

belltree
Jun 21, 2012, 02:28 PM
- "not authorized by Apple"?

If I buy the hardware I will do with it as I please. :mad:

Joe HS
Jun 21, 2012, 02:28 PM
Seeing that this is possible I could never be content running at a setting that fits less on screen.

Sensation
Jun 21, 2012, 02:28 PM
I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it? :confused:

SeanMcg
Jun 21, 2012, 02:28 PM
The full display resolution will be available with Mountain Lion.

I'd be surprised if that resolution isn't supported with the next release of Lion.

BornAgainMac
Jun 21, 2012, 02:29 PM
In all the years, we mostly use the maximum size resolution. Now to use that resolution to control quality and viewing at a lower size will seem strange.

appleguy123
Jun 21, 2012, 02:29 PM
This makes me want to sell my MacBook air for it. My 20:10 eyes will love this!

Dr McKay
Jun 21, 2012, 02:29 PM
- "not authorized by Apple"?

If I buy the hardware I will do with it as I please. :mad:

It's changing the Operating System that you don't own. You only license it.

KnightWRX
Jun 21, 2012, 02:30 PM
Actually, this is apple's description in the rMBP specs:

Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels


So if you can't set it to 2880x1800 directly without the hack, then the specs are false.

How so ? It says right there (Retina). Retina 2880x1800 means your UI is rendered the same size as a 1440x900 screen, just using more pixels and thus looking sharper.

There is nothing false there.

Starship77
Jun 21, 2012, 02:30 PM
Actually, this is apple's description in the rMBP specs:

Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels


So if you can't set it to 2880x1800 directly without the hack, then the specs are false.

Lawyers have sued over much, much less. (eg. the recent fine from the Aussie government).


The specs are absolutely not false. The resolution is 2880x1800. Is just the size in which the elements are displayed in the screen that change. They are showed to you in a size that makes them similar to 1440x900, but that doesn't mean is not 2880x1800…

;)

KnightWRX
Jun 21, 2012, 02:31 PM
I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it? :confused:

Because it looks much better.

TheGenerous
Jun 21, 2012, 02:31 PM
Here's the neverending waiting game when I want to buy a newer macbook.
I'm guessing retina will be available for the 13' sometime next year, and it makes just that. Guess.

kniemann
Jun 21, 2012, 02:31 PM
Well official bootcamp drivers haven't been released yet. It seems unlikely but Apple could limit the resolution to 1920x1200 in the display settings.

Starship77
Jun 21, 2012, 02:32 PM
It's changing the Operating System that you don't own. You only license it.

It's not "changing the operating system" in any way…

:confused:


If it was recompiling the kernel or something… then maybe...

jbimler
Jun 21, 2012, 02:33 PM
I can't even stand 1920x1080 on my 24 inch monitor. I still use it but my browser text is turned up.

Apple Key
Jun 21, 2012, 02:34 PM
Can anyone post a screenshot please? I would like to see it at full quality.

So Random
Jun 21, 2012, 02:35 PM
Seems some people still don't get what "Retina" means in the context of displays. :rolleyes:

locust76
Jun 21, 2012, 02:36 PM
the default display options do not allow users to run their systems at that full resolution.

This makes it sound like the Display is 2880x1800, but the image being produced is 1440x900 stretched across 2880x1800, which is so unfathomably stupid it defies logic.

Of course the thing is running at full resolution! Otherwise you'd get an effect similar to running a non-retina App on a retina iDevice: ****** image quality. That's not what you want from your Macbook with Retina Display.

There's a huge difference between using high-resolution image elements to display an image the same physical size as it's low-res counterpart and taking a low resolution image and stretching it across a high resolution display.

KnightWRX
Jun 21, 2012, 02:37 PM
Can anyone post a screenshot please? I would like to see it at full quality.

A screenshot will be shown on your screen's PPI. Unless you can mimic the proper PPI ratio of the 15 MBP on your own screen, you won't be able to see it "at full quality" without simply seeing it straight on the device.

cheriowhooza
Jun 21, 2012, 02:37 PM
- "not authorized by Apple"?

If I buy the hardware I will do with it as I please. :mad:

Exactly. I just ordered mine and figured this would probably require a hack, but I'm kind of disappointed to see that I'm right once again. The audacity...

Dr McKay
Jun 21, 2012, 02:39 PM
It's not "changing the operating system" in any way…

:confused:


If it was recompiling the kernel or something… then maybe...

Ok misread the original article, I thought this was enabled by a "hack" not a simple app. It's not authorized simply because Apple doesn't want to take responsibility in case it screws up.

tdmac
Jun 21, 2012, 02:39 PM
Actually, this is apple's description in the rMBP specs:

Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels


So if you can't set it to 2880x1800 directly without the hack, then the specs are false.

Lawyers have sued over much, much less. (eg. the recent fine from the Aussie government).

No. Read again. As you wrote "2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina). Not scaled. What the article described is scaling the resolution, for real estate, to 2880 x 1800.

You also have to remember that these computers are running a modified version (patch) of Lion to support the retina display for just a few short weeks until Mountain Lion is released. That should have full retina display support and scaled resolution support. That upgrade for these machines is free.

echobucket
Jun 21, 2012, 02:40 PM
This entire discussion and the amount of confusion about this just goes to show that for decades we've been using the wrong word. "Resolution" should mean the pixels per inch of a display. But instead we use it to describe the number of pixels horizontally and vertically.

*sigh*

cvaldes
Jun 21, 2012, 02:41 PM
I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it? :confused:
It improves the overall sharpness.

For example, text will render much smoother, even though the individual characters might be the same height on the Retina MBP and the non-Retina MBP.

This benefits certain people more than others, particularly people who use logographic character systems (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, etc.).

Same thing with the Retina display on the iPhone 4/4S versus the non-Retina display of earlier handsets (or the iPad 1/2 versus the third-generation iPad). There's a pretty simple way to see the benefit. Fire up Safari on both an iPhone 3G/3GS and an iPhone 4/4S and visit a website like www.nikkei.co.jp. The characters will look remarkably better on the Retina displays.

Of course, Westerners will see improved sharpness, but not quite as dramatically as those international users in Asia/Middle East.

djrod
Jun 21, 2012, 02:41 PM
I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it? :confused:

You are joking right? or freshly awake from a coma! :p

Apple is been doing this resolution X 4 (2x horizontal and 2x vertical) with the iPhone, iPod touch, the iPad and now with the Macs.

Retina display means in Apple terms "We give you the same screen physical size but with 4x the resolution"

Thats pixel x2 both horizontal and vertical, so a 1440x900 is 2880x1800 Retina.

Since the screen real state is the same everything has the same size onscreen but we get a lot more detail:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/06/iconcompare.jpg

hamean
Jun 21, 2012, 02:43 PM
The specs are absolutely not false. The resolution is 2880x1800. Is just the size in which the elements are displayed in the screen that change. They are showed to you in a size that makes them similar to 1440x900, but that doesn't mean is not 2880x1800…

;)


Your sound logic and reason are not welcome on this thread of moronic posts. :)

Guys, the resolution is 2880x1800... no one is getting sued... the UI elements are just doubled in size in retina mode.

I do hope for some different UI scaling options in Mountain Lion (not sure if that's planned or not), but it's MUCH NEEDED in OSX. I'm not sure the reasoning behind not offering it.

mtfbwy
Jun 21, 2012, 02:45 PM
You won't have great eyesight after using this for awhile. :)

Actually surprised this requires a hack.

I have great eyesight so I would actually love this.

Apple Key
Jun 21, 2012, 02:46 PM
A screenshot will be shown on your screen's PPI. Unless you can mimic the proper PPI ratio of the 15 MBP on your own screen, you won't be able to see it "at full quality" without simply seeing it straight on the device.

Yes, I realize that. What I am looking to see is the size relationship between the elements on the screen.

KnightWRX
Jun 21, 2012, 02:47 PM
This entire discussion and the amount of confusion about this just goes to show that for decades we've been using the wrong word. "Resolution" should mean the pixels per inch of a display. But instead we use it to describe the number of pixels horizontally and vertically.

*sigh*

Hum... "number of pixels horizontally and vertically" is 2880x1800. I think you mean "96 PPI pixel count equivalent scaled UI size". That's why we use "Resolution" even though it's not proper ;).

----------

Yes, I realize that. What I am looking to see is the size relationship between the elements on the screen.

That's exactly what you won't be able to see, unless you have a 1440x900 15.4 MBP. If you do, you can already get the size of elements without a screenshot from a MBPR. Grab a fullscreen shot of your 1440x900 desktop, use photoshop to scale it down to 720x450. make the zoom 100%. The size of icons/windows/buttons on the 720x450 image is what you'd get on a 15.4 MBPR at 2880x1800.

Apple Key
Jun 21, 2012, 02:49 PM
That's exactly what you won't be able to see.

I can already see how small the menubar is compared to the other screen elements (and compared to my current screen resolution. I just wanted to see it as a screenshot.

a.gomez
Jun 21, 2012, 02:50 PM
as useless as 1440X900 doubled up at retina level.

sweet spot on 15 is 1680X1050 that you can get on the regular Pro and not have a performance hit like on the retina. Again this is like a Mahogany Drawing pencil - cool, but no real point to it.

NetJunkie
Jun 21, 2012, 02:52 PM
Don't say it's useless until you try it. My normal res on my rMBP is 1920x1200 but at times I do switch it to full native. It's very readable and usable...but it does get tiring after a while so I only use it when I'm doing large spreadsheets or something that needs a lot of space. But you get a LOT of options with the rMBP and they all look great.

manu chao
Jun 21, 2012, 02:54 PM
Actually, this is apple's description in the rMBP specs:

Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels


So if you can't set it to 2880x1800 directly without the hack, then the specs are false.

Lawyers have sued over much, much less. (eg. the recent fine from the Aussie government).
With this logic it would also be illegal to mention the processor speed in turbo mode. Because you cannot set the processor to run at that speed, it only runs at that speed when the software decides it makes sense and is safe.

KnightWRX
Jun 21, 2012, 02:54 PM
I can already see how small the menubar is compared to the other screen elements (and compared to my current screen resolution. I just wanted to see it as a screenshot.

Like I said, unless you have an actual 15.4 MBP, getting a screenshot is quite futile. You'd have to calculate the size ratio of your screen's PPI to the MBPR's PPI, and properly set the zoom or scaling on the image so that items show up the proper size on your screen.

And if you do have a 15.4 MBP running 1440x900, I gave you the recipe. ;)

Swift
Jun 21, 2012, 02:55 PM
I think people are misunderstanding Retina when it comes to the new MacBooks. There are many objects to consider. Why use up the horsepower just drawing a teeny-tiny desktop? You have 4K! You can drive 4 1080p monitors! (With no lag.) Ultimately, apps, and websites, need to be updated so its windows and buttons look great. Then there's windows: FCP X has a 1080p Preview window! Text is beautiful. If you have a 4K movie file, watch it. But when you leave the movie, I want to have a normal resolution. You want 1/4 size apps? Not me.

echobucket
Jun 21, 2012, 02:57 PM
The word "Resolution" insinuiates that it's talking about how much detail there is on the screen.. How much detail your eye can "resolve" (the root of the word after all).

Pixel Dimensions shouldn't mean the same thing as "Resolution", but we've been using the word incorrectly for so long that it's absolutely hopeless to try and change it now.

NY Guitarist
Jun 21, 2012, 02:58 PM
Didn't Apple mention that in FCPX you could display a 1920x1080 video in the viewer window at a FULL native 1920x1080?

Or is that not available yet and coming in ML?

So Random
Jun 21, 2012, 02:58 PM
Don't worry about size. Run the display at its native resolution. Now get the same Macbook Pro that is non-Retina, and run at its (obviously the same) native "resolution." Compare the image quality.

The difference you see is the difference between Retina and non-Retina displays.

Same idea applies to the difference in image quality between an iPhone 3GS and an iPhone 4.

And this difference is like night and day.

GenesisST
Jun 21, 2012, 02:59 PM
I sometimes regret the HD option of my MBP. Too small for my eyes (I hit 40 this year)... So imagine this...

IF I ever get a rMBP, it would be for the "crisper" 1440x900 resolution not the "kill my eyes in 2 months resolution".

But that's just me. To each his own!

So Random
Jun 21, 2012, 03:02 PM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/21/running-the-retina-macbook-pro-at-full-2880x1800-resolution/)


While Apple's new Retina MacBook Pro includes a display measuring 2880x1800 pixels, the default display options do not allow users to run their systems at that full resolution.

Which is cool in a way, but why would you want to? This article is causing a lot of confusion.

The whole point of Retina is not more screen real estate (which you can probably get and even "force" in certain cases, Retina or non-Retina display), but the image quality of the screen real estate native to the display.

Apple Key
Jun 21, 2012, 03:03 PM
Like I said, unless you have an actual 15.4 MBP, getting a screenshot is quite futile. You'd have to calculate the size ratio of your screen's PPI to the MBPR's PPI, and properly set the zoom or scaling on the image so that items show up the proper size on your screen.

And if you do have a 15.4 MBP running 1440x900, I gave you the recipe. ;)

Shows more than you might think... (found this on another thread).

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=343627&d=1339822160

louis Fashion
Jun 21, 2012, 03:04 PM
laggy pos i heard

I think you mean Iggy Pop.

Asclepio
Jun 21, 2012, 03:06 PM
what next? oculist display?

Eddyisgreat
Jun 21, 2012, 03:06 PM
Shows more than you might think... (found this on another thread).

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=343627&d=1339822160

Actually I posted that but yeah.

I also posted all of the CS 6 UI Elements in rMBP native resolution as some individuals had asked for it. I've been running in this config for a few days and i'm going back and fourth. The amount of elements you can put on the screen is jaw dropping and my productivity is definitely enhanced. The obvious drawback is the size of the elements. I do find myself straining at some times which is why I keep going back and fourth. For those who can handle it though it really is a premium option. More real estate than the 27" cinema display and looks better too (i have both).

jcpb
Jun 21, 2012, 03:07 PM
Also keep in mind that conventional Macbook Air/Pro models use TN panels like most everyone else in the laptop game, the only difference being Apple's TN panels are a bit better quality than the industry average. Look at the screen from anywhere but head-on and you can still see the problems common in the TN display tech.

Imagine the furor - and the sound of trolls flooding out of the woodwork - if Apple still uses TN for the Retina MBP :p

edit: some of the posters before post #25 are trolls, not surprisingly.

dpetree
Jun 21, 2012, 03:08 PM
Your Options so far are "Best for display" - or "Scaled"

ghostface147
Jun 21, 2012, 03:08 PM
I am quite happy with my 17" Sandy Bridge MB Pro at 1920x1200. Curiously though, people sometimes look at me funny when I take out this monstrosity of a laptop. At least that's what they call the size.

Interestingly enough, the default resolution chosen for me is Best for built-in display in ML. Of course I can manually change it if I choose scaled resolution, but at least Lion gave me all options to choose from by default. Not a big deal since I never use a lower resolution anyways.

Apple Key
Jun 21, 2012, 03:09 PM
Actually I posted that but yeah.

I also posted all of the CS 6 UI Elements in rMBP native resolution as some individuals had asked for it. I've been running in this config for a few days and i'm going back and fourth. The amount of elements you can put on the screen is jaw dropping and my productivity is definitely enhanced. The obvious drawback is the size of the elements. I do find myself straining at some times which is why I keep going back and fourth. For those who can handle it though it really is a premium option. More real estate than the 27" cinema display and looks better too (i have both).

Thanks for posting it!

The Adobe CS UI does seem very small. Of course I'd have to test it and see if I can handle it like that all the time. I definitely think Apple should allow it as an option though.

pil0tflame
Jun 21, 2012, 03:09 PM
I think people are misunderstanding Retina when it comes to the new MacBooks. There are many objects to consider. Why use up the horsepower just drawing a teeny-tiny desktop? You have 4K! You can drive 4 1080p monitors! (With no lag.) Ultimately, apps, and websites, need to be updated so its windows and buttons look great. Then there's windows: FCP X has a 1080p Preview window! Text is beautiful. If you have a 4K movie file, watch it. But when you leave the movie, I want to have a normal resolution. You want 1/4 size apps? Not me.

The Retina MBP screen is not 4k. Although there is variation in what 4k resolution is exactly, it's generally accepted to be around 4096x1714 (or 3840x2160). Too much to watch a 4K movie file at full resolution on the RMPB, although it'll look very nice none the less. :)

SuperZeroIce
Jun 21, 2012, 03:14 PM
Screw all of you who have perfect vision.

Glasses 4 life! :cool: :(

Pentad
Jun 21, 2012, 03:17 PM
..and I suppose Tim Cook mentioned this to you?

Right after he refilled his Kool-Aid.

spartig
Jun 21, 2012, 03:18 PM
I sometimes regret the HD option of my MBP. Too small for my eyes (I hit 40 this year)... So imagine this...

IF I ever get a rMBP, it would be for the "crisper" 1440x900 resolution not the "kill my eyes in 2 months resolution".

But that's just me. To each his own!

You can change your resolution down to 1440x900 on your MBP if you want, or even smaller to make it easier on your eyes. There should be no reason to regret the HD option.

xgman
Jun 21, 2012, 03:18 PM
what next? oculist display?
First glossy oculist, then later, matte oculist. :D

kayno
Jun 21, 2012, 03:21 PM
The rMBP is definitely overrated.

Is it now.. Do you have one? I do.. And I don't think it's overrated.. I think it's accurately rated.

b0fh
Jun 21, 2012, 03:22 PM
Actually surprised this requires a hack.

I have great eyesight so I would actually love this.

Exactly!! I've been blessed with 20/10 eyes. Finally, I don't have to run Terminal.app in 6 point fonts... :D:D:D:D

Yamcha
Jun 21, 2012, 03:25 PM
That's pretty amazing, but I'm not surprised that Apple does not natively allow that resolution, I think it'll hinder the overall experience.. 2880X1800 will most likely make it difficult to read on such a small screen..

Still, great for those who want that resolution..

killmoms
Jun 21, 2012, 03:25 PM
You can change your resolution down to 1440x900 on your MBP if you want, or even smaller to make it easier on your eyes. There should be no reason to regret the HD option.

Sure there is—doing that on his display will look MUCH worse than the scaling options available on the MBPR, where everything looks great no matter which mode you pick.

sockdoggy
Jun 21, 2012, 03:25 PM
Based on the posts in this thread, I would say the article is more confusing than informative.

superpalmtree
Jun 21, 2012, 03:25 PM
I have the MBP-Retina and am honestly not impressed at all. It almost seems like a toy compare to a Mac Pro / iMac....I can't explain it. I have the Base model with 16GB ram upgrade. Since I can't return it I'm going to sell it on eBay or something.

The 2880x1800 resolution is extremely tiny and I am HUGE fan of high high high resolutions...the thing is it's tiny and not crystal clear so it's really rather disappointing.

And on Retina mode so many things are blurry and Safari seems to hang often, just the whole thing does not seem polished, this entire laptop. I'll stick with my loaded iMac until the new Mac Pro or new iMac, for my mobility I can do most things on my phone or iPad.

b0fh
Jun 21, 2012, 03:28 PM
Who would want to do that? Even the 1920x1200 is super small.

Obviously the world revolves around you. Wait, don't tell me you're also one of those people who have all their windows maximized right? :rolleyes:

For people like me, with good eyesight, I can now have more windows open, each scaled to display enough information for me to work on. :apple:

SSDGUY
Jun 21, 2012, 03:29 PM
It doesn't appear to have any higher resolution than my display. ;)

840quadra
Jun 21, 2012, 03:29 PM
With this software can you still use the drop down resolution change feature?

344445

If so, it would be super handy when using applications like Gimp, or other legacy photo / video applications that are not retna aware.

pacalis
Jun 21, 2012, 03:31 PM
I have the MBP-Retina and am honestly not impressed at all. It almost seems like a toy compare to a Mac Pro / iMac....I can't explain it. I have the Base model with 16GB ram upgrade. Since I can't return it I'm going to sell it on eBay or something.


Interesting, like so many other things these days. Take car interiors. The plastic wood performs better and is better finished than real wood interiors, but still there's something preferable about real wood.

Still, I can't wait for mine to rMBP arrive.

superpalmtree
Jun 21, 2012, 03:32 PM
Obviously the world revolves around you. Wait, don't tell me you're also one of those people who have all their windows maximized right? :rolleyes:

For people like me, with good eyesight, I can now have more windows open, each scaled to display enough information for me to work on. :apple:

Before you act like you would get so much work done try out the 2880x1800 on this Macbook Pro. I love the highest res you can get and this one sucks IMO. Just try it out before you start running your mouth.

WestonHarvey1
Jun 21, 2012, 03:32 PM
This would be great on a 17".

pacalis
Jun 21, 2012, 03:33 PM
It doesn't appear to have any higher resolution than my display. ;)

Worse, my display has 16 times the screen real estate.:eek:

Fast Shadow
Jun 21, 2012, 03:35 PM
Who would want to do that? Even the 1920x1200 is super small.

Anyone who edits photos.

So Random
Jun 21, 2012, 03:35 PM
I have the MBP-Retina and am honestly not impressed at all. It almost seems like a toy compare to a Mac Pro / iMac....I can't explain it. I have the Base model with 16GB ram upgrade. Since I can't return it I'm going to sell it on eBay or something.

The 2880x1800 resolution is extremely tiny and I am HUGE fan of high high high resolutions...the thing is it's tiny and not crystal clear so it's really rather disappointing.

And on Retina mode so many things are blurry and Safari seems to hang often, just the whole thing does not seem polished, this entire laptop. I'll stick with my loaded iMac until the new Mac Pro or new iMac, for my mobility I can do most things on my phone or iPad.

Why not wait for Mountain Lion? Use that with your Retina MBP.

funman895
Jun 21, 2012, 03:36 PM
Actually surprised this requires a hack.

I have great eyesight so I would actually love this.

One of the few advantages to us nearsighted folks.

Xian Zhu Xuande
Jun 21, 2012, 03:38 PM
I am amazed someone would actually want to do this. Neat trick, of course, but I cannot see how productivity could remain worthwhile once on-screen elements had been shrunk to such a small level. And with all the fantastic window management features in OS X I can't imagine the need for that kind of real estate on a 15" screen...

b0fh
Jun 21, 2012, 03:39 PM
Before you act like you would get so much work done try out the 2880x1800 on this Macbook Pro. I love the highest res you can get and this one sucks IMO. Just try it out before you start running your mouth.

Can't. :(

Mine's a special order. Gotta wait 3-4 weeks :mad:

16GB/2.7Ghz/768GB :D:D :p

And normally hooked up to a Thunderbolt display at work :cool: ;)

But I do use the max resolution on my 1920x1200 15" Lenovos.

G4DP
Jun 21, 2012, 03:39 PM
So are Macrumors advocating sitting 3 inches from your laptop screen now? What a way to screw your eyesight up.

superpalmtree
Jun 21, 2012, 03:42 PM
Anyone who edits photos.

:confused:i'm sure you would edit photos on 2880x1800 on a 15" screen. For one it looks like %$#% and you would not see any detail. Some people just think cause it's 2880x1800 it's some superior thing.....well IT's NOT. This laptop does not impress me at all.

----------

Can't. :(

Mine's a special order. Gotta wait 3-4 weeks :mad:

16GB/2.7Ghz/768GB :D:D :p

And normally hooked up to a Thunderbolt display at work :cool: ;)

But I do use the max resolution on my 1920x1200 15" Lenovos.

You are just like me, I love 1920 on a 15", but when you get your Retina mbp and bump to 2880 you will see what I mean. I love high resolution so I wish it wasn't the case but you will see for yourself soon enough.

Sensation
Jun 21, 2012, 03:45 PM
I have the 1440p Dell screen and sometimes I have to zoom in certain sites. But boy do games on my sli 680 look good on it :D

kiljoy616
Jun 21, 2012, 03:46 PM
Nice to have the eyes for that, but I will stick with detail over desktop real estate.

That what big 27 inch monitors are for, Apple please bring back 30 inch, please.

iDemiurge
Jun 21, 2012, 03:46 PM
And now that my friends were almost convincing me that my tongue-typing skills were useless!

Anyone got a shiny new RMBP for me to practice on? :D

killmoms
Jun 21, 2012, 03:47 PM
:confused:i'm sure you would edit photos on 2880x1800 on a 15" screen. For one it looks like %$#% and you would not see any detail. Some people just think cause it's 2880x1800 it's some superior thing.....well IT's NOT. This laptop does not impress me at all.[COLOR="#808080"]
Wait. What? :confused:

This post makes no sense at all. Of course you can see more detail when you have 4x the pixels. That's the whole point of a high PPI display.

bryanl
Jun 21, 2012, 03:49 PM
Can anyone post a screenshot please? I would like to see it at full quality.

http://smarticus.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fullscreen.jpg

All you'll see is a big image.

melendezest
Jun 21, 2012, 03:49 PM
I am quite happy with my 17" Sandy Bridge MB Pro at 1920x1200. Curiously though, people sometimes look at me funny when I take out this monstrosity of a laptop. At least that's what they call the size.

Interestingly enough, the default resolution chosen for me is Best for built-in display in ML. Of course I can manually change it if I choose scaled resolution, but at least Lion gave me all options to choose from by default. Not a big deal since I never use a lower resolution anyways.

I really, really hope that Apple comes out with a retina 17 in the future. A screen like that would be awesome for those of us who don't mind the extra heft. And it would give the best of both worlds: sharpness and real-estate!

Imagine it: a 17 that weighs a hair less than the current non-retina 15. I'm salivating.. But alas, I'm holding on only to hope, with my early Feb 17 until it dies..

kiljoy616
Jun 21, 2012, 03:51 PM
So are Macrumors advocating sitting 3 inches from your laptop screen now? What a way to screw your eyesight up.

No medical reason you would damage your eyes by sitting close, eyes strain yes damage not. :rolleyes: I asked my optometrist about this some time ago, he said old age is killing my eyes not the monitor. ROFL.

I could see how dorky looking someone would look that close to a monitor. Plus it defeats the purpose of the added pixels for quality. :D

TallManNY
Jun 21, 2012, 03:51 PM
Requires a hack in Mac OSX, but a simple setting in Windows....not surprised.

Right. But in Windows it gets you to an unworkable screen set up.

bryanl
Jun 21, 2012, 03:52 PM
With this software can you still use the drop down resolution change feature?

344445

If so, it would be super handy when using applications like Gimp, or other legacy photo / video applications that are not retna aware.

on the retina macs, we don't have the option to show it in the menubar anymore.

superpalmtree
Jun 21, 2012, 03:55 PM
Wait. What? :confused:

This post makes no sense at all. Of course you can see more detail when you have 4x the pixels. That's the whole point of a high PPI display.

Once you have a Retina Macbook Pro and try to edit a photo on 2880x1800 you will understand. The screen does not look like some super sexy high res machine @ 2880 that is why Apple limited it in the first place. At that resolution if anything it looks more grainy and washed out.

gnasher729
Jun 21, 2012, 03:58 PM
Actually, this is apple's description in the rMBP specs:

Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels


So if you can't set it to 2880x1800 directly without the hack, then the specs are false.

Lawyers have sued over much, much less. (eg. the recent fine from the Aussie government).

And Apple would send them a free copy of their WWDC videos. Especially the one where they explain the difference between "points" and "pixels". The standard mode is 2880 x 1800 pixels displaying 1440 x 900 points. Each point consisting of 2 x 2 pixels. And the difference between "pixels" and "points" has been an industry standard for many years.

Renzatic
Jun 21, 2012, 03:58 PM
http://smarticus.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fullscreen.jpg

All you'll see is a big image.

Just saved this shot and displayed it fullscreen and aspect ratio correct on my 24" monitor. It was completely and totally unbearable. Sharp? Sure. I guess the tightly packed pixels of the retina screen would make it possible to read a word roughly the length of the nail on my pinky finger, but...why?

If it's too small on my biggish monitor, I can't imagine how horrible it would be on a 15" screen. It's a neat little feature to show off, but it sure as hell isn't good for anything else but.

dontwalkhand
Jun 21, 2012, 04:07 PM
You clearly have self-confidence issues. You should seek professional help.

Why yes you can use the MacBook Pro as a Point Of Sale ;-)

bryanl
Jun 21, 2012, 04:09 PM
Just saved this shot and displayed it fullscreen and aspect ratio correct on my 24" monitor. It was completely and totally unbearable. Sharp? Sure. I guess the tightly packed pixels of the retina screen would make it possible to read a word roughly the length of the nail on my pinky finger, but...why?

If it's too small on my biggish monitor, I can't imagine how horrible it would be on a 15" screen. It's a neat little feature to show off, but it sure as hell isn't good for anything else but.

The word, "length" is only half the length of my pinky. I couldn't do this resolution all day, but it is fun to play with it.

kustardking
Jun 21, 2012, 04:13 PM
Um, this is what the retina display does by default.

How can you make the font size bigger without making the UI elements that contain the fonts bigger as well?

One reason to do it this way would be to get pixel-for-pixel editing capabilities (e.g.: editing an iPad3 app at QXGA, which is > than 1920x1080, or Photoshop) but with readable controls.

alvindarkness
Jun 21, 2012, 04:19 PM
I know this has mostly been a discussion on 2880x1800 etc. But I'm super curious as to what the quality of the rendered screen is like when using one of the "inbetween" resolutions that need to be oddly scaled, like 1650x1050.

Can someone with a retina mbp set their screen to 1650x1050, open some safari pages with a bunch of text (or similar), and take a clear photo?

Obviously not a setting people would run continuously, but I imagine when running an app like logic pro, it'd be nice to switch to a clear 1650x1050 temporarily, before switching back to native res for normal usage.

salmoally
Jun 21, 2012, 04:25 PM
:confused:i'm sure you would edit photos on 2880x1800 on a 15" screen. For one it looks like %$#% and you would not see any detail. Some people just think cause it's 2880x1800 it's some superior thing.....well IT's NOT. This laptop does not impress me at

Of course it doesn't impress you, you aren't a creative professional or someone who appreciates visual media. My DSLR resolves 18million pixels. On this laptop I can see approx 5million of those pixels, on the non retina only approx 1.5 million.

How is being able to see more of my image without having to professionally print a bad thing?

I suggest you stick to 1024x720 screens since you obviously don't require anything better, the rest of us that appreciate will tick will retina tyvm.

lucasgladding
Jun 21, 2012, 04:29 PM
:confused:i'm sure you would edit photos on 2880x1800 on a 15" screen. For one it looks like %$#% and you would not see any detail. Some people just think cause it's 2880x1800 it's some superior thing.....well IT's NOT. This laptop does not impress me at all.

----------



You are just like me, I love 1920 on a 15", but when you get your Retina mbp and bump to 2880 you will see what I mean. I love high resolution so I wish it wasn't the case but you will see for yourself soon enough.

I'm a little confused by this post too. Using this unsupported resolution, UI elements would be near unusable, but photos themselves should be great. If you used the normal resolution with something like Photoshop, however, things would be horrible since everything is being scaled. Bottom line: it's too early to say anything until apps start shipping with Retina display support. First-party apps are the only thing that let the display shine.

----------

Once you have a Retina Macbook Pro and try to edit a photo on 2880x1800 you will understand. The screen does not look like some super sexy high res machine @ 2880 that is why Apple limited it in the first place. At that resolution if anything it looks more grainy and washed out.

Which app? Also, are you using the standard resolution? I think everyone assumes you're using the unsupported resolution since this is the thread we're on, but I suspect you're not.

bwillwall
Jun 21, 2012, 04:30 PM
Why is everyone obsessed with changing the resolution of the retina mbp? I prefer to see things the correct size...

superpalmtree
Jun 21, 2012, 04:32 PM
Of course it doesn't impress you, you aren't a creative professional or someone who appreciates visual media. My DSLR resolves 18million pixels. On this laptop I can see approx 5million of those pixels, on the non retina only approx 1.5 million.

How is being able to see more of my image without having to professionally print a bad thing?

I suggest you stick to 1024x720 screens since you obviously don't require anything better, the rest of us that appreciate will tick will retina tyvm.

Nice come back. I own Dell 30, HP's 30, iMac's with high resolution, that is all I use. I'm not a "creative professional", I run several businesses and do real work not just pretend to edit a photo and label myself.....

Like I said when your creative professional job pays off and you can afford to buy a retina macbook pro turn it to 2880x1800 and go to town with your editing, in my opinion if you are truly a creative professional you would not buy this 15" laptop to run it at 2880x1800 to edit photos.

liam5150
Jun 21, 2012, 04:33 PM
I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it? :confused:

I really don't understand where this "1440x900" nonsense comes from. The screen is not a 1440x900 by any means, it is a 2880x1800 one, and the UI elements are doubled in size to make them easy on the eyes, but your actual content (think of a picture in preview.app for example) is using the added resolution, i.e.: your picture is showing at 2880x1800 (minus maybe the menu bar pixels, etc.), not at 1440x900.

Why is that complicated to understand? 1440x900 has nothing to do here. Is pretty obvious that being the same screen size (15.4") and double the pixels, the UI elements are going to be exactly the same size on both displays, AND? No one cares about that, but about content, the real stuff you work with.

KnightWRX
Jun 21, 2012, 04:38 PM
on the retina macs, we don't have the option to show it in the menubar anymore.

There's a good reason for that. Changing the "resolution" on your Retina Mac does not actually switch the panel's resolution. You're still displaying at 2880x1800, it's just the frame buffer and the scaling factor that is modified.

----------

I really don't understand where this "1440x900" nonsense comes from [...] the UI elements are doubled in size

There you go. Seems you understand just fine.

but your actual content (think of a picture in preview.app for example) is using the added resolution, i.e.: your picture is showing at 2880x1800 (minus maybe the menu bar pixels, etc.), not at 1440x900.

That's not quite true, or webpages would look very very wrong in Safari and other browsers. ;)

Images that are not "retina" are upscaled, and thus you're only getting the 1440x900 of usable real-estate.

liam5150
Jun 21, 2012, 04:40 PM
Why is everyone obsessed with changing the resolution of the retina mbp? I prefer to see things the correct size...

'I prefer to see UI elementsthe correct size'
Fixed that for you. Your actual content has no 'correct size'.

jcxstar13
Jun 21, 2012, 04:40 PM
This does not require a have, just go into the display settings and there is a setting to change it from retina display to normal and then you can bump it all the way up to 2880 which was the whole reason I ordered one. I work daily on a 27" display and to have that kind of resolution on a laptop is amazing. I also am a photographer and using the nikon d800 which shoots huge photos and they look amazing and are almost full res on the highest setting.

killmoms
Jun 21, 2012, 04:44 PM
Once you have a Retina Macbook Pro and try to edit a photo on 2880x1800 you will understand. The screen does not look like some super sexy high res machine @ 2880 that is why Apple limited it in the first place. At that resolution if anything it looks more grainy and washed out.

Um, I HAVE a Retina MacBook Pro, and it looks fantastic. The panel is ALWAYS driven at 2880 x 1800, and in Retina-aware apps like iPhoto and Aperture (or even Preview), photos are displayed using every single pixel possible, not scaled. So there's no way anything would look "washed out" at some resolutions and not others, because the panel is always being run at 2880 x 1800.

giorfa
Jun 21, 2012, 04:46 PM
this is great for editing screen captures actually...
now you can capture the screen at 1800p and do a close up of a detail at 1080p without seeing the pixels.
And screen capture video's are becoming more and more popular and requested (see chrome ads).
I have the rmbp since 3 days and I've been wondering why quicktime recorded the screen at 900p, with this trick quicktime records at 1800p and it's just great.
I'm very happy with my retina, it's unbelievably fast, final cut opens up in a few seconds and renders like a walk in the park.

killmoms
Jun 21, 2012, 04:49 PM
this is great for editing screen captures actually...
now you can capture the screen at 1800p and do a close up of a detail at 1080p without seeing the pixels.

I mean, maybe, but for the rest of the screen capture most everything would be unreadable. What would be better is if you could capture the 1440 x 900 HiDPI mode at 1800p and then smoothly zoom in to highlight interface elements without seeing blurry upscaling.

bluedot
Jun 21, 2012, 04:49 PM
People are confusing the issue because in the OLD way of doing things, resolution was equivalent to pixels on screen. There is no reason this needs to be the case, and it is particularly not the case for these screens.

OSX resolution set to 1440x900 ---> displays 2880x1800 pixels, reports to applications that the resolution is 1440x900 and will pixel double and scale UI elements as necessary. Retina-aware applications can display content in a given viewport at the "pixel" resolution of 2880x1800. As an example, see the FCP X demo from the keynote. The UI is being rendered at an effective resolution of 1440x900 while the video is using 1920x1080 of the available 2880x1800 to display on screen at the same time as the UI elements. The same is true in Aperture, Preview, etc...

What Apple has done is make it possible for developers to make their content use the entire pixel density natively, while allowing the UI elements, etc... to render at a readable and useable size.

When you set the resolution to any of the "in-between" dimensions like 1920x1200, the display does not change anything other than the UI elements and fonts being rendered at an effective resolution of 1920x1200, and it also reports that resolution to applications. The display is still pushing 2880x1800 pixels! So, any application that is "Retina-aware" will show that 1080p video at the exact same size whether the OSX resolution is 1440x900 or 1920x1200... the only thing that changes dimensions will be the font and UI elements.

This is why Apple explained that applications need to be coded to be "Retina-aware", so that instead of using the reported resolution by OSX for content, they can make use of the 2880x1800 for their content, while maintaining reported resolution for things like alerts, UI elements, text, etc... as they see fit.

It's very similar to setting the resolution in Windows to 2880x1800 and then font scaling by 150%. In essence that's what Apple is doing, the resolution is ALWAYS at 2880x1800 and you get to choose different font scaling options (the default one being 200% which gives you 1440x900).

Now, go to an Apple store and play with it and you'll see... running at 2880x1800 for the UI elements alone is not really necessary.

swfster
Jun 21, 2012, 04:50 PM
Ok - so how bout the spot in the Keynote (30 min mark on the youtube version) where a screen shot of FCPX was shown with a video preview in the top right two thirds of the screen and Phil Schiller says "That video area you see in the top right of Final Cut - that is 100% pixel per pixel 1080p video right there in that window". If that isn't available out-of-the-box then I call "false advertising".

liam5150
Jun 21, 2012, 04:51 PM
There's a good reason for that. Changing the "resolution" on your Retina Mac does not actually switch the panel's resolution. You're still displaying at 2880x1800, it's just the frame buffer and the scaling factor that is modified.

----------



There you go. Seems you understand just fine.



That's not quite true, or webpages would look very very wrong in Safari and other browsers. ;)


Images that are not "retina" are upscaled, and thus you're only getting the 1440x900 of usable real-estate.

I have to agree in that case (webpages): actually is the same in the new iPad vs the 'old' one, but webpages look just fine with the images upscaled. But apart from browsers, think about photos: your 10 megapixel photos are going to show at the full resolution of the screen, not at 1440x900 aparent resolution.

iSee
Jun 21, 2012, 04:57 PM
Wow, so many people don't understand the retina display concept.

pesos
Jun 21, 2012, 04:57 PM
2880x1800 is great! I run Windows about 95% of the time due to the nature of my work, and with the 150% setting everything is quite usable (I do have good eyesight, I could see it being a struggle if one doesn't). Just another way OS X limits the user :-/ As usual, love apple hardware, frustrated by their software choices! For reference, the pink RDP session below is 1280x1024

http://lazara.org/misc/retina.jpg

Apple Key
Jun 21, 2012, 04:59 PM
http://smarticus.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fullscreen.jpg

All you'll see is a big image.

Thank you. Putting this at full screen on my 17" Macbook Pro gives an idea of how small things would be (except they would be even smaller and a lot sharper of course).

shamino
Jun 21, 2012, 04:59 PM
It seems to me that if you adjusted your font size and icon size this would be quite usable.
Not really. If you scale just the fonts and icons, then your UI elements, bitmaps and any app-generated content measured in pixels will not be scaled. It will be hard to click on typical-sized objects, and UI layouts may also get messed up. (Go change the system font size on Windows to something large and see how many apps end up with their layouts mangled.)

The Retina mode, if it works the way Apple has been describing, does this right. The UI elements are scaled, and (I assume) legacy apps that do pixel-based drawings with the pre-retina APIs will get their output scaled to keep the proportions and layout correct.

I assume that apps using non-pixel-based APIs (e.g. vector graphics, and rendering bitmaps with embedded dpi information) will immediately benefit. You won't see a pixel-doubled 1440x900 but instead same-(physical)-size objects with more sharpness and clarity. (Assuming the source bitmaps have the resolution in them, of course.) And I assume (but could be wrong) there will be some new APIs to allow retina-aware apps to directly access the native resolution using pixel-based APIs, for those apps that require it.

Apple has been steering application developers away from pixel-based graphics for a long time. The introduction of retina displays on the iPhone and iPad have (hopefully) gotten them comfortable with the concept that using one on a Mac won't be a deal-breaker.
Seeing that this is possible I could never be content running at a setting that fits less on screen.
Once the typical font size and UI elements get too small to comfortably read/click, adding more pixels without scaling detracts from the user experience. You and I may disagree about what is "too small", but I hope we can agree that there is a limit here.

I don't think (for instance) that anybody would want to use (for example) this resolution on a 9" display without some degree of scaling.

Taking the discussion to external displays, I'd love to use 2880x1800 on a 24" display without any scaling - at that size, the UI elements will be big enough for me to comfortably use them. But I have coworkers who would hate it - they are currently running 24" displays at 1280x800, because they prefer their content to be larger. I'm sure they'd love some retina-like scaling on their displays (that have a native 1920x1200 resolution) if it was available.
Why is everyone obsessed with changing the resolution of the retina mbp? I prefer to see things the correct size...
What does "correct" size mean for a computer display?

Do you mean you want 12 point type to be exactly 1/6" tall, as it is in print? Do you mean you want an image made from a 1200dpi scan to render at 1" per 1200 pixels regardless of the display's native resolution?

This is exactly what the retina tech is supposed to deliver. Instead of rendering text and images at arbitrary sizes (e.g. assuming 1 pixel per point, or rendering bitmaps at one pixel per image pixel), these elements all have real-world sizes, which the system software will use to automatically determine an appropriate scaling factor when they are rendered.

Now, some people may want their UI elements to all be rendered at 1/4 scale on a retina display. That's fine. I'm hoping that some future version of the system software will offer a tuning utility where you can simply set a comfortable scale factor, and always leave the display's "resolution" fixed at its native res. People will be able to get the size they want, and the system will be able to use all the available pixels to render the output as sharp as possible.

tbrinkma
Jun 21, 2012, 04:59 PM
Worse, my display has 16 times the screen real estate.:eek:

You use a 61.2" display?!!!! :eek:

LeGacY X
Jun 21, 2012, 05:00 PM
For those of us with excellent vision, this is a huge desktop space extender! The more and more I hear about the rMBP the more I want one! :D

shamino
Jun 21, 2012, 05:07 PM
It's very similar to setting the resolution in Windows to 2880x1800 and then font scaling by 150%. In essence that's what Apple is doing, the resolution is ALWAYS at 2880x1800 and you get to choose different font scaling options (the default one being 200% which gives you 1440x900).
It's actually better than that. Merely scaling up the font sizes (as you could do in Windows for a long time) tends to mangle the UI of most apps, because developers have historically used pixel-based measurements for UI layout.

Fortunately, Cocoa has always had an alternative to this. Using "springs" in Interface Builder, you can position objects relative to other objects and let the OS determine the exact position. So when objects grow/shrink in response to changes in font size (or content, as when internationalizing a UI), the layout doesn't get mangled.

pesos
Jun 21, 2012, 05:09 PM
It's actually better than that. Merely scaling up the font sizes (as you could do in Windows for a long time) tends to mangle the UI of most apps, because developers have historically used pixel-based measurements for UI layout.

Fortunately, Cocoa has always had an alternative to this. Using "springs" in Interface Builder, you can position objects relative to other objects and let the OS determine the exact position. So when objects grow/shrink in response to changes in font size (or content, as when internationalizing a UI), the layout doesn't get mangled.

Indeed, just like in windoze some apps looks fabulous scaled and others look, well, not so fabulous. Outlook is great, but Lync has some display issues. Hopefully the rise of the rmbp and all the planned high-res windows 8 tablets/laptops will help raise developer awareness and get some traction on this issue.

KnightWRX
Jun 21, 2012, 05:13 PM
I have to agree in that case (webpages): actually is the same in the new iPad vs the 'old' one, but webpages look just fine with the images upscaled. But apart from browsers, think about photos: your 10 megapixel photos are going to show at the full resolution of the screen, not at 1440x900 aparent resolution.

Depends if your application is aware of the scaling factor in play or not. Non-retina aware application would upscale your pictures like a web browser would.

dokujaryu
Jun 21, 2012, 05:14 PM
Didn't Apple mention that in FCPX you could display a 1920x1080 video in the viewer window at a FULL native 1920x1080?

Or is that not available yet and coming in ML?

This is the big deal to me about Retina displays on desktops. Video can be displayed at 1:1 pixel ratio, even if the rest of the UI drawn bigger to be 2x its normal size. So, you can watch 1920x1080p video in a window, in a browser that is still usable at 2880x1800.

GenesisST
Jun 21, 2012, 05:17 PM
You can change your resolution down to 1440x900 on your MBP if you want, or even smaller to make it easier on your eyes. There should be no reason to regret the HD option.

Non-native resolution ever look good, I tried. That said, I'm probably accustomed to it and would now regret a 1440x900... Never happy, I guess. :-D

Manzzle
Jun 21, 2012, 05:19 PM
Can anyone post a screenshot please? I would like to see it at full quality.

You can go to this link to see a screen shot of the full size.

http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screen-shot-2012-06-21-at-1-04-06-pm.png

http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screen-shot-2012-06-21-at-1-04-06-pm.png

So Random
Jun 21, 2012, 05:20 PM
What is "Retina Display"?



http://ipod.about.com/od/ipodiphonehardwareterms/g/retina-display-glossry.htm

Definition:
Retina Display - The name given by Apple to the high-resolution screen technology introduced on the iPhone 4 in June 2010.

Retina Display is designed to smooth the jagged edges of pixels are provide a higher-quality image than previously available on mobile devices. Apple claims that it's resolution is so good that it makes it impossible to distinguish individual pixels. The effects of the display technology are noticeable in many uses, but especially in text, where font edges are curves are substantially smoother than on previous display technologies.

Retina Display's image quality derives from a number of factors:


A greater density of the pixels that make up the iPhone's screen
Higher contrast ratio than previous models for brighter whites and deeper blacks
In-Plane Switching (IPS) technology to improve viewing angles
Chemically treated glass over the screen and LED backlighting to improve the quality of the image
Resolution
The Retina Display, as used on the iPhone and iPod touch, offers a resolution of 960 x 640 pixels. Since both devices have 3.5-inch diagonal screens, this means they offer 326 pixels per inch.


It's this resolution--326 pixels per inch--that Apple claims is the same as the human eye. The resolution was achieved on a relatively small screen thanks to pixels that are just 78 micrometers wide, according to Apple.



Now apply this concept to your Retina MBP, and don't worry about the 2880x1800 stuff. Just enjoy the higher-quality viewing experience at the same ####x#### "resolution" that is native to the machine. If you can achieve something that seems even more impressive beyond that, then consider it gravy.

activ8
Jun 21, 2012, 05:21 PM
I just sold my arm and a leg to special order this computer.

cupcakes2000
Jun 21, 2012, 05:25 PM
People are confusing the issue because in the OLD way of doing things, resolution was equivalent to pixels on screen. There is no reason this needs to be the case, and it is particularly not the case for these screens.

OSX resolution set to 1440x900 ---> displays 2880x1800 pixels, reports to applications that the resolution is 1440x900 and will pixel double and scale UI elements as necessary. Retina-aware applications can display content in a given viewport at the "pixel" resolution of 2880x1800. As an example, see the FCP X demo from the keynote. The UI is being rendered at an effective resolution of 1440x900 while the video is using 1920x1080 of the available 2880x1800 to display on screen at the same time as the UI elements. The same is true in Aperture, Preview, etc...

What Apple has done is make it possible for developers to make their content use the entire pixel density natively, while allowing the UI elements, etc... to render at a readable and useable size.

When you set the resolution to any of the "in-between" dimensions like 1920x1200, the display does not change anything other than the UI elements and fonts being rendered at an effective resolution of 1920x1200, and it also reports that resolution to applications. The display is still pushing 2880x1800 pixels! So, any application that is "Retina-aware" will show that 1080p video at the exact same size whether the OSX resolution is 1440x900 or 1920x1200... the only thing that changes dimensions will be the font and UI elements.

This is why Apple explained that applications need to be coded to be "Retina-aware", so that instead of using the reported resolution by OSX for content, they can make use of the 2880x1800 for their content, while maintaining reported resolution for things like alerts, UI elements, text, etc... as they see fit.

It's very similar to setting the resolution in Windows to 2880x1800 and then font scaling by 150%. In essence that's what Apple is doing, the resolution is ALWAYS at 2880x1800 and you get to choose different font scaling options (the default one being 200% which gives you 1440x900).

Now, go to an Apple store and play with it and you'll see... running at 2880x1800 for the UI elements alone is not really necessary.


This.

Renzatic
Jun 21, 2012, 05:27 PM
Damn you people and your giant ass pictures! EMBED THEM IN A LINK, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

liam5150
Jun 21, 2012, 05:31 PM
Depends if your application is aware of the scaling factor in play or not. Non-retina aware application would upscale your pictures like a web browser would.

I agree. But then I think we will see a really quick adaptation of all the applications, just like happened with the iPhone 4. Everybody wanted to be retina ready, so I think it won't be long before we see a massive 'retinification' (if that even exists ha) of Mac applications.

rcappo
Jun 21, 2012, 05:34 PM
Some of us have 21+ megapixel DSLR cameras. Photos are in the 5200x4400 (something around there) range. Before you try and stitch a few together to make a panoramic one...

Most programs can scale well. I just hope the Apple TV is at least this high of resolution. :D I like my 1900x1080 37" LCD display, but I'm sure Apple could make a great 37"-51" monitor with a high resolution...

KnightWRX
Jun 21, 2012, 05:40 PM
Non-native resolution ever look good, I tried.

The Retina MBPR fixes that problem though. You can run any scaling factor and it will always look perfect because the panel is not switching resolutions.

----------

Damn you people and your giant ass pictures! EMBED THEM IN A LINK, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

Or use the TIMG tag. ;)

Digital Skunk
Jun 21, 2012, 05:49 PM
This would be great on a 17".

I was searching for a post that said this before I posted one myself. I totally 10)% agree wholeheartedly.

cosmichobo
Jun 21, 2012, 05:50 PM
Lawyers have sued over much, much less. (eg. the recent fine from the Aussie government).

a) Not a lawsuit - a fine.
b) Advertising appeared to indicate the iPad was 4G compatible here in Australia, which it isn't... Far cry from this issue, where the usable resolutions are clearly labelled.

mrfoof82
Jun 21, 2012, 05:51 PM
Seems like this would be barely usable, but cool trick nonetheless.

I'd guess it would be. The resolution is higher than a 27" iMac or Thunderbolt display, but the display is less than 33% of the physical size.

twilson
Jun 21, 2012, 05:52 PM
- "not authorized by Apple"?

If I buy the hardware I will do with it as I please. :mad:

Okay, but OS X is software, so leave it alone ;)

applegigs
Jun 21, 2012, 05:56 PM
Damn this is HUGE =D thanks for sharing... I am only counting the days to visiting THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA getting my hands on this bad boy!

You can go to this link to see a screen shot of the full size.

http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screen-shot-2012-06-21-at-1-04-06-pm.png

Image (http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screen-shot-2012-06-21-at-1-04-06-pm.png)

chukronos
Jun 21, 2012, 06:06 PM
it looks more grainy and washed out.

Have you tried lowering your ISO?

ilyagleikh
Jun 21, 2012, 06:09 PM
i went to the store the first day they got them on display, and yes, i was surprised that by default the settings were low... i wasn't sure why, i suppose to make everyone feel like they can read the screen.

however, without any hacks was I able to go to the resolution menu and change it to the full 2880x1800 Resolution.

yes, everything looked much smaller, but crispy and easy to read... certain web pages looked funny at that size.

i might be wrong only if Apple stores installed the 3rd party hack on their demo machines. otherwise - it works just fine. and yes, it's awesome! :)

Larry-K
Jun 21, 2012, 06:10 PM
Wow, so many people don't understand the retina display concept.

Wait, there's a concept behind this?

mkoesel
Jun 21, 2012, 06:21 PM
Um, this is what the retina display does by default.

No, it simply renders at an effective 1440x900 resolution, but looks extremely crisp.

What I mean is if you could adjust the font size and icon size arbitrarily (like you can in Windows for example), you could have your 2880x1800 real estate and then scale up text to taste until it becomes readable to you. For most people you probably would not need to double everything back up to where it would be if you chose the 1440x900 retina resolution. So you would see an increase in useful screen area.

How can you make the font size bigger without making the UI elements that contain the fonts bigger as well?

For UI elements that contain non-scrolling text regions, generally speaking, you can't. But there are many UI elements (such as the text box I am currently typing this in) which don't fall into that category.

JohnDoe98
Jun 21, 2012, 06:21 PM
Wait, there's a concept behind this?

There's a concept behind verything.

Asclepio
Jun 21, 2012, 06:22 PM
for those have problems to understand the retina thing, it double the pixels, same aspect ratio.
http://i46.tinypic.com/b88m52.jpg

mkoesel
Jun 21, 2012, 06:27 PM
Is there a setting like this in OS X?

http://i.imgur.com/fyR57.jpg

Not that I am aware of, unfortunately. I also don't think you can change icon size in the finder, can you (other than for the dock)?

Chrisg2014
Jun 21, 2012, 06:28 PM
You know the RMBP is not looking so good right now as to when they released it. Sure even though it has a better picture you can't use the display to its full potential with out a hack, or also you can't even upgrade ram because it is built in and same with storage. They even designed it so you cant have and extra battery and they have to replace it for you if it breaks and even charges more for it. They really screwed people over. In my opinion it does not diserve the "Pro" but the an "Air" and even that I don't think it should get that tittle because it a little better then the air.

I hope there will be a software update for you guys or something so you can use the computer with it's full potential.

Firen
Jun 21, 2012, 06:32 PM
There are some very smart, informed posts in this thread and a lot lot lot of less smart ones from people who should really read what the smart, informed people wrote.

liam5150
Jun 21, 2012, 06:35 PM
There are some very smart, informed posts in this thread and a lot lot lot of less smart ones from people who should really read what the smart, informed people wrote.
... as happens in every single thread in this site. ;)

So Random
Jun 21, 2012, 06:36 PM
You know the RMBP is not looking so good right now as to when they released it. Sure even though it has a better picture you can't use the display to its full potential with out a hack, or also you can't even upgrade ram because it is built in and same with storage. They even designed it so you cant have and extra battery and they have to replace it for you if it breaks and even charges more for it. They really screwed people over. In my opinion it does not diserve the "Pro" but the an "Air" and even that I don't think it should get that tittle because it a little better then the air.

I hope there will be a software update for you guys or something so you can use the computer with it's full potential.


What is the "full potential" supposed to be?

Look at your iPhone 3G. Now look at your iPhone 4. Impressed? THAT is Retina. That ALONE is the big selling point for the new MBP. Because you get to stare at it for god knows how much time and be given a real visual treat. You get to enjoy what you're seeing on a whole new level. Because it makes other displays look like total ass. Any extra capability beyond that one phenomenon is just gravy.

Keep thinking "iPhone 3G display vs. iPhone 4 display." And just forget about the raw numbers. The visual feast alone makes it all worth it.

As to your other arguments, by the time you need more RAM in it or a new battery you'll be more than ready for your next Retina MBP.

gnasher729
Jun 21, 2012, 06:39 PM
You know the RMBP is not looking so good right now as to when they released it. Sure even though it has a better picture you can't use the display to its full potential with out a hack, or also you can't even upgrade ram because it is built in and same with storage. They even designed it so you cant have and extra battery and they have to replace it for you if it breaks and even charges more for it. They really screwed people over. In my opinion it does not diserve the "Pro" but the an "Air" and even that I don't think it should get that tittle because it a little better then the air.

I hope there will be a software update for you guys or something so you can use the computer with it's full potential.

Now for a reality check: The Retina MBP is significantly cheaper than a 15" MBP with comparable processor, RAM, and SSD. It is also significantly cheaper than a Dell Alienware laptop with comparable processor, RAM, and SSD. It comes with a quad core processor capable of doing 60 GFlops, has 16 GB of RAM, runs three external monitors in addition to the built-in one which is the best laptop monitor that you can buy for any money, weighs about four pound, has 7 hours battery life, from a battery that does 1,000 charges, and is so successful that it is sold out already for the next weeks.

Yeah, Apple really screwed people.

(Only if you are trying to sell a high end ultrabook that isn't made by Apple. In that case, yes, you are screwed).

doelcm82
Jun 21, 2012, 06:45 PM
The rMBP is definitely overrated.

That means it's rated highly by most, and you happen to disagree.

If I were to go on the advice of strangers, I'd go with "most" over just you.

Anyone who tells you something is overrated, is telling you that most people like it.

semitry
Jun 21, 2012, 06:45 PM
Keep thinking "iPhone 3G display vs. iPhone 4 display." And just forget about the raw numbers. The visual feast alone makes it all worth it.


But you look at your laptop at a much further distance than your phone. The difference is a lot less substantial.

KnightWRX
Jun 21, 2012, 06:51 PM
But you look at your laptop at a much further distance than your phone. The difference is a lot less substantial.

Hence why the iPhone is a 326 PPI screen and the new Retina MBPR is a 220 PPI screen. ;)

You need less PPI to achieve the same effect since the viewing distance is farther away.

semitry
Jun 21, 2012, 06:55 PM
Hence why the iPhone is a 326 PPI screen and the new Retina MBPR is a 220 PPI screen. ;)

You need less PPI to achieve the same effect since the viewing distance is farther away.

But it's not the same effect. Staring at a retina iphone up close vs a retina macbook far just didn't have the same effect on me.

KnightWRX
Jun 21, 2012, 07:02 PM
But it's not the same effect. Staring at a retina iphone up close vs a retina macbook far just didn't have the same effect on me.

It is the same effect. Depends on how optimal your viewing to each is. It's basically making the pixels smallers, but upscaling elements (using more pixels to display them), thus making them more detailed and sharper.

mkoesel
Jun 21, 2012, 07:07 PM
Not really. If you scale just the fonts and icons, then your UI elements, bitmaps and any app-generated content measured in pixels will not be scaled.

The pic posted above by pesos demonstrates what I am talking about. So he gets the 2880x1800 desktop resolution, but is able to use a smaller-yet-still-readable font size than what the 1440x900 choice under MacOSX gives on you.

Ideally - and this is where things are reported to be going with MacOS and probably Windows too - you never need to set or worry about your screen resolution. It always runs at native resolution, and you simply adjust fonts, icons, and other UI elements to taste.

boomish
Jun 21, 2012, 07:07 PM
lol it'll be so small I doubt you'd read anything let alone operate a program..

Olo
Jun 21, 2012, 07:12 PM
I think the problem is that most people aren't understanding the explanations given so far about what Retina is.

What i am gathering so far is that Retina is really just a way to move forward(with higher resolutions) while retaining a measure of backward compatibility. Retina aware apps can make use of the extra resolution while old apps get their custom user interface elements crudely scaled.

The real problem with just bumping the DPI of displays is that so many things assume a certain screen DPI of roughly 72 to 96 DPI. In the Windows world, it is very apparent when you run at native high res and bump your user interface element and font size only to have a host of applications start cutting off things because they assumed a certain pixel size for system elements.

In an ideal world, everything.. and i mean everything would be vector. Text, images, boxes drawn around stuff, scroll bars, etc. Until now, people were forced to build things at the pixel level to make them look good. Microsoft used "hinting" to force fonts to adhere to a pixel boundary because it looked crisp.

Apple didn't want to do that because it caused all sorts of errors in layout and then people complained that Apple fonts were "fuzzy". They were fuzzy, but only because the screen DPI was too low to render them well.

Now Apple has the DPI to make their more accurate fonts look good but all this legacy code breaks because it depends on pixel level rendering. So... to make all the old stuff work they had to scale it... otherwise you would have a mish mash of differently sized stuff on the screen. It would be ugly... and Apple doesn't like ugly.

So, to make a long story longer, Apple is doing with Retina what it has to do to drag people kicking and screaming into the future. In the long run, this (putting up with legacy apps that look scaled) will all be worth it.

The only question i have is how we fix the web to scale better and take advantage of these new higher DPI displays. Right now, the web is very badly pixel dependent.

GenesisST
Jun 21, 2012, 07:20 PM
Image (http://i46.tinypic.com/b88m52.jpg)

I guess that ignorance is truly bliss...

mkoesel
Jun 21, 2012, 07:27 PM
In an ideal world, everything.. and i mean everything would be vector. Text, images, boxes drawn around stuff, scroll bars, etc.

Yes. Furthermore, even legacy bitmapped graphic elements and icons can be vectorized and cached as such. This is apparently where things are headed. In the meantime though, I like the flexibility that Windows gives you.

Renzatic
Jun 21, 2012, 07:32 PM
I guess that ignorance is truly bliss...

...and a sense of humor is a helluva thing to have.

itsamacthing
Jun 21, 2012, 07:42 PM
Umm...here, buy our new product and then we are going to lock you out of using it all the way.... who makes these kinds of choices? Maybe it's not that useful for a lot of people, but hell..give us the choice!

gotluck
Jun 21, 2012, 07:52 PM
Now for a reality check: The Retina MBP is significantly cheaper than a 15" MBP with comparable processor, RAM, and SSD. It is also significantly cheaper than a Dell Alienware laptop with comparable processor, RAM, and SSD. It comes with a quad core processor capable of doing 60 GFlops, has 16 GB of RAM, runs three external monitors in addition to the built-in one which is the best laptop monitor that you can buy for any money, weighs about four pound, has 7 hours battery life, from a battery that does 1,000 charges, and is so successful that it is sold out already for the next weeks.

Yeah, Apple really screwed people.

(Only if you are trying to sell a high end ultrabook that isn't made by Apple. In that case, yes, you are screwed).

You're forgetting about the video card when comparing against the alienware. Apple needs higher end video cards! Top of the line alien wares also offer higher raw performance. Just sayin

----------

Umm...here, buy our new product and then we are going to lock you out of using it all the way.... who makes these kinds of choices? Maybe it's not that useful for a lot of people, but hell..give us the choice!

This is apple were talking about here :D

Starship77
Jun 21, 2012, 07:53 PM
Now for a reality check: The Retina MBP is significantly cheaper than a 15" MBP with comparable processor, RAM, and SSD. It is also significantly cheaper than a Dell Alienware laptop with comparable processor, RAM, and SSD. It comes with a quad core processor capable of doing 60 GFlops, has 16 GB of RAM, runs three external monitors in addition to the built-in one which is the best laptop monitor that you can buy for any money, weighs about four pound, has 7 hours battery life, from a battery that does 1,000 charges, and is so successful that it is sold out already for the next weeks.

Yeah, Apple really screwed people.

(Only if you are trying to sell a high end ultrabook that isn't made by Apple. In that case, yes, you are screwed).

Best post in this thread. :)

twoodcc
Jun 21, 2012, 07:54 PM
hmm, someone should set the ones at apple retail stores to this resolution and video people's reaction

Larry-K
Jun 21, 2012, 07:58 PM
There's a concept behind verything.

Hmm, "verything". Is this an argument for intelligent design?

I would argue that the vast majority of things in the universe do not have a concept behind them.

The burden of proof is on the positive.

pacalis
Jun 21, 2012, 08:05 PM
Now for a reality check: The Retina MBP is significantly cheaper than a 15" MBP with comparable processor, RAM, and SSD. It is also significantly cheaper than a Dell Alienware laptop with comparable processor, RAM, and SSD. It comes with a quad core processor capable of doing 60 GFlops, has 16 GB of RAM, runs three external monitors in addition to the built-in one which is the best laptop monitor that you can buy for any money, weighs about four pound, has 7 hours battery life, from a battery that does 1,000 charges, and is so successful that it is sold out already for the next weeks.

Yeah, Apple really screwed people.

(Only if you are trying to sell a high end ultrabook that isn't made by Apple. In that case, yes, you are screwed).

Haha. True. But don't forget, Apple also screwed "pros" who can't connect a dongle to a firewire or ethernet cable. :p

AidenShaw
Jun 21, 2012, 08:10 PM
[QUOTE=WiiDSmoker;15097029]Requires a hack in Mac OSX, but a simple setting in Windows....not surprised.

LOL - so true....

MacinDoc
Jun 21, 2012, 08:19 PM
Now for a reality check: The Retina MBP is significantly cheaper than a 15" MBP with comparable processor, RAM, and SSD. It is also significantly cheaper than a Dell Alienware laptop with comparable processor, RAM, and SSD. It comes with a quad core processor capable of doing 60 GFlops, has 16 GB of RAM, runs three external monitors in addition to the built-in one which is the best laptop monitor that you can buy for any money, weighs about four pound, has 7 hours battery life, from a battery that does 1,000 charges, and is so successful that it is sold out already for the next weeks.

Yeah, Apple really screwed people.

(Only if you are trying to sell a high end ultrabook that isn't made by Apple. In that case, yes, you are screwed).
When people compare about the price of the rMBP, this is exactly what they need to know. Yes, it's expensive, but that doesn't mean that it's overpriced. It's probably the best laptop you can get for that price.

SirHaakon
Jun 21, 2012, 08:21 PM
Requires a hack in Mac OSX, but a simple setting in Windows....not surprised.
Which one of your 15" Wintel laptops has a 2880x1800 screen? Oh, none... that's right.

thewap
Jun 21, 2012, 08:25 PM
Correction..the rmbp is the best disposable laptop in the world now. Makes me think apple has been spending much too much time in China.

craznar
Jun 21, 2012, 08:35 PM
This would be great on a 17".

I need matte + 1900x1200 for me to have any use for it.

That means I would prefer 17" over 15".

Either way the new rMBP is as useful as a brick for me.

----------

Which one of your 15" Wintel laptops has a 2880x1800 screen? Oh, none... that's right.

Which one of your Mac laptops has a 17" screen? Oh, none ... that's right.

Bob each way :)

Asclepio
Jun 21, 2012, 08:38 PM
I guess that ignorance is truly bliss...

uh? it double pixels, same aspect ratio.

Epic Xbox Revie
Jun 21, 2012, 08:39 PM
I need matte + 1900x1200 for me to have any use for it.

That means I would prefer 17" over 15".

Either way the new rMBP is as useful as a brick for me.

----------



Which one of your Mac laptops has a 17" screen? Oh, none ... that's right.

Bob each way :)

The 2011 17" MBP ;)

craznar
Jun 21, 2012, 08:41 PM
The 2011 17" MBP ;)

Yeah - I have a 2010 17" MBP and was dutifully waiting for the new releases (based upon the Buyer's guide up top).

Now I'm screwed... the 2010 17" MBP will be my last ever laptop :(

shawnce
Jun 21, 2012, 08:55 PM
I'm surprised too. I figured this was a native option.

Is there a setting like this in OS X?
http://i.imgur.com/fyR57.jpg

Not that I am aware of, unfortunately. I also don't think you can change icon size in the finder, can you (other than for the dock)?

Requires a hack in Mac OSX, but a simple setting in Windows....not surprised. The "hack" is only required to switch to use 2880x1800 at 1:1 scaling which results in comically small elements on the display. So it isn't something that anyone would normally do... you know Apple is about presenting sensible things to users. They don't care if you use existing screen configuration API to do crazy things, they just aren't typically going to present the crazy thing to a normal user.

The following is what you are able to do and it presents several options that result in reasonable physical dimension.

Note my mouse was over the gray boarded "more space" on the right which triggered the gray text you see in various places. ...and yes if you click on this image you can see the real pixel dimension of the capture with is 2x (in each dimension) what it looks like on the display

344481

tido2012
Jun 21, 2012, 08:59 PM
Your comment actually helped me understand what the article was saying better than the actual article. I'n sure it's not a difficult concept but I'm not much of a computer person. I'm trying to decide between a retina and non-retina MBP right now.
I think people are misunderstanding Retina when it comes to the new MacBooks. There are many objects to consider. Why use up the horsepower just drawing a teeny-tiny desktop? You have 4K! You can drive 4 1080p monitors! (With no lag.) Ultimately, apps, and websites, need to be updated so its windows and buttons look great. Then there's windows: FCP X has a 1080p Preview window! Text is beautiful. If you have a 4K movie file, watch it. But when you leave the movie, I want to have a normal resolution. You want 1/4 size apps? Not me.

shawnce
Jun 21, 2012, 09:07 PM
Your comment actually helped me understand what the article was saying better than the actual article. I'n sure it's not a difficult concept but I'm not much of a computer person. I'm trying to decide between a retina and non-retina MBP right now. Go see one if you can in an Apple store... it is the best way to understand how nice they are and how nice the screen is.

I am loving mine for code development with crisp text!

Manzzle
Jun 21, 2012, 09:15 PM
I need matte + 1900x1200 for me to have any use for it.

That means I would prefer 17" over 15".

Either way the new rMBP is as useful as a brick for me.

----------



Which one of your Mac laptops has a 17" screen? Oh, none ... that's right.

Bob each way :)


I remember some where Apple said they would have an update next year for their pro users.

This retina would be more useful to "Pro" users such as photographers and graphic designers if they had a bigger screen, more real estate to use without having to use a magnifying glass to read a normal page with out having to zoom in, put your face to the screen or change the resolution.

I have a good feeling something bigger than a 15" would be coming next year.

When people do this hack to use all the resolution to their new retina 15" they'll notice that they'll have to change something to read stuff, such as switch the resolution or make web browsers zoom larger.

This is probably why Apple did not allow for a simple way to use the full resolution without the hack. They like simplicity and doing all that extra work to complete a task other than surfing the net or watching a youtube video would be more work for consumers having to change settings all the time.

Something a little ironic, cell phone screen sizes are now in high demand of bigger screens and now the laptops are are getting smaller screens.

gugy
Jun 21, 2012, 09:19 PM
This explain why I set up a HDTV 1920x1080 frame in photoshop and I could not display it at 100%.
I asked the Mac genius and he could not explain why.
Seriously it's a joke Apple doesn't allow to simply set it up on the system preferences pane. The beauty of this screen is the amount of real estate the high resolution offers.

thewap
Jun 21, 2012, 09:21 PM
Im am a pro and a computer that is not serviceable in the field in remote locations is not useful to me, retina or not. Disposable hardware is a liability.

shawnce
Jun 21, 2012, 09:27 PM
The beauty of this screen is the amount of real estate the high resolution offers....and you get all of that real estate when looking at images, video, and countless other things that love having pixels all without having to change any settings (default retina mode).

Also in the default retina mode you get UI elements and text at normal sizes so you can actually see them and work with them again all while getting full access to all of the pixels for content that truly can use those pixels.

You can also adjust the scale if you want using the standard displays system control panel (not just up to 1:1) giving you more physical space by shrinking UI elements but you lose the fidelity gains of course and will have a harder time interacting with them.

Folks should play with the interactive image under the retina section on the following page if you don't fully get what is going on with this display. (of course real life use of it is the best to get a sense of what it is like)

http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/features/

Renzatic
Jun 21, 2012, 09:29 PM
The beauty of this screen is the amount of real estate the high resolution offers.

Pure UI space can only take you so far. It has to be comfortable to use as well. A 1440x900 might be a little cramped for some applications, but full on 2880x1800 scaled on a 15 inch screen? That's like...like

...I'm playing around in Photoshop right now, and I don't even want to think how microscopically tiny some of the smaller interface buttons would be on that.

For example, here's your adjustments layers tab...

.....
.......
.....

...find Hue/Saturation

marksman
Jun 21, 2012, 09:50 PM
I find 1900x1200 too small on my 17" Mbp. I can't imagine the higher resolution on a 15" screen as being useful for most things.

----------

Im am a pro and a computer that is not serviceable in the field in remote locations is not useful to me, retina or not. Disposable hardware is a liability.

A pro what? Wrestler? Oil rigger?

weaponEX
Jun 21, 2012, 09:55 PM
MOUNTAIN LION will fix everything - although it's weird that they couldn't have released ML at the same time as the rMBP?

JohnDoe98
Jun 21, 2012, 09:57 PM
Hmm, "verything". Is this an argument for intelligent design?

I would argue that the vast majority of things in the universe do not have a concept behind them.

The burden of proof is on the positive.

Ah, so you are a realist and think things exist in themselves somehow. That is a concept too! Sadly everything we know about the world is bound by our concepts and without them there is no understanding of what is. All you can say, perhaps, is what Parmenides did, that everything is one, or maybe that there is "stuff" out there. Notice, stuff and oneness are concepts... Perhaps you prefer utter silence, I dunno.

jcpb
Jun 21, 2012, 10:16 PM
MOUNTAIN LION will fix everything - although it's weird that they couldn't have released ML at the same time as the rMBP?
ML wasn't finished by the time WWDC rolled into town, it was still being sampled to developers to iron out bugs. Besides, there is no point for Apple to wait until ML hits RTM (to use a Microsoft term) to release its Macbook lines with the Ivy Bridge update, when every other company outed theirs after Intel officially launched its dual-core IvB chips.

Before June 11, most places were talking about the ASUS Zenbook Prime - what with 1080p on a 11" dual-core ultrathin - and whatever interesting laptops out of Computex e.g. Toshiba's IvB + 21:9 laptop. After June 11, it's all MBPR territory. Apple literally pulled the publicity rug from the underside of Computex.

khull
Jun 21, 2012, 10:25 PM
oh Apple, shut up take my money and just ship my retina MacBook already

willcapellaro
Jun 21, 2012, 10:28 PM
I sometimes regret the HD option of my MBP. Too small for my eyes (I hit 40 this year)... So imagine this...

IF I ever get a rMBP, it would be for the "crisper" 1440x900 resolution not the "kill my eyes in 2 months resolution".

But that's just me. To each his own!

Me too and I'm only 34. I change to blurry-but-bigger nonstandard resolutions whenever I use an external monitor as my main (and am viewing my laptop monitor from a slight distance). Luckily our MBPs remember recent monitor arrangements so I dont have to set it each time. I hope that the rMBP includes the new retina scaling options in the same workspace settings memory. At least in a year or so when I might consider upgrading.

thewap
Jun 21, 2012, 10:28 PM
Line producer commercial films 35mm 30 years and counting.. my needs go beyond the initial wow factor of a screen to gear that is not a liability. This was mac for me since they came on the market in the early 80's ..but sadly not anymore so it seems.

kalsta
Jun 21, 2012, 10:38 PM
While Apple's new Retina MacBook Pro includes a display measuring 2880x1800 pixels, the default display options do not allow users to run their systems at that full resolution. Instead, the extra pixels are used to display a higher level of detail on a canvas representing the previous 1440x900 resolution.

After reading the entire post, I can see what the author was trying to say here… but boy, that has to be one of the most confusing and potentially misleading descriptions of what Apple has done here with the new display and OS settings. No wonder there are so many arguments here amongst readers. It seems the idea of UI elements being fixed at a set pixel size is so entrenched in our way of thinking that we have trouble even describing a different system.

The new display will always display 2880 x 1800 pixels. That's all it can do. It's a question of how large or small the OS renders certain elements.

From the referenced screen shot it would seem that Apple at least has got it right by avoiding any reference to specific pixel dimensions, which would more likely only confuse users:

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/retina_macbook_pro_display_preferences.jpg

Instead, they have defaulted to a 'Best for Retina display setting' which makes the UI elements appear to be roughly the same size as the user is accustomed to seeing them on previous generations of Macs, by displaying that at twice the normal resolution. That is a form of resolution independence which means that users can get most of the benefits of crisp high-resolution graphics without all the UI elements becoming miniscule. (I say 'most' because it will take some time for developers to update their apps, and I imagine it will be a long time before most of the Web catches up with these advances.)

But the way this post was written kind of implies that Apple is somehow holding out on users by not delivering them the full capabilities of their new display, which is not true.

b0blndsy
Jun 21, 2012, 10:41 PM
- "not authorized by Apple"?

If I buy the hardware I will do with it as I please. :mad:

Ditto. I think they should allow the customers "customize" the rMBP and other Apple products. The reason why we're buying them is to enable us to do whatever we want in the best form that serves us.

GenesisST
Jun 21, 2012, 11:08 PM
uh? it double pixels, same aspect ratio.

Did you see the picture I was referring too? less pixels == J.Lo... More pixels == Roseanne...

I know the retina is double the pixel in each direction (well, quadruple to be picky).

----------

...and a sense of humor is a helluva thing to have.

I don't know if you think I was being ignorant or something, but I was being silly, regarding the J.Lo (I think) vs Roseanne comparison.

That was one case where it's better to not know and be happy.

kalsta
Jun 21, 2012, 11:13 PM
- "not authorized by Apple"?

If I buy the hardware I will do with it as I please. :mad:
Ditto. I think they should allow the customers "customize" the rMBP and other Apple products. The reason why we're buying them is to enable us to do whatever we want in the best form that serves us.

Except the above quote is simply a confused, knee-jerk reaction to a poorly worded article. 'Not authorized by Apple' here simply means that Apple hasn't built the functionality into its user interface. And since the only real benefit (if you can call it that) of doing what the article suggests you might want to do is to make everything really tiny and almost impossible to read, why would Apple build this into the UI? It makes no sense. But, if for some inexplicable reason you want everything to be really tiny and almost impossible to read, your Mac is free for you to tinker with as you wish via the Terminal—Apple provides this tool to you free of charge, for you to screw with your system as much as you like.

Who would want to do that? Even the 1920x1200 is super small.

The 'Best for Retina' option puts everything at the same PHYSICAL size as the 1440x900, but have you seen the clarity you get?

Why is this on the front page? Throw this article into the Mac Blog.

Mate, you actually got it spot on with your comment, but the fact that you got voted down to -17, while belltree's comment is at +23, simply demonstrates the amount of confusion surrounding this topic, not helped by this post at all unfortunately.

Gopeder
Jun 21, 2012, 11:36 PM
Hum... "number of pixels horizontally and vertically" is 2880x1800. I think you mean "96 PPI pixel count equivalent scaled UI size". That's why we use "Resolution" even though it's not proper ;).

----------



That's exactly what you won't be able to see, unless you have a 1440x900 15.4 MBP. If you do, you can already get the size of elements without a screenshot from a MBPR. Grab a fullscreen shot of your 1440x900 desktop, use photoshop to scale it down to 720x450. make the zoom 100%. The size of icons/windows/buttons on the 720x450 image is what you'd get on a 15.4 MBPR at 2880x1800.

thats a stupid way to do it, it would be simple if someone took the time to take a picture before using the app and after so we can see the scale.... sigh

gugy
Jun 21, 2012, 11:39 PM
...and you get all of that real estate when looking at images, video, and countless other things that love having pixels all without having to change any settings (default retina mode).

Also in the default retina mode you get UI elements and text at normal sizes so you can actually see them and work with them again all while getting full access to all of the pixels for content that truly can use those pixels.

You can also adjust the scale if you want using the standard displays system control panel (not just up to 1:1) giving you more physical space by shrinking UI elements but you lose the fidelity gains of course and will have a harder time interacting with them.

Folks should play with the interactive image under the retina section on the following page if you don't fully get what is going on with this display. (of course real life use of it is the best to get a sense of what it is like)

http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/features/

But the fact I can see a HDTV frame at 100% is annoying. I am a motion graphic designer and I ussualy work with several frames open at the same time when working remotely.
having them at 100% is a must.

faroZ06
Jun 22, 2012, 12:11 AM
I don't like the MBPR's display settings in System Preferences. They dumbed it down. I just want to set my resolution!

GFLPraxis
Jun 22, 2012, 12:16 AM
Exactly!! I've been blessed with 20/10 eyes. Finally, I don't have to run Terminal.app in 6 point fonts... :D:D:D:D

20/10 here too!! I've actually freaked people out reading road signs in the dark they couldn't see :D

The iPhone's Retina display was the best thing that ever happened to me.

----------

You won't have great eyesight after using this for awhile. :)

My mother used to say stuff like this. Reading books in the dark and looking at screens almost constantly for a living doesn't seem to have hurt.

shawnce
Jun 22, 2012, 12:26 AM
But the fact I can see a HDTV frame at 100% is annoying. I am a motion graphic designer and I ussualy work with several frames open at the same time when working remotely.
having them at 100% is a must.

I am not following you... you have a crap load of pixels to utilize to show video at a 1 to 1 pixel scaling (aka 100%) on this display... more then you ever could before in a laptop. If the software you are using isn't correctly leveraging the available pixels it should get fixed so it can.

shawnce
Jun 22, 2012, 12:50 AM
it would be simple if someone took the time to take a picture before using the app and after so we can see the scale.... sigh

Note the video shown is sized to be 1920x800 (1080p source). In other words every pixel in the movie is visible when the window is sized as it is under the retina default setting. When non-retina scales are used I didn't bother to attempt to adjust this video size to maintain 100% pixel to pixel mapping for the video content. At this time the quicktime player isn't retina scaling aware so it doesn't size correctly automatically as you adjust the scale.

Larger Text Setting (max UI scaling)

344505

Retina Setting (default, ideal 2x scaling)

344503

More Space Setting (min UI scaling)

344504

No Scaling Setting (it is comically small visually at not viewing distances)

344506

...or stacked next to each other (no scaling left, max scaling right)...

344508

(sorry I had to use jpeg so I could get under the size limit for uploading)

tjusafa14
Jun 22, 2012, 12:52 AM
Time to finally start posting so here are my thoughts...

I have yet to play with a RMBP but I think the 2880 x 1800 resolution workaround is great, if you can deal with the small text and size of everything awesome. Its obviously not the greatest choice for everyone depending on personal preference and eyesight factors but its nice that someone has made the option available.

The new preference pane for resolutions does seem a little limiting, no set resolutions just a simple selection that includes no numbers and a brightness slider that seems to be reminiscent of iOS. This reminds me even more about the clash of OS X and iOS which I don't like all that much. Some ideas are great like the notifications system and the Mac App Store, but when Apple starts taking away things like options for specific resolutions in favor of a simple iOS-like settings pane, I think they are going a little too far. But the Mac has a great community around it that can give those options back through hacks so its not that big of a deal ;)

I am going to my local apple store tomorrow to play with the RMBP so I will give my full assessment on the whole resolution thing tomorrow. I really need to replace this crappy Fujitsu laptop i'm chained to for school and the RMBP might be the computer i'm looking for

shawnce
Jun 22, 2012, 01:05 AM
Note the video shown is sized to be 1920x800 (1080p source). In other words every pixel in the movie is visible when the window is sized as it is under the retina default setting. When non-retina scales are used I didn't bother to attempt to adjust this video size to maintain 100% pixel to pixel mapping for the video content.

Retina Setting (default, ideal 2x scaling)
344503


Oops had this video window undersized (one to many button clicks)... this one shows the 1080p video with one to one pixels showing when at default retina setting (aka 100% is being displayed yet the window is only that large on the display).

344509

EssentialParado
Jun 22, 2012, 01:16 AM
for those have problems to understand the retina thing, it double the pixels, same aspect ratio.
Image (http://i46.tinypic.com/b88m52.jpg)

I looked through 7 pages just to find and like this post

SvenSvenson
Jun 22, 2012, 01:17 AM
Just saved this shot and displayed it fullscreen and aspect ratio correct on my 24" monitor. It was completely and totally unbearable. <snip> It's a neat little feature to show off, but it sure as hell isn't good for anything else but.

What resolution is your 24" monitor running at?

Nostromo
Jun 22, 2012, 01:18 AM
Running a 2880x1800 desktop on a screen measuring only 15.4 inches diagonally obviously results in very small text and user interface elements, but for those willing to sit close enough to their screens to make the onscreen content readable, it may be an interesting option.


Only if you don't have a very long nose - it would prohibit you from getting close enough to the screen.

A workaround for long nosed users - not authorized by Apple - would be to turn head and nose to the side, and peer with one eye only at the screen.

Piggie
Jun 22, 2012, 01:26 AM
I can see a whole new range of Macbook accessories coming out soon :D

http://www.enablemobility.co.uk/magnifier-sheet-with-folding-stand-25-5-x-18cm

thewap
Jun 22, 2012, 01:36 AM
I can see a whole new range of Macbook accessories coming out soon :D

http://www.enablemobility.co.uk/magnifier-sheet-with-folding-stand-25-5-x-18cm

Funny, but
I was thinking that the retina will definitely hurt aftermarket accessories mainly in the hardware dept.. let alone kill the secondary used mac market. Who is going to be buying used macbook pro retinas even with applecare? as a throw away computer I would venture to say that resale value will be non existent.

grape ape
Jun 22, 2012, 01:40 AM
for those have problems to understand the retina thing, it double the pixels, same aspect ratio.
Image (http://i46.tinypic.com/b88m52.jpg)

Yes, your example is true. But your "retina" example looks great on my 11.5in MacBook Air screen and no matter how many more pixels is added, it won't look any better. All this retina stuff is doing is bloating and slowing apps, games, and so forth.

Now if I had a movie theater size screen, this whole ridiculously high resolution retina idea might make since. But not on screens as small as your average "tv size" or monitor size. Or whatever people are using for their Macs.

kalsta
Jun 22, 2012, 01:40 AM
I don't like the MBPR's display settings in System Preferences. They dumbed it down. I just want to set my resolution!

The new preference pane for resolutions does seem a little limiting, no set resolutions just a simple selection that includes no numbers and a brightness slider that seems to be reminiscent of iOS. This reminds me even more about the clash of OS X and iOS which I don't like all that much. Some ideas are great like the notifications system and the Mac App Store, but when Apple starts taking away things like options for specific resolutions in favor of a simple iOS-like settings pane, I think they are going a little too far.

What you guys seem to be asking for is not only more confusing, but also less technically accurate. If you want the default ('Best for Retina display') setting to say '1440 x 900' resolution, most users are going to think that the display is operating at that resolution, when in fact it is operating at 2880 x 1800. You're still thinking in terms of the old screen resolutions when you use those numbers—they simply do not apply anymore. The screen on a new Retina MacBook Pro is and always will be 2880 x 1800 pixels. All you can do is change the physical size of what is rendered to that display, and that is what Apple's new preference panel reflects. In this instance, what you call 'dumbed down' actually makes a lot more sense practically speaking.

shawnce
Jun 22, 2012, 01:48 AM
Yes, your example is true. But your "retina" example looks great on my 11.5in MacBook Air screen and no matter how many more pixels is added, it won't look any better. All this retina stuff is doing is bloating and slowing apps, games, and so forth. ...why don't you actually go look at one and see how the text looks on these screens or being able to see a full 5m pixel worth of an image or movie without scaling... before making such claims.

subsonix
Jun 22, 2012, 01:56 AM
The headline is misleading, the resolution is 2880x1800 on the retina model. The setting changes how large the UI elements are, only.

kalsta
Jun 22, 2012, 02:08 AM
The headline is misleading, the resolution is 2880x1800 on the retina model. The setting changes how large the UI elements are, only.

Right, it's entirely misleading. Add another one to the small but growing number of people who get it. ;)

grape ape
Jun 22, 2012, 02:23 AM
...why don't you actually go look at one and see how the text looks on these screens or being able to see a full 5m pixel worth of an image or movie without scaling... before making such claims.

Why would you assume I haven't? I know what it looks like and my text on my current Mac looks great. ;)

Fortimir
Jun 22, 2012, 02:27 AM
Some of us have 21+ megapixel DSLR cameras.

And some of us, even 36mp. ;-) My primary body file sizes are 7360x4912.

gnasher729
Jun 22, 2012, 02:32 AM
Funny, but
I was thinking that the retina will definitely hurt aftermarket accessories mainly in the hardware dept.. let alone kill the secondary used mac market. Who is going to be buying used macbook pro retinas even with applecare? as a throw away computer I would venture to say that resale value will be non existent.

Do you actually believe that nonsense from iFixIt? Contrary to what iFixIt says, the battery is easily replaceable (by going to the Apple Store and handing over $199. Compared to say a Dell, where you order a battery for $150 and take out your trusted old screwdriver). Contrary to what iFixIt says, you can replace the LCD screen without breaking it (just don't try to remove the glass cover which isn't there with your big fat fingers). Contrary to what iFixIt says, everything else can be repaired (what do you think UK consumer laws would say if a £1799 computer _cannot be repaired_ after two years? )

Judas1
Jun 22, 2012, 02:39 AM
People seem to not get that even with the high resolution, its still just a 15" screen. Sure you get more screen real estate, but the extra details are so small, that it would actually hinder productivity. Even people with good eyesight are only human. The limit isn't the eyesight but the way our eyes work.

BradTucker
Jun 22, 2012, 02:45 AM
A screenshot will be shown on your screen's PPI. Unless you can mimic the proper PPI ratio of the 15 MBP on your own screen, you won't be able to see it "at full quality" without simply seeing it straight on the device.

I think the important part is the UI element size in comparison to your screen size (which is really all that is changing here). If you posted a file of the screenshot, you could still look at it in photoshop (at a higher zoom level, or zoom out to see the whole thing on your lower res screen) and get the idea. How do you think anyone who takes nice dSLR photos looks at their giant resolution photos?

Question though - could I theoretically play a full screen game (i.e. Diablo 3) and use the "full" 2880 pixels? seems like yes, there should be a setting in D3 that will use the full resolution.

Jasoco
Jun 22, 2012, 02:51 AM
People complaining that you can't select the full resolution of this display by normal means are really really silly. Seriously.

Apple could release a 15" display with 5000x3000 pixel resolution and people would STILL complain when they didn't allow you to set your resolution to it. It's silly.

Apple has changed the paradigm for how they do computer graphical interface displaying by making the actual GUI scale itself smoothly instead of actually changing the resolution that the display is outputting. In other words, they're putting the resolution changing in software instead of hardware. Resolution no longer matters now that the pixels are small enough that you can't see them. It's no longer about getting a high resolution, it's about how clear the image is. In other words, it's now about making an image so clear that it looks natural. Apple has done a wonderful amazing thing. And people STILL complain.

They still list the full resolution on the Tech Specs page because it IS still available. It is available to any application that needs it. For instance, games. Any game can use that resolution with no problem. It can display its pixels at 1:1 and have a wonderful picture. But the OS itself doesn't need to utilize that resolution for the exact reasons stated. Things are just too small for most people.

Stop thinking with old testament resolution terms and embrace the future of computer displays.

gco212
Jun 22, 2012, 02:52 AM
So bascically, the current OS is like the opposite of the upscaled DVD players when BluRay came out. It has a ton of pixels, but isn't showing the content.

Jasoco
Jun 22, 2012, 02:54 AM
So bascically, the current OS is like the opposite of the upscaled DVD players when BluRay came out. It has a ton of pixels, but isn't showing the content.
No. That's NOTHING like what it is. It's showing MORE content. Your analogy is very incorrect.

kasibald
Jun 22, 2012, 03:02 AM
The Resolution "Hack" to 2880 is absolutley great for me !
As i can sort and adjust in a much higher resolution within
Lightroom. I know 90 % of the keyboard shortcuts of Lightroom,
so the tiny buttons are no problem for me.

Judas1
Jun 22, 2012, 03:05 AM
No. That's NOTHING like what it is. It's showing MORE content. Your analogy is very incorrect.
Actually it shows more details, but not necessarily more content. Most content, even in the near future will not even approach 2880x1800.

kalsta
Jun 22, 2012, 03:39 AM
People complaining that you can't select the full resolution of this display by normal means are really really silly. Seriously.

Apple could release a 15" display with 5000x3000 pixel resolution and people would STILL complain when they didn't allow you to set your resolution to it. It's silly.

Apple has changed the paradigm for how they do computer graphical interface displaying by making the actual GUI scale itself smoothly instead of actually changing the resolution that the display is outputting. In other words, they're putting the resolution changing in software instead of hardware.

No—what you're describing actually happened many years ago when we switched from CRT monitors to LCD displays. An LCD screen has always had a fixed resolution (it can never change) whereas a CRT could change to a lower resolution. So really, the idea that you can change your resolution in system preferences is a very old concept and one that should have gone out many years before now.

Sadly, this article is only perpetuating these very outdated concepts, adding to people's confusion, and by MacRumors standards really is a very poorly written and misleading piece—as can be seen by all the confusion evident in people's comments. It was an article that never needed to be written, because as far as I can see, there's no logical requirement for anyone to scale down the entire UI by 50%, just because the resolution of the display happens to be 200% that of its predecessor. No one seemed to want such tiny text and UI elements before this display, so why the sudden need for them now?

Kerberos
Jun 22, 2012, 03:52 AM
I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it? :confused:

... well the rMPB screen resolution is ALWAYS at 2880x1800, but what the OS is doing is scalling the size of fonts, icons, ... so they look like similar in size than on a regular former 15" screens.

For instance,
When icons are displayed, if they appear on the screen with a size of 10 millimeter x 10 millimeter, then
on a regular 1440 x 900 15" screen they are made of approximately 45 x 45 pixels.
If you want them to look 10 mm x 10 mm (same size) on a 2880 x 1800 15" screen they will have to be scaled to 90 x 90 pixels.

Having a higher screen resolution then allows you to put much more details in the picture of the icons, simply because for the same size (10 mm x 10 mm) you have a lot more pixel available. If apple is reworking the icons picture accordingly (as they did) the icons will look much more detailed and sharper.

What Apple is doing is then giving you the choise of displaying big, normal and small icons, fonts ... namely the standard icons size of 1440 x 900 , 1600 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 former icon size.

But don t worry, the screen is always at max resosultion 2880 x 1800.

KnightWRX
Jun 22, 2012, 03:59 AM
People seem to not get that even with the high resolution, its still just a 15" screen. Sure you get more screen real estate, but the extra details are so small, that it would actually hinder productivity. Even people with good eyesight are only human. The limit isn't the eyesight but the way our eyes work.

That's your opinion though about your capabilities. To me, a 15" 1920x1200 display is perfectly usable with the size of elements. 2880x1800 would be stretching it I agree.

baryon
Jun 22, 2012, 04:05 AM
Hope they will allow us to use that resolution natively… For some things, it could be very useful, such as Photoshop: you would have so much more space for palettes! And it would not slow down your computer since there is no scaling required.

doelcm82
Jun 22, 2012, 04:12 AM
Yes, your example is true. But your "retina" example looks great on my 11.5in MacBook Air screen and no matter how many more pixels is added, it won't look any better. All this retina stuff is doing is bloating and slowing apps, games, and so forth.

Now if I had a movie theater size screen, this whole ridiculously high resolution retina idea might make since. But not on screens as small as your average "tv size" or monitor size. Or whatever people are using for their Macs.

If you can't see the difference, then count yourself lucky. Now that I have an MBP with a Retina screen, I don't see how I could go back to a regular one. I can't believe I used to use computers with 320x200 displays.

On the other hand, I count myself lucky that I never developed a taste for expensive wine. People tell me you have to "acquire" a taste for it. I've probably saved more than enough money over the years of not drinking wine to be able to afford this really cool computer with Retina display.

applegigs
Jun 22, 2012, 04:16 AM
Wait wait a second here. If you remember back to the WWDC 2012 images of Diablo III running on the Retina MacBook Pro. " So it was actually running 1440x900 with UI elements rendered at 2880x1080? or it was running native Retina resolution?

"Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, said “You’re going to see a gaming experience with this resolution unlike any you have ever seen before.” This is obviously thanks to the Retina MacBook Pro’s whopping 2,880 x 1,800 pixels that are packed into a 15.4″ screen."

Kerberos
Jun 22, 2012, 04:37 AM
Hope they will allow us to use that resolution natively… For some things, it could be very useful, such as Photoshop: you would have so much more space for palettes! And it would not slow down your computer since there is no scaling required.

The screen is always at 2880 x 1800.

The real estate available in the case of Photoshop does not depend on Apple,
it will be Adobe to decide. If they chose to design the palete with 100 pix x 500 pix for instance. There is nothing Apple can do.
In terms of UI, Apple is probably only having control (and there fore you have control) on font size (make it smaller of bigger). Every other graphical elements of the Photoshop UI is beyong Apple control.

RexLeo
Jun 22, 2012, 04:56 AM
So bascically, the current OS is like the opposite of the upscaled DVD players when BluRay came out. It has a ton of pixels, but isn't showing the content.

Why is this so hard to understand? If you take the default settings for the retina display and you look at a photo or a movie and view it at 100% (in most viewers there is a setting for displaying it in original size), each pixel of this content will be mapped to a single physical pixel of the retina display.

This content will be shown at the same size and same detail no matter what setting you choose for the scaling.
The only thing that is scaled here, is the UI such as the menu mars, the button etc. The content is displayed as clear and crisp as it would be if you hacked the OS (as described in this article) in order to render also the UI at the original size.

The problem might just be, that some older apps do not have support for the retina display because they don't take advantage of the new API.
I assume that the OS will scale such older applications as a whole (Content AND GUI). So the benchmark for judging the display quality are the apps that already support the new API (i.e. iPhoto, Aperture, iMovie etc.). But eventually most other apps will update this.

But perhaps someone with a new rMBP can tell me, how the content (just the displayed photo) in an older Photoshop does look like with the default display settings (Setting: Best for Retina display). Is this content scaled as well?

MBP99
Jun 22, 2012, 05:16 AM
How is the retina display compared to the old glossy high res MBP display. I could not get use to the glossy screen (Old MBP) because of e.g. the reflecting light and so on....

Is it still as bad. I am use to the Antiglare screen on the 15" MBP.

Thanks

/ Kasper

gnasher729
Jun 22, 2012, 05:16 AM
The screen is always at 2880 x 1800.

The real estate available in the case of Photoshop does not depend on Apple,
it will be Adobe to decide. If they chose to design the palete with 100 pix x 500 pix for instance. There is nothing Apple can do.
In terms of UI, Apple is probably only having control (and there fore you have control) on font size (make it smaller of bigger). Every other graphical elements of the Photoshop UI is beyong Apple control.

More confusion.

The most important thing to remember is that with the Retina display, "pixels" (the dots on the screen) are not the same as "points" (the units that the programmer uses to design the size and position of things). A normal MPB 15" has 1440 x 900 pixels displaying 1440 x 900 points. The Retina MBP has 2880 x 1800 pixels displaying 1440 x 900 points.

All the commands that the programmer uses for drawing things are using "points", not "pixels". If a programmer said "put this button 50 away from the bottom of the window, make it 20 high and 100 wide", the numbers mean points, not pixels. So the button will be on exactly the same position with exactly the same size on both Macs. The one on the Retina MBP will just look sharper. Apple user interface elements, all text, all graphics that was higher quality than the screen (like multi megapixel photos), and vector graphics, will be in the exact same position as before, but at higher quality, if the programmer does nothing.

Now Adobe _could_ detect that their program is running on a Retina display, and in that case show smaller UI elements. They _could_ say "we couldn't make this button only 10 units high because nobody could read it, but on a Retina display we _can_ make it that small because it is still readable". And that is of course outside Apple's control. The button will appear with the number of points that Adobe wants it to have. Text will appear in the point size that Adobe wants it to have. Apple has no control over that. What Apple will do is drawing the text at the point size Adobe wants, but using twice as many vertical and horizontal pixels to make it look better.


Why is this so hard to understand? If you take the default settings for the retina display and you look at a photo or a movie and view it at 100% (in most viewers there is a setting for displaying it in original size), each pixel of this content will be mapped to a single physical pixel of the retina display.

That is absolutely confused.

A photo doesn't have an "original size". It has a number of pixels, and then can be printed or displayed at any size you want. Your photo viewer may have a setting that allows you to show the original pixels of the photo. In that case, if the photo is lets say 4000 x 3000 pixels, the photo viewer will use a command that tells the Mac to draw the photo at a size of 4000 x 3000 units.

The units are _points_, not pixels. The photo will be of course massively big so you can only see a tiny part, but you will see exactly the same part on a MBP and a Retina MBP. Since the viewer used a command that will draw one photo pixel = one unit, one photo pixel will be one point = one pixel on the MBP, but it will be one point = 2 x 2 pixel on the Retina MBP.

(You may of course tell your photo editing software that you want to print the photo at 7 x 5 inch, and then the photo editing software may remember this and display the photo at a size of 7 x 5 inch. Again, the photo will have the same size on both Macs, but the Retina MBP will have many more pixels and therefore display the photo at higher quality).

theluggage
Jun 22, 2012, 05:29 AM
So if you can't set it to 2880x1800 directly without the hack, then the specs are false.
Lawyers have sued over much, much less. (eg. the recent fine from the Aussie government).

So, where's the free hack I can get to make the iPhone '4G' work with Australian/European 4G?

Anyway, the resolution of the rMBP is 2880x1800. Even in default mode, any compatible application is displayed at the full resolution, and can take advantage of that to offer smaller text (to fit more on) or show more of your photo at 1:1 pixels.

They haven't restricted the resolution - they've changed the logical pixels-per-inch parameter that (well behaved) applications use to relate pixel sizes to physical size and scale bitmap assets, made the icons bigger so that they're still readable, and added a pixel-doubling fallback mode for non-well-behaved applications that assume a fixed PPI.

Renzatic
Jun 22, 2012, 05:30 AM
Okay, people. Here's how it works.

This is an icon:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3018396/google_chrome_1.png

An icon such as this is a bitmap, or a picture made up of a bunch of pixels. Yeah, I know. This is condescending, but bear with me here. In this case, our icon is 128x128, or 16,384 individual pixels. We'll say this is the default size of an icon on a 1440x900 desktop.

Now on a Mac, the vast majority of your UI elements set to a certain size that never changes. Your stoplight icons on the top left of the screen might be 32x32, your little folder icons along the left of Finder 16x16. And so on and so on. If you drop down a couple of steps in resolution, say from 1440x900 to 1280x960, these UI elements will suddenly appear bigger. Why? Because the individual pixels aren't as tightly packed. They're being spread out across what's effectively a larger space.

So on a retina display MBP, or 128x128 bitmap icon will appear to be a quarter of the size. It's being displayed on a much more densely packed array of pixels. Now Apple thinks the general desktop size of 1440x900 is the best fit for a 15 inch screen, so what do they do? They look at resolution of the elements on a desktop that size, and quadrupled the resolution, so they're the same size on a much higher res screen.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3018396/google_chrome_2.png.

This icon is 256x256, or 65,536 individual pixels. Quadruple the resolution. Because this fancy new retina screen Apple just released is 4 times larger than the previous lower res 15" MBP, this larger icon will appear to be exactly the same size there as our icon up above.

So the screen has the same effective size as the 1440x900 screen due to the larger UI elements, but is much higher res in actuality.

Geddit?

jdavtz
Jun 22, 2012, 05:56 AM
The units are _points_, not pixels. The photo will be of course massively big so you can only see a tiny part, but you will see exactly the same part on a MBP and a Retina MBP. Since the viewer used a command that will draw one photo pixel = one unit, one photo pixel will be one point = one pixel on the MBP, but it will be one point = 2 x 2 pixel on the Retina MBP.


Can someone please confirm/refute this? It would seem crazy for ps/aperture/etc to display 2x2pixel "points" for a photo (unless you're upscaling a tiny image to make it fill more screen, but that's not what you do with "massively big" images)

gnasher729
Jun 22, 2012, 06:04 AM
Can someone please confirm/refute this? It would seem crazy for ps/aperture/etc to display 2x2pixel "points" for a photo (unless you're upscaling a tiny image to make it fill more screen, but that's not what you do with "massively big" images)

If you display an image at that scale, you do it because you _want_ to see the individual pixels of the image. And the whole point of a Retina display is that the pixels on the screen are so tiny that you _can't_ see them. So if you tell your software "I want to see the individual pixels of my photo" then displaying one photo pixel as one pixel (0.5 x 0.5 points) on a Retina display completely defeats the purpose.

So it only seems crazy to you because you didn't think it through.

KnightWRX
Jun 22, 2012, 06:05 AM
Can someone please confirm/refute this? It would seem crazy for ps/aperture/etc to display 2x2pixel "points" for a photo (unless you're upscaling a tiny image to make it fill more screen, but that's not what you do with "massively big" images)

It's as he says it is :

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/graphicsimaging/conceptual/drawingwithquartz2d/dq_overview/dq_overview.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30001066-CH202-CJBBAEEC[/B]

Because different devices have different underlying imaging capabilities, the locations and sizes of graphics must be defined in a device-independent manner. For example, a screen display device might be capable of displaying no more than 96 pixels per inch, while a printer might be capable of displaying 300 pixels per inch. If you define the coordinate system at the device level (in this example, either 96 pixels or 300 pixels), objects drawn in that space cannot be reproduced on other devices without visible distortion. They will appear too large or too small.

Quartz accomplishes device independence with a separate coordinate system—user space—mapping it to the coordinate system of the output device—device space—using the current transformation matrix, or CTM. A matrix is a mathematical construct used to efficiently describe a set of related equations. The current transformation matrix is a particular type of matrix called an affine transform, which maps points from one coordinate space to another by applying translation, rotation, and scaling operations (calculations that move, rotate, and resize a coordinate system).

baryon
Jun 22, 2012, 06:15 AM
The screen is always at 2880 x 1800.

The real estate available in the case of Photoshop does not depend on Apple,
it will be Adobe to decide. If they chose to design the palete with 100 pix x 500 pix for instance. There is nothing Apple can do.
In terms of UI, Apple is probably only having control (and there fore you have control) on font size (make it smaller of bigger). Every other graphical elements of the Photoshop UI is beyong Apple control.

Yes, but the article is talking about the ability to achieve a "traditional" 2880 x 1800 resolution, without scaling graphics to increase size and detail. This allows applications which have NOT been updated for Retina graphics to make use of every single pixel on the screen, albeit at the cost of UI elements being tiny.

This is not a case of it being Adobe's or Apple's decision, it's just the way things change with resolution. If Photoshop does NOT run in "HiDPI" or "Retina" mode, it is by default being pixel-doubled. The hack in this article is talking about how you can disable pixel doubling, basically, and gain a huge amount of space at the cost of a tiny UI.

The problem is that you have to choose between tiny UI elements (hard to see and click, but more space) and normal UI elements (easy to click and see, and more detail, but same amount of space as non-retina screens).

RexLeo
Jun 22, 2012, 06:28 AM
That is absolutely confused.

A photo doesn't have an "original size". It has a number of pixels, and then can be printed or displayed at any size you want. Your photo viewer may have a setting that allows you to show the original pixels of the photo. In that case, if the photo is lets say 4000 x 3000 pixels, the photo viewer will use a command that tells the Mac to draw the photo at a size of 4000 x 3000 units.


Well that might even be more confusing.
By "original size" of course I meant the setting that renders one pixel of the photo (that was taken by one pixel of your cameras sensor) to one physical pixel on your display. Original size might be confusing but I'm not the one that gave this name - it's just there, even in Apple Preview. Just have a look yourself.


The units are _points_, not pixels. The photo will be of course massively big so you can only see a tiny part, but you will see exactly the same part on a MBP and a Retina MBP.


I have never heard of this interpretation. The unit points originated from letter printing and is still used for describing font sizes. It is an absolute length unit: one point corresponds to 352.778 μm.
As programmers we talk about pixels of a 2D bitmap. And if we are processing volume data (i.e. of a MRI scan) we talk about voxels. And a photo consists as much of pixels as a movie does.
There might be some intermediate representations involved in the process of scaling and mapping those virtual pixels to physical pixels, but that doesn't prohibit using the term pixels in the context of photos.


Since the viewer used a command that will draw one photo pixel = one unit, one photo pixel will be one point = one pixel on the MBP, but it will be one point = 2 x 2 pixel on the Retina MBP.


If this was the case, and one point (to use your terminology) was drawn onto 2x2 pixels on the Retina MBP, there wouldn't be any improvement of quality.
This method is only applied to not yet supported applications (as for the previous versions of Chrome), in order to display old bad-res icons at a more suitable size.
My point was: regardless of which display scaling you select in the display settings, the important content (photos and videos) make full use of the retina display's physical capabilities, provided they have an adequate resolution. So there is no reason for worrying that Apple would prevent you from using the native resolution - you are always using it. All you do with this "hack", is fiddling with the rendering size of UI elements.

Rafterman
Jun 22, 2012, 06:32 AM
A classic case of "Just because you can...doesn't mean you should".

KnightWRX
Jun 22, 2012, 06:42 AM
I have never heard of this interpretation. The unit points originated from letter printing and is still used for describing font sizes. It is an absolute length unit: one point corresponds to 352.778 μm.
As programmers we talk about pixels of a 2D bitmap.

As OS X/iOS programmers, we actually use CGPoint, which is a struct made up of 2 CGFloats representing X and Y values. This is a device independant mecanism that is latter on mapped to the device-dependant coordinate system after apply the drawing context's transformation matrix for that device.

IE, the Retina display has a different CTM than a normal display, you as a programmer don't have to know about this. Your software will work with the same 1440x900 coordinates that it does on a non-Retina display.

Read the documentation about Quartz I posted earlier, all will be made clear. Gnasher has it right.


If this was the case, and one point (to use your terminology) was drawn onto 2x2 pixels on the Retina MBP, there wouldn't be any improvement of quality.

That's false, since most of your drawing is not pixel based under Quartz or using the upper level frameworks built on top of it. You issue drawing commands and the framework does the required scaling. The frameworks knows about HiDPI mode and scaling factor of the device (you can to. In fact, with the iOS SDK it's easy to test. Use the [UIScreen mainScreen] class method to obtain an handle to the device-dependant screen object, test for the selector [mainScreen scale] and if it works, check its value. If it is 2, you're running a Retina display).

So while you may be a programmer (and a good one at that), you've obviously not worked with OS X or iOS, or not in depth enough with their frameworks to work on a pixel level, or anything beyond Interface Builder.