PDA

View Full Version : Is there a way to change Macbook Air resolution to match retina display?




bonskovsky
Dec 31, 2012, 03:16 AM
I know you can change the resolution from like 800 x 900 to a little bit higher, but is there a way to make the resolution even higher so that you get the same effect that you would get if you had a retina display?

I just bought a Macbook Air, i would've gotten the Macbook Pro, but I felt it was just too chunky. So it came to the decision of having to choose retina but chunky, or standard but thin. I chose thin.

Also: You wouldn't believe this, but I was sitting in the park one day with the Air in my lap and the wind can actually blow the Air right off of your lap, that's how thin it is.



wolfpuppies3
Dec 31, 2012, 08:34 AM
No, you do not have a Retina display.

bonskovsky
Dec 31, 2012, 10:00 AM
Ok, that's obvious, what I'm asking is there a way to switch to a higher resolution- higher than 1440 x 900?

The thing I noticed about the MacBook Air is that when you play HD videos, it tends not to look HD, I mean even the quality of videos on my Dell looked better, but my Dell actually had a lower resolution.

So maybe 1440 x 900 is too high for HD and I have to turn it down?

Or does it have something to do with the fact that it's an LED screen?

mobilehaathi
Dec 31, 2012, 10:02 AM
There are only so many physical pixels.

bonskovsky
Dec 31, 2012, 10:07 AM
Well my original thought was that I didn't want to pay they extra price for retina display, I thought, "well 1440x900 is high enough for me, but if I need to see something in retina, I have an iPhone for that."

You see, I'm a photo editor and a blogger. I liked using different tactics to make sure that all of my material is in retina display.

So when I'm making photos I've recently gotten into the habit of making them on the Air just like I normally would, and then viewing it from my phone to see just how good it is in retina display.

simsaladimbamba
Dec 31, 2012, 10:07 AM
Ok, that's obvious, what I'm asking is there a way to switch to a higher resolution- higher than 1440 x 900?

The thing I noticed about the MacBook Air is that when you play HD videos, it tends not to look HD, I mean even the quality of videos on my Dell looked better, but my Dell actually had a lower resolution.

So maybe 1440 x 900 is too high for HD and I have to turn it down?

Or does it have something to do with the fact that it's an LED screen?

HD is normally 1280 x 720 pixel or 1920 x 1080 pixel (minus the vertical pixels to get the proper aspect ratio).

Your 13" MBA has only 1440 x 900 physical pixel, you can not get more than that.
If you for instance screen share with a 1920 x 1200 17" MBP and can see all of its contents on your 13" MBA, that is not, that there are suddenly 1920 x 1200 and more pixel, the 1920x x 1200 pixel from the 17" MBP get scaled down, thus one 13" MBA pixel represents 1.77 pixels from the 17" MBP, probably even more due to the screen sharing window size.

bonskovsky
Dec 31, 2012, 10:15 AM
So the scaling down of the MBP retina on a screen share to a MBA doesn't make the images look any better?

I mean that's what I thought I was seeing when I viewed retina display, all the images get smaller. Well the icons at least..

danistyping
Dec 31, 2012, 10:25 AM
So the scaling down of the MBP retina on a screen share to a MBA doesn't make the images look any better?

I mean that's what I thought I was seeing when I viewed retina display, all the images get smaller. Well the icons at least..


Go to settings->displays and click "scaled". Try the different resolution options. Those are the only options you have. Most will look terrible. If you want retina, you can choose any options that say HiDPI toward the bottom, but you won't get much screen real-estate.

That is the best you will do on an air.

simsaladimbamba
Dec 31, 2012, 10:30 AM
So the scaling down of the MBP retina on a screen share to a MBA doesn't make the images look any better?

I mean that's what I thought I was seeing when I viewed retina display, all the images get smaller. Well the icons at least..

The MacBook Pro with Retina Display has four times more pixels than your 13" MBA, and that on a 15" display.
All graphics, if optimised, are four times the resolution. What is one pixel on your MBA are four pixels on the MacBook Pro with Retina Display, but those four pixels are almost as dense as the one pixel.

bonskovsky
Dec 31, 2012, 10:39 AM
So basically, the display on the Air is as good as it gets and they'll never make a retina Air without making it beefy?

The thinness of the Air has become standard for me, but Retina screens need more power and cooling. Apple managed to make the retina MacBook thinner and lighter by making it more like an Air. The Air doesn’t have the room to spare.

Like the new iPad, retina screens mean more bulk.

mufflon
Dec 31, 2012, 11:00 AM
So basically, the display on the Air is as good as it gets and they'll never make a retina Air without making it beefy?



Basically, YOUR display is as good as it gets - there is engineering headache with handling the kind of throughput required for a screen with that kind of resolution - but it can obviously be done. Come some years from now it's probable that a retina Air exists - but until we'll just have to cope ;)

bonskovsky
Dec 31, 2012, 12:33 PM
But here's where you start to see a theme.

Apple doesn't seem to have a problem with sacrificing thin for a better display. It's why I choose the thin iPad 2 over a hot new iPad.

But if Apple ever did try to make a retina Air by adding weight to it I wouldn't buy it.

Like with the iPad mini, you can't have thin and retina.

AppleNewton
Dec 31, 2012, 03:27 PM
But here's where you start to see a theme.

Apple doesn't seem to have a problem with sacrificing thin for a better display. It's why I choose the thin iPad 2 over a hot new iPad.

But if Apple ever did try to make a retina Air by adding weight to it I wouldn't buy it.

Like with the iPad mini, you can't have thin and retina.

the iPad is not also powering as many pixels or a large screen, so the graphics processor isnt as powerful either as needed in a 15" and the 13" MBPr

robvas
Dec 31, 2012, 03:30 PM
But here's where you start to see a theme.

Apple doesn't seem to have a problem with sacrificing thin for a better display. It's why I choose the thin iPad 2 over a hot new iPad.


Almost a whole milimeter thicker!

bonskovsky
Dec 31, 2012, 03:47 PM
I was in the midst of a transition. And coming from a Dell Inspiron, the jump to Mac, any Mac would be a huge one.

My philosophy is that thin is in. If I had ever gotten a Pro, it would've been a 13 inch. But the thing about that is that it's 2560 x 1600 and not 2880 x 1800 like the 15.

Yes, it's still higher resolution, but it's not thin. The thinnest notebook is what fascinates me, because it looks futuristic. It's thin yet has so much power not to mention a long battery. And it's so effortless.

Knowing how big the Dell Inspiron was, I made it my mission to go for the thinnest.

If you could slap retina on the Air, you would have the perfect notebook.

krravi
Jan 1, 2013, 12:58 AM
I was in the midst of a transition. And coming from a Dell Inspiron, the jump to Mac, any Mac would be a huge one.

My philosophy is that thin is in. If I had ever gotten a Pro, it would've been a 13 inch. But the thing about that is that it's 2560 x 1600 and not 2880 x 1800 like the 15.

Yes, it's still higher resolution, but it's not thin. The thinnest notebook is what fascinates me, because it looks futuristic. It's thin yet has so much power not to mention a long battery. And it's so effortless.

Knowing how big the Dell Inspiron was, I made it my mission to go for the thinnest.

If you could slap retina on the Air, you would have the perfect notebook.

Seriously. I have a Dell laptop from work and it weighs like 8 pounds or more I think. Never touch it.

The thin profile of the rMBP and the power packed inside fascinates me as well. :)

pellets007
Jan 1, 2013, 01:40 AM
Look into a program called QuickRes. No program will given you additional physical pixels, but this is a scaling feature. Essentially you can push 1920x1080 on the 11" Air. It sets it up the same way that mirroring to an Apple TV would. You'll get additional screen real estate at the cost of clarity. You can also enable HiDPI through the menu bar. Maybe this isn't what you're asking, but just throwing it out there.

gnasher729
Jan 1, 2013, 07:41 AM
I know you can change the resolution from like 800 x 900 to a little bit higher, but is there a way to make the resolution even higher so that you get the same effect that you would get if you had a retina display?

MBA 11" has 1366x768 and 13" has 1440x900 pixels. Thar's it.

bonskovsky
Jan 1, 2013, 08:53 AM
Look into a program called QuickRes. No program will given you additional physical pixels, but this is a scaling feature. Essentially you can push 1920x1080 on the 11" Air. It sets it up the same way that mirroring to an Apple TV would. You'll get additional screen real estate at the cost of clarity. You can also enable HiDPI through the menu bar. Maybe this isn't what you're asking, but just throwing it out there.

Yes!! This is what I was talking about. I know the MBA only has a set number of pixels, but I think there's a way to get the retina effect by going through the back end.

Just think, the 13 vs 15 MBP's have two different resolutions, yet they are both dubbed retina display.

Edit: Yeah, just tried it. So now instead of 1440 x 900, I'm on 1920 x 1080, not bad.

simsaladimbamba
Jan 1, 2013, 09:03 AM
I'll try that, this is kind of what I was talking about. I know the MBA only has a set number of pixels, but I think there's a way to get the retina effect by going through the back end.

Just think, the 13 vs 15 MBP's have two different resolutions, yet they are both dubbed retina display.

The word "Retina" is only marketing speak, it is not a term for a set resolution. Look at the iPhone 4, it has a Retina display, but a totally different resolution than the 15" MacBook Pro with Retina Display or 13" MacBook Pro with Retina Display or the Old iPad (3) with Retina Display.

I also think, you got it confused, just because you can display 1920 x 1200 pixel on a 1440 x 900 pixel display through some scaling, does not mean you get a "Retina effect".

Every "Retina" display Apple introduced on the iPhone, iPad and the 13" and 15" MBPs, had four times the resolution of the previous generation, but the screen real estate stayed the same.

I also think, this thread runs in circles.

bonskovsky
Jan 1, 2013, 11:53 AM
Retina displays are based on visual acuity. So if you back it up far enough, it's retina.

Like it says in an article

The iPhone 4 with 326 PPI is a Retina Display when viewed from 10.5 inches or more. (Not to mention the fact that all iPhones 4 and up are 326 PPI)

The new iPad 3 with 264 PPI is a Retina Display when viewed from 13.0 inches or more

The MacBook Pro with 220 PPI is a Retina Display when viewed from 15.6 inches or more.


And the Macbook Air is 128 PPI, therefore when viewed at 20 inches, it is retina.

That's simple math.

You do get a retina effect when you switch to 1920 x 1080 with this program he just showed me.

simsaladimbamba
Jan 1, 2013, 12:05 PM
Retina displays are based on visual acuity. So if you back it up far enough, it's retina.

Like it says in an article

The iPhone 4 with 326 PPI is a Retina Display when viewed from 10.5 inches or more. (Not to mention the fact that all iPhones 4 and up are 326 PPI)

The new iPad 3 with 264 PPI is a Retina Display when viewed from 13.0 inches or more

The MacBook Pro with 220 PPI is a Retina Display when viewed from 15.6 inches or more.


And the Macbook Air is 128 PPI, therefore when viewed at 20 inches, it is retina.

That's simple math.

What kind of math then?

As you labeled this issue as resolved, I guess you now have a Retina display.

PS: Is Apple's approach to its Retina displays understandable?

----------



You do get a retina effect when you switch to 1920 x 1080 with this program he just showed me.

No, you do not, if you follow Apple's logic (what was once represented by one pixel, is now represented by four pixel, two rows of two pixels).

1920 x 1080 pixel will not get properly represented, as 1.6 pixels of the higher resolution have to be displayed by 1 pixel on the lower resolution.

bonskovsky
Jan 1, 2013, 02:25 PM
Oh, so you're saying that no matter how high quality the pictures on the screen are, it'll never be properly represented when the actual physical screen doesn't have the pixel density to display high quality imagery.

Like you said, what was once one pixel is now four pixels. Can't you make up for that by changing the viewing distance?

ThirteenXIII
Jan 1, 2013, 04:07 PM
to me ultimately what ive skimmed through so far is comparing the retina resolution to multicore processors.

For example a computer with a single Processor with one Core that has Hyperthreading enabled "tricks" the machine into thinking theirs two cores to do twice the work.

essentially what youve done is condensed images inside these pixels to appear as a larger resolution, but its just stretching the image.

i dont quite understand the point of all this or what you are attempting to gain or utilize with a makeshift resolution?

rezwits
Jan 1, 2013, 04:56 PM
There used to be a program, back in the PPC 68K days, I forget the name but what it would do was. If you had 832 x 624 or something like that, you could tell it 1600 x 1200. Then as you went to the right corner the whole screen would pan as you move to the corner that is not actually displayed. Then the "hidden real estate" would be shown and it would do it for all four corners.

But in addition to that you want it scaled so it fits in your window, cause that was back in the non-antialiasing days :P. So basically you want to choose 1920 x 1200 for your "Real Estate" and have the quartz engine scale all that in the 1440 x 900 window.

Yeah I want that too. But you know what? No one wants to make that System Preference or Menu Bar Tool for some reason :(

So yeah, but one program that did some stuff was SwitchResX and DisplayConfig X, but not more real estate...

I would love an App/Pref/Menu that did that again it would be cool.

I am going to go for now, if I can remember the name of the old one that did this on old 68K/PPC machines I'll post it... I think it was something like SuperRes...

Laters...

bonskovsky
Jan 1, 2013, 06:58 PM
Is it stretching the image? I mean, as soon as you switch to 1920 x 1080, the desktop appears smaller. It's in between two black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

kage207
Jan 2, 2013, 01:42 AM
Okay... you are not understanding how images are represented on screens given a screen resolution.

So, your MBA has a screen resolution of 1440 x 900. If I want to view an HD image that has a resolution of 1920 x 1080 on your MBA the screen needs to scale the image to fit to your screen. So, take 1920 / 1440 and you get 1.3 repeating. That means for your MBA to show you the whole image of the picture it needs 1 pixel on your MBA to represent 1.3 pixels of the image. Then you do this for the other number.

So, now that you understand how screen resolutions scale pixels with it's physicals pixels you need to understand retina. What retina is because there are so many physical pixels in a given area at certain distance, the eye cannot make out the tiny dots that produce colors we see.

Screen resolutions and the ability for the eye to detect the small dots that produce the images we see are two different things.

bonskovsky
Jan 2, 2013, 06:55 AM
I think if you asked most people if their eye can see the tiny dots used to make up the colors of an image, most people would tell you that they couldn't see that.

All we care about is standard definition vs. high definition, whether the image is grainy or crisp.

How is it possible that text on a retina display could be sharper than a printed page, when a printed page doesn't have any pixels at all?

vastoholic
Jan 13, 2013, 12:56 PM
How is it possible that text on a retina display could be sharper than a printed page, when a printed page doesn't have any pixels at all?

Sorry to revive this, but printers still print in DPI (dots per inch). They are just much smaller than pixels on a screen, but basically, a printer is still printing a bunch of super tiny pixels. The retina display is as close as you can get in Apple products to reproducing the look of a printed page. Text on the screen isn't sharper than a printed page. It's just that some (possibly most) are able to see the difference between screen printed text and printed text in a book or a magazine.

Krauser
Jan 13, 2013, 10:19 PM
I think if you asked most people if their eye can see the tiny dots used to make up the colors of an image, most people would tell you that they couldn't see that.

All we care about is standard definition vs. high definition, whether the image is grainy or crisp.

How is it possible that text on a retina display could be sharper than a printed page, when a printed page doesn't have any pixels at all?
While this is true to some degree, all eyes are different. Some can see detail better than others. I have 20/15 vision myself and I can make out the pixels on the MacBook I'm using right now sitting a normal distance from it (easily noticeable on round objects like icons and such). My resolution is 1280x800 which makes it slightly higher in resolution than 720p. This is, as you would seem to be implying, a high definition image and is certainly crisp compared to what you would say is standard definition. That said, the difference between the 1280x800 panel of my machine and the 2560x1600 panel on the retina model 13" is drastic. Gone are the usual jaggies and overall "graininess" as you are stating and the higher resolution allows for everything to be "crisp."

micrors4racer
Jan 13, 2013, 11:01 PM
You can imagine how "retina works" by imagining a word spelled out by large blocky legos and then spelling out the word with a lot of smaller legos. The text would look "smoother" with the smaller, more fine legos.

Basically retina is achieved by packing more pixels in the same size/resolution. A 13" 1440x900 MBA still has a higher working/desktop resolution than a 13" 1200x800 rMBP but the rMBP has "retina" or smoother images due to more pixels being packed in. You can do what you did on your MBA which is scaling and this will give the MBP the edge of ultra high res at 2,560 x 1,600 at the cost of readability and loss of "retina".

You mention you are a photo editor and want things retina compatible. If you make your things at the resolution you plan to display them in they will always look crisp on that display even if you made it on a display thats smaller.

What you essentially did by using the quickres program is change your monitor resolution and thats it. This gives you more work space at the expense of grainer smaller text. This used to be more popular back in the CRT monitor days because you can change resolutions without funny things happening. When done to a LCD which supports only a native resolution usually things get fuzzy very quickly.

Technarchy
Jan 13, 2013, 11:14 PM
Sell your MBA and get a RMBP. Instant Retina for you.

bonskovsky
Jan 13, 2013, 11:56 PM
It almost makes me wonder this. What resolution is real life resolution? What does the human actually see in real life with their natural eyes?

micrors4racer
Jan 14, 2013, 12:06 AM
I think the proper question would be what DPI/PPI we see. The eyes have a varying "resolution" since we can move our eyes and our heads and resolution is just a measurement of size while DPI would be something thats closer to the rods and cones in your eyes and what they see.

BlazednSleepy
Jan 14, 2013, 12:20 AM
Retina but "Chunky"?

Are you kidding me? haha

bonskovsky
Jan 14, 2013, 12:40 AM
Yeah the Mbp is hot and heavy and after coming from a Dell I pretty much had PTSD so I went for thin. The skinny.

BlazednSleepy
Jan 14, 2013, 12:44 AM
Yeah the Mbp is hot and heavy and after coming from a Dell I pretty much had PTSD so I went for thin. The skinny.

You do realize the macbook pro with retina display is a actually thinner than the macbook air at it's thickest point? Is it really too heavy? Even the 13inch version?

bonskovsky
Jan 14, 2013, 12:51 AM
You do realize the macbook pro with retina display is a actually thinner than the macbook air at it's thickest point? Is it really too heavy? Even the 13inch version?

Huh? Um, unless I was holding it wrong, no it is not. Lol

simsaladimbamba
Jan 14, 2013, 12:57 AM
You do realize the macbook pro with retina display is a actually thinner than the macbook air at it's thickest point? Is it really too heavy? Even the 13inch version?

The 11" and 13" MBA are 0.3 to 1.7 cm thick, the 13" MacBook Pro with Retina Display is 1.9 cm thick, the 15" MacBook Pro with Retina Display is 1.8 cm thick.

Compare here (http://www.apple.com/macbookair/specs.html) and here (http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs-retina/).

bonskovsky
Jan 14, 2013, 01:04 AM
Yeah, you can see and feel the difference.i don't know where that rumor came from.

BlazednSleepy
Jan 14, 2013, 02:18 AM
Well clearly looking back at the WWDC conference I said the statement wrong. "It's about as thing as a macbook air". .1mm - .2mm thicker than an air is just an incredible and to call it chunky is an over exaggeration. But it's pretty obvious now you care more about weight which is fine.

bonskovsky
Jan 14, 2013, 02:33 AM
You aren't the only one, I heard that statement quoted wrong before. I highly inspected both devices before I bought it. Having your laptop die on you is a traumatic experience.

After years of indecision, the event made me switch from Windows to Apple platform in a split second.

I couldn't stand for loud fans, short batteries, inferior sound quality, plastic build, heat or heaviness. I swear I will never buy another product with any of those. I have a severe aversion to it.

drsox
Jan 14, 2013, 06:50 AM
I couldn't stand for loud fans, short batteries, inferior sound quality, plastic build, heat or heaviness. I swear I will never buy another product with any of those. I have a severe aversion to it.

Absolutely. That's why I have been building my own PCs for years. AND also why I now also have a MacBook Air. Never again will I have a unit with a mechanical drive operating in the same room (except occasionally a DVD drive).

bonskovsky
Jan 14, 2013, 08:12 AM
Lol, I even liked the idea that I could go without having a disc drive. Really? Who needs those things??

Sackvillenb
Jan 14, 2013, 10:09 AM
Oh, so you're saying that no matter how high quality the pictures on the screen are, it'll never be properly represented when the actual physical screen doesn't have the pixel density to display high quality imagery.

Like you said, what was once one pixel is now four pixels. Can't you make up for that by changing the viewing distance?

You will always be limited by your actual screen resolution. Scaling up will help a tiny bit, but your actual resolution will always limit you in the end. Viewing distance will not make up for the fact that the one pixel you're viewing cannot properly represent that data that was contained in 4 pixels. Increasing view distance will indeed give you the retina effect of not being able to see your pixels (that's the definition of retina) but your initial resolution will still be the same. It's like the retina display of an iphone vs that of an ipad. They are both retina, but the ipad can show you much more data, because it actually has more pixels.

Since you work with photos, let me put it this way: scaling on a non retina display is just like taking a photo of a detailed high resolution photo, but you're taking that photo with a low megapixel camera. Those low megapixels will always mean you're losing visual information from your initially high resolution image.

Dominus Mortem
Jan 15, 2013, 12:03 AM
Ok, that's obvious, what I'm asking is there a way to switch to a higher resolution- higher than 1440 x 900?

The thing I noticed about the MacBook Air is that when you play HD videos, it tends not to look HD, I mean even the quality of videos on my Dell looked better, but my Dell actually had a lower resolution.

So maybe 1440 x 900 is too high for HD and I have to turn it down?

Or does it have something to do with the fact that it's an LED screen?

You're talking about interpolation and sampling. The up-res would need to interpolate the current display, which means some data is "made up". Then it would have to sample it down to 1440x900 again, probably getting a worse result than if you just left it alone to begin with. The Air screen just isn't that great. The Air itself is fine, but hardly a match for 1080p movies. You probably should have got the retina. It's so close in size I can't believe anyone really notices the difference. I had a 13" Air and now have the 13" retina and I would never go back. It's actually a bit smaller than the Air in width and length.

rezwits
Jan 15, 2013, 12:26 AM
If you can find an App or PrefPane, that will extend your screen size to a "virtual" screen size, of say 2560 x 1440, then enable HiDPI, on your MacBook which is easy, with a terminal command. You will be able to have double resolution retina graphics on your MacBook Air 11"

You will end up only being able to see 1/4 of the screen at a time (1 corner). But you will have the machine in Retina mode. It will be zoomed up too/tho...

I am going to find an App that does this it's fun. I like the way retina graphics look with 4:1 pixels...

Laters...

rezwits
Jan 15, 2013, 12:51 AM
I found one program that does it. For linux you can use this called newrez

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/increase-resolution-monitors-limit-newrez-linux/

But it would be nice for Mac, I am going to look for another 10 then move on... cause you can't get retina mode while using Linux as far as I know, maybe there is something out there who knows. Would like to wrap this up.

Like I said before the App that used to do it on Mac was called SuperRes. But we're in the 10.8's now days :P

There are a couple of ways with windows, 360Desktop does it, but not with "smooth panning"

One thing that pisses me off, is when you use the Accessibility->Zoom feature in System Prefs, it doesn't kick in the hidden Retina Pixel/Data/Bits bummer

Well that's enough on this, I'll have to google myself to death on some other topic. Give it 3 months to 6 months maybe someone will write a hack or come up with a terminal line that changes the

viewport or view or whatever is the exact screen port you have to change to get what you are looking to do. I wouldn't mind doing it too

Laters...

bonskovsky
Jan 15, 2013, 03:34 AM
I can't tell you how many times I've tested the Macbookd, but I just determined that a 15 inch is way too big and the 13 inch is just a little too chunky.

NutsNGum
Jan 15, 2013, 07:26 AM
I can't tell you how many times I've tested the Macbookd, but I just determined that a 15 inch is way too big and the 13 inch is just a little too chunky.

First World Problems, eh?

bonskovsky
Jan 15, 2013, 12:56 PM
You will always be limited by your actual screen resolution. Scaling up will help a tiny bit, but your actual resolution will always limit you in the end. Viewing distance will not make up for the fact that the one pixel you're viewing cannot properly represent that data that was contained in 4 pixels. Increasing view distance will indeed give you the retina effect of not being able to see your pixels (that's the definition of retina) but your initial resolution will still be the same. It's like the retina display of an iphone vs that of an ipad. They are both retina, but the ipad can show you much more data, because it actually has more pixels.

Since you work with photos, let me put it this way: scaling on a non retina display is just like taking a photo of a detailed high resolution photo, but you're taking that photo with a low megapixel camera. Those low megapixels will always mean you're losing visual information from your initially high resolution image.

Speaking of retina, which Apple device has the best resolution display? The MacBook pro, the iPad 4, or the iPhone five? Which retina rules them all?

NutsNGum
Jan 15, 2013, 02:23 PM
Speaking of retina, which Apple device has the best resolution display? The MacBook pro, the iPad 4, or the iPhone five? Which retina rules them all?

Are you lonely or something? Try using Google.

bonskovsky
Jan 15, 2013, 03:28 PM
I always assumed the iPad 4. But I believe it's the 15 inch MacBook Pro. You can watch 4K video on that, believe it or not.

simsaladimbamba
Jan 15, 2013, 03:39 PM
I always assumed the iPad 4. But I believe it's the 15 inch MacBook Pro. You can watch 4K video on that, believe it or not.

4K video was originally meant for 3" mobiles, but due to pixel density problems, 15" displays are currently the only alternative. Any higher than that, and you would not be able to enjoy those images anyway.

bonskovsky
Jan 15, 2013, 03:48 PM
4K video was originally meant for 3" mobiles, but due to pixel density problems, 15" displays are currently the only alternative. Any higher than that, and you would not be able to enjoy those images anyway.

Huh?

Snowshiro
Jan 15, 2013, 05:30 PM
I always assumed the iPad 4. But I believe it's the 15 inch MacBook Pro. You can watch 4K video on that, believe it or not.

No you can't.

You can watch footage shot at 4k and downscaled to the retina's native resolution. 4K video means a horizontal resolution of approximately 4,000 pixels (give or take a couple of hundred depending on the standard). The rMBP 15" has a native horizontal resolution of 2880.

Really, I've read this whole thread, and despite many kind people trying to inform you about how these things work, you seem to have completely failed to grasp the basic concepts of how screens function. The best advice I can give you is go and read up on what screen resolution and pixel density actually are. You really need to get these things straight in your mind.

bonskovsky
Jan 15, 2013, 06:13 PM
No you can't.

You can watch footage shot at 4k and downscaled to the retina's native resolution. 4K video means a horizontal resolution of approximately 4,000 pixels (give or take a couple of hundred depending on the standard). The rMBP 15" has a native horizontal resolution of 2880.

Really, I've read this whole thread, and despite many kind people trying to inform you about how these things work, you seem to have completely failed to grasp the basic concepts of how screens function. The best advice I can give you is go and read up on what screen resolution and pixel density actually are. You really need to get these things straight in your mind.

What's wrong with downscaling? I mean, it's the highest quality video there is. Just take basic high definition, you could just keep increasing and increasing but what would you end up with?

I mean, 5 years down the line, retina is not going to impress anybody.

NT1440
Jan 15, 2013, 06:18 PM
Like with the iPad mini, you can't have thin and retina.

Uh, IGZO displays hit it big this year. Please don't just throw generalities out there when clearly you don't follow or understand the technology behind any of these products.

Snowshiro
Jan 15, 2013, 11:36 PM
What's wrong with downscaling?

Nothing. I was simply pointing out that you can't watch 4k video on a 15" retina MacBook without it.

xPurpleblob
Jan 16, 2013, 01:57 AM
You see, I'm a photo editor and a blogger. I liked using different tactics to make sure that all of my material is in retina display.



pfft :p

Ricanlegend
Jan 16, 2013, 01:14 PM
pfft :p
If hes a photo editor i must be a victoria secret model lol

rezwits
Jan 27, 2013, 09:10 PM
SwitchResX will get you 1920x1080 on your MacBook Air 11"

You can also enable 960x540 HiDPI with Quartz Debug, and enable that Resolution too...

Don't try to make a custom of 2560x1440 or you will have to do tricks to get your display back.

There might be other resolutions you can try if you want to fiddle, but they will all be beta test resolutions...

Good Luck!

dlimes13
Jan 27, 2013, 09:53 PM
I just enabled 1680 x 1050 with SwitchResX on a scaled resolution and I have to say it doesn't look bad at all. Great way to get some extra screen real estate out of the MacBook Air with very little sacrifice in screen quality. Maybe 80% of the quality of native resolution is there. 1920 x 1200 also works fine, but only around 60%. If I can find a way to sharpen text just a tad, I'd use this all the time. 1680 x 1050 that is.

E.Lizardo
Jan 27, 2013, 10:07 PM
Are you lonely or something? Try using Google.

I think you nailed it!
Check his other threads(if you dare)