Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Small White Car

macrumors G4
Aug 29, 2006
10,966
1,463
Washington DC
Won't the increase in pixels put an increased strain on the GPU? Apple doesn't supply very powerful ones to begin with. I imagine if people want to do any 3D work it would maybe then cause performance issues?

I'm betting that the "Open in HIDPI" button in that screenshot will change to "Don't Open in HIDPI" in the final version.

Just like the "Open in 32 Bit" option, it'll be there for those who need it. Yeah, probably After Effects and Motion users will end up disabling it for those programs.

I believe the problem being referred to exists more with 3rd party displays rather than the Apple displays.

Perhaps, but I still think that's a great bit of knowledge for developers...that a 2013 Mac product will work the same, screen-wise, as a 2011 version of that same product.

Which is all I'm saying...that this is helpful info to have.
 

kiljoy616

macrumors 68000
Apr 17, 2008
1,795
0
USA
So what is going to run this video wise. That is a lot of pixels to push, have to wonder what new GPU are going to be implemented for the Pro and then Air.
 

akira2501

macrumors regular
Mar 4, 2008
104
0
for the geeks

the normal consumer who doesnt come here will buy and buy away. this is for us so that we can drool and buy one when it comes out. Do you really think this billon dollar company is dumb enough to leave this stuff in the code without trying to start rumors. It's a controlled leak. Behold the awesomeness of apple's marketing dept.
 

thesheep

macrumors regular
Mar 27, 2006
131
9
I wish people would stop saying "provide developers with an easy way to scale existing artwork" when it's about computers, that's just nonsense.

That might be true for devices with known, fixed resolutions that are upgraded (ex: iPhone's 320x480 upgraded to the iPhone 4's 640x960), but it's completely pointless for computers which have various resolutions to begin with.

Whilst they don't target a specific overall screen size, the various UI components (buttons, menus, lists, etc) are usually created at a specific size. This would give developers a way to increase the resolution (quality) of these graphics, keeping the size the same.
 

somebody else

macrumors member
Feb 1, 2011
31
0
NJ
New displays

So are they going to have a unified resolution for the Macbook Pro's? Right now they have the 1680 x 1050 and the 1440 x 900. Are they pixel doubling the former or the latter? I really don't want to lose the extra estate the higher resolution afforded, but wouldn't mind if they increased the resolution as a whole and pixel doubled that.

Yeah what is the deal here - will they only offer one screen resolution? Will the new "retina" screen still be better than the current upgrade to 1680 x 1050?
 

mbh

macrumors 6502
Jul 18, 2002
400
73
Since we are talking about pixels here, not printer dots, shouldn't this mode be called "HiPPI" ? :D
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,546
1,196
I wish people would stop saying "provide developers with an easy way to scale existing artwork" when it's about computers, that's just nonsense.

That might be true for devices with known, fixed resolutions that are upgraded (ex: iPhone's 320x480 upgraded to the iPhone 4's 640x960), but it's completely pointless for computers which have various resolutions to begin with.

Not relevant: you’re thinking about the “working area”—or whatever you want to call it: the size of windows and buttons as seen and experience by the user. That varies and always has.

This feature is nothing to do with the size of the display itself, but rather the pixel density. That matters just as much when the display size is unknown as when it is known. Your own quote makes the point: “scale existing artwork.” Not scale entire apps and UIs—we’ve met that challenge long ago. But scale the artwork, specifically.

The statement refers primarily to onscreen elements. Buttons, icons, and other user interface elements need to be scaled up so that they appear at the same relative size as on current-resolution displays.

Exactly! The challenges of a desktop app are NOT the same as for an iOS app.

Desktop apps already have to adapt to different “working area” sizes. Doubling the res doesn’t add that much to that challenge: the app doubles automatically and the “working area” remains the same. The app often need not even be aware that each pixel now means two. The OS will handle most of that.

It’s the assets within the app that are a challenge to scale, and using an even double IS a big help.
 

jhende7

macrumors regular
May 19, 2010
150
37
I wish people would stop saying "provide developers with an easy way to scale existing artwork" when it's about computers, that's just nonsense.

That might be true for devices with known, fixed resolutions that are upgraded (ex: iPhone's 320x480 upgraded to the iPhone 4's 640x960), but it's completely pointless for computers which have various resolutions to begin with.

Nobody out there makes software that targets exactly 1440x900. Computer users use anything between 640x480 up to 2560x2048. Even the aspect ratio isn't fixed.

It's still a lot more convenient to scale interface elements in multiples (ie 2X) then to scale them some awkward resolution. It's lot easier to scale a 2X2 image to 4X4, instead of scaling some weird increment.

Additionally, the resolution doubling makes it a practical move for the development environment for Retina iPhone and iPad displays. For instance a Retina iPad graphic on a Retina MBP, will look the same as a non-Retina iPad graphic on a non-retina MBP. By consistently doubling the resolution of all products the only perceived difference for developers will be the clarity of the graphics.
 
Last edited:

dagamer34

macrumors 65816
May 1, 2007
1,359
101
Houston, TX
I shudder to think how much power the GPU will be sucking down to push that many pixels on screen. That's more than the 27" ACD.
 

Phenotype

macrumors newbie
Mar 22, 2011
10
0
As a Web Designer this makes very little sense to me. Every 72 DPI web graphic you view on a HiDPI display is going to be pixelated because it will have to scale to double the size. So what does this mean for Web Designers? Will we be forced to create 2 versions of every website? And every website that isn't HiDPI is going to look awful on a HiDPI monitor?
 

avanpelt

macrumors 68030
Jun 2, 2010
2,956
3,877
Maybe I'm just dense, but am I really going to notice the improvement of a "retina display" when I sit a foot and a half away from the screen? My phone is usually four to six inches from my face, and I can definitely see a difference between, say, an iPhone 3G and an iPhone 4.

Apple displays are crazy expensive as it is. How much more of a premium will a "retina display" be and would it really be worth it -- that's the million dollar question.
 

Yvan256

macrumors 603
Jul 5, 2004
5,081
998
Canada
As a Web Designer this makes very little sense to me. Every 72 DPI web graphic you view on a HiDPI display is going to be pixelated because it will have to scale to double the size. So what does this mean for Web Designers? Will we be forced to create 2 versions of every website? And every website that isn't HiDPI is going to look awful on a HiDPI monitor?

Just zoom every element at twice the size. Means the exact same image as far as bitmaps are concerned but sharper text rendering.

Most decent browsers can already do this. Last time I checked, Opera even had the setting in percentage.
 

timd.mackey

macrumors member
Jun 8, 2010
34
27
As a Web Designer this makes very little sense to me. Every 72 DPI web graphic you view on a HiDPI display is going to be pixelated because it will have to scale to double the size. So what does this mean for Web Designers? Will we be forced to create 2 versions of every website? And every website that isn't HiDPI is going to look awful on a HiDPI monitor?

If you leave your images at the same resolution, you have only 2 options when doubling the pixel density of a screen. Either all your images become ridiculously small (which is what would happen with current software), or they get scaled to the right size with slightly less sharpness than if they were full-resolution for that screen's pixel density. Apple's solution makes perfect sense when applied to current websites.
 

heisetax

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2004
944
0
Omaha, NE
What is new here?

The only thing that would make this new is if this was to make an easy way to change the resolution of the display used without changing the size of the output. It isn't just the size of the buttons & icons that cause a problem. I know that it is a lot harder for those that are becoming more visually challenged that the 1920 X 1200 resolution on the 17" MacBook Pro makes most items very hard to read. Part of that may be because I use 30" displays,a 28" one & a 47" one. So most things are at a much larger size.

This work needs to be done whether any new displays are ever made,
 

quazitron

macrumors newbie
Nov 23, 2011
1
0
As a Web Designer this makes very little sense to me. Every 72 DPI web graphic you view on a HiDPI display is going to be pixelated because it will have to scale to double the size. So what does this mean for Web Designers? Will we be forced to create 2 versions of every website? And every website that isn't HiDPI is going to look awful on a HiDPI monitor?

DPI doesn't make *any* difference on a screen. It's pixels that count. 72 is not a magic number, and you will not be affected.

http://www.dpiphoto.eu/dpi.htm
 

Ryth

macrumors 68000
Apr 21, 2011
1,591
157
Seriously...just take my money already...been waiting for this MBPro for a year now.
 

hayesk

macrumors 65816
May 20, 2003
1,459
101
I shudder to think how much power the GPU will be sucking down to push that many pixels on screen. That's more than the 27" ACD.

Uhm... said machines are capable of driving two, sometimes, three 27" ACDs today. One slightly higher than a 27" ACD will be handled just fine.

----------

As a Web Designer this makes very little sense to me. Every 72 DPI web graphic you view on a HiDPI display is going to be pixelated because it will have to scale to double the size. So what does this mean for Web Designers? Will we be forced to create 2 versions of every website? And every website that isn't HiDPI is going to look awful on a HiDPI monitor?

Remember, the pixels will be twice as small, so it will look pretty much the same. Doubling an image is not a problem. It's when you don't have integer scaling factors that it becomes a problem. And if put in the effort you make 144 dpi web graphics, they'll just look much better.

Unless you are a terrible web developer, you won't have to create two versions of every web site. Non-HiDPI images will look the same, Hi-DPI images will look better. As long as you pay attention to the scaling factor that is already accessible and supported in web browsers today, you'll be fine.
 

marcusj0015

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2011
1,024
1
U.S.A.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

This is coming with Ivy Bridge? I wonder how this relates to the possible move to nVidia for graphics, and how the performance of Ive Bridge gpu can handle that Rez.

Edit: I mean with gpu enhanced ui elements like melt into dock and shadows. I find weak GPUs slow significantly with resolution.

In any case, I'll probably wait for rev. b if they make such a huge hardware change like this.

I SO hope they stick with AMD for graphics.

especially since the 7x series has DirectX 11.1 :D
 

marcusj0015

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2011
1,024
1
U.S.A.
Well, wait.

If I have some software that appears to be 6" x 4" on a 15" Macbook Pro, I will know that it will be 6" x 4" on a retina 15" Macbook Pro. (Rather than the expected 3" x 2" which would necessitate changes on my end.)

As a developer that's useful information. It means I can start work on making sure it works fine on a 27" iMac and an 11" Air but that I DON'T have to spend time making 2 versions for both 'old' and 'new' 15" Macbooks.

Knowing what I do and do not have to spend time working on is not "nonsense."

Ok, but how won't this doubled image be doubled on the non-retina devices? is there a script or something that will load the right images?
 

Small White Car

macrumors G4
Aug 29, 2006
10,966
1,463
Washington DC
Ok, but how won't this doubled image be doubled on the non-retina devices? is there a script or something that will load the right images?

No no....I'm talking about the other way around. I'm talking about the developer who does nothing to their program. So:

Original Image on old screen: Normal
Original Image on new screen: System automatically doubles both ways

So the point is that a developer doesn't HAVE to change anything if he or she doesn't want to.

What you're talking about is the developer who wants to go in and change their software to have higher-resolution graphics. In that case I'm not sure if they'll have to put both sizes in their program of if they'll somehow code it know when and where to shrink to half size. I don't know how that works.

But the point is that that person has gone out of their way because they want to mess around with their program. They'll learn what they need to do because they want to.

But all of my other comments were about the opposite person...the developers who don't update their apps.
 

Fraaaa

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,081
0
London, UK
Nice thing. How about a cinema display with a graphic card that can be plug to the Thunderbolt port in my MacBook Air?
 

sampers

macrumors member
Apr 7, 2010
55
0
Belgium
So for now checking the box doesn't do anything? why is it there then..

If it is something in the line of doubling an image, can't it be more viewable when monitor is put in lower resolution?
let's say you put the monitor in 800*600 of a screen that's capable of showing 1920*1200. than maybe if checking that box means doubling, the monitor should be capable of doing it?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.