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).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Running the Retina MacBook Pro at Full 2880x1800 Resolution
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
What is "Retina Display"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I like my 1900x1080 37" LCD display, but I'm sure Apple could make a great 37"-51" monitor with a high resolution...
Most programs can scale well. I just hope the Apple TV is at least this high of resolution.
I like my 1900x1080 37" LCD display, but I'm sure Apple could make a great 37"-51" monitor with a high resolution...
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.
----------
Or use the TIMG tag.
I was searching for a post that said this before I posted one myself. I totally 10)% agree wholeheartedly.
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.
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.
- "not authorized by Apple"?
If I buy the hardware I will do with it as I please.
Okay, but OS X is software, so leave it alone
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!
not true
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!
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!