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

13" MBP Retina actual resolution

H

Handle

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 16, 2013
143
0
What's the actual resolution of the 13" MBR Retina display? I know it says 2560 by 1600, but on a 13" display that must be really small. I assume they have a lower resolution set to use?
 
Handle said:
What's the actual resolution of the 13" MBR Retina display? I know it says 2560 by 1600, but on a 13" display that must be really small. I assume they have a lower resolution set to use?
Click to expand...

I forget the proper terminology to use, but it's a virtual 1280x800

With SwitchResX you can set a number of different resolutions. I usually use 1440*900
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 13.26.34.png
    Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 13.26.34.png
    30.5 KB · Views: 320
The resolution is always 2560x1600. The OS X emulates a range of 'normal' resolutions rendered with true sub-pixel precision for improved visuals. In simpler terms, it may look as if you are using the 1280x800 resolution (same size of icons etc.), but with much improved details.
 
1,280x800 makes sense since it scales out.

But if the native resolution is 2,560x1,600 then I don't understand how you can use a resolution of 1,440x900? Wouldn't it be blurry because the pixels won't scale out correctly?
 
Handle said:
1,280x800 makes sense since it scales out.

But if the native resolution is 2,560x1,600 then I don't understand how you can use a resolution of 1,440x900? Wouldn't it be blurry because the pixels won't scale out correctly?
Click to expand...

You don't understand, OS X fakes a 1440x900 resolution on a 2,560x1,600 display so that everything looks gorgeous. You have the same space as a 1440x900 screen but with 4x more pixels.

It's basically the same as when the iPhone 4 with the new retina display came out, it had a higher resolution but the same screen real estate as the iphone 2g-3gs.
 
ionjohn said:
You don't understand, OS X fakes a 1440x900 resolution on a 2,560x1,600 display so that everything looks gorgeous. You have the same space as a 1440x900 screen but with 4x more pixels.
Click to expand...
That's the thing, it's 4X more pixels than 1,280x800, (not 1440x900) so it scales perfectly. But with 1440x900 it doesn't scale out at all, so a single pixel might be shared across 2 pixels.

It's basically the same as when the iPhone 4 with the new retina display came out, it had a higher resolution but the same screen real estate as the iphone 2g-3gs.
Click to expand...
What was the old and new resolution? I'm willing to bet that it scaled out.

EDIT: I looked it up, the 3GS had 480X320 res while the Retina jumped to 960×640. That's double the pixel width and height which means it's 4 pixels to 1, a perfect match and perfectly scalable.

So that makes perfect sense, just like using 1,280x800 resolution on a 2,560x1,600 display. What I can't figure out is how you use 1440x900 with clarity.
 
Handle said:
1,280x800 makes sense since it scales out.

But if the native resolution is 2,560x1,600 then I don't understand how you can use a resolution of 1,440x900? Wouldn't it be blurry because the pixels won't scale out correctly?
Click to expand...

It renders at high-dpi resolution x2 and then downscales it to fit the screen
 
Handle said:
That's the thing, it's 4X more pixels than 1,280x800, (not 1440x900) so it scales perfectly. But with 1440x900 it doesn't scale out at all, so a single pixel might be shared across 2 pixels.


What was the old and new resolution? I'm willing to bet that it scaled out.

EDIT: I looked it up, the 3GS had 480X320 res while the Retina jumped to 960×640. That's double the pixel width and height which means it's 4 pixels to 1, a perfect match and perfectly scalable.

So that makes perfect sense, just like using 1,280x800 resolution on a 2,560x1,600 display. What I can't figure out is how you use 1440x900 with clarity.
Click to expand...

OS X allows you to choose between 4 resolutions on the 13 inch, 1680x1050, 1440x900, 1,280x800, 1024x640 pixels.

1,280x800 is the default faked resolution

i don't know how it works but it does and it's awesome. I personally prefer 1440x900 and 1680x1050. The added work space is really welcome
 
Handle said:
That's the thing, it's 4X more pixels than 1,280x800, (not 1440x900) so it scales perfectly. But with 1440x900 it doesn't scale out at all, so a single pixel might be shared across 2 pixels.


What was the old and new resolution? I'm willing to bet that it scaled out.

EDIT: I looked it up, the 3GS had 480X320 res while the Retina jumped to 960×640. That's double the pixel width and height which means it's 4 pixels to 1, a perfect match and perfectly scalable.

So that makes perfect sense, just like using 1,280x800 resolution on a 2,560x1,600 display. What I can't figure out is how you use 1440x900 with clarity.
Click to expand...

It's not absolutely crystal clear like it is at the native set up but it's pretty good. Certainly usable. It is scaled but it still looks very nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back