OS X Lion's HiDPI Modes Lay Groundwork for Retina Monitors

MacRumors · Jul 25, 2011

With the release of Lion, users can now see some of the groundwork that Apple has laid down in OS X for ultra high resolution displays. We covered Apple's support of these new "HiDPI" modes while OS X Lion was still in beta.

For those who have downloaded Apple's Xcode for Lion, you can enable "HiDPI" mode in the Quartz Debug application found in the Developer directory. Once enabled, OS X's Displays control panel offers additional 1/4 (and lower) resolution sizes as shown here on a 30" Cinema Display with a native resolution of 2560x1600:

Unfortunately, there's not much to see yet. The 1280x800 HiDPI resolution shown here represents exactly 1/4 of the area of the native resolution of the 30" Cinema Display and simply offers you a zoomed in view on present day monitors.

The reasoning is that when displays do reach ultra high resolutions and dots per inch (DPI), simply drawing the OS X interface as-is would result in very small interface elements. Apple's solution is to scale all on-screen elements automatically by a factor of two (in each direction).

So, in the future, we might be using 2560x1600 (HiDPI) mode on a theoretical 30" 5120x3200 pixel display. All user interface elements would stay the same size as today's 30" Cinema Display, but when available, higher resolution textures would be used to render the graphics. This is the same way that it worked when Apple transitioned from the original iPhone resolution to the iPhone 4's retina display.

Arstechnica offers a good example screenshot showing this in effect. Fonts already render in the higher resolution while bitmapped graphics demonstrate a blocky effect as they have not yet been replaced with high resolution ("Retina") graphics.

The groundwork is there now, so when technology catches up, we could see double-DPI Retina displays in our future.

Article Link: OS X Lion's HiDPI Modes Lay Groundwork for Retina Monitors

MetalHaze · Jul 25, 2011

What? Apple can render arrows with system code for drop downs but not the arrows in the ruler for the Text Edit app?

talkingfuture · Jul 25, 2011

Cool, will be interesting to see where this goes and when we get displays like this.

jessea · Jul 25, 2011

This will have interesting ramifications for gaming on the Mac.

kalsta · Jul 25, 2011

It's great to FINALLY see half-decent resolution independence on the Mac.

On my 2011 MBP (with high-res anti-glare option), the interface is already getting too small IMO, but 2x would be way too big. It would be nice to have something in between.

MacBoobsPro · Jul 25, 2011

Why not go vector based? Then it will scale to whatever you like.

arn · Jul 25, 2011

MacBoobsPro said:
Why not go vector based? Then it will scale to whatever you like.

because it's hard to make all graphics into vectors?

arn

gnasher729 · Jul 25, 2011

MacBoobsPro said:
Why not go vector based? Then it will scale to whatever you like.

You're not a software developer, are you?
Scaling is not the problem. Scaling and not looking like ****, that is the problem.

MacBoobsPro · Jul 25, 2011

arn said:
because it's hard to make all graphics into vectors?

arn

Why? I bet they are all drawn in Illustrator and not Photoshop. It's actually easier to create them as vectors. How you implement them is different and harder one would imagine but surely Apple can manage it.

gnasher729 said:
You're not a software developer, are you?
Scaling is not the problem. Scaling and not looking like ****, that is the problem.

No I'm a graphic designer that uses both Illustrator and Photoshop. Admittedly I dont know how to implement the code for the UI but isn't the fact that a set size image is being scaled that makes it look "like ****?"

If it was a vector it would scale and not look like '****'.

L-U-R-C-H · Jul 25, 2011

How will anyone get high-res wallpapers?! There's no way I'd switch if I can't get a full resolution wallpaper from Interface Lift.

winston1236 · Jul 25, 2011

MacBoobsPro said:
Why? I bet they are all drawn in Illustrator and not Photoshop. It's actually easier to create them as vectors. How you implement them is different and harder one would imagine but surely Apple can manage it.

No I'm a graphic designer that uses both Illustrator and Photoshop. Admittedly I dont know how to implement the code for the UI but isn't the fact that a set resolution image is being scaled that makes it look "like ****?"

If it was a vector it would scale and not look like '****'.

Maybe, but I know for a fact vector file sizes are much larger

MacBoobsPro · Jul 25, 2011

winston1236 said:
Maybe, but I know for a fact vector file sizes are much larger

No they are much smaller. They contain less information.

kalsta · Jul 25, 2011

MacBoobsPro said:
Why not go vector based? Then it will scale to whatever you like.

Well the fonts already are of course. But it gets a bit messier when you have to turn every single graphic into a vector. The other option is to make really big bitmaps and let the system scale everything proportionally, but it's never going to be as sharp and precise as designing graphics to be pixel perfect. Apple was originally trying for true resolution independence, but evidently they scrapped that approach for a much simpler one.

nelmat · Jul 25, 2011

winston1236 said:
Maybe, but I know for a fact vector file sizes are much larger

That's a joke, right?

One of the joys of vector graphics is smaller file sizes as standard as opposed to bitmap images.

benpatient · Jul 25, 2011

I remember this exact same post (with a similar example screenshot) back when resolution independence first showed up 6 years ago with 10.4 in the optional install files (Quartz Debug).

Note the screenshot on this site, and the date.

Leopard and Resolution Independence

Pretty disappointing when you compare that with another screenshot from the same debug mode in 2011.

MacBoobsPro · Jul 25, 2011

kalsta said:
Well the fonts already are of course. But it gets a bit messier when you have to turn every single graphic into a vector. The other option is to make really big bitmaps and let the system scale everything proportionally, but it's never going to be as sharp and precise as designing graphics to be pixel perfect. Apple was originally trying for true resolution independence, but evidently they scrapped that approach for a much simpler one.

I think they will of originally been drawn as vectors (maybe Im wrong) then fine tuned in PS as bitmaps. I see where you are coming from with the 'pixel perfect' thing but I still dont think there would be that much (if any) difference.

kalsta · Jul 25, 2011

MacBoobsPro said:
No they are much smaller. They contain less information.

nelmat said:
That's a joke, right?

One of the joys of vector graphics is smaller file sizes as standard as opposed to bitmap images.

You guys are simply wrong. And a graphic designer MacBoobsPro? The shame. The sort of pixel dimensions we're talking about here are still relatively small. It's not like we're needing to scale a logo up to have it appear on a billboard. Consider the traffic light window controls. If you can make one of these in Illustrator and output a vector file smaller than the actual bitmap (or indeed anywhere near the same size) I'll eat my MBP.

benpatient · Jul 25, 2011

kalsta said:
Well the fonts already are of course. But it gets a bit messier when you have to turn every single graphic into a vector. The other option is to make really big bitmaps and let the system scale everything proportionally, but it's never going to be as sharp and precise as designing graphics to be pixel perfect. Apple was originally trying for true resolution independence, but evidently they scrapped that approach for a much simpler one.

This doesn't seem to bother Apple in the slightest. They've got pixel-based icons filling up my dock right now, and every one of them can scale from 3 inches tall to .2 inches tall on my mac and still retain its visual identity and clarity. Everything has to be rendered out to pixels eventually to go on the screen, but the longer you wait to go from lines and curves to pixels, the more responsive it will be.

Skika · Jul 25, 2011

Wow, i am really becoming interested in the 2012 redesigned MacBook Pros.

MacBoobsPro · Jul 25, 2011

kalsta said:
You guys are simply wrong. And a graphic designer MacBoobsPro? The shame. The sort of pixel dimensions we're talking about here are still relatively small. It's not like we're needing to scale a logo up to have it appear on a billboard. Consider the traffic light window controls. If you can make one of these in Illustrator and output a vector file smaller than the actual bitmap (or indeed anywhere near the same size) I'll eat my MBP.

So having 50 different files for one image is better than one vector file? Yes a tiny bitmap may be smaller in filesize to the same vector file but try scaling them and what happens?

We are talking about increasing resolutions which means larger and larger bitmaps are needed. Eventually you will reach a size where the 'tiny' bitmaps are no longer tiny and you still have 50 of them.

Hellhammer · Jul 25, 2011

As of today, there is only on commercially available display with higher resolution than 2560x1600 and it's quite expensive, $36,000.

http://www.techpowerup.com/147941/N...EIZO-Packs-4096-x-2160-Pixels-Resolution.html

I wouldn't expect "retina monitors" anytime soon.

woocintosh · Jul 25, 2011

winston1236 said:
Maybe, but I know for a fact vector file sizes are much larger

No, it's not. Vector file sizes are much smaller but need much more calculation to draw them on screen.

kalsta · Jul 25, 2011

benpatient said:
This doesn't seem to bother Apple in the slightest. They've got pixel-based icons filling up my dock right now, and every one of them can scale from 3 inches tall to .2 inches tall on my mac and still retain its visual identity and clarity.

The icons in my Dock are quite small (because I clearly have too many things in there), and they're beginning to look pretty smudgy. By contrast, all the interface elements which haven't been scaled look super sharp. That's the difference.

Look, if you guys don't have a problem with the appearance of smudgy scaling of pixels, just go into your System Preferences and choose the non-native screen resolution that suits you. Problem solved!

SlaunchaMan · Jul 25, 2011

I cant wait to say, Oh, I dont want to watch that 1080p video on my Mac, itll look like crap!

gnasher729 · Jul 25, 2011

MacBoobsPro said:
So having 50 different files for one image is better than one vector file? Yes a tiny bitmap may be smaller in filesize to the same vector file but try scaling them and what happens?

We are talking about increasing resolutions which means larger and larger bitmaps are needed. Eventually you will reach a size where the 'tiny' bitmaps are no longer tiny and you still have 50 of them.

I guess you should switch careers and tell Apple and all those app developers how to do it right. Look, you are a graphics designer, or so you say, and I'm a software developer. I have to make software work right and look right. You don't. 'nough said.

OS X Lion's HiDPI Modes Lay Groundwork for Retina Monitors

macrumors bot

macrumors newbie

macrumors 65816

macrumors member

macrumors 68000

macrumors 603

macrumors god

Suspended

macrumors 603

macrumors regular

macrumors 68000

macrumors 603

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68000

macrumors 603

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68030

macrumors 603

Moderator emeritus

macrumors member

macrumors 68000

macrumors member

Suspended

Our Staff