XCode and Civilization V

dyn said:

The scaled versions are just the basic resolutions we've known for years multiplied by 2 (not by 4! that's mathematically incorrect). It makes everything look crisp and the same size as we were used too.

There are also resolutions that are non-scaled. What Apple does there is multiply them by 2 and then scale it back down to fit the physical pixels. That's why it is "like resolution R" and not "resolution R". And that's also why it looks either bigger or smaller and a little bit fuzzy. The fuzzyness is due to the fact that it is not the native resolution of the panel. It is something that is calculated which means that you do lose information (read: pixels). It will happen to both retina and non-retina panels. Retina panels only show less fuzzyness due to the much higher pixel density; it's just sharper by nature.

Click to expand...

Not sure whether you are referring to me or not, but we have now officially hijacked this thread, unfortunately. Apologies to the OP.

Firstly, every single resolution that is not equal to the actual 1 to 1 physical pixels of the screen is a "scaled" resolution by definition. This is true whether or not the resolution being rendered is a whole multiple of the native physical resolution or not. The method you describe is the one used by Apple to create the best possible rendering of a scaled resolution for hiDPI purposes. It works extremely well for them.

For those scaled resolutions that look like a lower number of physical pixels than the screen has, the fuzziness is not very pronounced, and is not created by a lack of physical pixels (because there is actually more pixels than the resolution being displayed), but by the fact that there is not an exact pixel doubling scaling factor.

In contrast to this, those scaled resolutions that look like a higher number of physical pixels do suffer significantly more, because there aren't enough physical pixels to display that resolution, so you do actually have physically missing pixels.

Resolution actually says nothing about pixels and vice versa. They are separate things. The problem lies in the fact that since the beginning we've tied them together. With modern hidpi/retina displays things are done differently. Resolution is now tied to something different. IIRC Apple calls them pixel points which would be a group of 4 pixels. This new way of doing things makes it rather difficult for a lot of people to grasp.

Anyway, the main thing to understand is that every resolution that cannot be translated easily to the pixels will require some computing. That means there will be some dataloss. It's the same way as things like jpeg and mp3 work. Even digital cameras do this. It has to calculate for things that aren't there (either physical pixels in case of larger resolution or the virtual ones in case of lower resolutions).

The new MacBook is no different. In the end you pick between a nice and crispy screen or something that is a bit more fuzzy but gives you either bigger letters or more workspace (and smaller letters). With the hidpi/retina displays you simply get away easier with this. It is, however, important to understand that the resolution that is actually used is twice the one you get. That means running anything but the default resolution will have an impact on computing power. In case of the MacBook with the Core M this can make quite a change. It's not the fastest machine so better leave it at the default resolution for best performance.

This isn't really true. The default of the MacBook is 1280x800 which is not half the actual resolution (unlike other retina laptops). Additionally, I've been running at 1440x900 and I see no performance difference.

That's for the older 13" model. This new one is a 12" display and runs at 1152x720 (x2 makes 2304x1440) so the bump to 1440x900 is actually a bit larger. Running 1440x900 would mean that it is actually 2880x1800 scaled to fit the physical pixels of the display. Since it is not that much different from the default resolution the impact is not that big. However, this machine is not a powerhorse!

dyn said:

That's for the older 13" model. This new one is a 12" display and runs at 1152x720 (x2 makes 2304x1440) so the bump to 1440x900 is actually a bit larger. Running 1440x900 would mean that it is actually 2880x1800 scaled to fit the physical pixels of the display. Since it is not that much different from the default resolution the impact is not that big. However, this machine is not a powerhorse!

Click to expand...

It runs as 1280x800 in default mode, not 1152x720 -- it's not a perfect 2x scale for this machine by default. You can confirm this by going into the display settings and for default scaled, it says "Looks like 1280x800".

MyopicPaideia said:

See my attached zoom in of your 3840x2400 screen shot. I'd like to do the same to native resolution and Apple's default retina resolution to illustrate the vast difference.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but you have a MBA, right? You're right that it's not one-for-one pixel fidelity, but on a retina screen you can't notice any of the imperfections like you can on the Air. It's 4 times as sharp.

justin216 said:

It runs as 1280x800 in default mode, not 1152x720 -- it's not a perfect 2x scale for this machine by default. You can confirm this by going into the display settings and for default scaled, it says "Looks like 1280x800".

Click to expand...

No it doesn't run in 1280x800 mode hence the use of the words "looks like". What it does is run it at twice the size (2560x1600) and then scale it back to the physical pixels on the display. That's how Apple's retina displays work. All of them.

The default resolution on this MacBook is "default for display". If you look at the MacBook specs you'll find that they mention 2304x1440 as the default resolution. Since this is retina mode by default we need to divide it by 2 and thus we'll get 1152x720. You'll have the same workspace as when you take a non-retina Mac and set the resolution to 1152x720. The only difference is the sharpness. The MacBook has a much sharper display.

dyn said:

No it doesn't run in 1280x800 mode hence the use of the words "looks like". What it does is run it at twice the size (2560x1600) and then scale it back to the physical pixels on the display. That's how Apple's retina displays work. All of them.

The default resolution on this MacBook is "default for display". If you look at the MacBook specs you'll find that they mention 2304x1440 as the default resolution. Since this is retina mode by default we need to divide it by 2 and thus we'll get 1152x720. You'll have the same workspace as when you take a non-retina Mac and set the resolution to 1152x720. The only difference is the sharpness. The MacBook has a much sharper display.

Click to expand...

a) He mentioned specifically how 2x Retina works in his post, so there was no need for you to "correct" him.

b) on the Macbook, "Default" is "looks like 1200 x 800," NOT "looks like 1152 x 720. You're wrong.

dyn said:

No it doesn't run in 1280x800 mode hence the use of the words "looks like". What it does is run it at twice the size (2560x1600) and then scale it back to the physical pixels on the display. That's how Apple's retina displays work. All of them.

The default resolution on this MacBook is "default for display". If you look at the MacBook specs you'll find that they mention 2304x1440 as the default resolution. Since this is retina mode by default we need to divide it by 2 and thus we'll get 1152x720. You'll have the same workspace as when you take a non-retina Mac and set the resolution to 1152x720. The only difference is the sharpness. The MacBook has a much sharper display.

Click to expand...

Yep, you're wrong, the screen is literally rendered at an effective 1280x800 out of the box. There's a 1152x720 option in Display settings, but it's not the size selected by default. It surprised me as well. I'm quite well aware how Apple has defined Retina up to this point, I am a app and web dev after all, I kind of deal with these things for a living

matt2053 said:

a) He mentioned specifically how 2x Retina works in his post, so there was no need for you to "correct" him.

Click to expand...

Your definition of replying to someone or placing a post on a forum is incorrect. You don't do this to "correct" people, you also do this to add things, emphasise what they are saying, make things a little more clear and so on. In this case I'm clearly taking his side and adding to his correct explanation.

b) on the Macbook, "Default" is "looks like 1200 x 800," NOT "looks like 1152 x 720. You're wrong.

Click to expand...

It's not my information therefore I am not wrong. The information is from Apple thus they are wrong. If you feel that way please bug them about it instead of me. I do not control their documentation nor website nor software nor hardware.

The problem is that both you and justin216 absolutely do not understand what retina is nor what I'm saying nor what "looks like" means. From the MacBook specs at apple.com:

2304-by-1440 resolution at 226 pixels per inch with support for millions of colors

Click to expand...

That's what the display is doing. No more than that number of pixel and no less. The problem with that is when you match the actual resolution of the OS to that of the display. Fonts and all other elements will become really small. Apple solves this by blowing things up and it uses a fixed number for that: 2. Both horizontal and vertical thus 2x2; that's the reason why we talk about retina displays having 4x as much pixels than the non-retina version. The downside to this is that the physical working area becomes smaller. Effectively you have the same workspace as when you had twice as less pixels or 1152x720 (2304/2 = 1152 and 1440/2 = 720) but you gain a lot of sharpness. In the end that's the only thing you gain: sharpness.

The "looks like" resolution follows this same principle and therefore never really is that exact resolution hence the proper wording of "looks like" instead of the incorrectly "is exactly" what you two are thinking. In case of "looks like" it multiplies the resolution (1280x800 becomes 2560x1600) which is then scaled back to fit the physical pixels on the display. So is it 1280x800? No, it only looks like it. The exact same way 2304x1440 isn't 1152x720 but only looks like it. In both cases you end up with something that has an effective workspace of 1152x720 or 1280x800. As I've explained that is quite different from "they are exactly 1152x720 or 1280x800". All resolutions being 16:10 helps greatly.

The easiest way to check this is to printscreen your entire desktop, open the image in Preview and checking out the properties. It will tell you 2304x1440 or 2560x1600. It's no different than the MBP's, iMac, iPhones and iPads with retina display. They all do this. Anandtech has also discussed this in their MBP review and as a separate article.

justin216 said:

Yep, you're wrong, the screen is literally rendered at an effective 1280x800 out of the box.

Click to expand...

That's a) an incorrect and overly use of the word "literally" (the display has 2304x1440 physical pixels and cannot be rendered with a different number of pixels) and b) not true as can be seen by the above explanation and in the links from Anandtech as well as many other websites. MyopicPaideia has tried to explain this as well.

MyopicPaideia said:

Can you please post screen shots of the exact same desktop at native display resolution, and also at Apple's default retina resolution? I will then be able to illustrate my point.

You absolutely do lose fidelity with higher "looks like" resolutions than the panel's physical number of pixels. It is physically impossible to display 3840x2400 actual pixels on a screen that only has 2880x1800 actual pixels. Surely you cannot be disputing that? It may look "ok" to you on a 15" high res display from a certain distance, but the loss of fidelity is much more pronounced on my inferior 11" 1366x768 display even when going to 1920x1080.

See my attached zoom in of your 3840x2400 screen shot. I'd like to do the same to native resolution and Apple's default retina resolution to illustrate the vast difference.

And yes, of course you can drive external displays at higher resolutions, that wasn't the question, the assertion was being applied to the MB's onboard display.

Click to expand...

I am not implying that there is no loss of fidelity at all. I was pointing out that you were making it sound like the storm of the century, but in reality it's a little drizzle.

theSeb said:

I am not implying that there is no loss of fidelity at all. I was pointing out that you were making it sound like the storm of the century, but in reality it's a little drizzle.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did make a big deal of it, but you asserted that there was no missing pixels at all, which isn't physically possible.

MyopicPaideia said:

Yes, I did make a big deal of it, but you asserted that there was no missing pixels at all, which isn't physically possible.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I am still sticking by that assertion. I don't see how, from a technical point of view, the pixels go missing in terms of the process that Apple uses for their "retina" displays.