Running the Retina MacBook Pro at Full 2880x1800 Resolution

[TallManNY]

Originally Posted by WiiDSmoker

Requires a hack in Mac OSX, but a simple setting in Windows....not surprised.

Right. But in Windows it gets you to an unworkable screen set up.

[bryanl]

Originally Posted by 840quadra

With this software can you still use the drop down resolution change feature?

Attachment 344445

If so, it would be super handy when using applications like Gimp, or other legacy photo / video applications that are not retna aware.

on the retina macs, we don't have the option to show it in the menubar anymore.

[superpalmtree]

Originally Posted by killmoms

Wait. What?

This post makes no sense at all. Of course you can see more detail when you have 4x the pixels. That's the whole point of a high PPI display.

Once you have a Retina Macbook Pro and try to edit a photo on 2880x1800 you will understand. The screen does not look like some super sexy high res machine @ 2880 that is why Apple limited it in the first place. At that resolution if anything it looks more grainy and washed out.

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by iVoid

Actually, this is apple's description in the rMBP specs:

Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels


So if you can't set it to 2880x1800 directly without the hack, then the specs are false.

Lawyers have sued over much, much less. (eg. the recent fine from the Aussie government).

And Apple would send them a free copy of their WWDC videos. Especially the one where they explain the difference between "points" and "pixels". The standard mode is 2880 x 1800 pixels displaying 1440 x 900 points. Each point consisting of 2 x 2 pixels. And the difference between "pixels" and "points" has been an industry standard for many years.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by bryanl

http://smarticus.s3.amazonaws.com/wp...Fullscreen.jpg

All you'll see is a big image.

Just saved this shot and displayed it fullscreen and aspect ratio correct on my 24" monitor. It was completely and totally unbearable. Sharp? Sure. I guess the tightly packed pixels of the retina screen would make it possible to read a word roughly the length of the nail on my pinky finger, but...why?

If it's too small on my biggish monitor, I can't imagine how horrible it would be on a 15" screen. It's a neat little feature to show off, but it sure as hell isn't good for anything else but.

[dontwalkhand]

Originally Posted by cvaldes

You clearly have self-confidence issues. You should seek professional help.

Why yes you can use the MacBook Pro as a Point Of Sale ;-)

[bryanl]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Just saved this shot and displayed it fullscreen and aspect ratio correct on my 24" monitor. It was completely and totally unbearable. Sharp? Sure. I guess the tightly packed pixels of the retina screen would make it possible to read a word roughly the length of the nail on my pinky finger, but...why?

If it's too small on my biggish monitor, I can't imagine how horrible it would be on a 15" screen. It's a neat little feature to show off, but it sure as hell isn't good for anything else but.

The word, "length" is only half the length of my pinky. I couldn't do this resolution all day, but it is fun to play with it.

[kustardking]

Originally Posted by echobucket

Um, this is what the retina display does by default.

How can you make the font size bigger without making the UI elements that contain the fonts bigger as well?

One reason to do it this way would be to get pixel-for-pixel editing capabilities (e.g.: editing an iPad3 app at QXGA, which is > than 1920x1080, or Photoshop) but with readable controls.

[alvindarkness]

I know this has mostly been a discussion on 2880x1800 etc. But I'm super curious as to what the quality of the rendered screen is like when using one of the "inbetween" resolutions that need to be oddly scaled, like 1650x1050.

Can someone with a retina mbp set their screen to 1650x1050, open some safari pages with a bunch of text (or similar), and take a clear photo?

Obviously not a setting people would run continuously, but I imagine when running an app like logic pro, it'd be nice to switch to a clear 1650x1050 temporarily, before switching back to native res for normal usage.

[salmoally]

Originally Posted by superpalmtree

i'm sure you would edit photos on 2880x1800 on a 15" screen. For one it looks like %$#% and you would not see any detail. Some people just think cause it's 2880x1800 it's some superior thing.....well IT's NOT. This laptop does not impress me at

Of course it doesn't impress you, you aren't a creative professional or someone who appreciates visual media. My DSLR resolves 18million pixels. On this laptop I can see approx 5million of those pixels, on the non retina only approx 1.5 million.

How is being able to see more of my image without having to professionally print a bad thing?

I suggest you stick to 1024x720 screens since you obviously don't require anything better, the rest of us that appreciate will tick will retina tyvm.

[lucasgladding]

Originally Posted by superpalmtree

i'm sure you would edit photos on 2880x1800 on a 15" screen. For one it looks like %$#% and you would not see any detail. Some people just think cause it's 2880x1800 it's some superior thing.....well IT's NOT. This laptop does not impress me at all.

----------



You are just like me, I love 1920 on a 15", but when you get your Retina mbp and bump to 2880 you will see what I mean. I love high resolution so I wish it wasn't the case but you will see for yourself soon enough.

I'm a little confused by this post too. Using this unsupported resolution, UI elements would be near unusable, but photos themselves should be great. If you used the normal resolution with something like Photoshop, however, things would be horrible since everything is being scaled. Bottom line: it's too early to say anything until apps start shipping with Retina display support. First-party apps are the only thing that let the display shine.

----------

Originally Posted by superpalmtree

Once you have a Retina Macbook Pro and try to edit a photo on 2880x1800 you will understand. The screen does not look like some super sexy high res machine @ 2880 that is why Apple limited it in the first place. At that resolution if anything it looks more grainy and washed out.

Which app? Also, are you using the standard resolution? I think everyone assumes you're using the unsupported resolution since this is the thread we're on, but I suspect you're not.

[bwillwall]

Why is everyone obsessed with changing the resolution of the retina mbp? I prefer to see things the correct size...

[superpalmtree]

Originally Posted by salmoally

Of course it doesn't impress you, you aren't a creative professional or someone who appreciates visual media. My DSLR resolves 18million pixels. On this laptop I can see approx 5million of those pixels, on the non retina only approx 1.5 million.

How is being able to see more of my image without having to professionally print a bad thing?

I suggest you stick to 1024x720 screens since you obviously don't require anything better, the rest of us that appreciate will tick will retina tyvm.

Nice come back. I own Dell 30, HP's 30, iMac's with high resolution, that is all I use. I'm not a "creative professional", I run several businesses and do real work not just pretend to edit a photo and label myself.....

Like I said when your creative professional job pays off and you can afford to buy a retina macbook pro turn it to 2880x1800 and go to town with your editing, in my opinion if you are truly a creative professional you would not buy this 15" laptop to run it at 2880x1800 to edit photos.

[liam5150]

Originally Posted by Sensation

I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it?

I really don't understand where this "1440x900" nonsense comes from. The screen is not a 1440x900 by any means, it is a 2880x1800 one, and the UI elements are doubled in size to make them easy on the eyes, but your actual content (think of a picture in preview.app for example) is using the added resolution, i.e.: your picture is showing at 2880x1800 (minus maybe the menu bar pixels, etc.), not at 1440x900.

Why is that complicated to understand? 1440x900 has nothing to do here. Is pretty obvious that being the same screen size (15.4") and double the pixels, the UI elements are going to be exactly the same size on both displays, AND? No one cares about that, but about content, the real stuff you work with.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by bryanl

on the retina macs, we don't have the option to show it in the menubar anymore.

There's a good reason for that. Changing the "resolution" on your Retina Mac does not actually switch the panel's resolution. You're still displaying at 2880x1800, it's just the frame buffer and the scaling factor that is modified.

----------

Originally Posted by liam5150

I really don't understand where this "1440x900" nonsense comes from [...] the UI elements are doubled in size

There you go. Seems you understand just fine.

Originally Posted by liam5150

but your actual content (think of a picture in preview.app for example) is using the added resolution, i.e.: your picture is showing at 2880x1800 (minus maybe the menu bar pixels, etc.), not at 1440x900.

That's not quite true, or webpages would look very very wrong in Safari and other browsers.

Images that are not "retina" are upscaled, and thus you're only getting the 1440x900 of usable real-estate.

[liam5150]

Originally Posted by bwillwall

Why is everyone obsessed with changing the resolution of the retina mbp? I prefer to see things the correct size...

'I prefer to see UI elementsthe correct size'
Fixed that for you. Your actual content has no 'correct size'.

[jcxstar13]

This does not require a have, just go into the display settings and there is a setting to change it from retina display to normal and then you can bump it all the way up to 2880 which was the whole reason I ordered one. I work daily on a 27" display and to have that kind of resolution on a laptop is amazing. I also am a photographer and using the nikon d800 which shoots huge photos and they look amazing and are almost full res on the highest setting.

[killmoms]

Originally Posted by superpalmtree

Once you have a Retina Macbook Pro and try to edit a photo on 2880x1800 you will understand. The screen does not look like some super sexy high res machine @ 2880 that is why Apple limited it in the first place. At that resolution if anything it looks more grainy and washed out.

Um, I HAVE a Retina MacBook Pro, and it looks fantastic. The panel is ALWAYS driven at 2880 x 1800, and in Retina-aware apps like iPhoto and Aperture (or even Preview), photos are displayed using every single pixel possible, not scaled. So there's no way anything would look "washed out" at some resolutions and not others, because the panel is always being run at 2880 x 1800.

[giorfa]

this is great for editing screen captures actually...
now you can capture the screen at 1800p and do a close up of a detail at 1080p without seeing the pixels.
And screen capture video's are becoming more and more popular and requested (see chrome ads).
I have the rmbp since 3 days and I've been wondering why quicktime recorded the screen at 900p, with this trick quicktime records at 1800p and it's just great.
I'm very happy with my retina, it's unbelievably fast, final cut opens up in a few seconds and renders like a walk in the park.

[killmoms]

Originally Posted by giorfa

this is great for editing screen captures actually...
now you can capture the screen at 1800p and do a close up of a detail at 1080p without seeing the pixels.

I mean, maybe, but for the rest of the screen capture most everything would be unreadable. What would be better is if you could capture the 1440 x 900 HiDPI mode at 1800p and then smoothly zoom in to highlight interface elements without seeing blurry upscaling.

[bluedot]

People are confusing the issue because in the OLD way of doing things, resolution was equivalent to pixels on screen. There is no reason this needs to be the case, and it is particularly not the case for these screens.

OSX resolution set to 1440x900 ---> displays 2880x1800 pixels, reports to applications that the resolution is 1440x900 and will pixel double and scale UI elements as necessary. Retina-aware applications can display content in a given viewport at the "pixel" resolution of 2880x1800. As an example, see the FCP X demo from the keynote. The UI is being rendered at an effective resolution of 1440x900 while the video is using 1920x1080 of the available 2880x1800 to display on screen at the same time as the UI elements. The same is true in Aperture, Preview, etc...

What Apple has done is make it possible for developers to make their content use the entire pixel density natively, while allowing the UI elements, etc... to render at a readable and useable size.

When you set the resolution to any of the "in-between" dimensions like 1920x1200, the display does not change anything other than the UI elements and fonts being rendered at an effective resolution of 1920x1200, and it also reports that resolution to applications. The display is still pushing 2880x1800 pixels! So, any application that is "Retina-aware" will show that 1080p video at the exact same size whether the OSX resolution is 1440x900 or 1920x1200... the only thing that changes dimensions will be the font and UI elements.

This is why Apple explained that applications need to be coded to be "Retina-aware", so that instead of using the reported resolution by OSX for content, they can make use of the 2880x1800 for their content, while maintaining reported resolution for things like alerts, UI elements, text, etc... as they see fit.

It's very similar to setting the resolution in Windows to 2880x1800 and then font scaling by 150%. In essence that's what Apple is doing, the resolution is ALWAYS at 2880x1800 and you get to choose different font scaling options (the default one being 200% which gives you 1440x900).

Now, go to an Apple store and play with it and you'll see... running at 2880x1800 for the UI elements alone is not really necessary.

[swfster]

Ok - so how bout the spot in the Keynote (30 min mark on the youtube version) where a screen shot of FCPX was shown with a video preview in the top right two thirds of the screen and Phil Schiller says "That video area you see in the top right of Final Cut - that is 100% pixel per pixel 1080p video right there in that window". If that isn't available out-of-the-box then I call "false advertising".

[liam5150]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

There's a good reason for that. Changing the "resolution" on your Retina Mac does not actually switch the panel's resolution. You're still displaying at 2880x1800, it's just the frame buffer and the scaling factor that is modified.

----------



There you go. Seems you understand just fine.



That's not quite true, or webpages would look very very wrong in Safari and other browsers.


Images that are not "retina" are upscaled, and thus you're only getting the 1440x900 of usable real-estate.

I have to agree in that case (webpages): actually is the same in the new iPad vs the 'old' one, but webpages look just fine with the images upscaled. But apart from browsers, think about photos: your 10 megapixel photos are going to show at the full resolution of the screen, not at 1440x900 aparent resolution.

[iSee]

Wow, so many people don't understand the retina display concept.

[pesos]

2880x1800 is great! I run Windows about 95% of the time due to the nature of my work, and with the 150% setting everything is quite usable (I do have good eyesight, I could see it being a struggle if one doesn't). Just another way OS X limits the user :-/ As usual, love apple hardware, frustrated by their software choices! For reference, the pink RDP session below is 1280x1024