Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 21, 2012, 04:59 PM   #126
Apple Key
macrumors 6502a
 
Apple Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanl View Post
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).
__________________
You know what they say... once you go Mac you ain't never gonna go back.
Apple Key is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 04:59 PM   #127
shamino
macrumors 68040
 
shamino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vienna, VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
It seems to me that if you adjusted your font size and icon size this would be quite usable.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe HS View Post
Seeing that this is possible I could never be content running at a setting that fits less on screen.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwillwall View Post
Why is everyone obsessed with changing the resolution of the retina mbp? I prefer to see things the correct size...
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.
__________________
In theory, theory is the same as practice. In practice, it isn't.
shamino is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 04:59 PM   #128
tbrinkma
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacalis View Post
Worse, my display has 16 times the screen real estate.
You use a 61.2" display?!!!!
__________________
17" MBP (unibody), 2.66GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HDD; iPhone 4s 64GB/Black
tbrinkma is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:00 PM   #129
LeGacY X
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: VA, USA
For those of us with excellent vision, this is a huge desktop space extender! The more and more I hear about the rMBP the more I want one!
__________________
2012 15' rMBP 2014 11' Macbook Air 1.4GHz 4GB RAM 128 GB SSD 64 GB iPhone 5S
LeGacY X is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:07 PM   #130
shamino
macrumors 68040
 
shamino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vienna, VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedot View Post
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).
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.
__________________
In theory, theory is the same as practice. In practice, it isn't.
shamino is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:09 PM   #131
pesos
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post
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.
__________________
iPhone 5; iPod Touch 5g; Apple TV G2, Surface 2, Surface Pro 3
"I hate all operating systems equally, but some I hate more equally than others."
pesos is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:13 PM   #132
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by liam5150 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:14 PM   #133
dokujaryu
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Guitarist View Post
Didn't Apple mention that in FCPX you could display a 1920x1080 video in the viewer window at a FULL native 1920x1080?

Or is that not available yet and coming in ML?
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.
__________________
Laptop - 2011 MBP 2.3
Workstation - i5 OC 4.3Ghz Hackintosh w/ GTX 680
Phone - iPhone 5
Tablet - Nexus 7 2013
dokujaryu is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:17 PM   #134
GenesisST
macrumors 65816
 
GenesisST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where I live
Quote:
Originally Posted by spartig View Post
You can change your resolution down to 1440x900 on your MBP if you want, or even smaller to make it easier on your eyes. There should be no reason to regret the HD option.
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
__________________
Kenmore microwave, Frigidaire oven, Fisher & Paykel fridge, LG washer & Dryer and Crane toilet
GenesisST is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:19 PM   #135
Manzzle
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Key View Post
Can anyone post a screenshot please? I would like to see it at full quality.
You can go to this link to see a screen shot of the full size.

http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2...1-04-06-pm.png

__________________
Waiting to get my iPhone phablet
Manzzle is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:20 PM   #136
So Random
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
What is "Retina Display"?

Quote:

http://ipod.about.com/od/ipodiphoneh...ay-glossry.htm

Definition:
Retina Display - The name given by Apple to the high-resolution screen technology introduced on the iPhone 4 in June 2010.

Retina Display is designed to smooth the jagged edges of pixels are provide a higher-quality image than previously available on mobile devices. Apple claims that it's resolution is so good that it makes it impossible to distinguish individual pixels. The effects of the display technology are noticeable in many uses, but especially in text, where font edges are curves are substantially smoother than on previous display technologies.

Retina Display's image quality derives from a number of factors:
  • A greater density of the pixels that make up the iPhone's screen
  • Higher contrast ratio than previous models for brighter whites and deeper blacks
  • In-Plane Switching (IPS) technology to improve viewing angles
  • Chemically treated glass over the screen and LED backlighting to improve the quality of the image
  • Resolution
  • The Retina Display, as used on the iPhone and iPod touch, offers a resolution of 960 x 640 pixels. Since both devices have 3.5-inch diagonal screens, this means they offer 326 pixels per inch.

It's this resolution--326 pixels per inch--that Apple claims is the same as the human eye. The resolution was achieved on a relatively small screen thanks to pixels that are just 78 micrometers wide, according to Apple.
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.
So Random is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:21 PM   #137
activ8
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
I just sold my arm and a leg to special order this computer.
activ8 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:25 PM   #138
cupcakes2000
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedot View Post
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.

This.
__________________
website
cupcakes2000 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:27 PM   #139
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Damn you people and your giant ass pictures! EMBED THEM IN A LINK, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!
Renzatic is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:31 PM   #140
liam5150
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
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.
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.
liam5150 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:34 PM   #141
rcappo
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
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...
rcappo is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:40 PM   #142
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenesisST View Post
Non-native resolution ever look good, I tried.
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Damn you people and your giant ass pictures! EMBED THEM IN A LINK, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!
Or use the TIMG tag.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:49 PM   #143
Digital Skunk
macrumors 604
 
Digital Skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In my imagination
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1 View Post
This would be great on a 17".
I was searching for a post that said this before I posted one myself. I totally 10)% agree wholeheartedly.
__________________
What do I have?, stuff that I actually use for work! Some old, some new, all effective.
Digital Skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:50 PM   #144
cosmichobo
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVoid View Post
Lawyers have sued over much, much less. (eg. the recent fine from the Aussie government).
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.
cosmichobo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:51 PM   #145
mrfoof82
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayhawk11 View Post
Seems like this would be barely usable, but cool trick nonetheless.
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.
mrfoof82 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:52 PM   #146
twilson
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by belltree View Post
- "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
__________________
13" MacBook Air (2011), 1.8GHz i7, 4GB RAM, 256GB; MacBook (2007) 2.16GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, 500GB
iPhone 4 32GB / iPad 1 16GB 3G+WiFi
twilson is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 05:56 PM   #147
applegigs
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manzzle View Post
You can go to this link to see a screen shot of the full size.

http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2...1-04-06-pm.png

Image
__________________
"People who are really serious about software
should make their own hardware"
applegigs is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 06:06 PM   #148
chukronos
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Colleyville, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by superpalmtree View Post
it looks more grainy and washed out.
Have you tried lowering your ISO?
__________________
iMac 27" i7 680mx - Black MacBook - Old as S#!& but works great! / iPhone 5 / iPad (3rd generation)
chukronos is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 06:09 PM   #149
ilyagleikh
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
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!
ilyagleikh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 06:10 PM   #150
Larry-K
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSee View Post
Wow, so many people don't understand the retina display concept.
Wait, there's a concept behind this?
Larry-K is offline   -2 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question for Retina Macbook running at full scale xorjo MacBook Pro 0 Jun 29, 2013 07:31 PM
After installing updates, Retina Macbook won't show full resolution (2880x2000) ivanpk MacBook Pro 10 Oct 2, 2012 12:10 AM
Let's Make a List of Games That the Retina MacBook Pro Can/Can't Play at 2880x1800 MICHAELSD Mac and PC Games 10 Aug 30, 2012 08:40 AM
What resolution do you use on your Retina Macbook Pro? idonotliketostu MacBook Pro 5 Jul 7, 2012 06:00 PM
MacBook Pro Retina and Resolution seaw MacBook Pro 1 Jun 16, 2012 10:18 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC