Picture Quality MBPr vs 17"MBP

The retina display is better in every regard, except maximum brightness.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/5

EDIT: also worth noting that the retina display is an IPS panel, so viewing angles are much much better.

Squashy said:

The retina display is better in every regard, except maximum brightness.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/5

Click to expand...

That comparison doesn't address the OP's question at all.

No Regrets said:

I was wondering if anyone has compared the display quality when viewing photos between the new retina mbp and the late 2011 17" glossy mbp?

Color gamut, accuracy, vibrancy, etc?

Thank you for any experiences that you can share with me.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

The retina display quality is superior in EVERY way. Non-retina displays including the 2011 17" glossy mbp looks like your looking at a screen through grease stained windows in comparison.

No Regrets said:

I was wondering if anyone has compared the display quality when viewing photos between the new retina mbp and the late 2011 17" glossy mbp?

Color gamut, accuracy, vibrancy, etc?

Thank you for any experiences that you can share with me.

Click to expand...

Depends on your settings, how far away from the display you are looking, etc. I for one can't tell the difference between the resolution between a 17" and a retina from normal viewing distance.

iFanboy said:

Seriously?

The retina display quality is superior in EVERY way. Non-retina displays including the 2011 17" glossy mbp looks like your looking at a screen through grease stained windows in comparison.

Click to expand...

i"Fanboy" indeed. A lot of the retina's advantages are very subjective.

----------

No Regrets said:

I was wondering if anyone has compared the display quality when viewing photos between the new retina mbp and the late 2011 17" glossy mbp?

Color gamut, accuracy, vibrancy, etc?

Thank you for any experiences that you can share with me.

Click to expand...

I'm doing a similar comparison now. My 17" is a matte screen version specifically because I'm a photographer and my previous glossy display had been a problem.

I've only had the MBPr for three days, so I'm not by any means done comparing the two. I CAN tell you these things at first blush:

1) The retina display is even better looking in actual use than I'd hoped.
2) The glare on the retina display is significantly less than my previous glossy display. There's more glare than my matte finish 17" but, having said that, I have yet to be distracted by any glare.
3) Off-axis viewing is better on the retina than the 17".
4) The 17" display is brighter, no question. Still, the retina is plenty bright... so bright that, at night, I need to turn the brightness down three ticks for it to be comfortable. Now, mid-day, both displays are cranked full tilt. The 17" is brighter but the retina is plenty bright.
5) I'm exploring gamut now. Dmax (density) seems better on the retina. Color balance feels similar on the two displays but I've not yet put the colorimeter on them. I'll post more as I know more.

As for comparing the retina display to a glossy 17"... that will have to be someone else.

anything is better than my CRT 19" TV LOL

I've had both the 2011 17" glossy and the matted - in my opinion the matted was more "print-like" but the matted is actually bit harder on the eyes in my opinion because of the glare being matted too (it almost seems like the glare is spread evenly across an area and makes the screen blurry) but that's my opinion.

My photography work would never be exclusively done on the 17" because my Cinema Display is much more accurate, however, with the rMBP I feel like I can definitely do extended amount of editing on the retina display - it's easy on the eyes, amazingly sharp and just produces the most amazing color. Anyone with a creative job will know that this alone is worth the upgrade, not to mention the lighter body weight and smaller footprint. Everything adds up when you're traveling half way across the world with lighting and camera gear.

GoreVidal said:

i"Fanboy" indeed. A lot of the retina's advantages are very subjective.

----------

Click to expand...

how is it relevant to point out "fanboy", when he's comparing apples to apples? Derrrp

AlvinNguyen said:

I've had both the 2011 17" glossy and the matted - in my opinion the matted was more "print-like" but the matted is actually bit harder on the eyes in my opinion because of the glare being matted too (it almost seems like the glare is spread evenly across an area and makes the screen blurry) but that's my opinion.

My photography work would never be exclusively done on the 17" because my Cinema Display is much more accurate, however, with the rMBP I feel like I can definitely do extended amount of editing on the retina display - it's easy on the eyes, amazingly sharp and just produces the most amazing color. Anyone with a creative job will know that this alone is worth the upgrade, not to mention the lighter body weight and smaller footprint. Everything adds up when you're traveling half way across the world with lighting and camera gear.

Click to expand...

You know there are engineers using computers too
that need speed of calculations nice pictures land scape and more
so for me the RMBP is useless I like my 17"MBP as is hope Apple will continue to make it if not, I will have to go back to IBM thinkpad

Dangerous Theory said:

how is it relevant to point out "fanboy", when he's comparing apples to apples? Derrrp

Click to expand...

What is this "Derrrp" you speak of? iFanboy blindly (as "fanboys" often do) suggests that there is no need to compare the two and that the Retina display is superior in "every way", when I suggest differently. I find the 17" retina enough. I don't need a smaller laptop sacrificing the ports, capacity, screen size, speaker quality, etc of the 17" to replace it. I again postulate that the retina MacBook pro's advantages are completely subjective.

AlvinNguyen said:

I've had both the 2011 17" glossy and the matted - in my opinion the matted was more "print-like" but the matted is actually bit harder on the eyes in my opinion because of the glare being matted too (it almost seems like the glare is spread evenly across an area and makes the screen blurry) but that's my opinion.

Click to expand...

Why are you putting a d on the end of the word matte?

----------

GoreVidal said:

I find the 17" retina enough.

Click to expand...

I don't think you know what a retina display is. At 132PPI the 17" MBP is not at all close to being retina.

AttilaTheHun said:

You know there are engineers using computers too
that need speed of calculations nice pictures land scape and more
so for me the RMBP is useless I like my 17"MBP as is hope Apple will continue to make it if not, I will have to go back to IBM thinkpad

Click to expand...

1. The rMBP does faster calculations than the 17 inch - new, faster processor, faster ram and SSD.

2. They can't continue to make it as they already stopped making it. Best they could do is START making it. And they won't.

It's amazing. Ever since the rMBP was introduced the non retina MBP have horrible screens if you are to believe some commenters here. "Like looking through grease stained windows"? Really??? That is so unfair and so inaccurate.

The regular MBP have excellent displays. So much so that some people even after comparing the two still opt for the regular model.

iFanboy said:

Seriously?

The retina display quality is superior in EVERY way. Non-retina displays including the 2011 17" glossy mbp looks like your looking at a screen through grease stained windows in comparison.

Click to expand...

anandtech review said:

Apple made no mention of impact to color accuracy or color gamut. It turns out that the omission was for good reason, the Retina Display offers no improvement along either vector. The numbers show a slight regression compared to last year’s panel but the difference is imperceivable.

Click to expand...

Viewing angles and black levels are a big improvement over the TN stuff used in regular MBPs, white level is down a bit, contrast goes up... but better in *EVERY way* is highly questionable.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/5

I hope they match the brightness level of the current MBP when they switch the rMBP to haswell.

whitedragon101 said:

I hope they match the brightness level of the current MBP when they switch the rMBP to haswell.

Click to expand...

That will depend on the screen technology. Sharp's new IGZO panels are supposed to allow for similar brightness as a low-dpi panel without using more power. I don't know whether those panels will match the current IPS display in quality, viewing angles, etc.

brand said:

I don't think you know what a retina display is. At 132PPI the 17" MBP is not at all close to being retina.

Click to expand...

My dear boy, I owned a Retina MacBook Pro for 2 weeks, and returned it due to the fact it didn't impress me (i.e. full of marketing hype). And excuse me sir, but do you view your laptop screen at the distance of mere inches? If so, then yes, do spend the extra money on a retina display. If you view your laptop from a normal working distance of 18-24" (yes, I just measured) then your extra expenditure on a "retina" display is wasted on having the "latest and greatest" I'm afraid.

Call me crazy, but I still don't hit max brightness except in the brightest of daylight conditions, and I don't feel like I need more or anything.

I calibrate my displays for photo editing (120cd/m2) and tend to keep my displays down to the best brightness for that which is a little lower than most people defaulty want to use.

This forum is getting ugly

I especially like the post where the guy quotes a post and highlights the d on every occurrence of the word matte. Fun stuff.

Gotta love it.

GoreVidal said:

My dear boy, I owned a Retina MacBook Pro for 2 weeks, and returned it due to the fact it didn't impress me (i.e. full of marketing hype). And excuse me sir, but do you view your laptop screen at the distance of mere inches? If so, then yes, do spend the extra money on a retina display. If you view your laptop from a normal working distance of 18-24" (yes, I just measured) then your extra expenditure on a "retina" display is wasted on having the "latest and greatest" I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

I definitely get that it doesn't make a difference for some people, but just because it doesn't make a difference for you doesn't mean that it is the same for others. Everyone's eyes and preferences are different.

AttilaTheHun said:

You know there are engineers using computers too
that need speed of calculations nice pictures land scape and more
so for me the RMBP is useless I like my 17"MBP as is hope Apple will continue to make it if not, I will have to go back to IBM thinkpad

Click to expand...

Then retina MBP is just perfect for you - with its excellent CPU/GPU and SSD performance.

The first time I saw a retina and non retina side by side I was amazed. Yeah it isn't as huge of a difference as the iphone 3gs was to the iphone 4 but it's still amazing. The clarity and vibrance of colors was almost unreal. All macs have great screens in my opinion but it really is no comparison. I wouldn't call the older screens terrible, but they are for sur enot on the same level.

----------

[/COLOR]

brand said:

Why are you putting a d on the end of the word matte?

----------



I don't think you know what a retina display is. At 132PPI the 17" MBP is not at all close to being retina.

Click to expand...

Why are you putting an e at the end of the word matt?



If you hold the 17" MBP far enough away it becomes a "retina display"