Why do old apps look so terrible on the Retina display? ["solved"]

[ladeer]

I just took a screen shots of an app that was designed for 3GS (not optimized for retina screen) in three different ways. You can make your own conclusion (i have a meeting in 10 mins and must go now).

http://i49.tinypic.com/10cuio4.jpg

From left to right:

1. This is what the app looks like at 100% size on iPhone 4. You see it got scaled up, so the graphic is not smooth.

The text looks much better because iPhone 4 automatically changes the text. Please just analyze the images for this exercise.

2. This is what the app looks like at 200% size on iPad 2 running in NON-pixel-double mode. This is equivalent to take a screen shot of this app running in 3GS, then scale it up to 200% myself on a computer.

As you can see, the images look IDENTICAL from (2) and (1), meaning the scale up process iPhone 4 did, did not introduce any artifact or new color.

3. This is what the app looks like running on iPad 2 in pixel-double mode. As you see, the image actually was anti aliased, there fore Apple via pixel-double, actually smooth out the image and by definition, INTRODUCED artifact (information and pixel not in the original image).

So my thoughts right now is, we see iPhone 4 and iPad 2 pixel double, scale the same small image DIFFERENTLY.

They BOTH look worse, for various reasons perhaps theorized by some of the posters on this thread already.

The big question is, how wil rMBP scale an image? Is it using iPhone 4 method (direct honest scaling), or iPad's method (anti-alias scaling)?

 

[aaagat111]

I am in the exact same situation - was very excited about ordering the rMBP but after trying it out in person I can confirm that many apps, and so much of the web appear very pixelated and a "down-grade" of an experience.

I can't see myself pushing the "buy" button for a $2800 computer when I know I am ordering hardware that is technologically not yet backwards compatible with many of the software programs I use. I understand that many 3rd party devs may upgrade their software, but what if many choose to wait or dont? I question how so many can stand to use the rMBP in today's current app market state (where most 3rd party apps, and websites that use heavy imaging are not updated to retina graphics).

 

[2Turbo]

I am in the exact same situation - was very excited about ordering the rMBP but after trying it out in person I can confirm that many apps, and so much of the web appear very pixelated and a "down-grade" of an experience.

I can't see myself pushing the "buy" button for a $2800 computer when I know I am ordering hardware that is technologically not yet backwards compatible with many of the software programs I use. I understand that many 3rd party devs may upgrade their software, but what if many choose to wait or dont? I question how so many can stand to use the rMBP in today's current app market state (where most 3rd party apps, and websites that use heavy imaging are not updated to retina graphics).

Exactly where I'm at. Plus I don't understand how soooo many people ordered it and hardly anyone is talking about this issue. Nobody cares I guess.

 

[MDomino]

@NathanA: thanks, you seem to actually understand what I am talking about.

To answer your question, yes, I am absolutely sure it was set to the optimal retina display, as I opened the monitor options myself and tried each and everyone of them. They looked all really bad (displaying old apps), INCLUDING the optimal retina display one.

I was very surprised to find this out, because it shouldn't be like that.

And you should really see an old app on a Retina MBP for yourself to understand that its quality is really bad.

@ladeer: I did not draw that line myself, I used Photoshop and used an optimal resizing algorithm and this was the result. I am not sure if Apple uses the same algorithm, but it has to be something like that because else it wouldn't look that bad. Usually these algorithms are better for scaling up an image but in this case they are clearly not.


@soulsteelgray: I think you still don't understand what I am trying to explain. Only because Apple would do their upscaling of old apps more correctly doesn't mean that retina apps wouldn't look better. They would still look better, while the old apps would just look normal, but not crappy.

Edit: Sorry, rereading your post, you seem to understand most of what I am saying. But one thing you're missing is that there are different methods of "blowing up" an 100x100 image for a 200x200 display. And if only Apple picked the right one it wouldn't look as terrible as it does now.
But you are right: If Apple didn't change this in 3 years, why should they now? Well, I for one am shocked to find out that this has been an issue for three years and that people don't seem to care about it... (I'm not an iPhone/iPad user and therefore didn't know).


One question that remains now is: Why would Apple do this?
Is it to force app developers to develop new versions of their apps? Or is it even to make apps like Apeture and Safari seem superior until other apps like Lightroom and Firefox are updated?

It seems they cripple their display's abilities on purpose for some reason.

 

[InuNacho]

Does anyone else think that this sudden jump in screen resolution was a bit too early and it should have been taken a bit slower?
The web isn't ready optimized for such high resolutions, there are tons of sites out there that are still set up for 1024x768 or 1280x1024.

 

[2Turbo]

Does anyone else think that this sudden jump in screen resolution was a bit too early and it should have been taken a bit slower?
The web isn't ready optimized for such high resolutions, there are tons of sites out there that are still set up for 1024x768 or 1280x1024.

I completely agree! Good luck with the entire internet and all apps whipping up an retina update any time soon just cause one apple computer released an insanely awesome screen.

 

[henrikrox]

Dumb mistake by apple to pixel double stuff, it works on ipad etc, but not osx.

the same apps that look **** because of pixle doubling, doesnt look **** when using native resolution with switchres x

 

[millerrh]

I just took a screen shots of an app that was designed for 3GS (not optimized for retina screen) in three different ways. You can make your own conclusion (i have a meeting in 10 mins and must go now).

http://i49.tinypic.com/10cuio4.jpg

From left to right:

1. This is what the app looks like at 100% size on iPhone 4. You see it got scaled up, so the graphic is not smooth.

The text looks much better because iPhone 4 automatically changes the text. Please just analyze the images for this exercise.

2. This is what the app looks like at 200% size on iPad 2 running in NON-pixel-double mode. This is equivalent to take a screen shot of this app running in 3GS, then scale it up to 200% myself on a computer.

As you can see, the images look IDENTICAL from (2) and (1), meaning the scale up process iPhone 4 did, did not introduce any artifact or new color.

3. This is what the app looks like running on iPad 2 in pixel-double mode. As you see, the image actually was anti aliased, there fore Apple via pixel-double, actually smooth out the image and by definition, INTRODUCED artifact (information and pixel not in the original image).

So my thoughts right now is, we see iPhone 4 and iPad 2 pixel double, scale the same small image DIFFERENTLY.

They BOTH look worse, for various reasons perhaps theorized by some of the posters on this thread already.

The big question is, how wil rMBP scale an image? Is it using iPhone 4 method (direct honest scaling), or iPad's method (anti-alias scaling)?

That's very interesting. I can confirm that the rMBP scales like the iPhone 4 does. So you get a jaggy, pixelated looking image and fonts. I would actually prefer them do it the pixel doubling way of the iPad. It may look blurry, but it's better than jagged. It's actually the same way the iPad 3 shows iPad 2 apps that aren't retina ready though.

I think one reason people didn't complain about it as much on iPhone and iPad is the pixels were already smaller to begin with even on non-retina displays. So with the rMBP you get these rather huge pixelated blocks.

 

[MDomino]

They BOTH look worse, for various reasons perhaps theorized by some of the posters on this thread already.

Yes, but they should not look worse at all. They should just look normal as old apps did look on old MBPs, if the pixels are only mapped as I described above. So both methods here seem to be wrong. I don't know which remapping method of scaling it up is used in the rMBP, but it is certainly not the ideal one I described above.
Also I'm pretty sure this is nothing related to actual pixel size, because 4 retina pixels of the same color should just look like one "old pixel" of this color or at least really close but the difference in quality is quite big.

The web isn't ready optimized for such high resolutions, there are tons of sites out there that are still set up for 1024x768 or 1280x1024.

This has nothing to do with the web not being ready. The web is as ready for the Retina MBPs as it was for the old MBPs that could display everything just fine. If the Retina MBPs would just scale their stuff properly every web graphic would just look as fine as it always did.
So, it is not true that we suddenly can see how crappy web graphics really look, it's just that the rMBP scales them in a way that they will look crappy.

 

[dallas112678]

I have a theory that the edges of (and gaps between) a normal pixel give off a smoothing/soft effect. Even though it is perceived as sharp, there is this gap and softness between actual pixels. So this dead zone is perceived as a certain softness to our eyes.

The retina display however, shows this same pixel as 4 very sharp pixels with basically no gap.

So even if you are seeing a true 2X representation it will appear blockier, sharper and more pixelated.

It would be cool if it could do something to smooth it out (like anti-aliasing on text). But they don't. It's actually the same on the iPad and iPhone. If you view non-retina apps, they look worse than they did on a pre-retina iPad/iPhone.

It is a little concerning because companies have much slower refresh cycles on computer software than iPhone/iPad software. It will probably be some time before most software is updated to take advantage of the screen.

This.

I highly doubt Apple wouldn't be smart enough to simply double the the pixels in each dimension to create the image. This doesn't seem like an algorithm issue at all, it is the physical screen itself.

 

[MDomino]

@dallas112678 & millerrh: Have either of you actually seen how old apps look on the new rMBP? The effect is that extreme that I am absolutely sure that it is not related to the physical screen itself.

If what you said were true, then the old apps would look sharper and pixelated, but they look totally blurry and pixelated.

I'm sure this is related to the scaling. If it was the physical screen, then this display couldn't even display a 4x4px dot properly. (which it can, when you have a retina graphic)

 

[warghh]

Not sure if anyone here know what I'm talking about, but is it anything like a native DS game on a DSi and on a 3DS? It's much sharper on the DSi, and slightly blurry on the 3DS.

image: http://www.3dsbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/DS-on-3DS-Yoshis-Island-DS-comparison.png

 

[BlazednSleepy]

I don't understand why people seem to be so disgusted with non retina apps. When I tested the macbook pro in the store it was clear that certain apps weren't retina quality but I wasn't sitting there like a raged fanboy cringing in pain at the pixels. It was clearly noticeable but it wasn't even that bad.

 

[MDomino]

When I tested the macbook pro in the store it was clear that certain apps weren't retina quality but I wasn't sitting there like a raged fanboy cringing in pain at the pixels. It was clearly noticeable but it wasn't even that bad.

Again.
I know that the non retina apps are not retina quality. Of course they aren't. But they look unneccessarily bad, when they could just look like the old apps on the old MBPs.

I'm not a raged fanboy cringing in pain at the pixels, but the Retina MBP as it is now, is simply not a MBP that I could use for my work now, which is annoying, because it could easily be.
I use software like Adobe CS4 and Final Cut Pro 7 on a daily basis, but of course I cannot work in, let's say Photoshop CS4, when the visual output that the Retina MBP gives me does not represent the graphic as it actually is at all.

Therefore I need a MBP that shows me my graphics reliably, and the Retina MBP could be easily that computer, but for some bizarre reason Apple handles the scaling in really weird ways, so it's not.

 

[RSully]

I agree and see what OP is saying. The best app to see this in is Twitter for Mac. It is very blurry (they don't use system text rendering, it appears) and its not just "doubled" – Apple are doing some anti-aliasing (or something similar) along with the scaling.

 

[aoaaron]

This is exactly the problem holding me back from purchasing the rMBP. As soon as I saw the keynote I came on here trying to find out if my worst fear was true. How can I stand browsing the web when everything looks like crap. Using old apps, viewing lower res photos, graphics, etc.? How can we expect the entire desktop experience to suddenly update to retina along with the entire internet?

This is very disappointing. I really really wanted a rMBP!

Its sad but you had unrealistic expectations of apple then. They can't change the whole internet.

I'm not really a fan of the rMBP atm but its not apple's fault tbh.

Just looking at the new ipad, you'll see web pages look rubbish next to text.

For average tasks like web browsing, you will struggle to get the potential out of the rMBP... photography and content creation with programs updated properly will be phenomenal though.

 

[BlueOcean]

Again.
I know that the non retina apps are not retina quality. Of course they aren't. But they look unneccessarily bad, when they could just look like the old apps on the old MBPs.

I'm not a raged fanboy cringing in pain at the pixels, but the Retina MBP as it is now, is simply not a MBP that I could use for my work now, which is annoying, because it could easily be.
I use software like Adobe CS4 and Final Cut Pro 7 on a daily basis, but of course I cannot work in, let's say Photoshop CS4, when the visual output that the Retina MBP gives me does not represent the graphic as it actually is at all.

Therefore I need a MBP that shows me my graphics reliably, and the Retina MBP could be easily that computer, but for some bizarre reason Apple handles the scaling in really weird ways, so it's not.

This is a good thread, thanks. I'm all for adopting future tech, but if the situation means that using regular stuff now is going to be not just okay but pretty bad, and it's going to be years until everything adjusts, then it does imply you might get a bit short-changed because by the time all software catches up, you could have been better served with a regular laptop for a few years.

I want to get on board with retina, but I'm still deciding whether to plump for a regular instead. I guess trying one out in the store will be the next step for me.

Looking at your picture on the first page, I can only think that there's a technical reason for them not scaling up exactly and leaving edges clean - because it seems a bit retarded not to do this if it was easily done.

 

[MDomino]

Its sad but you had unrealistic expectations of apple then. They can't change the whole internet.

I'm not really a fan of the rMBP atm but its not apple's fault tbh.

Did you actually read the thread?
What I am explaining here (and quite a few people seem not to understand) is that this is Apple's fault.
There is nothing wrong with the internet and its graphics, it just looks as fine as it always has (unless you are a retina user apparently).
Go check out some totally uncompressed web graphic somewhere, which should look perfect, on the retina display it will still look crappy.

Looking at your picture on the first page, I can only think that there's a technical reason for them not scaling up exactly and leaving edges clean - because it seems a bit retarded not to do this if it was easily done.

Yes, that's what confuses me as well. I mean, I would guess it would be easier to scale stuff up the way that my graphic suggests.
Otherwise there should be just a way for the rMBP to automatically switch to a 1440x900 screen resolution as soon as an non-retinafied app is opened. Because when the MBP pretends to the app that there is only a 1440x900 monitor then there will be no scaling at all and it should look totally fine.

Let's hope that there soon will be software solutions which let you manually change your resolution. That would solve the problem.
Some people already seem to be working on it, as was posted in another thread:

http://jitsik.com/wordpress/?p=317

 

[millerrh]

This is a good thread, thanks. I'm all for adopting future tech, but if the situation means that using regular stuff now is going to be not just okay but pretty bad, and it's going to be years until everything adjusts, then it does imply you might get a bit short-changed because by the time all software catches up, you could have been better served with a regular laptop for a few years.

I want to get on board with retina, but I'm still deciding whether to plump for a regular instead. I guess trying one out in the store will be the next step for me.

Looking at your picture on the first page, I can only think that there's a technical reason for them not scaling up exactly and leaving edges clean - because it seems a bit retarded not to do this if it was easily done.

This is exactly my position. I want to get the retina. But old apps are horrible looking on it. If it is nearly for web browsing I could get over it. But I do photography and graphic design. I need to trust what I am seeing.

 

[Hexiii]

It's the same thing on iPhone when you play the original Angry birds, It looks better on the 3GS than on the 4.

 

[henrikrox]

sorry if this is a dumb question. But would a 2880x1800 native resolution fix this problem. all though its tiny. apps would look the same yes?

 

[MDomino]

sorry if this is a dumb question. But would a 2880x1800 native resolution fix this problem. all though its tiny. apps would look the same yes?

Yes, that would indeed fix the problem, as is also discussed in this thread.
But then your apps are - while looking fine - really tiny. So that's of course not the perfect solution for everybody.

So at the moment there are two solutions:
- Apple fixes their scaling
- some third party software is developed that allows you to automatically switch to a 1440x900 resolution if an old app is opened.

 

[cruggles]

I just took a screen shots of an app that was designed for 3GS (not optimized for retina screen) in three different ways. You can make your own conclusion (i have a meeting in 10 mins and must go now).

http://i49.tinypic.com/10cuio4.jpg

From left to right:

1. This is what the app looks like at 100% size on iPhone 4. You see it got scaled up, so the graphic is not smooth.

The text looks much better because iPhone 4 automatically changes the text. Please just analyze the images for this exercise.

2. This is what the app looks like at 200% size on iPad 2 running in NON-pixel-double mode. This is equivalent to take a screen shot of this app running in 3GS, then scale it up to 200% myself on a computer.

As you can see, the images look IDENTICAL from (2) and (1), meaning the scale up process iPhone 4 did, did not introduce any artifact or new color.

3. This is what the app looks like running on iPad 2 in pixel-double mode. As you see, the image actually was anti aliased, there fore Apple via pixel-double, actually smooth out the image and by definition, INTRODUCED artifact (information and pixel not in the original image).

So my thoughts right now is, we see iPhone 4 and iPad 2 pixel double, scale the same small image DIFFERENTLY.

They BOTH look worse, for various reasons perhaps theorized by some of the posters on this thread already.

The big question is, how wil rMBP scale an image? Is it using iPhone 4 method (direct honest scaling), or iPad's method (anti-alias scaling)?

This is a great post - you have actually conducted a controlled experiment.

However, I don't understand your conclusions. You start by saying the iPhone 4 running pixel-doubled (pic 1) looks the SAME (the images that is) as the iPad 2 in non-pixel-doubled mode. I agree it does. Therefore, the iPhone 4 pixel-doubles perfectly without introducing any artefacts.

Others in this thread contradict this by saying that 3GS apps look crap on an iPhone 4. So the only actual photographic evidence presented in this thread is being contradicted by others' subjective views.

Until someone can actually post some screen shots of a Retina Macbook Pro I can't continue to believe all these subjective views.

My iPhone 3GS used to look great. Until I got an iPhone 4. Now my iPhone 3GS looks crap. Too subjective people - has anyone actually got a RMBP who can contribute to this with some pics?

 

[cecildk9999]

Thanks for explaining all this

After playing with the models in store a few days back, I was so impressed with the new display (and reading reviews everywhere seemed to reinforce this fact pretty heavily), that I placed an order. I'm having second thoughts based on the discussion in here, though...if I stay in Apple's ecosystem of products, the new model has really clear advantages over the other MBPs, with Retina support built in to Mountain Lion. But will scaling ultimately compromise the end user experience on non-supported apps to the point that it inhibits the usability of the computer? My choice would have been so much easier if they had just announced a spec bump at WWDC, but thankfully, I have some time to do some more comparisons before the order ships...

 

[cruggles]

The thread starter (who doesn't own a Retina MBP) claims poor performance with older apps, without saying which apps and without any other evidence. I wouldn't panic yet.