13" rMBP scaled resolution

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by suggs, Oct 23, 2013.

  1. suggs macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    #1
    Hi,

    Could someone explain the scaled resolutions of the new MBPs to me? On the store it says that the 13" has scaled resolutions of 1680 by 1050, 1440 by 900, and 1024 by 640 pixels. Maybe I'm being an idiot, but since the native resolution is 2560 by 1600 pixels, wouldn't the best-for-retina be half that at 1280-by-800?

    For me, one of the the pros of the 13" Air over the 13" MBP was the 1440x900, so curious if this is a mistake on the website.

    cheers
     
  2. AlecMyrddyn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Southern Maine
    #2
    The Retina resolution is 1280x800, pixel doubled to 2560x1600.

    Scaled resolutions do not include the best for Retina because the scaled resolutions don't map evenly to the physical pixels like the Retina resolution does.
     
  3. tbolt11 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    #3
    scaled resolution at 1680x1050 is great. you get a ton of screen real-estate. better have good eyesight though
     
  4. redtape macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    #4
    I'd like to know how scaling on the haswell 13 inch retina impacts performance.

    And does it also impact other areas, ie if the scaling is not dividable with the original pixel count of the retina screen will this manifest in weird screen flicker, jerky mouse movement, etc?
     
  5. AlecMyrddyn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Southern Maine
    #5
    None of the scaled resolutions are evenly divisible into the physical pixels.

    With 2560x1800 you get 1.7 linear physical pixels per logical pixel.
    With 1680x1050 you get 1.52 linear physical pixels per logical pixel.

    The result isn't flicker, it's effectively like scaling an image size in photoshop or another image editing program - the rMBP uses techniques like anti-aliasing to break up one logical pixel across the partial physical pixels.

    The Retina Resolution has 4 physical pixels per logical pixel. Since it's an even number, any non-retina information displays cleanly without any scaling. Retina details (text, OS X interface graphics, etc.) use all 4 of the pixels separately, instead of treating them as one big pixel.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling might help show the difference.
     
  6. robvas macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    The high resolution makes it look much better than you'd think - but you can still tell. It's very usable at 1680 or 1920 as long as you can handle things being that small.

    You can also run at 'Best for Retina' and then just scale your browser down a click or two. Or run at a higher res and scale UP a click or two.
     
  7. redtape macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    #7
  8. AlecMyrddyn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Southern Maine
    #8
    Yes...

     
  9. redtape macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    #9
    Ah, thanks, now I get it :)

    Guess I will have to check out a scaled resolution for my self to see if it's something that you can detect in normal routines like surfing the web etc.

    Does anybody know if Apple stores have these new machines set up for demo purposes already?
     
  10. AlecMyrddyn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Southern Maine
    #10
    Even if they don't have the new models out on display, the screen resolution hasn't changed. You can go in an see the same scaling resolutions on the previous models as are available on the Haswell versions.
     
  11. bmat macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Location:
    East Coast, USA
    #11
    When the screen is scaled, does it still have some of the retina-like qualities. I remember when old laptops were used in non native resolutions they looked funky. How does this work/look here?

    I'm thinking of moving from an Air but don't want to give up the portability if the screen is going to be noticeably different (and I wouldn't want to use the "best" for retina resolution because I'd want the real estate).
     
  12. neteng101 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #12
    It looks super sharp to me with scaled resolutions - I prefer 1440x900 over 1280x800 for normal usage. Just ignore what others are saying, go scaled, you won't regret it.

    P/S - It sure looks sharper on the 13" rMBP than my old MBA does at 1440x900 which is its native resolution.
     
  13. bmat macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Location:
    East Coast, USA
    #13
    And there is no lag or any issues like that for you when using the scaled resolutions?
     
  14. pj- macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    #14
    I played with a 13" at the apple store and the scaled resolutions worked and looked great. I was surprised that I couldn't see any blurriness at 1680x1050 even when I put my eyeballs right up to the screen. It wasn't connected to the internet so I used iPhoto to see how well if it lagged during scrolling. Didn't notice any lag.
     
  15. Mac.User macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
  16. dmk1974 macrumors 68000

    dmk1974

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    #16
    Are you using QuickRes for that? I like that app. But for that resolution, it's not HiDPI retina, correct?
     
  17. Mac.User macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    #17
    No, I found a small open sources app on Reddit, forgetting the name right now. Its not a retina resolution but it's not to noticeable to me when I see 2-3 ft back and am using my external display as well. It's nice to have matching resolutions.
     
  18. dmk1974 macrumors 68000

    dmk1974

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    #18
    Ok, thanks. For me, when I have run on the 13" rMBP at 1920x1200, it's still pretty sharp. Not quite hiDPI retina, but pretty close.

    AND a benefit not running in HiDPI is that you do not get the lag/scroll chop issues that you get with the retina enabled. Kinda an unfortunate trade-off, but definitely makes the machine feel twice as fast without the lag.
     
  19. neteng101 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #19
    What do people mean by lag? Scrolling lag?

    The only lag I've seen has been in Facebook with Firefox - when you get long comments like hundreds of replies to a single topic in discussions. But that's Facebook/Firefox, I've seen it before. Trying to move to Safari now since its improved with Mavericks, and those same pages scroll without lag. Its a problem I've had for a long time though on the old MBA too, so its nothing to do with the rMBP... probably a Firefox thing.

    Other than that - no lag at all - I'm not doing max scaled though, ie. just 1440x900 on the 13", when you can go up to 1680x1050.

    Also - if you're concerned about lag - since I don't know what people's definition is or the problems they're facing - its easy enough to scale the resolutions at the Apple Store and play with it yourself to see if you have issues. I'd do that rather than blindly listening to anyone's opinion.
     
  20. dmk1974 macrumors 68000

    dmk1974

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    #20
    The main test that I perform is:
    • Drag the Applications folder to the dock
    • Click on the Applications folder (see how it "springs" open as well as how the scrolling of the Apps are)
    • Click on the Utilities folder and see how well it "springs" open as well
     
  21. neteng101 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #21
    I almost wouldn't recognize it then - I don't do spring grids - I've always set those folders to List views for years!
     
  22. Mac.User macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    #22
    The app is called RDM.app. It hasn't been updated in a while but still works very well.
     

Share This Page