14 inch macbook pro display resolution

[TorontoSS]

The default resolution on a macbook pro (14 inch) is 1512 x 982. I have read online this is supposed to be the best balance for crispness and space.

if you move one spot to the left, 1352 x 878, is it becoming "less crisp". Am I losing sharpness for having a display easier on my eyes?

I have tried looking this up but this always confuses me quite a bit!

 

[casperes1996]

Yes. You will lose sharpness on ui elements. Images and such will not be affected. But if you prefer a different scale factor I would say it doesn’t matter.

 

[TorontoSS]

Yes. You will lose sharpness on ui elements. Images and such will not be affected. But if you prefer a different scale factor I would say it doesn’t matter.

Thanks that’s very helpful. So just a question. Say i want larger text on some websites - do you lose sharpness if you go command+ vs just having different resolution (going one side to the left of default)?
And sorry for the basic question!

 

[casperes1996]

Thanks that’s very helpful. So just a question. Say i want larger text on some websites - do you lose sharpness if you go command+ vs just having different resolution (going one side to the left of default)?
And sorry for the basic question!

In theory it’s “better” to cmd+; but it can also depend how the webpage is made.

What it boils down to is how things line up with the pixel grid. The full resolution of the display will always be used. In default mode you are using an exact pixel doubling so every logical pixel is four display pixels (doubled on each axis).

When you pick a scaling resolution other than the default you will get a “non-integer” scaling factor. This means each logical pixel may map to something like 3.2 display pixels. Thus you’ll get color blending on the borders of pixels instead of clean lines between them.

When rendering images and videos and such the scaling factor is irrelevant because it’s just about the media resolution and the display resolution not the scaling resolution setting.

 

[Basic75]

When rendering images and videos and such the scaling factor is irrelevant because it’s just about the media resolution and the display resolution not the scaling resolution setting.

Why is the scaling factor irrelevant for images? You are still slightly blurring the image or video with non-integer scaling.

 

[casperes1996]

Why is the scaling factor irrelevant for images? You are still slightly blurring the image or video with non-integer scaling.

NSImageViews understand the resolution of the content. If you’re viewing images in something like the Photos app, they are not affected by scaling. They are whatever resolution they are. Video may also be 1080p or 4K or whatever. Doesn’t matter what you set the scaling factor to in macOS settings. UI icons are affected

 

[casperes1996]

To illustrate this a bit more, if you open a full screen image in photos, regardless of scaling setting, all the pixels line up the same spots. The images aren’t scaled differently, the image isn’t bigger or smaller on one scaling setting or the other.

 

[Basic75]

@casperes1996 My understanding was that the resolution awareness you describe only works for @1x/@2x/@3x. With macOS (supposedly) using indirect rendering of the entire screen for scaled resolutions that wouldn't work? What am I missing?

 

[casperes1996]

@casperes1996 My understanding was that the resolution awareness you describe only works for @1x/@2x/@3x. With macOS (supposedly) using indirect rendering of the entire screen for scaled resolutions that wouldn't work? What am I missing?

If should work regardless. It is possible for code to react the display’s native resolution, query the scale factor and react to it. I’ve written code myself that can do display pixel level rendering regardless of the logical desktop resolution.

The standard behavior is that your app renders into a texture of the logical resolution which is backed by a 2x/3x render target. If that then doesn’t resolve in something that fits the display it will get downscaled. But for something like images, it just renders in a display native texture not a scaled texture

 

[Basic75]

@casperes1996 That means there's an additional compositing step after scaling? For example if you have a 3840x2160 display running in "looks like 2560x1440" then the entire screen is rendered in 5120x2880 and then scaled down to 3840x2160 for display. You're saying that an application can query the scaling factor and directly address the 3840x2160 hardware pixels sidestepping all operating system scaling. The system would need another compositing step of the screen contents after scaling and any additional non-scaled outputs from specialized applications. Not saying it's impossible, just that it's a bit wild and the first I've ever heard of this. The only thing I know about is that an application can find out it's running @2x or @3x and provide images at the full resolution, but that would still be subject to the final scaling.

 

[casperes1996]

@casperes1996 That means there's an additional compositing step after scaling? For example if you have a 3840x2160 display running in "looks like 2560x1440" then the entire screen is rendered in 5120x2880 and then scaled down to 3840x2160 for display. You're saying that an application can query the scaling factor and directly address the 3840x2160 hardware pixels sidestepping all operating system scaling. The system would need another compositing step of the screen contents after scaling and any additional non-scaled outputs from specialized applications. Not saying it's impossible, just that it's a bit wild and the first I've ever heard of this. The only thing I know about is that an application can find out it's running @2x or @3x and provide images at the full resolution, but that would still be subject to the final scaling.

So just to clarify; I’m not sure what I described before works in windowed modes or if it only works full screen. I’ve never tried in windowed modes. I should experiment some more with that