1920 x 1200 on Retina MBP 15''?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by MBX, Jun 12, 2012.

  1. MBX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #1
    Hey, so the new MBP 15'' can do 1920 x 1200 without a cinema display, is that correct?

    If so then it would make me a little happy as i was really disappointed there were no 17'' versions.

    Yes?
     
  2. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #2
    If you're talking about the retina display model, yes, it can.

    MBP with Retina Display
    MBP 15"
     
  3. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #3
    But isn't "2880 by 1800" with an external screen? Or is it with the 15' on the MBP?

    I'm curious what exactly it's able to display as is and if it can go as high as 1920x1200 without an external screen (i really hope so, then i wouldn't be too sad about the nixed 17'')
     
  4. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #4
    The Retina Macbook Pro has a 2880x1800 display.

    By default things on screen are the same size as on the old 1440x900 display, just sharper. In the preferences you can choose different scaling options. The option for "More Space" gives you the equivalent real estate of a 1920x1200 screen.

    It actually renders at the retina equivalent of 1920x1200, which is 3840x2400. It then downscales to 2880x1800.
     
  5. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #5
    If you're talking about the MacBook Pro with the Retina Display, it's 2880x1800 native resolution on the MBP screen, with the other resolutions as an option.

    Just read the specs on the Apple site. They're pretty straightforward.

    Apple - MacBook Pro with Retina display - Technical Specifications
     
  6. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #6
    Ok awesome. That makes me happy and not too sad anymore they nixed the 17'' even though with same resolution as 17'' (1920x1200) on a 15'' screen it might be a bit harder to see things and not as good for the eyes but whatever.
     
  7. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #7
    Here's a photo from another thread of the new MBP in "1920x1200" mode. The photo is a bit out of focus but you can get the idea:

    [​IMG]
     
  8. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #8
    Very nice! Now i'm excited!
     
  9. SDAVE macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #9
    So there's no pixelation under "1920x1200" mode?
     
  10. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #10
    Doesn't look like it.
     
  11. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #11
    We haven't seen high quality photos yet, but there shouldn't be. Maybe some very slight blurryness because of the downscaling.

    This scaling is not the same as simply setting a monitor to a non-native resolution.
     
  12. KohPhiPhi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    #12

    That is impossible to know from those screenshots. I just cannot understand how the retina can display a non-native resolution without any sort of blurriness or pixelation. I dont see how that would be technically possible.
     
  13. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #13
    Why wouldn't it be possible? I'm certainly no expert, so enlighten me, please.
     
  14. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #14
    As I said above, OSX actually renders at double the 1920x1200 resolution in both directions, making a 3840x2400 image:

    http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2078/Screen Shot 2012-06-11 at 4.36.07 PM.png

    That image is then downscaled to the native 2880x1800 resolution.

    Instead of upscaling 1920x1200 to 2880x1800, you're downscaling 3840x2400 to 2880x1800. Still not perfectly native, but better that what most of us are used to with non-native resolutions.
     
  15. KohPhiPhi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    #15

    Yes, I understand that, but the question still remains: downscaling from 3840x2400 to 2880x1800 is not a round number fraction (you get decimals in that partition), and since you cannot partition an individual pixel... there must be some blurriness or pixelation in the final result, which defeats the purpose of the whole "retina" concept.

    Like I said, from a technical point of view, there MUST be a loss of quality along the way.
     
  16. Callumbear845 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    #16
    But the pixels are so small it can be very unnoticeable.
     
  17. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #17
    Correct. It can't be 100% perfect. To have that you would have to have either a 1920x1200 display or a 3840x2400 display.

    It will most likely still look very good, since you have more than 1920x1200 pixels at the final output.
     
  18. TheRdungeon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    #18
    Does anyone know if the 1680x1050 mode looks worse than the current high res old 15"? because if so that is a serious step backwards for me, I really value the real estate over the standard 15" size
     
  19. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #19
    The Anandtech article specifically mentions that:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis
     
  20. TheRdungeon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    #20
    Cheers, think I'll jump on one in the next revision when they fix whatever bugs may pop up!
     

Share This Page