2016 MBP Owners: Question about default display scaling

[brewmonkey]

Apparently the default resolution on the new MBPs is to use a non-integer scaled resolution that looks like 1680x1050. It is easy to change that to the previous default of integer-scaled resolution that looks like 1440x900, but I was wondering if the 1680x1050 scaled resolution actually looks better than that same setting on older rMBPs (i.e. are you not able to see slightly blurred UI/text)? The blur at the scaled 1680x1050 setting is extremely apparent to me on the 2015 rMBP, so I was just curious if they've made some big advancement with the improved new MBP displays or is it simply a change in the default setting and nothing else.

Thanks for your input!

 

[Sanpete]

I don't think it's changed, haven't heard anything about a change. The text of your post (and other text) looks as sharp at the default scaling as the 1440x900 scaling to me on my 2016 15". I read in various sources that it's actually more blurry. One such source provides a photo comparison, followed by the proviso, "it’s basically impossible to see the blurriness without looking at a MacBook Pro in person," which makes one wonder how large the difference really is. If I squint and get close enough to fog the screen I think I can make out a slight difference when text is at the same size. Maybe. It's hard to tell. But I don't normally view my monitor that close in any case.

 

[Sanpete]

Now I wonder if there has been a change. I noticed today that this article says, "Apple also cautions that "scaled resolutions do not offer the same visual quality as the Retina setting. Scaled resolutions may also impact graphics performance depending on which applications you are using.""

http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...na-display-hack-to-run-native-resolution.html

But the link that quote is supposedly from no longer says anything like that.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202471

 

[kbk75]

I've just taken an up-close look at both my MBPs so I could give you my opinion on this. One is a 2012 rMBP and the other is a 2016 tMBP, both 15".

The quality of the image wrt fuzziness and fine text is pretty-much the same on both computers. I don't see a discernible difference in either. I run my 2016 at the 'looks like 1920x1200' setting and the text looks pretty crisp and clear to me, same as it does on the 2012.

I will concede that's it slightly less clear than it appears at the '1440x900' setting but that may just as easily be a function of how much more magnified everything is. Theoretically, I can't imagine how a non-integer scaled resolution can possibly look as good as an integer-scaled one but, practically, I don't find the '1680x1050' or '1920x1200' settings to be fuzzy.

I'd say if you didn't like how '1680x1050' looked on the 2015 you're probably not going to like it any more on the 2016.

 

[Sanpete]

I've just taken an up-close look at both my MBPs so I could give you my opinion on this. One is a 2012 rMBP and the other is a 2016 tMBP, both 15".

The quality of the image wrt fuzziness and fine text is pretty-much the same on both computers. I don't see a discernible difference in either. I run my 2016 at the 'looks like 1920x1200' setting and the text looks pretty crisp and clear to me, same as it does on the 2012.

I will concede that's it slightly less clear than it appears at the '1440x900' setting but that may just as easily be a function of how much more magnified everything is. Theoretically, I can't imagine how a non-integer scaled resolution can possibly look as good as an integer-scaled one but, practically, I don't find the '1680x1050' or '1920x1200' settings to be fuzzy.

I'd say if you didn't like how '1680x1050' looked on the 2015 you're probably not going to like it any more on the 2016.

I think it may be the software that has changed. Are you running the same OS on both machines?

 

[kbk75]

I think it may be the software that has changed. Are you running the same OS on both machines?

Yup

 

[leman]

Honestly, the 'blur' is only in your imagination.

 

[caramelpolice]

I've found the scaled modes look fairly sharp when on the integrated GPU, but get notably fuzzier when running on the Radeon Pro 460.

 

[Sanpete]

Yup

That's probably why they look the same. I think they may have improved the scaling. But . . .

I've found the scaled modes look fairly sharp when on the integrated GPU, but get notably fuzzier when running on the Radeon Pro 460.

Maybe they haven't improved the scaling for the dGPU, then.

 

[Somian]

Is there a way to set the default scaling to non-scaled (actual 1440x900x2 (retina))? Whenever I connect the 15" mbp to an external display or projector, it defaults back to the scaled resolution (1680x1050x2 downsampled to 2880x1800). This makes the UI noticeably more sluggish and reduces batter life, so every time I connect a projector I need to change it back to the actual native resolution… In addition, I work with pixel-perfect graphics and with scaling like that I see moire effects.