3072x1920 on 16" MacBook Pro

[Granville]

Subsampling isn't native and will always show blurrier images than native resolution. Even a 14 year old knows this... professor

Tech can already produce 4K notebook screens on 13" with over 330PPI, why wouldn't they be able to produce a 250ppi screen with basicly +oo cash in store...

 

[bill-p]

OP, while you complain about the resolution of the 16" MacBook, which... if I may add, is only 0.5" longer than the already existing 15.6" MacBook Pro... I think I'll wait until Apple releases a 18" or 19" MacBook Pro.

For screen real estate, physical size trumps resolution.

 

[CreeptoLoser]

Subsampling isn't native and will always show blurrier images than native resolution. Even a 14 year old knows this... professor

Tech can already produce 4K notebook screens on 13" with over 330PPI, why wouldn't they be able to produce a 250ppi screen with basicly +oo cash in store...

Forgive him, he sounds new to this.

That extra 150 pixels won't change a thing. If he's downloading photos from his camera then he's never going to be seeing images at native resolution unless he zooms in a lot. A 4K display is 7 megapixels. A typical image from a camera nowadays is over 25 megapixels.

If subsampling or interpolating is making the images look soft at 25% zoom then it's the app's fault. Some apps are better than others at interpolation. Preview shows soft images images at 25%. Photoshop shows sharp images at 25%. It doesn't mean anything anyway because you will have to resize the images fit for whatever purpose they have.

 

[redheeler]

It's only like 150 pixels away from 4K. Won't make a dot of difference if you're watching 4K movies.

I'm talking about the size and quality of the general UI, not watching 4K movies.

For Macbooks and iPads Apple doesn't use 16:9 ratio. The ratio they use is preferable for documents and split view.

3840x2160 is 16:9, 3840x2400 is 16:10. The latter is what I want to see, and it's exactly double the width and height of the old high-res non-Retina 17" MacBook Pro.

 

[CreeptoLoser]

I'm talking about the size and quality of the general UI, not watching 4K movies.

3840x2160 is 16:9, 3840x2400 is 16:10. The latter is what I want to see.

It doesn't matter. The UI scaling is independent of image scaling.

16:10 is a good ratio but when Apple buys a display from Samsung or Toshiba it has to be cut down. If you want 3840x2400 then it has to be cut down from a 5K panel, which doesn't exist at that laptop size anyway. If you get 3072x1920 then it is cut down from a 4K panel.

So if you want the ratio for document viewing that Apple supplies then you can't have 3840x2400 unless the panel would be specially made for Apple. You would pay two arms and two legs for it. You already pay an arm and a leg

Patience padawan in time higher resolutions will come when it is ready.

 

[redheeler]

It doesn't matter. The UI scaling is independent of image scaling.

16:10 is a good ratio but when Apple buys a display from Samsung or Toshiba it has to be cut down. If you want 3840x2400 then it has to be cut down from a 5K panel, which doesn't exist at that laptop size anyway. If you get 3072x1920 then it is cut down from a 4K panel.

So if you want the ratio for document viewing that Apple supplies then you can't have 3840x2400 unless the panel would be specially made for Apple. You would pay two arms and two legs for it. You already pay an arm and a leg

All of the MacBook Pros feature panels that are custom-made for Apple, they don't buy off-the-shelf panels like some PC manufacturers. This is why the 2012 MacBook Pro with Retina Display was able to surpass all of its competition with that stunning (for the time) 2880x1800 panel, and it took 1-2 years for 3840x2160 Retina panels to finally become available on laptop PCs. The 2012 MacBook Pro with Retina Display was given a premium, but still priced below $3,000.

 

[buran-energia]

In 2016, Apple started defaulting to a higher software resolution (3360x2100) on the 15" MacBook Pro, while the physical resolution remained 2880x1800.

edit: OK, you mean internally the resolution is 1680x1050 * 2 = 3360x2100, then it scales down.

Where do you even get these numbers from (3360x2100)?

Macbook Pro 15 screen's physical resolution is 2880x1800. Before 2016, the default scaling for those models was 1440x900 (scaled down by 2). After 2016, it is 1680x1050. They changed it partially because these scaling modes require more power from the internal GPU and also probably because of marketing (when comparing to MBP Air).

And yes, certain small text looks sharper on Macbooks if their resolution is scaled down by 2, but it also depends somewhat on which macOS you are using because of different system fonts, etc. The change annoyed me at first, but now I got used to it and prefer the slightly higher scaled res.

 

[redheeler]

Where do you even get these numbers from (3360x2100)?

Macbook Pro 15 screen's physical resolution is 2880x1800. Before 2016, the default scaling for those models was 1440x900 (scaled down by 2). After 2016, it is 1680x1050. They changed it partially because these scaling modes require more power from the internal GPU and also probably because of marketing (when comparing to MBP Air).

3360x2100 is referring to the 1680x1050 mode you see in System Preferences > Displays. It's rendered at double the width and height for the Retina display.

And yes, certain small text looks sharper on Macbooks if their resolution is scaled down by 2, but it also depends somewhat on which macOS you are using because of different system fonts, etc. The change annoyed me at first, but now I got used to it and prefer the slightly higher scaled res.

At one point we were accustomed to non-Retina non-IPS displays, so of course you can get used to a little bit of fuzziness if you have nothing better to compare it to. My issue here is with the value proposition; at $3,000, I expect a PPI that is good enough to justify the price, instead of an obvious compromise.

 

[Hieveryone]

IMO the screen should be good. I have there 15" base model MacBook Pro 2019.

The screen is great. Very crisp, and also great color. The colors look deep but not saturated to me.

All this 4K in a laptop seems more like marketing hype than actual benefit to the user...

 

[Granville]

Damn it's annoying how many people don't readh and simply change your words and start talking about 4k like crazy horses.

This has NOTHING to do with 4k 16:9 screens

 

[MrUNIMOG]

I have to hold/use my iPhone X (460PPI) closer to my face now than my iPhone 8 (320PPI). Are you kidding me?
I need to read?? You need to think!

All of you are completely missing the fact that the OLED iPhones use a PenTile sub pixel arrangement (Watch and Touch Bar don't), meaning they have √2 times lower pixel density of red and blue which they need to compensate for in nominal pixel density.

460 PPI divided by √2 is roughly 325 PPI so that's perfectly in line with all other Retina iPhones (except the Plus models with their weird scaling of 3x downsampled to 1080p).

iPhone: 320ppi -> moving to 460ppi since you hold your phone closer to your eyes than an ipad
iPad: 320ppi

iPad has significantly lower than 320 PPI (except iPad mini), Retina iPads have 264 PPI.
As for the OLED iPhones, like I said above, 460 PPI is only true for green, blue and red remain about 325 PPI.

 

[Hieveryone]

Damn it's annoying how many people don't readh and simply change your words and start talking about 4k like crazy horses.

This has NOTHING to do with 4k 16:9 screens

All I was saying is that 4K seems hype for laptop screens and I'll tell you why - screen size. So what I"m trying to say is that it's probably hard to notice a huge difference, and also there'll probably be a hit to battery life and I don't want to go thicker on the macbook pros (for more battery)

 

[CrysisDeu]

Are you sitting in front of your laptop with a magnifying glass? What you write is quite correct, but ultimately irrelevant since you are not considering the relative sizes, viewing distances or the fact that image data is interpolated. You are falling into the typical logical pitfall of “not aligned on pixel grid=blurry”. With HiDPI, pixel grids are irrelevant. Hacks like sub-sample AA are irrelevant. Everything you render is super sampled at physical level since you get actual physical sub-samples.

But it would still be great if apple pushes the ppi of the screen higher to get an exact 200% scaling. Its the small things that makes apple special

 

[fokmik]

3072x1920 it will be fine for current iGpu..it seems nobody here runs an forced igpu only with 2100p or higher resolution,macos mjoave and catalina UI is around 34-42fps ...so now some people cry about 2100p but with todays igpu the UI will be even laggier than the first 15” retina macbook pro 2012

 

[Falhófnir]

Going back to integer scaling would be nice, but I doubt 1536x960 will be a resolution option (plus you lose effective resolution that way, doesn't make sense if the screen is getting bigger). More likely it will still be scaled 1680x1050. Would have been nice to get 3360x2100 for perfect @2x scaling of the default resolution. The only potential benefit I can see is the 1920x1200 scaled resolution being more usable than on the current 15" models - and that's just because the screen's larger physical size will make everything less tiny at that resolution.
[doublepost=1564672403][/doublepost]

3072x1920 it will be fine for current iGpu..it seems nobody here runs an forced igpu only with 2100p or higher resolution,macos mjoave and catalina UI is around 34-42fps ...so now some people cry about 2100p but with todays igpu the UI will be even laggier than the first 15” retina macbook pro 2012

It takes more GPU power to run a non integer scaled resolution as there's an extra interpolation step for the GPU to do for every frame. This has been the same since retina MacBooks launched.

 

[leman]

It takes more GPU power to run a non integer scaled resolution as there's an extra interpolation step for the GPU to do for every frame. This has been the same since retina MacBooks launched.

Do we know for sure that this is done on the GPU and not by whatever hardware unit sends the final data to the display? I have no idea how that part of the GPU looks and whether they employ hardware scalers for that test. What I do know is that the screen backing buffer is always presented at the virtual resolution, not the native resolution. So the OS either maintains a hidden native-resolution presentation buffer in the background, or there is indeed some sort of hardware scaling solution employed.

 

[redheeler]

Going back to integer scaling would be nice, but I doubt 1536x960 will be a resolution option (plus you lose effective resolution that way, doesn't make sense if the screen is getting bigger). More likely it will still be scaled 1680x1050. Would have been nice to get 3360x2100 for perfect @2x scaling of the default resolution. The only potential benefit I can see is the 1920x1200 scaled resolution being more usable than on the current 15" models - and that's just because the screen's larger physical size will make everything less tiny at that resolution.

The 16.5" defaulting to the exact same amount of screen space as the 15" doesn't make much sense to me, unless Apple intends it to be a replacement for the 15" with smaller bezels, but the rumors so far have indicated that it will be a higher-end model with a higher price.

My guess is that if the physical resolution of the 16.5" MacBook Pro is 3072x1920 as rumored, 1920x1200 (1.25:1) will be the default, 1536x960 (1:1 native) will be the next option down in System Preferences > Displays, and 2304x1440 (1.5:1) will be the next option up as "More Space".

 

[redheeler]

3840x2400 would be most ideal as a native resolution for the 16.5" MacBook Pro. Any higher than that, and things start to become unusably small at native res 2x scaling. Any lower than that, and you're left with one of two outcomes: less screen space compared to the old pre-Retina MacBook Pro, even the 15" model if the native res is lower than 3360x2100, or fuzziness from pixel blurring.

 

[MrGunnyPT]

3072x1920 it will be fine for current iGpu..it seems nobody here runs an forced igpu only with 2100p or higher resolution,macos mjoave and catalina UI is around 34-42fps ...so now some people cry about 2100p but with todays igpu the UI will be even laggier than the first 15” retina macbook pro 2012

Don't forget the 16" will obviously bring a dGPU too for when it needs to kick in some more power

 

[smetvid]

I believe Apple prefers a specific DPI for comfort level. 15" at 2880 wide with a 1440 UI space is about a 109 DPI. Most of their computers including the 21" iMac, 27" iMac and new 6k Pro HDR display all fall within this same 109 DPI.

It is about comfort level and the optimal size for quality and viewing comfort. Going any higher is a lot more difficult for some people.

The beauty of scaling with retina however is that you can get more detail and match the same UI space as a 4k display. For example the 15" can scale to 1920 wide for the UI space. The way Apple handles scaling is it renders everything on the GPU at 2x. So a 1920 wide UI space actually renders at 3840 wide and then uses the 2880 display to show that 3840 image. You end up with roughly a 1.5x retina display but the same exact UI space as a 3840 wide 4k display at 2x retina. You lose a bit of clarity and the scaling introduces a slight amount of blurring but because it is scaling down and the pixels at 15" are so tiny there is very little actual difference between what a native 3840 display would show.

The problem with going the opposite direction is that if the display was 3840 and users needed to scale down to make that easier to read the display would introduce blurriness which when scaled up is easier to notice and doesn't look as good. So a native 15" 3840 display scaled to a 1440 UI space for user comfort would look vastly worse than what the current native 2880 monitor does.

So by Apple choosing 2880 they cater to different options in the most optimized visual way. 1440 UI space looks pixel perfect and 1920 UI space looks pretty darn good at 1.5x retina. Since larger pixels are easier to see imperfections it makes sense to make sure the 1440 UI space looks perfect first.

The new rumored 3072 wide display is the same 109 DPI scale for comfort with a little extra resolution due to the reduced bezel. The actual screen itself is slightly larger now so it can have a few more pixels on each side and still maintain that comfortable 109 DPI. This makes sense for all the same reasons.

I know people really want 4k to say they have 4k but we already have the exact same UI space option on the 15" with very little negative visual impact. I really don't think most people would even really notice the difference and it would look horrible scaled down to 1440. I use my 15" a lot at the default scale for comfort reasons and appreciate the fact that it is visually perfect at that scale.

 

[fokmik]

Don't forget the 16" will obviously bring a dGPU too for when it needs to kick in some more power

Is not about that...on those high resolution means dgpu will be used non stop...heat, battery will be around 4-5 hours for just watching the screen. And how catalina is scaling now,1920p it will be ok for 16.4”

 

[LuciusWrong]

Damn it's annoying how many people don't readh and simply change your words and start talking about 4k like crazy horses.

This has NOTHING to do with 4k 16:9 screens

YOU DON'T SEE IN 4K!

(Hahhahhhahahahahhaajhajajahahhhajajaajha)

 

[T-Bob]

I have to hold/use my iPhone X (460PPI) closer to my face now than my iPhone 8 (320PPI). Are you kidding me?
I need to read?? You need to think!
[doublepost=1564564414][/doublepost]

It's not irrelevant, that's the reason apple always uses those strange digit resolutions to be able to scale exactly at 200%.

Remember also. That screen is not using rgb subpixels, so you have to up the ppi in order to avoid seeing imperfections. If it had true rgb subpixels, they could lower the ppi.

 

[redheeler]

So it's official. Honestly, it's surprising to see Apple continuing to use 226 PPI on a product targeted (in part) at photographers and graphic designers, in an era when 4K is becoming the standard.

I'm not saying it's a bad display, the other specs are good, but it could very easily be excellent with a small bump in PPI. Apple seems to know this, and has intentionally included the display resolution only on the "Tech Specs" page, it's not featured prominently elsewhere.

Disappointing. I was hoping the change in PPI would also make its way to the 13" eventually, would be great to downsize and not lose any screen space or clarity. But now, who knows when Apple will finally increase the PPI, it could still be years away.

 

[high3r]

3072x1920 it will be fine for current iGpu..it seems nobody here runs an forced igpu only with 2100p or higher resolution,macos mjoave and catalina UI is around 34-42fps ...so now some people cry about 2100p but with todays igpu the UI will be even laggier than the first 15” retina macbook pro 2012

Indeed. UHD 630 is very weak and it's from two (!) years ago. The current 13 MBPs have a lot better iGPU and they have to cope with a smaller resolution too. So you have two options: sacrifice battery life with the use of dGPU or use the HD 630 and the UI will lag heavily which will give you the impression that your expensive MBP is slow and outdated.