Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

5k Display Sharpness

M

Mirascael

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 21, 2008
44
41
I checked out the new iMac at the local Apple store earlier today and experienced a deja-vu:

As with my 2008 24"-iMac, the picture of the new 5k model doesn't really appear to be crisp but somewhat out of focus (at maxed out resolution, though the phenomenon gets even worse with lower resolutions).

Is this some kind of software issue where OS X isn't utilising proper fonts for the resolution used?
 
Are you sure you were looking at the NEW iMac because what I saw was B E A U T I F U L !
 
Did you check how it was set up? What apps was it running?

The display is perfect when everything's right, but bear in mind that store display models often get mucked about with and you might not have been seeing what you expected.
 
tillsbury said:
Did you check how it was set up? What apps was it running?

The display is perfect when everything's right, but bear in mind that store display models often get mucked about with and you might not have been seeing what you expected.
Click to expand...

Yup, it's different when you actually use one. Granted, some sites/apps aren't optimized and may look blurry, but most of what you'll see looks much sharper. If someone was messing with the resolutions on the one you saw that may explain it.
 
The whole retina viewing experience isn't about having the monitor "maxed out." Per Apple, the best viewing is actually at the regular "resolution" of the regular iMac, 2560x1440. But with retina there are four pixels per unit, not one as with the regular Mac. And using HiDPI means that all the user interface icons and what not, like text, are scaled to be twice as big (i.e. twice as many pixels).

If you view non UI elements, like a photo, the Mac OS goes aha! and renders that at pixel for pixel resolution. So a 4k video will be 4k and not fill the screen, but the text and such in the application you're using will be 2x as big, so that you can read them. Some applications, like Apple's and Adobe's, make use of this. Some don't, and you might see ridonculously small or ugly text. Just like when stuff was viewed when the first retina stuff came out. Not everything is gonna look great on a retina screen; some junky stuff will still look junky.
 
I've had in mind text specifically (like in the upper taskbar).

I'd been using the recommended resolution (2560x1440 iirc) under Systems Preferences.

The recommended resolution on the late 2013 rMBP (13") I'm writing this post from is definitely far superior from what I'd been experiencing on the exhibition piece (and the Full-HD 2008 24"-iMac).
 
robgendreau said:
The whole retina viewing experience isn't about having the monitor "maxed out." Per Apple, the best viewing is actually at the regular "resolution" of the regular iMac, 2560x1440. But with retina there are four pixels per unit, not one as with the regular Mac. And using HiDPI means that all the user interface icons and what not, like text, are scaled to be twice as big (i.e. twice as many pixels).

If you view non UI elements, like a photo, the Mac OS goes aha! and renders that at pixel for pixel resolution. So a 4k video will be 4k and not fill the screen, but the text and such in the application you're using will be 2x as big, so that you can read them. Some applications, like Apple's and Adobe's, make use of this. Some don't, and you might see ridonculously small or ugly text. Just like when stuff was viewed when the first retina stuff came out. Not everything is gonna look great on a retina screen; some junky stuff will still look junky.
Click to expand...

Actually OS X take HiDPI very seriously and will upscale non-optimized apps or images causing them to look blurry/pixelated. I have never seen small text in OS X apps, although in Windows I have.
In an OS X app you actually have to use .5 to refer to a retina pixel. Otherwise it will use a standard pixel grid like the majority of the UI uses.
 
Mirascael said:
I've had in mind text specifically (like in the upper taskbar).

I'd been using the recommended resolution (2560x1440 iirc) under Systems Preferences.

The recommended resolution on the late 2013 rMBP (13") I'm writing this post from is definitely far superior from what I'd been experiencing on the exhibition piece (and the Full-HD 2008 24"-iMac).
Click to expand...

That's odd. The one I used was exactly as good as my rMBP.
 
Mirascael said:
I've had in mind text specifically (like in the upper taskbar).
Click to expand...

So far I have actually been more impressed with the way text looks than with photos.

Photos look beautiful...you can get right up against the screen and it looks as if it's painted onto the surface, but from a distance I didn't find the difference drastically noticeable.

It's the text that has really grabbed my attention. It is so crisp and clear I feel like I'm reading from a large magazine page and not a monitor. It was instantly noticeable and makes my monitor here at work look fuzzy.
 
NotQuiteLurking said:
So far I have actually been more impressed with the way text looks than with photos.

Photos look beautiful...you can get right up against the screen and it looks as if it's painted onto the surface, but from a distance I didn't find the difference drastically noticeable.

It's the text that has really grabbed my attention. It is so crisp and clear I feel like I'm reading from a large magazine page and not a monitor. It was instantly noticeable and makes my monitor here at work look fuzzy.
Click to expand...

Yup. Text and graphics looks so much better, especially thin fonts, which seem to be in nowadays. It is much more comparable to print quality than the old standard is. Puts my 2010 iMac to shame ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back