Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A Closer Look at the New MacBook Pro's Retina Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It seems like the way Apple has framed the display options is causing confusion.
OSX has been built to be resolution independent - Applications that make use of Core UI elements will already be 'retina' by virtue of how OSX renders things like buttons, windows, type, etc.
There's lots of exceptions to this - but it's hard to discuss without spiraling into an academic discussion of how graphics behave. In short - non-updated applications won't be a fuzzy mess, but they may contain elements (custom buttons for instance) that will suffer from 'fuzz.'
This is a great moment for OSX. As a designer, I've been waiting ages for the resolution-independent era to arrive.
Displays like these are going to turn the world of Web design on its head, as we will have to start thinking about screen space in terms of 'inches on screen' instead of 'pixels.'
OSX has been built to be resolution independent - Applications that make use of Core UI elements will already be 'retina' by virtue of how OSX renders things like buttons, windows, type, etc.
There's lots of exceptions to this - but it's hard to discuss without spiraling into an academic discussion of how graphics behave. In short - non-updated applications won't be a fuzzy mess, but they may contain elements (custom buttons for instance) that will suffer from 'fuzz.'
This is a great moment for OSX. As a designer, I've been waiting ages for the resolution-independent era to arrive.
Displays like these are going to turn the world of Web design on its head, as we will have to start thinking about screen space in terms of 'inches on screen' instead of 'pixels.'
They do, only on the old version. What I'd be interested in is 1920x1200. Can anyone say how that looks on the new retina MBA?
If that looks OK and IF the color gamut and calibration options are halfway decent for photography needs I may reconsider.
Leaves only one question then: how hard is it to replace the SSD later? Is it possible at all? I still think that I liked the "old" form factor better, especially given the option to replace the optical drive with a second HD for space. I still don't get why everything has to be thinner when they should rather be looking at leaving less space around the screen and the keyboard on the sides.
Maybe I'm still on board with going Mac if 1920x1200 works.
Nothing that a well placed "* 2.0" won't fix... (ok, a bit more that this to support Windows, Linux, Mac non-retina, but you get my drift).
Chrome is not the only software that is not ready for retina. Mind you most apps' text will be retina even if they only have @1x images.
It was released yesterday and it ain't exactly crippling...
...
I'll assume this is in Mountain Lion.
I'd rather "see" the resolutions.....what i want to change to, then to just have "generic" options available.
I can see it easier for the average jo. but most users would probably be confused be this...
What are these options resolutions exactly ?
Or are these still available ?
Regarding games, I won't bloat over "non-retina" games ONLY being 1920x1200.. This is still better than current MacBook Pro's
I'll assume this is in Mountain Lion.
I'd rather "see" the resolutions.....what i want to change to, then to just have "generic" options available.
I can see it easier for the average jo. but most users would probably be confused be this...
What are these options resolutions exactly ?
Or are these still available ?
Regarding games, I won't bloat over "non-retina" games ONLY being 1920x1200.. This is still better than current MacBook Pro's
I would say that was pretty much the case up until recent high resolution displays came out and it didnt make sense to make the usable space any bigger. At a certain point you cant see the text because its so small and that would be the case with the retina screens apple has been releasing recently. Really, this is a pretty new issue and I think you would just have to understand what you are buying.
But, which has the better color gamut, with higher accuracy, that's the real question.
More resolution means that you can resolve more detail.
Historically, this has been used to fit more on the screen.
Apple's using it to give you the same size, but twice as much resolution in each direction. And then, they're offering other options to trade crispness for size, or vice versa (but not in the most optimal way).
By default, it has exactly as much size as it had in the 1440x900 MacBook Pro 15".
However, you can make things bigger (as big as they would be on a theoretical 1024x640 MBP 15"), and smaller (as big as they would be on a theoretical 1920x1200 MBP 15"). Quality can suffer at the larger sizes/smaller pixel areas (as it's still doing upscaling, just like if you had run a 1440x900 MBP at 1024x640, but it's less noticeable due to how high resolution it's actually running), but it's not a bad approach.
Photoshop, Adobe & Co.
What I'd like to know is, if Photoshop and all the other Adobe Products need an update to offer their full functionality on a Retina display?
What I'd like to know is, if Photoshop and all the other Adobe Products need an update to offer their full functionality on a Retina display?
Correction on SSD
On the Apple web site I see options for 512GB and 768GB SSD, not 256GB.
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC976LL/A?
On the Apple web site I see options for 512GB and 768GB SSD, not 256GB.
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC976LL/A?
I think that was hinted at yesterday. Supposedly they are working with Adobe on something. Which in return means that my CS5 and LR3 would likely not see an update while I could see that they make this available for the currently released CS6 and LR4. Not Apples fault but adds another wrinkle to everyone who is into photography - and hasn't "upgraded" to CS6/LR4 yet for reasons other than the money involved.
May I say that I find everything in the hardware and software world pretty exasperating at the moment? I understand that we live in exciting times with lots of milestone transitions. But even when you're willing to shell out some significant doe it appears there is still always a compromise involved.
Do you know if this is "unofficially" user exchangeable later? Or did they solder those in as well like it appears they did with the RAM?
Does anyone know if there is any space/connectivity for a second hard drive? Or any chance this could be swapped for a regular drive?
This is amazing, really. It seems to be a real resolution indipendence, system that render all things at double the resolution and then scaling all at LCD native resolution. Now the question is if it works even on 3rd party external displays, to allow retina or near-retina quality on future high density (but not 4x) screens.
How could an image downscaled from 3360x2100 to 2880x1800 have less detail than one at 1680x1050? Shouldn't it be the other way around? And why would they use nearest neighbor scaling? That's the worse form of scaling when you're not resizing by an integer factor in that kind of scenario.
I'm not sure what kind of interpolation the downscaling will use but I'm sure it won't be as bad as nearest neighbor. If it's anything close to Photoshop's bilinear interpolation (the simplest interpolation besides nearest neighbor), it should look pretty good (see attached image).
Attachments
I noticed base 15" MBP has the same processor as the base Retina MBP, but worse GPU and RAM. If you configure the MBP to have the same size SSD as the base Retina MBP, you have a more expensive machine, but still lower specs. Similar happens when comparing the upper spec machines (which are closer in other specs). Built-to-order will have an effect on this, but I doubt it is enough to more that close the gap.
So the retina screen doesn't appear to have an effect on prices. If so, that bodes well for quick adoption by the rest of the Mac range. They need to, because anything not retina seems like old tech now.
Resolution, as someone said, just means how much detail you can resolve.
"Fitting more on the screen" come from putting more pixels in the same physical space....you can fit more 256x256 icons for example on a 1920x screen than a 1024x, if both screen are 20 inches wide. Notice the icon size is constant.
Apple has put more pixels in the same space, but also made all the icons and text larger (in terms of pixels), but they stay the same size (in inches) because of the increase in pixels.
Thus the screen will likely have the same work area in terms of icons and windows as the previous MBP...just much sharper.
You have the option of making the icons and windows smaller (in terms of pixels) which also makes them smaller (in terms of inches) thus giving you more room to work.
The leap from resolution fixed UIs to resolution independent UIs is pretty huge.
The coordination involved in developing resolution independent software and content turns lots of entrenched standards on their head - expect strangeness for the next couple of years.
Heck, here we are years after the ubiquity of HDTV and many shows are still broadcast in 720p.
Really? I've used my father's 17" MacBook Pro and reading on it was fantastic, I'm not sure if I would mind it on the 15" MacBook Pro or not. I would have to see it. Might be too small.
I love my 1680x1050 Anti-Glare display, but sometimes I wish I had a bit more screen real estate. I don't plan on upgrading anytime soon, however.
I think it is just like the macbook air. Everything is soldered in.
Space for a second drive?
Where would you put it? What would you take out? You want to put a harddrive where a small array of RAM chips are?If you want an HD and an SSD you're better off buying the regular MBP and swapping the OD for an SSD aftermarket.
Retina Display PC application implication?
Thank You for the Awesome report on this Fantastic Display inovation.
However, could you explain what the impli-fi-cation shold be if someone is considering the purchase of a new apple free standing solo-display/ monitor.
How does the output resolution measure compared to the stand alone displays?
Will It be a waste to buy the big real estate at this time?
What are your thoughts for a body needing real estate in the next 60 days,
Besides the obvious,,,wait?
Thank You for the Awesome report on this Fantastic Display inovation.
However, could you explain what the impli-fi-cation shold be if someone is considering the purchase of a new apple free standing solo-display/ monitor.
How does the output resolution measure compared to the stand alone displays?
Will It be a waste to buy the big real estate at this time?
What are your thoughts for a body needing real estate in the next 60 days,
Besides the obvious,,,wait?
Adobe & Co.
Thanks for the answer! I'm already on CS6 so hopefully they will bring something soon. I'm really thinking about to buy a retina version. But I will wait for some more information available. Thanks again!
Thanks for the answer! I'm already on CS6 so hopefully they will bring something soon. I'm really thinking about to buy a retina version. But I will wait for some more information available. Thanks again!
Feels like this is where everybody is getting stuck.
We're used to thinking "high res display mode = Smaller UI, Sharper Graphics, More Workspace" "low res display mode = Larger UI, Chunky Graphics, Less Workspace."
This doesn't apply anymore. With a Retina display the question is "How big do you want your UI?" No matter how big or small you make your UI, the graphics will always be sharp.
Wikipedia has a great illustration of this - Just google 'Resolution Independence.'