A Closer Look at the New MacBook Pro's Retina Display

[ac3boy]

Saw it today

All the scaled resolutions look amazing. No issues with blurriness. I also saw no performance issues at all running 1920x1200. I also watched a 1080p trailer at all scaled choices and retina mode. Retina mode was amazing but the others looked great as well. I will be ordering one tomorrow to replace my 2011 17".

 

[ChicoJoe]

Just Got Back from the Apple Store...

... and I was impressed.

However, I found Safari didn't scroll smoothly on some webpages, an issue I didn't have on the other new, non-retina MacBooks in store. This page especially had problems: http://store.apple.com/ As of this evening, the page wasn't yet optimized for the retina display (unlike the Apple homepage) and Safari stuttered hard when scrolling through the large image in the center of the page.

Is this a rendering issue that will be resolved when Mountain Lion hits shelves? I'm 99% convinced the retina display is the way to go, but this makes me wonder if the specs on this machine are slightly too low to handle such a monitor.

BTW, this was on the 2.3GHz version, the only model on display at the Apple Store on Chestnut St. in San Francisco

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

No matte display, no purchase. At least as an option. Even if more expensive. Sign the petition at MacMatte (matte petition) http://macmatte.wordpress.com

I haven't seen it yet, but, even though I personally like true matte screens, I have seen reduced glare screens like this before and they are fine for normal use. There is a "moral issue" with offering true glossy only, but, I think that this new screen will be perfect for most of us and addresses that.

To be explicit: I have actually avoided purchasing the previous glossy systems-- lost revenue for Apple. If the new Retina screen looks like I think it will, I will not avoid purchasing it. (I am a little annoyed that the MBPR doesn't have built-in FireWire 800 though.)

So, no petition this time for me, unless I come back from the store blinded by the glare-- but based on reports, that is not going to happen.

 

[Crissov]

Hopefully available elsewhere with ML

In looking at scaling, the report explains the new slider option in System Preferences that allows users to select from a spectrum of resolutions that include not only the 1440x900 resolution in Retina quality using the full 2880x1800 pixels, but also larger desktop spaces at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050.

I hope other computers that are not specifically marketed as “Retina” will get that handling, too, with Mountain Lion. I’d try-out 1280, 1152, 1024 or 960 px wide resolutions with my 1366*768 px MBA, because text on it sometimes is just too small, but the current scaling produces ugly results.

 

[bhtooefr]

I hope other computers that are not specifically marketed as “Retina” will get that handling, too, with Mountain Lion. I’d try-out 1280, 1152, 1024 or 960 px wide resolutions with my 1366*768 px MBA, because text on it sometimes is just too small, but the current scaling produces ugly results.

The thing is, this method actually is the current scaling, just with everything at twice the resolution it was before, so it looks like crap if you're a few inches from the screen, but at normal viewing distances, it's hard or impossible to tell.

Then again, scaling a 2048x1152 image with the desktop area of a 1024x576 image down to 1366x768 wouldn't be terrible... except for the performance implications. The best I think you'll get is 1280x720 desktop area, HiDPI'd to 2560x1440, and then scaled down to 1366x768, if they go for that approach.

 

[john123]

I've been using the matte screens ever since Apple re-introduced them (in fact, I refused to buy the unibodies because of the glare). So, glare has been the question on my mind, and prompted me to go to the Apple Store to snap some pictures with my iPhone. I intentionally set my flash to "on" just to add a little bit of extra glare, in addition to the store lights.

I hate it when people include IMG tags when posting a series of images (and therefore make scrolling painful), so I'll just put Dropbox links below. But in summary, the Retina display does exhibit quite a bit more glare of ambient light than the matte display. Looking at the Retinas next to the glossy 15" ones, the improvement is noticeable -- and probably enough for most users. But for people like me who use their computers outside or in high ambient light situations, there may be cause for pause.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_01.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_02.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_03.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Matte_01.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Matte_02.jpg

 

[AirThis]

Looking at the Retinas next to the glossy 15" ones, the improvement is noticeable -- and probably enough for most users. But for people like me who use their computers outside or in high ambient light situations, there may be cause for pause.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_01.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_02.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_03.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Matte_01.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Matte_02.jpg

Thanks for the photos. I'm still hesitating between the regular MBP and the retina. Screen glare is a major deciding factor for me. The retina almost looks acceptable in your photos.

 

[john123]

Thanks for the photos. I'm still hesitating between the regular MBP and the retina. Screen glare is a major deciding factor for me. The retina almost looks acceptable in your photos.

I think for most people, it will be acceptable. If you have fluorescent lights directly behind you at work, that could be distracting -- and while those lights would have almost no impact on the matte screen (worst case scenario is something like my Matte_02 image, where it's a solid color and the light is visible but blurred), the Retina is still a big improvement over the default glossy screens.

I just tossed another picture that I didn't originally post up -- https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_04.jpg. This is a little more "real world" in that it isn't a solid color. It's the same angle as the other Retina shots, so the glare you notice in the middle-right is the same glare you see in the Retina_01 picture. And, of course, the iPhone flash is quite bright, but that's not a relevant real-world event.

TL/DR: It isn't perfect, but it's pretty reasonable.

 

[Tech198]

Retina display

So, if I got this straight :-

The 5 resolutions (Left to Right)

1,024 by 640 (Larger Text)
1,280 by 800
1,440 by 900
1,680 by 1,050
1,920 by 1,200 (More Space)


With 1440x900 being the default resolution out of the box.

So, basically all of Apple apps, including any Retina enabled apps will take advantage of 2880x1800, while non-Retina apps, (most others including open source e.g. Toast/Parallels etc...) will be 1440x900...

Either way, sounds like you cannot set it to its 'native' resolution, which is always gonna be better by all means. I might stick with my current Macbook Pro.... But 1920x1200 is still good at the least...

I'll just see what happens.... I could always return it.

Seems 2880x1800 is "pixel destiny" doubled. not screen resolution as people may think. This is how Apple did it in the iPad 3 too.

Still ok to me.

 

[AirThis]

I think for most people, it will be acceptable...

I just tossed another picture that I didn't originally post up -- https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15497133/MBPR/Retina_04.jpg.

TL/DR: It isn't perfect, but it's pretty reasonable.

Thanks for your insight. I could definitely use the more powerful hardware, so the screen isn't the only deciding factor. I think I'll wait a bit...

 

[houkouonchi]

Seems 2880x1800 is "pixel destiny" doubled. not screen resolution as people may think. This is how Apple did it in the iPad 3 too.

With a third party app you can get the native 2880x1800 (no scaling/doubling) with full desktop real-estate.

See:

http://cloudmancer.com/images/trueretina.jpg

and

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1389277/

 

[KnightWRX]

I hope other computers that are not specifically marketed as “Retina” will get that handling, too, with Mountain Lion. I’d try-out 1280, 1152, 1024 or 960 px wide resolutions with my 1366*768 px MBA, because text on it sometimes is just too small, but the current scaling produces ugly results.

The technique works precisely thanks to the Retina display. On a non-retina display, the downscaled images wouldn't look as good since you'd end up with much less pixels of details and the "cuts" would be more evident.

----------

Seems 2880x1800 is "pixel destiny" doubled. not screen resolution as people may think. This is how Apple did it in the iPad 3 too.

Thanks for pointing it out, but I think we had all figured it out by now that we're getting a "1440x900" desktop with sharper text with the Retina notebook. You do know this stuff has been out for a whole 2 years now on the iPhone 4 right ?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Thanks for pointing it out, but I think we had all figured it out by now that we're getting a "1440x900" desktop with sharper text with the Retina notebook. You do know this stuff has been out for a whole 2 years now on the iPhone 4 right ?

Actually, It's a bit of an improvement as a programmer IMO at full resolution. On Mac OSX text always seemed to be "fat" because of the Quartz2D AA. It now looks like Linux when using the Patent Encumbered Freetype libraries, which is a welcome improvement.

 

[KnightWRX]

Actually, It's a bit of an improvement as a programmer IMO at full resolution. On Mac OSX text always seemed to be "fat" because of the Quartz2D AA. It now looks like Linux when using the Patent Encumbered Freetype libraries, which is a welcome improvement.

As a programmer, I doubt you'd be using 1440x900 mode anyhow, 1920x1200 is too full of win

 

[MorphingDragon]

As a programmer, I doubt you'd be using 1440x900 mode anyhow, 1920x1200 is too full of win

I code a lot of personal projects in Haskell now, having as much text on screen as possible ceases to be a boon for productivity. Seeing the text clearly just helps the eyes.

But, I have two 1080p screens, which makes coding an exercise in clicking links in documentation. You know, whenever Cinnamon isn't freezing from the java bug. I like Eclipse but i also like Cinnamon. :/

 

[utezduyar]

Is this screen shot really true? It is saying "Looks like 1920 x 1200" on the left side for default retina mode which shouldn't be true. Any clue?

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


AnandTech takes a closer look at the new MacBook Pro's 2880x1800 Retina display, revealing just how well the display stacks up against its predecessor and other notebook displays and delving into the details of how it handles various resolutions.

In looking at scaling, the report explains the new slider option in System Preferences that allows users to select from a spectrum of resolutions that include not only the 1440x900 resolution in Retina quality using the full 2880x1800 pixels, but also larger desktop spaces at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050.Image


AnandTech's report also describes how Apple's display design has done away with the cover glass that in some circumstances suffers from significant glare on the standard non-Retina MacBook Pro. Phil Schiller noted during the keynote introduction that glare has been reduced 75% from the previous MacBook Pro, and AnandTech calls the Retina MacBook Pro's glare "remarkably close" to that seen on an earlier-generation matte MacBook Pro.

Comparing color and contrast, AnandTech discovered that the Retina MacBook Pro's display has remarkably improved black levels, which help compensate for slightly lower brightness. Contrast is also excellent, making for crisp and vivid content display.

Image


As with Retina displays on iOS devices, Apple automatically scales text to display at the crisper Retina resolution, but it is dependent on apps using Apple's text rendering. AnandTech notes that Google Chrome currently uses its own text rendering engine and is thus unable to take advantage of the sharper text available in Safari.

Finally, the report takes a look at how games handle the Retina display, with Diablo III taking full advantage of the 2880x1800 display as touted by Apple during the keynote. Some games are able to see the full resolution while others are limited to the "non-Retina" resolutions topping out at 1920x1200, but it seems reasonable to believe that over time game developers will be building in support for the ultra-high resolution of the new MacBook Pro.

Article Link: A Closer Look at the New MacBook Pro's Retina Display

 

[SirHaakon]

Went to the Apple store today and this was the list of choices under the display menu on the RMBP.

Did something change, or did someone install something to modify the standard options?

 

[bhtooefr]

Someone on the IBM_T2X_LCD Yahoo Group reported that a store machine was "glitched" to that.

 

[john123]

Figured I'd post my thoughts here after a couple weeks of use, since searching for threads about glare is what initially led me to this thread.

In short: yes, the glare problem is still there, even in a "real world" setting. You definitely don't want a lamp or anything like that in any place where it could introduce glare. It's not terrible, but it's not subtle either.

If you are like I was, and on the fence between the Retina and the high-res antiglare matte regular MBP, it's definitely not a no-brainer. I think I'm overall happy with my choice -- mostly because I'm using the Retina at the max resolution, which obviously isn't possible on the regular MBP. But it's a close call.