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.
Apple Including Ultra High Resolution Artwork in Lion for Possible Retina Displays?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wish Apple did something towards resolution independence and not make images bigger and bigger.
The basic fact is vector graphics aren't always appropriate. A lot of things really can only be done, or can be done much better, with pixels. For any image with a lot of detail, it's easier -- both for the artists making them, and for the computers rendering them -- to store an extremely high resolution bitmapped image, and then downscale it as necessary, than it is to make and render a vectorized version that is "truly" resolution independent.
And now Apple's realized that by targeting "Retina Display" resolution levels, this is the last increase in image sizes they'll ever reasonably need: there's no point in making images bigger beyond this point (or displays with higher-than-retina-level DPI one would need to render them) because your eyes really won't be able to tell the difference.
not the icons the wallpaper
and its Macintosh HD/Library/Desktop pictures
icons are located by clicking get info on an application, then clicking the icon in the window and command+c to copy. open up preview and click file, open from clipbord
I think Apple is simply futureproofing here, and we won't see Retina displays for 3+ years, when it would be more feasible.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
Does Apple set a cap on that? I expect it's up to the publishers to put in their artwork, and they're more likely to blame if you're encountering low resolution stuff.
When you attach artwork to items yourself in iTunes, it can be extremely high-resolution -- not sure what or if there is a limit, but if it exists, it's high enough not to be a problem.
LOL was going about it the hardware in CoreServices/Finder.app (which has all the sidebar icons btw). Didn't think it would be the obvious in the Contents of the app. DOH!
Thanks!
Wait, so the desktop wallpaper should be 3200x2000? I'm only seeing 2560x1600. Hmmmm.
Checked out the icons, the largest I see in the App's are 512x512. Strange.
UPDATE: Launchpad.icns shows 1024x1024. Checking app's specific to Lion, just odd some don't have the reported 1024.
Last edited by a moderator:
My hopes were for smaller iMacs with retina displays. I own a 30" screen and while it isn't a burden, I really don't mind a 20" screen with high res.
The iMac should remain a kind of ultra-compact, semi-portable type computer. 20" should be the biggest, just up to retina. Will they do it this year?
I was just thinking of my old iBook with that res. Sheesh. These newer computers are making 1999 look like 1926.
The iMac should remain a kind of ultra-compact, semi-portable type computer. 20" should be the biggest, just up to retina. Will they do it this year?
Howabout 800x600?
I was just thinking of my old iBook with that res. Sheesh. These newer computers are making 1999 look like 1926.
ahhh crap, yet more waiting time for next next next iMac (money back into the savings account then). I really do wish Apple would quit the messing with bit by bit updates and just release a genuine industry changing computer again like it did with the original macpro.
Agreed re: future-proofing, but are you seriously suggesting that Apple isn't serious about GPUs? They've probably got a higher "minimum acceptable" standard for GPU performance than any other manufacturer. The one thing they don't do is chase the bleeding edge super-high-end gaming GPUs.
Also: games don't HAVE to render at native display resolutions. And as resolution gets higher, the artifacts from not being at the native level become much less visible.
The only wallpaper that currently show this resolution is the default lion wallpaper, So even if your in lion none of the other wallpapers are this resolution, anyway no problem im happy to help.
What is the point in this?
For a phone and an iPad which has fixed resolution graphics, yes fine, but on a computer desktop which just scales to whatever resolution you have?
I don't get it?
Sure, yes, increase the resolution, but why not increase it to an industry standard instead?
We have 1920x1080 for many widescreen monitors these days.
We also have 1920x1200 for a bit more height.
In the future we will be moving to 4K resolutions for video & computer graphics.
4K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
Then one day we can dream about 8K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_Video_Format
For a phone and an iPad which has fixed resolution graphics, yes fine, but on a computer desktop which just scales to whatever resolution you have?
I don't get it?
Sure, yes, increase the resolution, but why not increase it to an industry standard instead?
We have 1920x1080 for many widescreen monitors these days.
We also have 1920x1200 for a bit more height.
In the future we will be moving to 4K resolutions for video & computer graphics.
4K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
Then one day we can dream about 8K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_Video_Format
Sounds great, but I would need a new pair of eyeballs to tell the difference (maybe Apple will someday come out with iBalls )
)
Wow... Imagine an 11 inch MacBook Air with the resolution of a much bigger monitor... Or imagine a MacBook Pro that can display all of Photoshop's annoying panels without having to collapse them all the time... Or simply viewing photos with loads more detail! Good stuff!
In Lion (developer here), on the latest build. Wonder why. I was able to see 1024x1024 in Launchpad.icns in its resources folder, but other Lion native app's only list 512x512. Oh well, no bigger. Interesting news though and thanks again mate.
Apple's problem is that they put "Looks" before performance.
They crippled their chances of ever becoming a serious competitor to the PC for games due to deciding to use giant laptops on a stand which meant they could not cool any decent graphics cards, handing the gaming crown to the PC for years on a plate.
As for the future who knows.
Uhmm, how about 640x480? Or less, with the vic 20.
I remember my pos compaq 386sx2 that came defaulted to 800x600... In 1994.
Back ot, why is apple dealing wih 3200x3200? Are they abandoning the tradition 4:3, 16x9 or 16:9 aspect ratio?
It's linked in the post (but judging from a lot of the responses here, nobody's read it.)
