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 to Launch 2880x1800 Resolution 'Retina Display' MacBook Pro in Q2 2012?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would say so...advances would proportionally be the same, so the economies of scale might already be in place by the time these MBPs are launched.
In any case, I will buy one the moment it is out, as long as it has the same form factor as a MBA..!
Yet the big question is: what kind of GPU would be necessary to power this resolution without hiccups?
If you can't see a difference between image two and image three in my post, that's fine. Some of us don't have to jam our faces against the display to see it, though.
Lucky for you, you won't need a higher resolution display when they come out - you can save some money that way!For the rest of us that can see a difference, news of double resolution displays in new MacBooks is very exciting. I join the others who applaud this move!
But the point is that the screen is the same size. 1 pixel is the same size as 4 pixels on the HiDPI screen. Unless you looked under a microscope at each individual pixel, then both images would look exactly the same.
Ahh, well, I can't imagine Apple not letting apps be aware of the available resolution, especially for photo editing. It'd be a mess to try get right though.
Exactly. If you scale an image up by an integer factor 2:1, 3:1, etc. the image won't get the blurry effect, and assuming the pixel-size decreases by the same factor (1:2, 1:3, etc.), the image when displayed at the same physical size on the two displays will look identical (barring other differences between the displays, like color fidelity).
Just think of pixels as tiles you arrange into a grid to make a picture. If you design a 5'x5' layout using 1" tiles, but your supplier doesn't have any 1" tiles in stock, you can use 1/2" tiles instead, replacing each 1" tile with a 2x2 grid of 1/2" tiles and get the exact same image as a result. Going the other way, 1/2" tiles to 1" tiles, doesn't work nearly as well. Neither would going from 1" tiles to 3/4" tiles because you'd have to decide how to handle averaging the colors where those tiles 'cross the border' between two of the tiles in your original design.
I dunno about this... I don't see a big problem with the resolution on screens today, so why bump the price up or avoid a price reduction just to cram more pixels in to the machine? Would be nice if they included the new super high res displays as an option instead of mandatory.
If you can't see a difference between image two and image three in my post, that's fine. Some of us don't have to jam our faces against the display to see it, though.
Uh ? that makes no sense. I can plainly see the difference between a 960x640 image on the iPhone 4S and the 480x320 image on the 3GS. One is much sharper and detailed. That's plainly evident.
But what I'm saying is your pixel spacing theory is wack. Same 480x320 image blown up to 960x640 on the iPhone 4 looks the very same. It's not "sharper" than on a 3GS. Upscalers can't invent detail that isn't there in the original.
This is the update that i've been waiting to spend up to 2.5k on. Managed to completely avoid the unibody! God, I can't wait to get this in 15" or 17" matt finish. =D
This will make me believe that apple still cares about us PRO users.
This will make me believe that apple still cares about us PRO users.
Look, I understand what you're trying to say based on your experience that if you use an LCD monitor not at it's native resolution, things are blurry. That's because when you put say a 1024x780 monitor at 800x600, interpolation has to happen to map each pixel across a number of pixels that the LCD is "native" for. It's blurry because the interpolation is not happening at a harmonic frequency... but if you set the resolution to 512x390... it will actually look pretty good (obviously not as sharp as 1024x780), but this is the case with doubling the resolution in retina display. 1 pixel maps exactly to 4, so there isn't fractional interpolation. So it will look the same as the old non-"retina" display
I really don't get what all the discussion is about. right now, the 17 inch MBP has a different pixel density than the 15 in MBP, which has a different pixel density than the 13 inch MBP ... and so on. Even the 'hi-res' 15 inch MBP has a different res than the 'stock' 15 incher.
Why is the fact of this future MBP having yet another pixel density causing so much disscussion? A 800-600 photo will take up 1/4th the space on the new screen than it does on the current screen, same thing with any game that's stuck at a certain resolution. End of story.
Honestly, that'd be fine with me. 1680 x 1050 on a 15" screen scales the UI to a much smaller level, and for me personally at least, it can get difficult to see/read some things. I think the "1440 x 990 scaled UI" with an actual 2880 x 1800 resolution screen would look fantastic. But yes, having the option to turn it off would be good too.
I know that now - if you read the rest of the thread you'd see that I grasped that and acknowledged it all.
reading the conversation between you two, it seems like you're misunderstanding each other, you're both saying the same thing. clearly a high resolution image on a 4s looks sharper than one half the resolution on the 3gs. but the same image at 300x300 looks the same on the 3gs and the iphone (even though the iphone is scaling up each pixel of the image to 4 on its screen).
Eh? Don't think you understood this topic at all.
The 2880x1800 15" retina display will display content the same size was it would on a 1440x900 15" display. Everything will be far sharper though.
yes it does. if, for example, you have a bunch of 800x600 pixel photos you want to line up and looke at, the new display would allow you to fit 4 TIMES MORE of those photos onto your screen.
I consider that screen 'real estate'.
Sorry, the replies came back while I was setting up an account to reply. Cheers!
No, everything appears the exact same size as it does on the 15" 1440x900 display. Things are just as sharp.
Exact same idea as the 3GS -> iPhone 4. No more screen real estate, just double the resolution meaning sharper images/text.
Nope. take a photo (of a certain resolution, lets say 800x600) and put it on a 1440x900 15 inch macbook pro,
- and then next to it, put that same photo on a 15 inch macbook pro with the current 'hi rez' 1680x1050 15 inch MBP. That same photo will be smaller on the hi-rez MBP.
----------
For that matter, put a current 15 inch MBP next to a current 17 inch MBP (i have both). On the 17-incher, which has a higher pixel density, EVERYTHING is smaller: The apple logo up in the left upper corner, 12-point fonts are smaller, etc.
I really don't understand why you think that if you qualdriple the pixel density that an 800x600 pixel photo would "look the same size".
I would rather have an IPS non glossy screen, hands down. The gloss and poor viewing angles are issues that keep me running back to the good old desktop.
Because Apple isn't offering screen real estate here. The point in Apple making this screen is so text and images are sharper by doubling the resolution and keeping elements the same size as 1440x900.
An image at 800x600 may be smaller on this retina display, or Apple may upscale it. We don't know yet.. it might depend on the application in which you open that image. Using Finder or Preview, it might get upscaled to 1600x1200, but in Photoshop, it may appear as 800x600.
I guess it's a reasonnable idea, I mean rumors about Retina displayed iPads have been going wild and Apple is widely expected to give iPad 2S or 3 this feature, why not MacBook? Fingers crossed!
You're right sorta. Basically the OS has the option to do either. Display the image natively (1 pixel of image to 1 pixel on screen mapping) or to scale it like the iPhone 4 will do. This will be the tricky part, what will Apple decide should be scaled and what should be kept native? If I'm looking at photos in iPhoto, it'll probably stay native, but looking at web pages where the text will be scaled proportionally but images will not will screw up the layout. So, the web page images will have to be scaled up... Right now, Mac OS X doesn't do any scaling for any images... everything is 1:1. With a "Retina" display, it seems like Mac OS will have to scale some things.
I think images will be scaled up, unless they are over a certain size. So anything under, say, 1600x1200 will be scaled up, and anything above that will be left as it is.
It will be a mess, and it'll be interesting to see how Apple tackles this problem.