Apple to Launch 2880x1800 Resolution 'Retina Display' MacBook Pro in Q2 2012?

[iRCL]

Oh no not this again.

Yes, the laptop GPUs would be fine. Performance would be great. We're talking desktop framebuffers here people, not gaming. In 1996, GPUs could push out desktops at 1600x1200 without sweating. I think 15 years later, we're covered for way more pixels.

As for gaming, just drop back to a lower res for 3D graphics.

Actually, we're really not talking about desktop framebuffers since everything on an OSX desktop is an OpenGL backed rendering context, so the comparison to 1996 1600x1200 doesn't apply. The issue becomes having textured geometry and effects that are now rendering 4x the pixels through the GPU pipeline. Even back in GMA 950 days of the MacBook I would argue that the desktop wasn't really performing that great..

The new Intel 3000 IGP is really great though and with the 4000 of Ivy Bridge I am sure it will be great, but I think the real key is that the GPUs are really getting incredibly capable

 

[Bevz]

Oh yes... This'll do nicely! My current Macbook Pro is a little over 2 years old so it'll be just about ready to be replaced by then Please let this rumour me true!

 

[macjoshua]

what would be bigger to me than if they doubled the resolution is if they changed to IPS screens like the iPad. designers around the world would rejoice.

 

[robeddie]

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.

Agreed. It's possible Apple may all the sudden decide to employ some kind of 'background scaling' with this new laptop... but that would be a first for the laptop line. But maybe they won't. (haven't done it yet despite the wide variety of pixel densities across the laptop line.)

Kalimite has been talking as though it's a foregone conclusion.

 

[KnightWRX]

Actually, we're really not talking about desktop framebuffers since everything on an OSX desktop is an OpenGL backed rendering context, so the comparison to 1996 1600x1200 doesn't apply. The issue becomes having textured geometry and effects that are now rendering 4x the pixels through the GPU pipeline. Even back in GMA 950 days of the MacBook I would argue that the desktop wasn't really performing that great.

You're talking about purely 3D desktops vs what OS X is actually doing, compositing a standard framebuffer.

And even if we were to go with a 3D desktop, where every pixel is changed every frame, this still gives us only 311 040 000 / second at 60 hz (obviously, not every pixel on screen is changed in your typical desktop scenario). The GMA 950 is capable of 1.6 Gpixels/sec of fill-rate...

So no... really... GPUs have been capable of this forever.

 

[damir00]

Most people don't...

I don't make purchasing decision for "most people". I make purchasing decisions for me.

 

[shansoft]

It's impossible for Apple to get on 2880x1880 resolution.

First, GPU power is not capable to deliver such horsepower.

Second, Lion support on high resolution is absolutely terrible, making higher resolution only bring pains to the user.

Third, Readability issues like all other were concern, scale up only makes things more blurry.

People were also reporting iPad 3 is using 2048x1536 resolution, this is just mostly nonsense to be honest. Unless somehow Apple develop a chip that can deliver a GPU power of desktop level, other than that I really can't imagine it.

 

[kolax]

It's impossible for Apple to get on 2880x1880 resolution.

First, GPU power is not capable to deliver such horsepower.

Second, Lion support on high resolution is absolutely terrible, making higher resolution only bring pains to the user.

Third, Readability issues like all other were concern, scale up only makes things more blurry.

People were also reporting iPad 3 is using 2048x1536 resolution, this is just mostly nonsense to be honest. Unless somehow Apple develop a chip that can deliver a GPU power of desktop level, other than that I really can't imagine it.

All three of those points have been debated and discussed in great detail in this thread, and will cover your points and show you why they are incorrect.

 

[damir00]

All three of those points have been debated and discussed in great detail in this thread, and will cover your points and show you why they are incorrect.

They aren't "incorrect" at all.

For a certain set of usage assumptions, they are spot on, for a different set, they aren't applicable.

 

[kmmalek]

Focus on quality instead of quantity

IPS!!!
That's what I want. Not more pixels.

I have an old IBM Thinkpad with an IPS screen, and despite its age and a yellowish color shift, it is still the most comfortable screen to use over extended periods.

 

[epicfailguy2]

You're talking about purely 3D desktops vs what OS X is actually doing, compositing a standard framebuffer.

And even if we were to go with a 3D desktop, where every pixel is changed every frame, this still gives us only 311 040 000 / second at 60 hz (obviously, not every pixel on screen is changed in your typical desktop scenario). The GMA 950 is capable of 1.6 Gpixels/sec of fill-rate...

So no... really... GPUs have been capable of this forever.

Yea GPU's have been capable of 2880*1800 forever :

GMA 950 - 2048x1536 at 75 Hz maximum resolution

Intel HD3000 (sandy bridge / MBP 13"...) - 2560x1600 at 75 hz maximum resolution.

Why ? Because it's the display output bus width that matters. Not the theorical GPixel/seconds. It's like simple fluid dynamics, diameter of the tube x speed of the data going through. The GPU 3D processing power has nothing to do with it except for the maximum framerate that will be obtainable in a game.

Frankly, since 1996 not much has changed in the maximum displayed resolution of basic graphic cards, only dual screen or triple screen setups are now available.

I'd rather have apple start selling MBP 13" with a decent resolution of 1600x and an IPS pannel (not the current horrendous TN pannel with like what ? 138:1 contrast ratio and totally off colors...) than a stupid rumour started by a 13 year old on 4chan that ended up at reuters whilst current switchable graphics solutions used by Intel (sandy bridge at least) cannot even support the resolution properly.

 

[flottenheimer]

I wonder what happened to resolution independence in OS X?

I seem to remember strong rumors a couple of years ago. In my opinion OS X is already too tiny on hires displays such as those found on the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro +hires option.

We need resolution independence now.

 

[hglk]

Won't this mean that all the pictures on the internet will either be pixelated or smaller than before?

Why don't we all just move to vector graphics!

Good luck taking vector pictures with your camera!

 

[inlovewithi]

The good thing about this is that Apple doesn't make and develop screen, other companies do, so that means there will be higher definition display for future laptops.

Usually when the industry is moving one way, it first gets reported as an Apple exclusive because of all the Apple specific sites out there, and then it gets picked up by the non mac sites as if it's an exclusive. Hard to explain, but if whenever Intel comes out with a new CPU, it gets reported on a Mac site as if they were specifically made for Mac, in a sense as if Intel revolves around Apple. Now a new CPU is something that's going to get a lot of attention in the PC world, but imagine other components that don't get as much attention. The point is basically that such high resolution screen are coming to laptop, because that seems to be where the industry is going, with Samsung producing higher resolution displays for their tabs, etc, but that it somehow creates free publicity for Apple.

 

[kolax]

They aren't "incorrect" at all.

For a certain set of usage assumptions, they are spot on, for a different set, they aren't applicable.

1. The GPU is perfectly capable of displaying 2880x1800. Why wouldn't it be?
2. Lion has HighDPI mode available, and Apple is hardly going to release a display at 2880x1800 on a 15" panel and not compensate for ultra tiny elements.
3. Because the resolution is being doubled, blurry won't be an issue.

The iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4 is proof.

 

[derickdub]

Good! 1440x900 is waaaay to low. Even 1680 x1050. Laptops with that price should have full HD standard.

WUXGA > Full HD. I can't see how people use a 16:9 aspect ratio with a computer. 1920x1200 should be the standard for the 15" and 1680x1050 for the 13".

I'd personally be impressed with WQXGA being the standard resolution on the 15" MBP, then maybe this new "retina" display can be a CTO option. I am sure a lot of people will cry about things being too small.

Either way, I'd get the retina display if it was available. More dpi is always better IMO.

 

[manu chao]

The 3GS will display the image full screen, and on the iPhone 4, the image will take up half the screen. If you want the iPhone 4 to display it full screen, the image will lose clarity and will pixelate slightly, because you are stretching it beyond its native resolution.

I think you are failing to understand that things only look sharp on LCD displays when they are at their native resolution. That's the biggest drawback of LCD displays.

You mean a 1 pixel line on the iPhone 3G(s) will look sharper than a 2 pixel line on the iPhone 4(s)? I never noticed that 2 pixel lines on my iPhone 4 look blurry.

----------

They would look pixelated! Do you not understand how LCD displays work and the importance of displaying content at native resolution?

Create an image that has alternating one pixel lines of black and white pixels in the iPhone 3G(s) screen resolution. Then create an image that has alternating two pixel lines of black and white pixels in the iPhone 4(s) screen resolution.

Display both images on the iPhone 4(s) screen fullscreen, they will look identical. Why would a two pixel line on an iPhone 4 display look blurry?

 

[AssassuN]

I remember there was a rumor Apple would go 16:9 on the 2012 MacBook Pros. So can that rumor be disproved?

 

[kolax]

You mean a 1 pixel line on the iPhone 3G(s) will look sharper than a 2 pixel line on the iPhone 4(s)? I never noticed that 2 pixel lines on my iPhone 4 look blurry.

Create an image that has alternating one pixel lines of black and white pixels in the iPhone 3G(s) screen resolution. Then create an image that has alternating two pixel lines of black and white pixels in the iPhone 4(s) screen resolution.

Display both images on the iPhone 4(s) screen fullscreen, they will look identical. Why would a two pixel line on an iPhone 4 display look blurry?

Please read the rest of the thread, I've already acknowledged twice that I had the wrong end of the stick.

 

[manu chao]

Please read the rest of the thread, I've already acknowledged twice that I had the wrong end of the stick.

Sorry, I read only pages 1-5 and 8-11 (roughly), it seems your post fell in between that.

 

[damir00]

1. The GPU is perfectly capable of displaying 2880x1800. Why wouldn't it be?

Because "I" am playing BF3, to cite but one example.

The GPU in the top of the line iMac can't even run that game properly at native res, highly unlikely a severely power constrained laptop will be able to do it anytime soon.

And by the time it can, it'll have BF4 to deal with.

Is it, like, your job to pick the wrong side of fights on chat boards?

 

[kolax]

Because "I" am playing BF3, to cite but one example.

The GPU in the top of the line iMac can't even run that game properly at native res, highly unlikely a severely power constrained laptop will be able to do it anytime soon.

And by the time it can, it'll have BF4 to deal with.

That's 3D game play (check out KnightDX's posts in this thread). You are using an intensive 3D game as a reason as to why a computer cannot display 2880x1800 as a desktop resolution?

Also, you can drop the resolution down to 1440x900 and still get a pixel-perfect image (no blurring), because of the 2:1 ratio, for game play if you wanted. I know I would, and I doubt many games would support that retina resolution.

 

[damir00]

You are using an intensive 3D game as a reason as to why a computer cannot display 2880x1800 as a desktop resolution?

I didn't say anything about "can't".

...you can drop the resolution down to 1440x900...

No thanks. "I" don't pay premium prices for the privilege of dropping resolution when the going gets tough.

You, however, can if you want to.

 

[fpnc]

I don't see why double resolution would make it a retina display MBP
You only need to double the resolution for iOS devices in order to simplify the migration for devs
Desktop OS doesn't need to exactly double the resolution

Repeated for truth. A double-the-resolution display for a notebook/desktop doesn't make much sense as few if any applications for Macs/PCs are written with a specific resolution in mind. You also tend to work a little bit further away from a computer display than you do an iPhone/iPad which means that all that extra resolution on the computer screen would kind of go to waste (not completely, but why double?).

 

[Fwink!]

I predicted this a few weeks ago.

iphone - retina
ipad - retina
MPB - retina
Air - retina
iMac - retina / full desktop displays - retina
Apple tv - standard 1080p
Apple tv - Retina (4k screen)

All about 6-9 months apart as production ramps up.

High resolution (ppi) is ALWAYS better, Apple just needs to get on the ball with resolution independent UI elements, and a framework for developers to implement it easily on app updates.

I predict that a Resolution Profiling app will find it's way into the OS eventually, and make it easy for users to set the size of UI elements for their current tasks or preference - very much like the color-synch monitor profiling app.

And it is certainly time for 99% of Ui graphic elements to be vector based. Pretty much everything that's not a full range photograph. This is stalled for who knows what reason, maybe that there's not an independent vector format, though .png is pretty close.


discuss