Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's neither wrong nor dishonest. I have never claimed to be talking about 3D games. I always stated I was talking purely about the frame buffer for a desktop, with compositing effects.



Spec numbers having nothing to do with the actual Graphical Processing Unit, but with all the controllers surrounding it.



Again, not related to the capabilities of the GPU itself. Also, you're confusing rendering to a texture mapped onto polygons with compositing effects which are what desktop uses.

The GPU has plenty of internal bandwidth to push it's fill-rate to the display controller. You haven't provided any evidence that it doesn't, only your own pure "I don't want to be wrong" conjecture.

First you're contradicting yourself : "I was talking purely about the frame buffer" and "but with all the controllers surrounding it" which is exactly what I am talking about.

And maybe if you can't grasp the concept that intel chips for example are limited way below 2880*1800 by the frame buffer maybe I need to get empirical with you : http://communities.intel.com/message/130518

Last message for me, I'm tired of debating with "Mr I play on words and BS around instead of taking into account the globality of the issue exposed"
 
Not to piss on anyone's parade here, but am I alone when I say that DigiTimes seems to consistently spew S%@*T about what :apple:'s plans are.
They guess, like everyone. It's just that since they have been making these rumors like 2-3 times a week, of coarse it's no surprise if one of them has similarities to the product being launched. But that's called :cool:

I for one am getting mad with it because they can't confirm any of these reports with any credible source. They're like the tabloids of Chinese technology manufacturing gossip.

Haha exactly!

If you keep making loads of predictions you will be right eventually. These people are very quick to remind others when they got a prediction right, but they stay very quiet about the thousands that didn't materialize!
 
Finally! The "resolution independence" rumors started years ago can now be put to a rest? Anyone remember that?
Yeah,
the only positive thing with this topic is, that maybe finally Apple will put some effort on resolution independence in osx. Maybe even in 10.9 at 2017? At least if they haven't dumped the whole osx by then.
Sadly win7 has had 10bit color support from 2009. I guess osx will never be again "the most advanced os in the world" at least in graphical tech.
If you can't see a difference between image two and image three in my post, that's fine.
Wow, lots of confusion, outdated misconseption, oversimplifation and overcomplications...
Although this isn't so very har rocket science, few opininions (I'm not really professsional expert on the subject, but usually want to understand the ideas behind certain decisions):

Myth#1: Native resolution

Lcd can look sharp with other resolutions than native.
If the other resolutions are exact equal division of the original, there's no interpolation between pixels and therefore no additional blur.

Myth#2: Screen PPI defines how sharp it will look

Just like you can't tell camera sensor's sensitivity from pixel density, you can't define screen's acuity by PPI. The grid's thickness compared to pixel size varies. Pixel's edges can be sharp or blur. Screen can have different coatings. All these variables affect how sharp will something look. If the grid between pixels is thin enough or have blur enough edges, it doesn't matter how big the pixels are. In this case exact multiples will look exact (1x1 vs. 2x2).
With retina displays, you shouldn't be able to see individual pixels, so you surely shouldn't be able to see the grid between the pixels or sub-pixels.

Myth#3: Scaling/interpolation is different in Retina display

In CRT era tubes had shadow mask / aperture grill, which was sharper than resolution. Because of this and analog beam, every resolution was "scaled" and therefore "equal".
Fixed pixel displays on the other hand have been sharp only with exact equal divisions.
This changes when we go over "retina display" densities (what will apple call this; retina+, retinaPro or what?) when line pair (2 pixels) looks like one dot (hmmm, should we include Kell factor here?). Then it doesn't matter if the dot is 1, 1.5 or 2 pixels wide, all look the same.
Then fixed pixel display starts to behave like crt and you don't have to have exact multiples of last gen display.
The output bus and bandwidth to the monitor has nothing to do with the actual processing unit ability to push out the pixels. It's 1 bottleneck (which we have solved around 2008 with DP on Macs).
Was dual-dvi a bottleneck (before dp)?
8Gbit/s was a bottleneck?
The practicality issue is not with the consumers, but with the manufacturers.
Apple would have to pay gigantic premiums for these custom panels to be made, and at a non-standard resolution too.
It's much simpler for Apple to buy 1080p or 1600p 15" panels that are already in production instead of use this Retina Display standard.
Yep, I can imagine the loud voices in Apple's executive floor: "At last we are making record breaking profits with MBP when its display cost us only $30 and now they are demanding a $300 display! Lets drop macs away and focus on iOS devices!"
 
Last edited:
Alright, here's an example of what's going on. Please view these images at 100% zoom, side by side.

These images are on a RISC OS machine (well, an emulator of one), which has supported this technique since the BBC Micro's release in 1981. (RISC OS is based on the BBC Micro's OS.) They're made by adjusting the "eigenvalue" for the X and Y axis - possible values are 2 (corresponding to 45 pixels per inch for that direction), 1 (corresponding to 90 pixels per inch), and 0 (corresponding to 180 pixels per inch).

The first screenshot is of a RISC OS desktop displaying raster icons, most of which are "!Sprites22", or natively 34x34, designed to be displayed on an EX1 EY1 display. There are a few "!Sprites" (or !Sprites24) icons in there, which are 34x17, designed for EX1 EY2 - so they have lower vertical resolution. There is also a vector image shown. RISC OS uses similar font rendering technology to OS X, although without the LCD-oriented subpixel rendering. The display is at 640x512, and the image is evenly scaled up to 1280x1024 in IrfanView.

http://bhtooefr.ath.cx/images/hidpiexample1.png

The second screenshot is of the same RISC OS desktop, displaying the same icons, and the same vector image, at 1280x1024. The desktop is, however, set for EX0 EY0 - so the OS is using the same effective 640x512 desktop area (the actual internal representation is that, in 640x512 EX1 EY1, the OS is using a 1280x1024 desktop area but rendering it at 640x512, but that's beside the point), but rendering everything that it can (vector graphics, text, UI elements) at higher resolution.

http://bhtooefr.ath.cx/images/hidpiexample2.png

And, finally, here's a composite of the two images - top half is the 640x512 scaled up, bottom half is the 1280x1024:

http://bhtooefr.ath.cx/images/hidpiexamplecomposite.png

You'll notice that raster elements look identical in both modes, but vector elements including text look better.

That is what Apple's HiDPI support is doing. (If you disable it, you'll get a 2880x1800 desktop, though, and that's what I want - my current main machine is a ThinkPad T61p/T60p hybrid with the 2048x1536 15" IPS panel that was mentioned earlier in this thread swapped into it.)
 
Last edited:
Uh ? No it doesn't.

It implements one very resolution dependant form of linear scaling

If you open non-Retina apps, all of the text is scaled up with resolution independence. Images are scaled up through linear scaling, hence the "to some degree" in parentheses.
 
Oh please - Apple's implementation is completely lame

If you open non-Retina apps, all of the text is scaled up with resolution independence. Images are scaled up through linear scaling, hence the "to some degree" in parentheses.

Apple's implementations have *nothing* to do with resolution "independence". Nothing, Nothing at all.

Apple has a lazy attempt that supports "resolution X" and "resolution 2X".

And the Sheeple are the ones that lose, since if a panel comes out with 125% better resolution at a great price - Apple can't use it, Apple has to find a much more expensive panel with 200% better resolution because their software is so lame.

Windows HiDPI support is so far advanced over Apple's lame "double or nothing" approach.

But "Retina" is a cute marketing name - and Apple excels at marketing. Much better at marketing than engineering.
 
Hum, you're assuming current GPUs are running at full power to do this stuff. Hint : they aren't. They aren't even being stressed. 4x times the power ? They've been capable of this for years.

Resizing windows is not even cpu intensive... not by a long shot. I was resizing windows back in the 80s...

Go drag a window on a any of the 27 inch monitors at the apple store and resize it to fill the whole screen. It gets quite choppy. Add this to a 13 inch laptop and things like scrolling and resizing windows will put a much larger draw on the battery as it will require 4 times as much processing therefore it will have to up its c state to complete them.
 
Anything that's under 15" with at least 1200p would be great for me. 1200p is enough resolution and real estate to position and read 2 pdf or word documents at 100% side by side. I see this as a critical performance target. As a business user/ document creator/ numbers guy would be a breakthrough in laptop computing.
 
How about just having 1920 x 1080/1200 on Macbook Pros as standard? I mean, this looks great but I'm assuming it wouldn't actually increase the real-estate available on the screen, and for a £1500 macbook pro I'd be expecting a better resolution.
 
Good! 1440x900 is waaaay to low. Even 1680 x1050. Laptops with that price should have full HD standard.

I agree, but pixel density isn't necessarily the key to a nice screen. I have a 1680x1050 scree and my friends boast with their 1900x1200 scenes, but they look like flat crap compared to the deep, rich colors of the apple screen.

E.
 
I am really looking forward to retina displays on Macs. For me, one of the major downturns in using a Mac is subpixel rendering. While fonts keep their real appearance on the screen, they look blurry (while they look very sharp under ClearType technology running on Windows). As a result, it is not very comfortable to sit down and use a Mac for writing during several hours. This blurryness would definitely be fixed with a retina display...
 
Retina displays on Macbook Pro

Hello,
I'm pretty sure we'd all like this. We all want more screen space as we're asked to cope with more and more information, but increasingly, we are expected to work anywhere and be productive, so retina display will definitely help.
As I've said in another post, I hope Q3 2012 or so will see the availability of a 17" macbook pro, retina display, 8-128GB RAM, 1-4 CPU sockets. Today's Mac Pro in a laptop, basically. I want to be able to image all other machines, and boot them up on this, including laptops provided by clients - why should I have to lug multiple machines if one can have so much power ?
Looking forward to more power, more flexibility, more resolution, less backache and STUFF TO CARRY .

Thanks Apple, Steve Jobs, and especially Sir Johnathan Ive and his team of especially far-sighted designers :)

Keep pushing the envelope, but make it a bit less-expensive.
 
1680x1050 should be default...i would rather want 1920x1200 instead of HiDPI in my 15 mbp

Yes, 1680x1050 by default, and 1920x1200 option last year would have been nice.

This year, I'd rather choose between 3360x2100 or 3840x2400 for my 15.4" MacBook Pro.

I would rather have 3840x2400 HiDPI than 1920x1200. It's the same desktop space, just 4 times the pixels for clarity. (I think perhaps you were saying, you would rather have the 1920x1200 desktop space instead of 1680x1050 desktop space, same as 3360x2100 HiDPI).
 
It's already been done in the past (Sony had a 13" laptop with 1080P years ago), it's just never been in a popular device like MBP. Apple's relationships with their fabs are so good, that the fabs are willing to justify the high costs of producing such a high-risk and expensive move to the new manufacturing lines. It's one thing doing it for a small niche population but it's another thing doing it for Apple's 10+ million customers.

The technologies we have now are capable of doing this, the problem is the yield. The fabs can't produce enough good screens to meet Apple's quality requirements (no backlights, no dead pixels), but it is possible to get there quickly.

iPhone 4 was the first mass-produced high-res monitor. Samsung already mentioned that they want to release 2560x1600 in a 11.6" tablet according to the latest rumor from BGR.

Sure, it would. Apple has already shown in the past few years that it'd be willing to sacrifiic to carter for the regular users, not the power users. For regular users, they don't care about having high color gamut, they never cared for it in the past and they certainly won't now.

People seem to be forgetting that the new iPad is massively produced in the 10's of millions, and the color gamut and contrast ratio are so near perfect that it's better than any non-studio display ever. That is, the new iPad display simply looks better than any HDTV, Desktop Monitor, Laptop Display, or any other mobile display when it comes to color gamut, and contrast ratio. Not just higher resolution density as well.

(iPad 2's color gamut is ~61%, the new iPad's color gamut is 99%, and it's still better to have too little color than too much, like those AMOLEDs that are around 120%, unless you like cranking your color setting to the max on your TV. Max color definitely doesn't look good! It really never happens in nature.)

Actually DisplayMate.com reported that with minor tweaks the new iPad display can be used as a studio display for professional use. (Photographers, Videographers, Color press, etc.) No consumer display of any sort could ever do that before. And it happens to be on a platform with usually the worst displays, Mobile!

(Now, if they can just turn down the reflectivity of the displays so they aren't used as mirrors while off.)
 
I am really looking forward to retina displays on Macs. For me, one of the major downturns in using a Mac is subpixel rendering. While fonts keep their real appearance on the screen, they look blurry (while they look very sharp under ClearType technology running on Windows). As a result, it is not very comfortable to sit down and use a Mac for writing during several hours. This blurryness would definitely be fixed with a retina display...

I know what sub pixel rendering is for creating smoother looking edges, and it produces funny colors on those edges too.

But I didn't understand your post to why it looks blurry now? That was until I hit cmd-– a few times, ("command-minus", make the text smaller). I'm used to seeing large text on my 27" iMac, so in a sense, when 3 feet away seeing one page on half the screen, it already looks almost retina by definition of visual acuity being one arc-minute.

Of course, I'd rather sit 15 inches away and see 6 clear pages at once, but with very clear text. So, I would welcome a 5120x2880 27" display. (It would only be about 220 PPI)
 
I'm in an Apple pickle!

:confused:I am getting Macbook Pro for high school. The new 13" model is said to be released by June. I can afford to wait. I can't afford rushig to get an old Macbook if the new one does not have a CD drive. It would be retarded not to have one and anyone can tell you that. I don't care how much space it allows for storage or HD components. They could make the Pro skinnier, and the Air more like a Pro, but Apple cannot abolish CD drives just yet!
 
:confused:I am getting Macbook Pro for high school. The new 13" model is said to be released by June. I can afford to wait. I can't afford rushig to get an old Macbook if the new one does not have a CD drive. It would be retarded not to have one and anyone can tell you that. I don't care how much space it allows for storage or HD components. They could make the Pro skinnier, and the Air more like a Pro, but Apple cannot abolish CD drives just yet!

I need a DVD driver or blu ray drive, not just CD drive. Just wondering if the Intel 3000 display card can support a retina display.
 
I need a DVD driver or blu ray drive, not just CD drive. Just wondering if the Intel 3000 display card can support a retina display.

Seems it was confirmed from China that apple will have a retina on 15" MBP. Will 13" also have a retina? I want a 13" since 15" is too heavy and big.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.