Sidebar Sidebar
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?

KnightWRX said:
I sit the same distances than you. And that's just were my myopia kicks in too. If I don't have my glasses on, I can't read my laptop or my external monitor at all unless I squint and look at it from closer up.

And still, I find anything under 160 PPI+ to be too low. So frankly, I don't know about your perfect eyesight...

----------



No, they won't. They'll look the same as they do now, with sharper text.

A 100x100 image will look the same blown up to 200x200 on this thing than it does at 100x100 on a non-"retina" MBP.
Click to expand...

Basically perfect, as tested for my PPL. So unless those doctors got it wrong ;)

No glasses, 20/20 vision, etc...

There is a difference between being able to read something at high res and being able to read that high res for hours on end. The latter being the important one for the health of your eyesight.
 
camsoft said:
Does this mean that even though the screen will have a native resolution of 2880x1880 visually it will be the same as current MacBook Pro 15" resolution of 1440x900 but with a higher DPI so it will just look sharper.

This actually won't give you more desktop space.

Also what happens to the 1680 x1050 hi-res option displays will they also get bumped up to 3360x2100?

I personally would prefer to just have 2880x1880 of desktop space at the current DPI.
Click to expand...

Then I hope you have good eyes. ;)
 
Concorde Rules said:
There is a difference between being able to read something at high res and being able to read that high res for hours on end. The latter being the important one for the health of your eyesight.
Click to expand...

Considering I write code in Xcode for hours (which has a smaller default font than Chrome) with no eye strain at all (And frankly could stand the font size being a tad smaller to show more code on screen), I really doubt I have problems with high res. ;)

And I've been using computers for over 20 years now. My eyesight was just as bad when I started as it is now.
 
camsoft said:
I personally would prefer to just have 2880x1880 of desktop space at the current DPI.
Click to expand...

Good luck making anything out on the screen.

I'd prefer something like 2560x1600. But whatever. 1440x900 is too low, and I'm honestly good with 1680x1050..

----------
KnightWRX said:
Considering I write code in Xcode for hours (which has a smaller default font than Chrome) with no eye strain at all (And frankly could stand the font size being a tad smaller to show more code on screen), I really doubt I have problems with high res. ;)

And I've been using computers for over 20 years now. My eyesight was just as bad when I started as it is now.
Click to expand...

I dunno. Mine's not. I was born with around 20/10 vision.. it's now around 20/150 :/
 
KnightWRX said:
Considering I write code in Xcode for hours (which has a smaller default font than Chrome) with no eye strain at all (And frankly could stand the font size being a tad smaller to show more code on screen), I really doubt I have problems with high res. ;)

And I've been using computers for over 20 years now. My eyesight was just as bad when I started as it is now.
Click to expand...

Good for you, but not for everybody. ;)
 
Finally! The "resolution independence" rumors started years ago can now be put to a rest?

Anyone remember that?
 
KnightWRX said:
No, they won't. They'll look the same as they do now, with sharper text.

A 100x100 image will look the same blown up to 200x200 on this thing than it does at 100x100 on a non-"retina" MBP. The magic is in the PPI.
Click to expand...

They won't - they'll look pixelated.

If a graphic is 100x100 pixels on a standard resolution display, it will have to be stretched to 200x200 pixels on a retina display to remain the same size as other elements if Apple is doubling everything.

The high DPI might make the pixelation less noticeable, but website graphics will suffer as they are being stretched beyond their native resolution.
 
KnightWRX said:
I feel the need. I have from perfect eye sight and frankly I find 1920x1200 barely tolerable on a 21" monitor, much less on anything bigger. Huge pixels.
Click to expand...

And I'm happy that Dell sells (or sold? ) a 27" monitor at 1920 x 1200. Perfect for me. Huge pixels.
 
Kilamite said:
They won't - they'll look pixelated.

If a graphic is 100x100 pixels on a standard resolution display, it will have to be stretched to 200x200 pixels on a retina display to remain the same size as other elements if Apple is doubling everything.

The high DPI might make the pixelation less noticeable, but website graphics will suffer as they are being stretched beyond their native resolution.
Click to expand...

Wait, you obviously don't understand PPI.

A 100x100 graphics on a 1440x900 display of 13" will look exactly the same blown up to 200x200 on a 2880x1800 display of 13".

If I display 2 graphics, one of a 3GS and one of a 4, at 480x320, they both look the same if you put the screens side by side. This is basically the same thing.
 
camsoft said:
Does this mean that even though the screen will have a native resolution of 2880x1880 visually it will be the same as current MacBook Pro 15" resolution of 1440x900 but with a higher DPI so it will just look sharper.

This actually won't give you more desktop space.

Also what happens to the 1680 x1050 hi-res option displays will they also get bumped up to 3360x2100?

I personally would prefer to just have 2880x1880 of desktop space at the current DPI.
Click to expand...

This!

Yes, it will ONLY increase the DPI and make everything sharper because you only need to compare the text size on the different resolutions of the 15" screen to realise just how ridiculously tiny text could become at that very high resolution.
Be interesting to see what sort of horsepower would be needed to power this too.

Personally I think it's a waste of time, it used to be said that 1080P on a 32" TV was not worth it as you it was too small a size to see the difference and appreciate the higher quality.
 
KnightWRX said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure performance is one of the issues they'll need to sort out. In 1996 there weren't 3d desktops. Now 3d desktops are default on all platforms. Remember, some people were complaining for the Lion's desktop performance on older macs. Without any retina yet.

On the other hand, I'm also sure Apple will have thought it extensively.
 
If this is true, I'm so getting one!

I love my mid 2009 MacBook Pro, but I wouldn't be able to resist this.

Just have to find some funds somewhere.... Guess I'll use what's left of this years student loan and any money I can get from selling yay current MBP!
 
antonis said:
Well, I'm sure performance is one of the issues they need to sort out. In 1996 there weren't 3d desktops. Now 3d desktops are default on all platforms. Remember, some people were complaining for the Lion's desktop performance on older macs. Without any retina yet.
Click to expand...

And I was doing desktop compositing (not 3D desktops, that's a different beast, things like project Looking Glass or Beryl) on my Matrox G200 with 16 MB of RAM. ;)

Again, don't sweat it, the GPU is plenty capable. The fact is, the MBP can already run 2 TB 27" monitors which is already much more pixels than this.

----------
Shuri said:
"It measures 1.5-by-10.6-by-13.1-inch and weighs about 6 pounds. It has a resolution of 1,400 x 1,050 on a 15″ screen."


http://thinkpadr51.com/

nope, not this time :p
Click to expand...

He probably meant the Dells. The Dell Inspiron 6000 shipped in 2005 with optional 1920x1200 15.4" display.
 
KnightWRX said:
Wait, you obviously don't understand PPI.

A 100x100 graphics on a 1440x900 display of 13" will look exactly the same blown up to 200x200 on a 2880x1800 display of 13".

If I display 2 graphics, one of a 3GS and one of a 4, at 480x320, they both look the same if you put the screens side by side. This is basically the same thing.
Click to expand...

The iPhone 4 graphic will look pixelated if it is blown up to fill the screen. Try it.. that's why we need iPhone 4 wallpapers, because the non-retina display wallpapers look pixelated when blown up to retina resolution.

The exact same will happen here. How can an image retain its sharpness and clarity if it is being doubled in resolution?

A 100x100 image will look sharp on a retina display if it is left at 100x100 resolution. But if Apple is doubling everything, then the image will lose clarity and sharpness as it is stretched to 200x200 pixels.
 
Kilamite said:
The iPhone 4 graphic will look pixelated if it is blown up to fill the screen. Try it.. that's why we need iPhone 4 wallpapers, because the non-retina display wallpapers look pixelated when blown up to retina resolution.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Again, side by side, a 3GS and iPhone 4 displaying the same 480x320 image look exactly the same. I don't know how much simpler I can make this.

A square of 2x2 pixels on the iPhone 4 is exactly the same size as 1 pixel on the 3GS. Lighting those 4 pixels with the same color as 1 pixel on the 3GS looks exactly the same.
 
KnightWRX said:
No it doesn't. Again, side by side, a 3GS and iPhone 4 displaying the same 480x320 image look exactly the same. I don't know how much simpler I can make this.

A square of 2x2 pixels on the iPhone 4 is exactly the same size as 1 pixel on the 3GS. Lighting those 4 pixels with the same color as 1 pixel on the 3GS looks exactly the same.
Click to expand...

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.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this..
 
Kilamite said:
The 3GS will display the image full screen, and on the iPhone 4, the image will take up half the screen.
Click to expand...

You're not getting it. The iPhone 4 will display it full screen also, same as this 2880x1800 display would. The image would simply be blown up to 960x640... Same as our example 100x100 image would be blown up to 200x200...

Are you doing this on purpose ?

Again, images would not look anymore pixelated on that screen than they would on your current screen since the PPI is doubled. They'd look exactly the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back