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
You are wrong, have you even used an iPhone 4? An 300x300px image will have the same size on both 3Gs and iP4, thats how the retina work, it doesnt use the resolution of the retina display as actual displayed resolution. Thats how retina work, it uses 4 pixels to display every "regular" pixels, the system remaps on the fly. How would your statement even work? When using safari every building block on an homepage would be supersmall if a retina system didnt remap.....
"I think you are failing to understand that things only look sharp on LCD displays when they are at their native resolution"
Just goes to show that you dont know how retina works, this is not the same thing.......a retina display always uses its native resolution........
They would look pixelated! Do you not understand how LCD displays work and the importance of displaying content at native resolution?
Just because you are doubling the PPI and keeping the screen the same size does not mean you can stretch an image and not expect it to lose clarity.
Get an iPhone 3GS and an iPhone 4, stick an image of 480x320 on the 3GS and then put that same image on the iPhone 4 and scale it up to fill the screen. The iPhone 4 one will look pixelated compared to the 3GS one.
Why do you think Apple is creating all these retina display icons? If you were correct, then they wouldn't need to, because the icons would look as sharp as they did on the non-retina display. Of course, Apple is making the icons retina so they are even sharper, because of the higher PPI offered, but that's not the only reason. If they used the current graphics, they would look pixelated because they are being stretched beyond their native resolution.
How are you not understanding any of this?
A 300x300 image on the iPhone 4 will not be the same size as it is on the 3GS! Why on earth would it? Go to Google Images, search for an image at 300x300, then load it on both the 3GS and iPhone 4. You'll have to zoom in on the iPhone 4 to make it the same size on screen as the 3GS.
How is it so hard to understand that remapping an image to a higher resolution than it was originally will result in loss in clarity and slight pixelation? Even if it is remaining the same "physical" size on screen due to increased PPI..
No .. that would be exactly my point. The graphics are "optimized" to fit different screensizes and resolutions, not optimized for each single one separately, hence there is no advantage in quadrupling the pixel count for a single screen.
T.
...and then imagine the glass screen on top of the glossy display spoiling it all. No thanks.
Retina displays are always in its native resolution......
The image would already be scaled up to fit the screen on the iPhone 4........
Nope, because on the higher resolution UI elements it DOES use its full retina resolution so those elements will be sharper......
You have clearly not used an iPhone 4, a 300x300px image would have the excact same size on both phones...........
Ok I don't know why you are even saying this, I'm not disputing that retina displays will always be in their native resolution.. maybe you aren't understanding my english clearly.
No it wouldn't! The iPhone 4 will not automatically scale up images! A 300x300 image loaded on your iPhone 4 will not appear 600x600 on your iPhone 4 unless you zoom in.
I wasn't disputing that either..
Yes, and native resolution has nothing to do with PPI and HiDPI mode!
If we stretch an image of 100x100 pixels to 200x200 pixels, how do you expect it to retain its clarity? Even if you are keeping it the same size due to increased PPI on a 15" display.
I really do have to laugh though.
We know the non techie "Man/Woman in the street" that Apple aim their products at now are fine with the current screens on their Apple products. Saying how great their Photo's look on them.
They have no need at all for the screen res to be any higher.
And yet, because it's Apple Tech news.... All of a sudden it's "Specs ARE important again", despite being told again and again on these forums that tech specs don't matter to normal people.
It's not like we are going from monochrome to colour. How many are taking their iMac's back to the store complaining about grainy graphics?
No-one?
Don't get me wrong I love tech specs myself, I just find it funny how things are either important of not depending if they are on PC's or Macs.
We know the non techie "Man/Woman in the street" that Apple aim their products at now are fine with the current screens on their Apple products. Saying how great their Photo's look on them.
They have no need at all for the screen res to be any higher.
And yet, because it's Apple Tech news.... All of a sudden it's "Specs ARE important again", despite being told again and again on these forums that tech specs don't matter to normal people.
It's not like we are going from monochrome to colour. How many are taking their iMac's back to the store complaining about grainy graphics?
No-one?
Don't get me wrong I love tech specs myself, I just find it funny how things are either important of not depending if they are on PC's or Macs.
"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
R51 just specifies a certain generation / rendition of a Thinkpad. They came in various sizes and screen resolutions.
The before mentioned super high resolution Thinkpad was an R50p with 2048x1536 pixel.
T.
Please don't troll. The distance between my eyes and MBP screen is not the same as while holding an iPhone. I am fine for doubling, tripling resolutions as long as the text, graphics and images don't get ridiculously small.
PS: I have perfect eyesight btw. But I know my parents and other people above 40 years struggle with Hi res screens.
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.
----------
He probably meant the Dells. The Dell Inspiron 6000 shipped in 2005 with optional 1920x1200 15.4" display.
Fingers crossed. After all, the machines that will support retina will be the new ones. Therefore, all will be sorted out beforehand - no surprises for the existing machines.
I have an iPhone 4S here. I'm running a non-HD program without Retina support. It's being displayed in full screen and the 480x320 are blown up to 960x640.
Putting it side by side with my old 3GS, the image looks exactly the same!
matte display, speed
I would get more excited if Apple could guarantee an increase in speed and a matte display. I would prefer graphic processor speed over resolution, and I would certainly not buy another MacBook Pro with a glossy display. I rather switch to a PC then.
I would get more excited if Apple could guarantee an increase in speed and a matte display. I would prefer graphic processor speed over resolution, and I would certainly not buy another MacBook Pro with a glossy display. I rather switch to a PC then.
...........jesus, your logic is really of, yes a retina display DOES automatically scale up everything that isnt and "retina" UI object.....if your statement would be true and iPhone 4 doesnt automatically scale stuff on the fly, wouldnt you see alot of complaints that iPhone 4 are unusable for websurfing since you claim that everyone have to scale every single photo to be the same size as non retina displays........
A retina display just uses 4 pixels per 1 non retina display object, everything will be the same size no mather if it is a retina display or not......
Non-HD program without retina support.. you'll need to define what you mean by that. An application that doesn't take advantage of the retina display? Then the graphics will appear pixelated on the iPhone 4/4S compared to the 3GS.
I'm not talking about UI objects and the iPhone 4 scaling them up or not! I'm talking about WEBSITES!
Go to Google Images, load a 100x100 image on an iPhone 4 and a 3GS, and the image will not be the same physical size on both screens! It can't be! That is my point..
And any website loaded on the iPhone will fill the screen, but thats not because the iPhone is upscaling or anything like that, it's because there website is so many pixels wide and the iPhone can't display them all without zooming out!
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.
That would not look good ... at all mate
.. game always look best on monitor's native resolution, even if it only has 720p.
Argh! No.
A 480x320 image on an iPhone 4S, blown up to 960x640 and the same image displayed at 480x320 on the 3GS look exactly the same.
A 2x2 pixel square on an iPhone 4 is the same size as a 1x1 pixel square on an iPhone 3GS.
How can you not get this ?
It is if you're running in "HiDPI" mode, where your 2880x1800 screen is treated as a 1440x900 screen.
Nope they will not be pixelated......
The screen size is the same on 3Gs and iPhone 4, right?
Since iPhone 4 have 4 times more pixels, that means that 4 pixels (2x2) uses the same physical dimension as 1x1 pixels on the 3Gs......so on non retina objects, the retina display will light up 4 pixels (2x2). So 2x2 pixels on the retina display will be excacly the same physical dimensions as 1x1 pixels on the 3Gs, therefore 1 red pixel on the 3Gs will have the exactly the same physical dimension as 2x2 pixels that is also red.
No difference in pixelation or antyhing......
Argh! No.
A 480x320 image on an iPhone 4S, blown up to 960x640 and the same image displayed at 480x320 on the 3GS look exactly the same.
A 2x2 pixel square on an iPhone 4 is the same size as a 1x1 pixel square on an iPhone 3GS.
How can you not get this ?
It will be the exact same size, height.. yes. I'm not disputing the size of it!
I'm talking about the clarity - the image is being pushed beyond its intended resolution. Anytime you do that, you lose clarity and get slight pixelation! It doesn't matter if you've increased the PPI so the image is the same size on non-retina display to a retina display, the image quality will suffer because the image is being stretched to fit a higher resolution than it was designed or intended for.