Chances of higher res MacBook Air?

[Onimusha370]

You actually think Samsung developed a standard called retina?!
No company 'developed' it, its just technology advancing.
Retina's just a marketing name that apple uses for it.

----------

The article you just linked me to clearly states that the rumoured samsung tablet will have an 11.6" display.
Let's use some of that maths that you love to talk about.
you say that 'retina' is 330PPI, and that viewing distance doesn't change that.
Let's work out the PPI of this tablet that you said was evidence to back YOUR argument up. Turns out that an 11.6" display with a resolution of 2560x1600 gives a PPI of 260.
thats not 330. And yet they're calling it a retina tablet??
thats because 'retina' doesn't mean 330PPI, it means a resolution where viewed at a normal distance from the display, you are unable to distinguish individual pixels.
Thanks for posting that article, you've just proved my point.

 

[pgiguere1]

If I'm understanding correctly, you're asking us to do a white paper (engineer technical writeup) to prove that the marking term "Retina Display" is supposed to represent a pixel density relative to typical viewing distance, because otherwise you won't believe us?

What about you don't believe us?

 

[BigAus]

@gentlefury

You have got to be joking around, but here you go (probably better info around but quick google search):

http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2010/06/apple-retina-display/

http://www.kybervision.com/Blog/files/AppleRetinaDisplay.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/


BTW I liked your post above "If the answer is a tech blog it is not evidence. It is speculation and assumption on the part of the writer...http://techland.time.com/2011/12/09/apple-vs-samsung-here-come-the-retina-display-tablets...this is the closest I can come to anyone mentioning a retina display outside of apple marketing..."

 

[caligomez]

Thanks for posting that article, you've just proved my point.

https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=322025&stc=1&d=1327800896

 

[gentlefury]

You actually think Samsung developed a standard called retina?!
No company 'developed' it, its just technology advancing.
Retina's just a marketing name that apple uses for it.

----------

The article you just linked me to clearly states that the rumoured samsung tablet will have an 11.6" display.
Let's use some of that maths that you love to talk about.
you say that 'retina' is 330PPI, and that viewing distance doesn't change that.
Let's work out the PPI of this tablet that you said was evidence to back YOUR argument up. Turns out that an 11.6" display with a resolution of 2560x1600 gives a PPI of 260.
thats not 330. And yet they're calling it a retina tablet??
thats because 'retina' doesn't mean 330PPI, it means a resolution where viewed at a normal distance from the display, you are unable to distinguish individual pixels.
Thanks for posting that article, you've just proved my point.

It would depend on the screen size vs bezel. To be 330ppi it would have about an 8"x5" screen....as I already said. Touch screens tend to have a larger bezel than laptops....so the standard 11.6 viewable screen size does not apply...they never mentioned what the viewable screen size would be in the article. But based on the iPhone...it would be about 8x5.

You proved nothing...once again.

 

[KnightWRX]

How someone can be proven so wrong over and over again for 3 pages and yet still cling to the fact they were right all along is baffling.

Gentlefury, please. Do yourself a favor and just read all the evidence posted to show you "Retina" is an Apple marketing term that means the "individual pixels cannot be distinguished at a normal viewing distance", which happens to be 300 ppi for a screen held at 12" from your eyes.

For a laptop, the viewing distance is farther away, thus the "Retina" term can apply to a lower density display. For a TV, it's even further away, so many 1080p sets are already "Retina" displays.

A good read on the subject :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

And what's this, a slide from Apple showing 300 PPI being the target for a display on a phone :

 

[gentlefury]

How someone can be proven so wrong over and over again for 3 pages and yet still cling to the fact they were right all along is baffling.

Gentlefury, please. Do yourself a favor and just read all the evidence posted to show you "Retina" is an Apple marketing term that means the "individual pixels cannot be distinguished at a normal viewing distance", which happens to be 300 ppi for a screen held at 12" from your eyes.

For a laptop, the viewing distance is farther away, thus the "Retina" term can apply to a lower density display. For a TV, it's even further away, so many 1080p sets are already "Retina" displays.

A good read on the subject :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

And what's this, a slide from Apple showing 300 PPI being the target for a display on a phone :

Image

And why would you use a laptop more than 12" away? Thats about how far the screen is from me at any given time.

 

[KnightWRX]

And why would you use a laptop more than 12" away? Thats about how far the screen is from me at any given time.

I always use a laptop about 20-24" away. Like most people. Farther if it's on a desk.

Are you moving goalposts now ? Admitting you're wrong but making it sound like you were right all along because "people use laptops the same distance away than they do a phone" ?

I'll take that as an admission of your error for these last 3 pages.

 

[onthecouchagain]

Won't a higher resolution screen just make things smaller? I understand it'll be sharper, and there'll be more space on the screen overall, but honestly, things are pretty small already on the 13" Air, no?

Or do I completely not understand what a higher resolution screen really means and entails? Enlighten, if so.

 

[PPFee]

Thanks guys, I have decided to just go for it since it makes sense that retina notebooks probably won't be feasible or reasonably priced until a couple of years from now. And at that point I may be in the market for another notebook anyway. The 13" MBA does have a higher resolution screen than the 13" pro too, so that's a plus.

Also, keep in mind as some have said, worst case you can buy and re-sell it, but these apple machines are amazing at retaining there value, it makes them oh so worth it. My late 2008 Unibody ALuminum macbook, the one and only aluminum macbook they released before making it a macbook pro deal only ( although this has no effect on its value technically) has a 2.0ghz core 2 duo and best buy will even give me over 500 for it through their program. Over $500 for a nearly four year old laptop, and from best buy, much less private sale, thats amazing to me.

 

[PPFee]

What are you talking about? It has nothing to do with perception! The iPhone 4 Retina Display is 960x640 resolution, with a viewable screen size of 2.91" × 1.94"...that is 330 pixels per inch. It's not about where you hold the screen or how you view it...it is about simple math. Cut that panel to 10.11" × 5.68" and you have a 3337x1875 11" Macbook Air. It's really simple here...no magic, illusion, or marketing gimmicks involved!

Correct me if I'm wrong ( someone else not you, as you've made your OPINION obvious) but i was under the impression that the "retina" moniker was more to do with pixel density than with resolution, or at most the optimal combination of pixel density and resolution. Its a screen, so obviously it has much to do with perception, maybe not an individuals per se, but what the human eye is capable of percieving yes. It is a Retina display because that resolution at that Pixel density makes "magical" things happen as far as your eyes perception of an image on a pixelated level, it basically removes the ability to determine that its made up of pixels. Again i may be wrong, but after years of hearing people and companies go back and forth about "retina" displays and why its so special, this is what my understanding has come to be. This also means that at a higher resolution, and on a screen meant to be viewed from a farther distance, the pixel count wouldn't have to be quite as high, as long as the desired effect of not being able to see individual pixels is reached. So your formula of multiply pixels and res. by the size difference and you'd have to have exactly that number is ret...err mentally challenged. Maybe I'm wrong, id love for someone to point it out, Id love to learn something new, just not if its the same rhetoric you spit forth about your math and understanding of retina displays.

 

[thekev]

There's always a possibility, with Ivy Bridge supporting 4K resolutions, it'll at least be able to do it, though, it's probably likely that Apple will choose to make it a premium feature and save it for the MacBook Pro.

Intel isn't the only factor in seeing something like this. You'd definitely need panels available from LG/Samsung, and as they try to scale up the technology used in phones, they're likely to run into further engineering problems that will need to be worked through.

Thanks guys, I have decided to just go for it since it makes sense that retina notebooks probably won't be feasible or reasonably priced until a couple of years from now. And at that point I may be in the market for another notebook anyway. The 13" MBA does have a higher resolution screen than the 13" pro too, so that's a plus.

The Air screen isn't very good. The color isn't so great. i've viewed all of these laptops and yeah the higher dpi is nice, but it's not absolutely crucial. Look at 24 and 27" displays. Their resolution settings are typically comparable to a 17" macbook pro.

And why would you use a laptop more than 12" away? Thats about how far the screen is from me at any given time.

It can vary considerably in casual use. I'm not sure it'll be a single jump to "retina". I'm really tired of reading that term. It's nothing more than marketing. It sounds cool, so they adopted it, but it was obvious to me long ago that resolution would increase as we move further away from printed media to accommodate that sense of acutance.

 

[PPFee]

My apologies, i typed of my previous reply before finishing the rest of the thread, I do not take back any of what was said. After reading, It was made very obvious that my understanding of the technology was correct. I can't just believe he is stupid though, I've seen to many posts that seem to use intelligence in some way or another, but its as if reason is fighting against you? You keep saying "retina" is just a marketing term, but in your attempt to define it you simply want to take the iPhone screen specs and depending on screen size multiply accordingly. Keeping in mind its just a marketing term, remember that its a term come up with to describe the effect everyone is trying to explain to you; namely, the inability of the human eye to distinguish individual pixels at "normal" or average viewing distance. Yes iPhone has a "retina" display, that doesn't mean that the iPhones display specs define the parameters of what "retina" means, in fact its DPI is higher. I just don't understand what it is that your holding on to as an argument. The only thing your correct about is that when multiplying two given numbers they equal another number. Im befuddled. Also, when criticizing others for pointing to tech writings on the web, don't fall back on rumors from tech writings as your "white paper" proof. Even if its fact, fine, samsung making a display at those numbers, yes those numbers meet the requirements for the "retina" terminology, that does not mean that those numbers are the new requirements.

 

[pgiguere1]

Won't a higher resolution screen just make things smaller? I understand it'll be sharper, and there'll be more space on the screen overall, but honestly, things are pretty small already on the 13" Air, no?

Or do I completely not understand what a higher resolution screen really means and entails? Enlighten, if so.

Yes, it would. At some point the UI elements would be so small that it wouldn't be convenient even if you gain sharpness, that's why Apple is preparing a "HiDPI" mode for Lion for when ultra-high-res screen will come out. The HiDPI mode renders everything twice as big for more sharpness while maintaining the physical dimension of everything like it was.

Let's say there's a new High-res 15" MBP that comes out with a resolution of 2880 by 1800, you would have the choice to put in in 2800x1800 mode and have every UI element reduced 2x compared to the current 15" MBP, or you could put it in 1440x900 (HiDPI) mode and have everything the same size as on the current MBP, but sharper, like the iPhone 4 compared to the previous iPhones.

There was an article on MR a couple months back: https://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/25/os-x-lions-hidpi-modes-lay-groundwork-for-retina-monitors/

 

[PPFee]

Yes, it would. At some point the UI elements would be so small that it wouldn't be convenient even if you gain sharpness, that's why Apple is preparing a "HiDPI" mode for Lion for when ultra-high-res screen will come out. The HiDPI mode renders everything twice as big for more sharpness while maintaining the physical dimension of everything like it was.

Let's say there's a new High-res 15" MBP that comes out with a resolution of 2880 by 1800, you would have the choice to put in in 2800x1800 mode and have every UI element reduced 2x compared to the current 15" MBP, or you could put it in 1440x900 (HiDPI) mode and have everything the same size as on the current MBP, but sharper, like the iPhone 4 compared to the previous iPhones.

There was an article on MR a couple months back: https://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/25/os-x-lions-hidpi-modes-lay-groundwork-for-retina-monitors/

Thanks for posting that, I read that originally but have been wanting to re-read. Since you seem to have a fairly in-depth understanding ill ask if you don't mind clarifying. If I'm grasping it correctly, if you have a 30" 5120x3200 XXXdpi monitor from the future, and set it to half that HiDPI mode, it essentially serves the purpose of keeping the UI and everything of lesser quality the same size. So it will show everything at 2560x1600 , unless the files native res. is 5120x3200 in which case it will display the higher res, to give you the advantage when available but still keep everything streamlined and pretty till the conversion process is complete. Assuming I've grasped that properly heres where Ive managed to over think and confuse myself, once everything is upgraded to the Higher res and pixel density, there will basically be no more use for the HIDPI mode, right? And if thats the case, once displaying in 5120, everything will still be much smaller, it will just be clearer as well because of the dpi or will the updated native res and dpi of the bitmaps correct for the size and make them not appear much smaller <------ see that last bit is where I'm not wrapping my head around this properly, haven't slept in a couple days so thats not helping, regardless some clarity would be welcomed. Thanks in advance y'all.

 

[NutsNGum]

i've viewed all of these laptops and yeah the higher dpi is nice, but it's not absolutely crucial. Look at 24 and 27" displays. Their resolution settings are typically comparable to a 17" macbook pro.

No they aren't, the current 17" MacBook Pro has a ppi of 132, the same as the 11" MacBook Air.

The ppi on the 27" iMac/ATD is around 110 and the standard 24 at 1200p is lower again at around 94.

The difference in image/text sharpness is massive.

 

[thekev]

No they aren't, the current 17" MacBook Pro has a ppi of 132, the same as the 11" MacBook Air.

The ppi on the 27" iMac/ATD is around 110 and the standard 24 at 1200p is lower again at around 94.

The difference in image/text sharpness is massive.

I didn't mean ppi. I meant resolution. The 17" is 1900x1200. It's the same as you would find on a 24" desktop display. Okay the 27" is a bit more. The laptops feature a higher density. The advancements have really been popping up in the smaller form factors. Desktop displays have stagnated somewhat.

 

[chikit]

Gentlefury,
1.) It would not make sense for Apple to use a 330ppi LCD in any Macbook (like you suggested). From a business standpoint, you wouldn't coin a new term for one 'specific' 330 ppi LCD panel.
2.) It does make sense for a display manufacturer to produce different pixel density panels depending entirely on usage and human visual acuity.
3.) 'Retina' as a term is obviously related to the human eye.
4.) Your argument for Samsung's Retina tablet is also a valid argument for the perception/viewing distance theory as it would be indistinguishable to separate the pixels in the Samsung tablet during normal usage.
5.) Where are your white papers from a manufacturer that clearly defines Retina as 330ppi? The white papers request is realistically unattainable, nor would any Samsung, LG or Apple would give a ***** about this argument.
6.) Given the amount of evidence gathered from numerous sources and numerous people, it is clear that you are losing this argument.

 

[macse30]

OMG, internet-autism is not pretty!

"Retina" is not like an IEEE standard. It is like a marketing term. They could have called it a "Fred" display because Fred can't see the pixels when he uses it normally.

GentleFury wrote, "The resulting pixel density — 326 pixels per inch — makes text and graphics look smooth and continuous at any size. (Apple quote)

Hmmm, looks like it is all about ppi, not perception. (GentleFury comment)"

I suggest you look up the definition of "look." It IS all about perception. Relax and enjoy the view!

 

[pgiguere1]

Thanks for posting that, I read that originally but have been wanting to re-read. Since you seem to have a fairly in-depth understanding ill ask if you don't mind clarifying. If I'm grasping it correctly, if you have a 30" 5120x3200 XXXdpi monitor from the future, and set it to half that HiDPI mode, it essentially serves the purpose of keeping the UI and everything of lesser quality the same size. So it will show everything at 2560x1600 , unless the files native res. is 5120x3200 in which case it will display the higher res, to give you the advantage when available but still keep everything streamlined and pretty till the conversion process is complete. Assuming I've grasped that properly heres where Ive managed to over think and confuse myself, once everything is upgraded to the Higher res and pixel density, there will basically be no more use for the HIDPI mode, right? And if thats the case, once displaying in 5120, everything will still be much smaller, it will just be clearer as well because of the dpi or will the updated native res and dpi of the bitmaps correct for the size and make them not appear much smaller <------ see that last bit is where I'm not wrapping my head around this properly, haven't slept in a couple days so thats not helping, regardless some clarity would be welcomed. Thanks in advance y'all.

Yes, if you put a 5120x3200 monitor in 2560x1600 (HiDPI) mode, vector-based content like text and menus would appear physically the same size as if you set your monitor in 2560x1600, but as sharp as if it was set to 5120x3200.

Bitmap images will have to be updated for HiDPI mode, otherwise they will be physically as big as in 2560x1600 and look as pixelated as if they were (like the apple logo in this image). 2560x1600 is far from being a bad resolution, it's all relative.
I guess the OS would have to contain a second bitmap file for every UI element for HiDPI mode, a bit like the iPhone has had to have everything in 2x size as well.

Considering every bitmap image would have been updated for HiDPI mode, the only difference between 5120x3200 and 2560x1600 (HiDPI) would be that the 5120x3200 would have tiny UI elements, but both would be as sharp.

 

[PPFee]

Yes, if you put a 5120x3200 monitor in 2560x1600 (HiDPI) mode, vector-based content like text and menus would appear physically the same size as if you set your monitor in 2560x1600, but as sharp as if it was set to 5120x3200.

Bitmap images will have to be updated for HiDPI mode, otherwise they will be physically as big as in 2560x1600 and look as pixelated as if they were (like the apple logo in this image). 2560x1600 is far from being a bad resolution, it's all relative.
I guess the OS would have to contain a second bitmap file for every UI element for HiDPI mode, a bit like the iPhone has had to have everything in 2x size as well.

Considering every bitmap image would have been updated for HiDPI mode, the only difference between 5120x3200 and 2560x1600 (HiDPI) would be that the 5120x3200 would have tiny UI elements, but both would be as sharp.

Thanks for that, thats the clarification i needed. Much appreciated.

 

[Cheebo]

Retina Display Air?

So it's basically a for sure thing we are going to get 2048 x 1536 retina display on iPad. Most rumors point to MBP going retina with the next refresh.

What about Air? Has there been any rumors of Air going to a much higher resolution with the refresh that is coming that is expected this spring/summer?

 

[Cynicalone]

This summer or spring might be to soon.

I think it's coming Apple has built HDPI mode into Lion. And I'm sure they have samples floating around the labs at Apple.

My question would be, what is considered "retina" in a 11 and 13 inch laptop?

 

[pgiguere1]

This summer or spring might be to soon.

I think it's coming Apple has built HDPI mode into Lion. And I'm sure they have samples floating around the labs at Apple.

My question would be, what is considered "retina" in a 11 and 13 inch laptop?

Depending on what they consider the average viewing distance for laptops that size, around 1600 x 900 for the 11" MBA and 1920x1200 for the 13" MBA.

If the iPad 3 turns out to really have a 2048x1536 screen for only 500$, those (lower) resolutions should be feasible on Macs too.

 

[skaertus]

The absence of a retina display is the only factor why I have not yet bought a MacBook Air... I am very much looking forward to a new MacBook Air with an Ivy Bridge processor and a retina display (IPS, maybe?).