High resolution on a small screen

[PostHate]

Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way, but isn't the super high resolution of the Retina display going to make things on the 15" screen way too small?

When I turn up the resolution on my monitor it makes everything much smaller- the icons, the images, the text, everything.

2880x1800 on a 15" screen seems like everything will be absolutely tiny. No?

 

[ftaok]

yes, you are looking at it the wrong way.

Apple's 15" retina screen is indeed double-resolution (quadruple if you're a pedant). But OS X doubles the size of everything on the screen so that you're looking at a 1440x900 sized desktop ... except everything looks much much much sharper. No signs of anti-aliasing at all.

If you think that's a waste (like I do), then they have screen resolution options for 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 as well. With the actual resolution density so high, you won't see as much blurriness as you would a traditional screen at non-native resolutions. It's the best of both worlds, if you asked me.

ft

 

[afinch1992]

yes, what ft said. thats probably the best feature of having the retina display. everything is more clear at the same resolution, but then you have the option to increase the resolution at your whim

 

[PostHate]

So for most things it's at a useable resolution of 1440x900. That makes perfect sense, thank you for the clear explanation.

When looking at the 27" iMac with 2560 by 1440 resolution, I assume that is displaying it the normal way, correct?

 

[204353]

Yes, ftaok is absolutely right. The standard 'Best for Retina Display' setting looks absolutely beautiful, but isn't terribly efficient for displaying large amounts of (text or button -based) information.

I leave it on default the majority of the time and use quite a few apps (e.g. Safari) in fullscreen mode, but when I need more working room (e.g. Photoshop), I tend to switch it over to 'looks like 1920 x 1200' mode.

It's great to have both!

P.S. With regard to Safari, you can leave it on 'Best for Retina' and shrink the size of webpages, but not the app's UI, by using the Zoom options. This allows you to fit a lot more into the Safari windows while leaving the system resolution alone.

 

[afinch1992]

P.S. With regard to Safari, you can leave it on 'Best for Retina' and shrink the size of webpages, but not the app's UI, by using the Zoom options. This allows you to fit a lot more into the Safari windows while leaving the system resolution alone.

good tip!

 

[serenesam]

If you think that's a waste (like I do), then they have screen resolution options for 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 as well. With the actual resolution density so high, you won't see as much blurriness as you would a traditional screen at non-native resolutions. It's the best of both worlds, if you asked me.

ft

Really? I have had the retina display for a while now, and I don't really understand what people are talking about when they say the 1680 by 1050 looks better than previous generation models at its native resolution. Maybe I have special eyes or something like that because the native resolution looks sharper to me.

 

[204353]

Really? I have had the retina display for a while now, and I don't really understand what people are talking about when they say the 1680 by 1050 looks better than previous generation models at its native resolution. Maybe I have special eyes or something like that because the native resolution looks sharper to me.

They're saying that the MacBook Pro with Retina display running at 1680 x 1050 equivalent scaling looks better than the non-Retina MacBook Pro with a native resolution of 1680 x 1050.

Since I had a non-Retina MacBook Pro with the 1680 x 1050 resolution and now have the MacBook Pro with Retina display, I can confirm that this is 100% true.

The MacBook Pro with Retina display does, however, look best running at its native setting, which is aptly named 'Best for Retina display'.

I hope that clears up any confusion!

 

[serenesam]

They're saying that the MacBook Pro with Retina display running at 1680 x 1050 equivalent scaling looks better than the non-Retina MacBook Pro with a native resolution of 1680 x 1050.

Yes, and I disagree with that, of course, just my opinion.

The MacBook Pro with Retina display does, however, look best running at its native setting, which is aptly named 'Best for Retina display'.

Yes, and I disagree with that too. Videos look dull.

I hope that clears up any confusion!

Not really.

 

[derbothaus]

Yes, and I disagree with that too. Videos look dull.

Obviously.

 

[ftaok]

Really? I have had the retina display for a while now, and I don't really understand what people are talking about when they say the 1680 by 1050 looks better than previous generation models at its native resolution. Maybe I have special eyes or something like that because the native resolution looks sharper to me.

What I'm saying is that 1680x1050 on the rMBP isn't as blurry as other screens running at non-native resolutions. Of course the previous gen MBP with a native 1680x1050 screen looks better than the rMBP at 1680x1050.

 

[bill-p]

What I'm saying is that 1680x1050 on the rMBP isn't as blurry as other screens running at non-native resolutions. Of course the previous gen MBP with a native 1680x1050 screen looks better than the rMBP at 1680x1050.

No... the rMBP actually looks better (a lot sharper) at 1680 x 1050 than the previous MBP. At least it does in Mac OS X.

That's because 1680 x 1050 in the Retina MacBook Pro is actually 3360 x 2100 downscaled to 2880 x 1800.

And it goes without saying, 1920 x 1200 on Retina is actually 3840 x 2400 downscaled to 2880 x 1800.

Apple does it that way to keep everything on the Retina screen perfectly sharp. The problem is that the processor has to draw significantly more pixels than with previous generations, thus the occasional lag.

 

[204353]

No... the rMBP actually looks better (a lot sharper) at 1680 x 1050 than the previous MBP. At least it does in Mac OS X.

That's because 1680 x 1050 in the Retina MacBook Pro is actually 3360 x 2100 downscaled to 2880 x 1800.

Yeah, this is what I was trying to say. The 1680 x 1050 scaling on the rMBP 'looks like 1680 x 1050', but only in terms of the physical scale of the interface.

You're still seeing 2880 x 1800, thanks to the doubling + downscaling that bill-p described. This definitely looks a lot better than a native 1680 x 1050, and I can say that from experience of owning both!

 

[stevelam]

They're saying that the MacBook Pro with Retina display running at 1680 x 1050 equivalent scaling looks better than the non-Retina MacBook Pro with a native resolution of 1680 x 1050.

Since I had a non-Retina MacBook Pro with the 1680 x 1050 resolution and now have the MacBook Pro with Retina display, I can confirm that this is 100% true.

The MacBook Pro with Retina display does, however, look best running at its native setting, which is aptly named 'Best for Retina display'.

I hope that clears up any confusion!

too bad the one major caveat is that the RMBP feels like it runs MUCH slower since using anything besides 1440x900 hidpi resolution bogs the machine down by a ton.

 

[PostHate]

too bad the one major caveat is that the RMBP feels like it runs MUCH slower since using anything besides 1440x900 hidpi resolution bogs the machine down by a ton.

Yeah, I don't think I'm liking all of this. What's the point of super high resolution display if you aren't going to get that resolution or it's going to slow the machine down?

Thanks for saving me $2,200+ guys

 

[204353]

Yeah, I don't think I'm liking all of this. What's the point of super high resolution display if you aren't going to get that resolution or it's going to slow the machine down?

Thanks for saving me $2,200+ guys

Well, you can actually access the full 2880 x 1800 at normal DPI settings using various free apps (I recommend this one). The computer runs very smoothly at this setting, but everything is absolutely tiny, of course!

I actually run my rMBP at the 'Best for Retina display' setting and use most apps in fullscreen mode. If, however, I absolutely need the space, I switch it to the microscopic normal DPI mode and enjoy a ridiculous amount of working space!

 

[Freyqq]

When looking at the 27" iMac with 2560 by 1440 resolution, I assume that is displaying it the normal way, correct?

Right now, only the retina macbook pro uses this double resolution mode. Even the regular macbook pro 15" has a traditional screen.

 

[PostHate]

So on the regular MacBook Pro 15" everything is normal and if you get the upgraded 1680-by-1050 discplay all the icons, images, etc. will be much smaller?

I wonder what that looks like compared to the normal 1440 by 900 resolution?

 

[stevelam]

Well, you can actually access the full 2880 x 1800 at normal DPI settings using various free apps (I recommend this one). The computer runs very smoothly at this setting, but everything is absolutely tiny, of course!

I actually run my rMBP at the 'Best for Retina display' setting and use most apps in fullscreen mode. If, however, I absolutely need the space, I switch it to the microscopic normal DPI mode and enjoy a ridiculous amount of working space!

thats not 'extra workspace'. thats just working in a completely unusable environment.

sometimes i actually set mine at 2048 x 1280 NON-hidpi. looks not great but OK, doesn't get bogged down by retina mode and at least still feels speedy.

theres such a huge difference in performance between retina mode and non-retina and i'm kind of disappointed by how unoptimized the whole thing seems.

 

[Stetrain]

Here's a good image gallery that shows the relative sizes of things at the different scaling resolutions on the RMBP.

It also lets you see the difference in relative size between 1440x900 and 1680x1050. On the Retina MBP those modes have higher detail than on the non-retina versions, but the sizes on screen should match.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

 

[Beta Particle]

When looking at the 27" iMac with 2560 by 1440 resolution, I assume that is displaying it the normal way, correct?

Yes, it displays 2560×1440@1× but you can have it display 1280×720@2× if you prefer. It’s the first non-retina display that actually gives a usable resolution if you do this.

Yeah, I don't think I'm liking all of this. What's the point of super high resolution display if you aren't going to get that resolution or it's going to slow the machine down?

You can run it natively at 2880×1800 (tiny UI, but very sharp) or 1440×900@2× (normal UI, and very sharp)

There is also the option of expanding your workspace to 1680×1050@2× or 1920×1200@2×, but these are scaled resolutions and are do not offer pixel-perfect sharpness (but should still be fine for most people) and have some performance compromises because it’s rendering a lot of pixels.

I would love for someone to do a direct comparison between the 1680×1050@1× MacBook Pro display, and the Retina MacBook Pro displaying 1680×1050@2×.

The Retina MacBook Pro may have a high enough pixel density to negate the fact that it is not running a pixel-perfect resolution.

Here's a good image gallery that shows the relative sizes of things at the different scaling resolutions on the RMBP.

It also lets you see the difference in relative size between 1440x900 and 1680x1050. On the Retina MBP those modes have higher detail than on the non-retina versions, but the sizes on screen should match.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

These screenshots show the resolution the Retina MacBook Pro is rendering i.e. 3360×2100 (1680×1050@2×) and 3840×2400 (1920×1200@2×) rather than the image that actually appears on the Retina display. (scaled down to 2880×1800)

Even if it did show the scaled image, you cannot compare that on a non-retina display. Things that look bad on a non-retina display may be invisible on a retina display due to the pixel density.

 

[calderone]

too bad the one major caveat is that the RMBP feels like it runs MUCH slower since using anything besides 1440x900 hidpi resolution bogs the machine down by a ton.

Total bs right here. The machine is not bogged down.

 

[bill-p]

Yeah, I don't think I'm liking all of this. What's the point of super high resolution display if you aren't going to get that resolution or it's going to slow the machine down?

Thanks for saving me $2,200+ guys

It's not slowing the machine down (in the sense that it makes the computer slower). The only problem is that occasionally (like once every hour), an animation lags or skips (this happens randomly). I constantly run 1920 x 1200 myself.

It's definitely much less smooth compared to my old 2011 MBP at times, but the fact that I can show an effective 1920 x 1200 desktop on a 15" screen more than makes up for it.

Plus you are getting a redesigned cooling system, significant weight reduction, and a much thinner profile as well.

It's worth $2200 in my opinions. But if the screen is your only concern, I'd agree that it's not worth it.

So on the regular MacBook Pro 15" everything is normal and if you get the upgraded 1680-by-1050 discplay all the icons, images, etc. will be much smaller?

I wonder what that looks like compared to the normal 1440 by 900 resolution?

They won't be much smaller. If you put a MacBook Air 13" next to a MacBook Pro 15", then the icon size is about the same as the 13", but the desktop space would be bigger.

 

[204353]

thats not 'extra workspace'. thats just working in a completely unusable environment.

That's your opinion, so please don't state it like it's a factual correction.

I find the full resolution at normal DPI to be perfectly usable, but maybe my eyesight is better than yours.

 

[terraphantm]

That's your opinion, so please don't state it like it's a factual correction.

I find the full resolution at normal DPI to be perfectly usable, but maybe my eyesight is better than yours.

Stevelam has been trolling these forums since the retina's release, just ignore him.