Randomoneh
macrumors regular
Use some other algorithm and it'll look blurry. Without hi-res images, it's either pixelated or blurry. I think pixelated is better choice.
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.
How not ready the world is for Retina
- Thread starter xfs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For all those saying that Apple brought the retina displays too early, do you understand what you are saying?
Technology is bound to progress... It's destined to, and as new technologies are discovered, brands such as Apple and all the others are going to pick them up as fast as possible. It's a dog eat world out there and Apple was NEVER going to wait until it 'was the right time.' Neither would any of the other brands.
This 'Retina' screen was an inevitability. It was going to happen whether you like it or not. Now that it's happened, we can't sit around and just say "dude, they just brought it in, could of waited a bit longer." We have to make do, and plan for the future that will be inevitably coming. In the next few years screens such as the retina will be sweeping the consumer market. It's time to think about making upgrades to the content on our websites.
Being stubborn and saying only '10% of my userbase is on a rMBP' is downright short sighted. You plan for the future, and that future is now. That userbase will take notice of your low resolution website and they'll try to avoid it in the future. You've already started losing visitors.
Just my opinion.
Technology is bound to progress... It's destined to, and as new technologies are discovered, brands such as Apple and all the others are going to pick them up as fast as possible. It's a dog eat world out there and Apple was NEVER going to wait until it 'was the right time.' Neither would any of the other brands.
This 'Retina' screen was an inevitability. It was going to happen whether you like it or not. Now that it's happened, we can't sit around and just say "dude, they just brought it in, could of waited a bit longer." We have to make do, and plan for the future that will be inevitably coming. In the next few years screens such as the retina will be sweeping the consumer market. It's time to think about making upgrades to the content on our websites.
Being stubborn and saying only '10% of my userbase is on a rMBP' is downright short sighted. You plan for the future, and that future is now. That userbase will take notice of your low resolution website and they'll try to avoid it in the future. You've already started losing visitors.
Just my opinion.
what the hell are you on about? nothing you said was even remotely accurate.
----------
you probably have really bad eye sight then. text is obviously going to be generally rendered much sharper, but nearly all images are blurrier/worse.
sofianito
macrumors 65816
In every forum there are some dumb people who just contradict or minimize others without providing argumentation 😕
Calm down and respect the others!
You're giving m$oft and the cheap azz pc manufacturers too much credit. OSX does a much better job than the latest build of win8. Meanwhile, pc manufacturers USED to offer 1920x1200 screens for years and stopped it when 16:9 screens became widespread. Considering that in Walmart, target, and worst buy only apple products have >1366x768 resolution I wouldn't hold my breath.
Actually now is now, the future is the future. And right now, if I have a site that is working great for 99% and serving its purpose, I am disinclined to spend additional development money plus increased bandwidth for a tiny fraction of web users. Especially since I've just spent money developing a mobile site, which IS necessary right now. No, if I was in that position, I think I would wait and see before spending that money. I would be in no hurry to join the Retina party.
Bare With Me...
Eurgh... Deleted comment again. Understanding PPI is much harder than I thought... need to do a few tests.
Eurgh... Deleted comment again. Understanding PPI is much harder than I thought... need to do a few tests.
Last edited:
Randomoneh
macrumors regular
I'm not a designer, but - why do people even worry about dpi settings in image editing programs when it seems obvious dpi applies to print, not websites. I'd worry about resolution of an image instead. Will images be displayed differently on websites just because of different dpi figure? I dont' think so. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
A test: new image -> resolution: 1000x1000, now set dpi to anything you want. Resolution stays the same, only thing that changes is print size.
Last edited:
Yeah sorry... I'm currently a student anyway, I'm trying to learn the contexts of dpi and ppi right now. They don't actually teach this stuff. Design courses always are, and always will be, a joke.
DPI has nothing to do with what I need to learn (currently), I'm just trying to figure out I can get the most ideal settings for pictures on my site, and to do that I need to experiment with PPI and learn it properly.
It looks to me like the difficulty is going to be getting people to understand what's going on with the Retina display, and how it's not just another high resolution display.
The point is that the MBPr has officially disconnected the web definition of "pixel" (in terms of the "px" inside HTML and CSS) with the physical pixel of the display.
This was already the case with the iPhone 4, iPad 3, and some other devices like the Nexus. But this is the first time it's happened with a "real" computer.
Although, incidentally, it had already happened once Firefox came up with its Control-+ enlarging and shrinking. The key difference there was that the user was making a display change and the browser was implementing it, so if the images started to go a bit blurry you could hardly blame the web designer.
This whole change is very similar to the whole CSS-instead-of-tables that we all went through all those years back. Sure, lazy web designers can just keep doing what they're doing, but the forward-looking ones will be planning ahead and seeing where things are going. Pretending it's irrelevant will work for a while, but not forever.
The MBPr is just the start, and once Windows 8 comes out and allows Windows users to get HiDPI on the same kind of hardware, you can be sure it'll start being made. And will be mainstream a lot quicker than you expect. Every LCD manufacturer in the world is currently working out how they can make higher resolution screens.
As to serving different content just for a small number of displays, the brighter web designers will be less worried about strict percentages and more interested in the fairly obvious correlation between the viewers of their sites using iphone4/ipad3/MBPr and the viewers of their sites more likely to dump money their way.
The point is that the MBPr has officially disconnected the web definition of "pixel" (in terms of the "px" inside HTML and CSS) with the physical pixel of the display.
This was already the case with the iPhone 4, iPad 3, and some other devices like the Nexus. But this is the first time it's happened with a "real" computer.
Although, incidentally, it had already happened once Firefox came up with its Control-+ enlarging and shrinking. The key difference there was that the user was making a display change and the browser was implementing it, so if the images started to go a bit blurry you could hardly blame the web designer.
This whole change is very similar to the whole CSS-instead-of-tables that we all went through all those years back. Sure, lazy web designers can just keep doing what they're doing, but the forward-looking ones will be planning ahead and seeing where things are going. Pretending it's irrelevant will work for a while, but not forever.
The MBPr is just the start, and once Windows 8 comes out and allows Windows users to get HiDPI on the same kind of hardware, you can be sure it'll start being made. And will be mainstream a lot quicker than you expect. Every LCD manufacturer in the world is currently working out how they can make higher resolution screens.
As to serving different content just for a small number of displays, the brighter web designers will be less worried about strict percentages and more interested in the fairly obvious correlation between the viewers of their sites using iphone4/ipad3/MBPr and the viewers of their sites more likely to dump money their way.
I think it will require the patience of a monk, I might be wrong but here we are in a high tech website for example and the quote, rating, post reply buttons of the forum become blurry even on a cmd + , good luck with making adjustments for retina...
You're right about patience. The biggest challenge (reading this forum) is going to be explaining what the issue is to people who think that the MBPr is just a higher resolution display than normal. But, like doing layout with tables, it'll all be over in another five years and good websites will be serving appropriate resolution images to a range of devices from iphones to display walls.
The world is not at all ready for retina at the moment.
I am fast becoming extremely irritated working with fuzzy non-retina upgraded apps.
The problem is that patience isn't looking like a sensible solution due to the time period involved. If for example developers were rushing out of the gates to get compatibility sorted which was a 3-4 months away, then you can be patient.
But most developers have given no information, some have given the impression that we're talking about Q1 next year, if at all for certain versions suggesting that the current version won't be, but the next paid for version will be.
Microsoft for example has kept silent. The analysts have been suggesting that OFM 2011 is now too mature a product to undergo that kind of overhaul, and that OFM 2014 is a more sensible target for retina support, and that's not expected until Q4 2013!
I am fast becoming extremely irritated working with fuzzy non-retina upgraded apps.
The problem is that patience isn't looking like a sensible solution due to the time period involved. If for example developers were rushing out of the gates to get compatibility sorted which was a 3-4 months away, then you can be patient.
But most developers have given no information, some have given the impression that we're talking about Q1 next year, if at all for certain versions suggesting that the current version won't be, but the next paid for version will be.
Microsoft for example has kept silent. The analysts have been suggesting that OFM 2011 is now too mature a product to undergo that kind of overhaul, and that OFM 2014 is a more sensible target for retina support, and that's not expected until Q4 2013!
Randomoneh
macrumors regular
Is resolution always 2880x1800 (not talking about games), just with x2 UI elements so even though size of elements is exactly the same as on last-gen 1440x900 display, 2880x1800 is used and if you are looking at an image from your camera on display, every pixel from image will be represented by one pixel on display?
djrod
macrumors 65816
It's a non issue, I "Retinized" this project I'm working on in just a few hours:
http://todobanderas.com/nueva
If it helps (I've been researching PPI and the retina display for like the entire day).
Resolution is always 2880 x 1800. It's just scaled down to resolutions which make sense on the 15" screen. The extra pixels are used to make these resolutions sharper.
I figure tillsbury can answer the rest.
Randomoneh
macrumors regular
Yeah, so, resolution is always (games excluded) 2880x1800. Now if I go online and meet an image with 100x100 resolution, how will it be displayed? Every pixel of image has its own pixel on display? Or one image pixel is displayed as 4 pixels on display?
Now this is what I'm still trying to get my head around. We're in the same boat and if you can understand this in the next day or so, please PM me... I'm researching like wild right now. I need to understand what kind of PPI I should use for my website to future proof myself against these new standards.
To catch you up on where I am... this article is a fantastic read to understanding the resolution in depth.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-5...a-look-how-much-the-new-macbook-pro-displays/
Randomoneh
macrumors regular
It seems like he has improper understanding of resolution. He says there is no such thing as 2880x1880 resolution on new MacBook Pro. But there is. As long as every pixel can be used to display different color, there is. Just because element size is same as on last-gen MacBook pro doesn't mean resolution isn't 2880x1800.
Searching for other answers...
Edit: It seems like low resolution images are not shown 1:1 on display. I don't get it, I really don't get it.
Last edited:
As far as I know everything is scaled down x2 (for 1920 x 1200, for better quality). I didn't read the guys opinion on the iMac but as far as what he mentioned about the rMBP I trust him. He's from cnet for gods sake lol. Reading the comments, might help too.
Randomoneh
macrumors regular
I wrote iMac, I meant MacBook Pro.
Actual resolution IS 2880x1800. Elements are matching the resolution.
He said: resolution is not 2880x1880 - pixel density is. Now, pixel density has very unique meaning: number of pixels per unit of length (inch, centimeter, meter).
Because someone is from cnet doesn't mean he understands every topic completely. Logic wins and I'm looking for logical explanations.
My apologies.
I didn't mean that, I just meant he is more reliable because he is from such a prestigious source. It's like when iFixit said the new rMBP is near to unfixable. I trust that judgement more than if the BBC claimed it.
I assumed the same with cnet... Clearly I was mistaken, but it must be said that they are more reliable than a lone blog.
Seems like you have a much larger grasp of the pixel situation than me. You'll probably get the answer quicker then 😛
Xian Zhu Xuande
macrumors 6502a
Not quite sure what you're talking about here. Maybe you can elaborate. With an image, for example, if you leave its size to the web browser the browser will size it to the dimensions of the original image, and unless viewed independently, the image will not be resized by the browser.
The browser only displays content as it was told to. Aside from basic elements such as a block of text (say, in a paragraph <p>) reflowing within an elastic container (whether the browser in the <body> tag or in, say, an <article> tag) the browser can't be depending on for much, layout wise, beyond a bare-bones academic format.
And it also won't provide in-document retina support unless you explicitly go out of your way to define an image as using less space than the image would take up if full size (whether fixed or adaptive), and that has the drawback of serving oversized graphics to the standard browser audience.