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.
IMHO, The best (retina) setting looks awful. Too big..
- Thread starter Alexjones
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How can it look blurry? All the window elements should be 100% sharp as they are decreased in size to match the new resolution. Text is always 100% sharp because it is always rendered in native resolution. So what actually is blurry?
And to all: do you notice difference in lag in 1680x1050 vs. 1280x800 modes? Talking only about the new late 2013 13" model.
I ended up settling on best for retina because of the slight blur on the other resolutions too.. it's too big, and I really need it higher, but if I'm looking at the screen for a long time it's very tiring as my eyes keep trying to refocus.
Really miss my old 2008 17" MBP..
Really miss my old 2008 17" MBP..
Con you guys explain WHERE do you see this blur? Third party apps maybe? Because native apps shold show 100% sharp text in 1680x1050 mode, for example. I don't have MBPr yet so I'm really interested.
When I carefully looked in the store, text looked 100% sharp in Safari and other native Apps in all modes.
When I carefully looked in the store, text looked 100% sharp in Safari and other native Apps in all modes.
it's blurry "at first" - after 30 minutes your eyes adjust, i've been running best last few days until this morning. Swapped 2 hours ago and now i can't tell the difference, just more screen estate 
Been using 1680 x 1050 for a year now.
No noticeable UI lag. The only lag is when scrolling in firefox on graphics intensive webpages... but chrome and safari (on 10.9) both use the webkit now anyway, so its totally smooth in those browsers.
No noticeable UI lag. The only lag is when scrolling in firefox on graphics intensive webpages... but chrome and safari (on 10.9) both use the webkit now anyway, so its totally smooth in those browsers.
No one seems to be able to address this or say why they are doing better with the very small size of type in using the higher res.
Some of us are new to retina displays and would like some competent guidance so is there a sticky on this or something?
I have gone back and forth several times now and can see very little reason to use 1650 over best for retina, even when working with photos, too much eye strain and it is bad enough people hosing their far range vision by spending every conscious moment on a device instead of living in the real world...
Last edited:
Strange by 1920x1080 looks fine to me
Really, I can't tell the difference in clarity between "best" 1440 and 1920x1200. I also don't notice any lag, but that is probably the case of not knowing what to look for.
1440x900 is roughly the ergonomically correct resolution for the display size. Anything higher begins to reduce screen element sizes to the point that eye strain begins, even if you don't notice it, and you run the risk of long term impact. Apple has always leaned toward resolutions that provided a standard dpi...this resulted in some strange ones like 832x624 for 16" CRT displays.
Really, I can't tell the difference in clarity between "best" 1440 and 1920x1200. I also don't notice any lag, but that is probably the case of not knowing what to look for.
1440x900 is roughly the ergonomically correct resolution for the display size. Anything higher begins to reduce screen element sizes to the point that eye strain begins, even if you don't notice it, and you run the risk of long term impact. Apple has always leaned toward resolutions that provided a standard dpi...this resulted in some strange ones like 832x624 for 16" CRT displays.
Last edited:
Today I compared 1280- 1440 and 1680 modes in 13" rMBP. All showed 100% sharp text so I don't understand the comments about blurriness at all. Text is rendered perfectly in all modes in the apps I tested. Mouse cursor is pixel perfect. As are menu bars etc. So really, what blurriness do people see and in which apps?
As for choosing 1680 over 1280. It makes text and screen elements smaller by default -> you can fit more stuff on your screen. As simple as that.
As for choosing 1680 over 1280. It makes text and screen elements smaller by default -> you can fit more stuff on your screen. As simple as that.
Agreed but my fav setting is 1920x1200. Best resolution for space and eyes not hating you!
My eyes love the larger fonts on the 13 retina at default settings.
One of the reasons it was purchased.
I often found the small fonts on the 11 and 13 Air hard to see,
and the old non retina 13 fonts were just far too pixelated.
This is one is perfect.
So not everyone is unhappy
One of the reasons it was purchased.
I often found the small fonts on the 11 and 13 Air hard to see,
and the old non retina 13 fonts were just far too pixelated.
This is one is perfect.
So not everyone is unhappy
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/6Anand said:
In my opinion, the scaled resolutions look better than their native counterparts (e.g., a 15" Retina Pro @ 1680x1050 looks sharper than a 15" non-Retina Pro with the optional high-res screen), but not quite as sharp as the absurdly sharp Best for Retina setting. In other words, softer compared to a Retina set to Best for Retina, but not "soft" as compared to other displays running at their native resolution.
To me, Best for Retina is like reading a newspaper through a magnifying glass. With 1920x1200, I have a much better overview of my workspace. It allows me to run multiple VMs side by side (useful for debugging client server apps), or to work on several images concurrently in Photoshop. Even web browsing is more pleasant. I like seeing the structure of the whole webpage. It allows me to locate useful information right away without having to scroll through pages which (IMHO) have huge fonts and use up space needlessly.
But, at the end of the day, it's a personal choice. It depends on your eyes and your work habits. I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" setting.
Thanks for link. But it would be nice to know where this inaccuracy could be seen. Fonts are equally sharp as in 1280-mode. This applies to mouse cursor too. Can you really pinpoint which app and in which situation you see less sharp elements with scaled resolution?
And I know what a blurry non-native LCD looks like. This a completely different thing.
I use my 15" Haswell rMPB at 1920x1200...
Looks and works great for me. Use whatever works great for you.
I prefer this same setting as well.
My 15" retina is a very fine machine.
I'm completely satisfied.
1680 x 1050 would be the equivalent of the high resolution display option when ordering the old 15 in macs. Some people prefer high res. because it has a cleaner more professional look. The Best ( Retina ) setting would be equivalent to the non high resolution display which just means larger fonts. Either setting looks good, But in the end its all about preferences. The bottom line is that Apple did the right thing by giving the user a wide choice of resolutions to choose from. Bravo Apple
Last edited:
I don't think fonts are equally as sharp. I don't have a Retina machine in front of me, but this is how I understand the scaling process:
(1) User chooses perceptual resolution. For example, 1680x1050 (on a 13" Retina Pro, the highest "scaled" resolution).
(2) Display is rendered at double the perceptual resolution. Continuing the example, all of the content and UI elements are doubled in pixel dimension to be scaled to 3360x2100. For elements like text and vector graphics that don't have pixel dimensions, those elements are drawn to twice their equivalent pixel size, to have the same perceptual size at 3360x2100 as they would have in a 1680x1050 workspace. For bitmaps, they are scaled using some method of interpolation to double their pixel dimensions. If an application is "retina-aware" and has high-resolution resources, those resources will be used for interpolation instead of the lower-resolution resources.
(3) The resulting 3360x2100 display image is scaled down to the panel's native resolution using some type of downsampling algorithm (so on a 13" Retina Pro, 2560x1600).
For text to appear just as sharp at a Retina scaled resolution as at the "Best for Retina" setting, the text would have to be rendered after the other display elements were upsampled and downsampled. In my steps above, that would have to occur as a step four, rather than at step two. Otherwise, the clarity of the text will suffer somewhat as a result of the downsampling that occurs at step three (since the image isn't being downsampled at an even integer). In other words, as I understand the process, the text will be rasterized during step two, and thus will suffer from the inherent inaccuracy of downsampling to a non-integer resolution during step three.
Do you understand the process to work differently?
Last edited:
That might be the process. The problem here is that I have not yet witnessed a blurry font in 1680x1050. (But I don't own a MBP). They look identically sharp as in 1280x mode - when comparing same physical size fonts. They really looked very sharp and no indication of antialiasing problems at all. This would be interesting if someone could actually test this properly (I really mean properly, not just subjectively) and present the data.
In my experience 1680-mode is equally sharp as 1280 mode. But this is based on testing in store.
In my experience 1680-mode is equally sharp as 1280 mode. But this is based on testing in store.
I actually sometimes work with the panel on the 15" rmbp at 2880x1800. I do work where I actually need all of the screen real-estate. When I'm not working however 1920x1200 is the resolution I usually run at. I have tried all the intermediate 16:10 resolutions up to 2880x1800 and the 2560x1600 resolution on the 15" is perfectly readable for me, and the 2048x1280 is really the resolution I want to run at. It's a shame there's no HiDPI setting for those resolutions...
I usually run in 1280x800 but use quickres to toggle to the higher resolutions when I need more real estate.
1280x800 is the most comfortable for me when reading or surfing the web. However, I increased my usable screen real estate by moving the dock to the right side of the screen, I found myself needing more vertical real estate than horizontal. I also hate auto-hide, but that's an option if you don't mind your dock disappearing and want to keep it on the bottom.
I switch depending on the task at hand, multiple times per day, sometimes multiple times per hour.
Best for Retina for casual reading, laying down with the laptop more distant to my face.
Higher resolutions for web development, video work, anything productive.
Unscaled for those times when I really need everything visible at once.
That's the beauty of it, the versatility is awesome.
Best for Retina for casual reading, laying down with the laptop more distant to my face.
Higher resolutions for web development, video work, anything productive.
Unscaled for those times when I really need everything visible at once.
That's the beauty of it, the versatility is awesome.