Mac OS X Lion Building in Support for Super High Resolution 'Retina' Monitors

[Quadra610]

But what is the point? I have a 1440x960 15" display already. I can't see the pixels. Adding more pixels just increases the cost, memory needs and processor usage. This is a waste. Its feature creep that just increases the cost of the product.

I have the same 114 dpi screen as you, and it is not a waste. Higher pixel density (with true resolution independence) could allow you to watch HD video natively, without software scaling. You could also view large images unscaled. It would allow you to reduce the size of text on your screen and still be able to read it. It would make all text sharper and more readable, reducing eye strain. It would allow you display more information in the same physical space.

Hardly feature creep, as it greatly increases the usability and capability of the product.

 

[John.B]

I have the same 114 dpi screen as you, and it is not a waste. Higher pixel density (with true resolution independence) could allow you to watch HD video natively, without software scaling.

But watching HD video natively on a 15" screen means you are resolving things beyond what your eyes can discern.

 

[bhtooefr]

Newbie here...

First off, I'll say that I detest modern Apple. I think they execute some things very, very well, but I hate the "our way or the highway" attitude, and the attitude that hacking your own devices is bad. (I've also had bad, bad experiences with the two Macs I've owned. Big fan of Apple IIs, though, I've got a nicely loaded IIGS, a couple more motherboards, a //c, a couple more of THOSE motherboards, and a clone //e.)

Second, I'll say that I'm a pixel whore. My current main machine is a ThinkPad T60p with a 2048x1536 15.0" IPS panel swapped in (171 ppi), and I also own an IBM T221 (3840x2400, 22.2", 204 PPI, and also IPS) that I occasionally use. (The outdated machine is because there's nothing good that's newer and takes a 15.0" 4:3 panel, otherwise I'd swap that into a newer chassis in a heartbeat.)

Let me put it this way... if Apple makes a 13.3" MacBook Pro with a 2560x1600 IPS (that's important!) display, and gives the ability to turn OFF this 2x scaling (that is, let me use it as a 2560x1600 display, not a 1280x800 display that renders text and graphics sharper - that can even be under Windows, I don't care that much about OS X), launch day. I will buy one on launch day, despite my current boycott of Apple. (Unless, of course, Lenovo beats Apple to that. I prefer ThinkPad hardware anyway.)

And as for vision, I'll readily admit that I'm a weird case - I have 20/20 vision in my left eye, but due to a lazy right eye, I have to wear bifocals. (Otherwise, eyestrain gets bad when focusing.) So, bifocals on top of 20/20... yeah, I can see really, really high pixel densities just fine. I can see the pixels on an iPhone 4 a foot away from my eyes.

 

[Steve Ballmer]

Oh please, the Mac has huge fonts everywhere. It looks like a blind guy designed the UI.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What "huge" fonts? Most system-wide fonts are running around 11 or 12pt.

damn... another reason to be wary of buying these new MBPs with lame low-resolution monitors. 1280x800 13.3" and 1440x900 15.4" displays are so outdated. Now we have more confirmation that the next update is going to include much better screens. Lame lame lame.

This isn't confirmation of anything, just what we can possibly expect in the future. How you somehow read this as "confirmation" the next update is going to include anything related to resolution independence is astounding.

They better fix the itunes' icon before they increase the resolution.

There's nothing wrong with the iTunes icon. Your opinion is not fact.

 

[John.B]

Second, I'll say that I'm a pixel whore. My current main machine is a ThinkPad T60p with a 2048x1536 15.0" IPS panel swapped in (171 ppi), and I also own an IBM T221 (3840x2400, 22.2", 204 PPI, and also IPS) that I occasionally use. (The outdated machine is because there's nothing good that's newer and takes a 15.0" 4:3 panel, otherwise I'd swap that into a newer chassis in a heartbeat.)

Let me put it this way... if Apple makes a 13.3" MacBook Pro with a 2560x1600 IPS (that's important!) display, and gives the ability to turn OFF this 2x scaling (that is, let me use it as a 2560x1600 display, not a 1280x800 display that renders text and graphics sharper - that can even be under Windows, I don't care that much about OS X), launch day. I will buy one on launch day, despite my current boycott of Apple. (Unless, of course, Lenovo beats Apple to that. I prefer ThinkPad hardware anyway.)

Have you even seen how thick IPS displays are? So much for sleek and sexy, I guess. Enjoy your bulky Thinkpad.

 

[bhtooefr]

Have you even seen how thick IPS displays are? So much for sleek and sexy, I guess. Enjoy your bulky Thinkpad.

Sure, my ThinkPad is thick, but it's using a panel that originally came out in 2001. Last I checked, TN panels 10 years ago were pretty thick, too, and iPads (which have IPS panels) were quite thin.

 

[Steve Ballmer]

Have you even seen how thick IPS displays are? So much for sleek and sexy, I guess. Enjoy your bulky Thinkpad.

Because every person alive wants a sleek and sexy MacBook, right? Some people actually care more about the hardware than the aesthetics.

 

[Bjango]

What was wrong with vector defined graphics? Letters, numbers etc. are already defined that way in OSX isn't it? Is it that difficult to create icons with vectors? Then they could support any arbitrary resolution. Does anybody know why this was deemed impractical?

Vector defined graphics have their place, but still have the same issues. The problem with fractional scaling is that the pixel grid doesn't align to the vector grid when not at 1.0x or 2.0x scaling exactly. This misalignment causes all kinds of problems that simply can't be resolved. Apple has been trying since Mac OS X 10.4 and hasn't come close, others have been trying for as long or longer with the exact same issues.

A 100% Vector UI is Resolution Independence. All those vectors ultimately have to be rendered down to high ppi bitmaps because the Screen is not a collection of Vector Pixels. The Screen PPI is not infinitely scalable up or down.

Yeah, defining everything as vectors (or in code) means that things are always rendered to pixels anyway. Things have to be that way because computer displays are built from pixels.

Here's an article I wrote about why Apple have taken the pixel doubling path for the iPhone 4, which is very relevant for discussing about the Mac.

http://bjango.com/articles/extrapixels/

Basically there's three ways you can handle more pixels:

Stretch out specific regions of the UI
This is often called a fluid layout and is how lots of websites handle the differences in the viewer's browser width. Mac Rumors uses a fluid layout. This works, but only for minor differences in resolution.

Scale, with the ability to handle any scaling factor
This can never be perfect, due to the maths involved. This is how the old Resolution Independence Apple touted for 10.4 worked. It's also how Android works. It's not a good way to go.

Scale exactly to a multiple
This is how the iPhone 4 works and how the Mac will work.

 

[ururk]

I'm sure there's even more of us. I wouldn't mind some scaling though. I remember seeing a 30" ACD and thinking how weird the title bar looking being vertically tiny and horizontally stretched across a huge screen.

You get used to it, and eventually, the dpi on the 30" seems too low. People look over my shoulder and complain that the font is too small, but frankly, I'd prefer to see everything just a bit smaller.

 

[John.B]

Because every person alive wants a sleek and sexy MacBook, right? Some people actually care more about the hardware than the aesthetics.

You are showing that you don't have a good understand of the physics of modern displays. Do us all a favor and research how many Windows laptops come with IPS displays. At last count, I think IBM made the only one. There is a reason for that.

 

[bhtooefr]

You are showing that you don't have a good understand of the physics of modern displays. Do us all a favor and research how many Windows laptops come with IPS displays. At last count, I think IBM made the only one. There is a reason for that.

IPS is a dying breed due to cost and power consumption, not thickness, IIRC. That said, in Tablet PCs, IPS hasn't completely died, although IIRC, Lenovo has abandoned it.

 

[dal20402]

You all realize the OS and every application made would have to be completely rewritten from the ground up if we went exclusively to vector-based graphics, right? It's a totally impractical blue-sky idea.

Pixel doubling, on the other hand, will work tolerably with no rewriting at all, and will work perfectly once developers design new bitmaps, without any other changes.

 

[evering]

This is true? So cheap?

This is unrelated but I wanted to share.

In case you have not seen one of the very cheap knock-off iPads... look at this. What spec's! And look at the resolution! Funny.

http://www.dhgate.com/google-androi...-inch/p-ff8080812a45e179012a527d3322384d.html

Note watermark on the images... I wonder if they really know what "Kaka" is slang for?

This is true? So cheap?

 

[gatortpk]

Super Hi-Vision resolution in 27" is 326 dpi, just the like iPhone 4!

Man... imagine a 27 inches iMac at 5120x2880 resolution!

You would be able to see a 14,7MP picture in 1:1 actual size!

Super Hi-Vision (7,680 × 4,320 pixels), also called UHDTV is being developed by NHK in Japan for release around year 2016 to 2020. It's exactly 16 times full HD, 4 by 4 Full HD screens (1920x1080). This happens to be EXACTLY 3 by 3 (9 times) 27" iMac screens (2560x1440 times 3 equals 7680×4320).

"You would be able to see a 33.2 MP picture in 1:1 actual size!"

It's very interesting and coincidental, that this next standard, 7,680 × 4,320 resolution in a 27" display would give you 326 dpi, just like in the iPhone 4! That would be awesome! Though quad iMac screen (5120x2880) would be cool too. But I'd rather see the next standard for TV broadcast used in an actual 27" retina display that happens to be the EXACT SAME pixel resolution of the iPhone 4.

This would be 8 x 6.75 (54 screens) iPhone 4 screens. Yup, the ~3.5" iPhone 4 screen times 8 (across) happens to match ~27" width! (Actually 3.5 * 8 = 28, so perhaps the iPhone screen is slightly less than 3.5" (I calculate 3.465") otherwise the dpi would be 329.65 on the iPhone 4. ALSO, lets not forget the iPhone 4 is a 3:2 or 15:10 ratio while the iMac and virtually all newer displays are 16:9.

I calculated that the iMac with 7,680 × 4,320 resolution display at 27" would be 326.3566 dpi, pretty close to 326 dpi the iPhone 4 tech specs report.

(Sorry if this resolution idea has already been posted in the last 4 pages, and I do understand the tripling the linear resolution is probably harder than doubling for developers, but would it be that much harder other than the fact that doubling is already been done?)