That's interesting, so how would games work? If you were able to run them in HiDpi mode at the 1440x900 real estate, would they look good but have good performance too?
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.
Pixel Doubling
- Thread starter apolloa
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's interesting, so how would games work? If you were able to run them in HiDpi mode at the 1440x900 real estate, would they look good but have good performance too?
No, HiDPI is only possible at 1440x900. You can use 1680x1050 and it'll probably still look close to a native 1680x1050, but you won't see the full benefits of the retina display.
Games are not run in HiDPI. You either choose 1440x900 or 2880x1800 or any resolution in between. 1440x900 is the best choice to get good performance on modern games.
Exactly. It's a pro machine, so we can expect pro apps to be updated to retina quickly. As for games, I'm sure apple is indifferent how they run on pro machines.
The retina's native resolution are either 1400x900 or 2800x1800. Anything in between (1680x1050, or 1900x1200, etc) will not be native and thus you'll suffer from some sort of blurriness, which defeats the purpose of a retina display.
I personally would have preferred a native 1900x1200 (more screen real state) than a 2800x1800 (more crispiness but 1400x900 screen real state).
All in all, I personally believe that "retina" in a laptop is nothing but a marketing gimmick. In an iPhone/iPad it's great because you hold the device much closer to your face, but in a laptop it's not really necessary.
I personally would have preferred a native 1900x1200 (more screen real state) than a 2800x1800 (more crispiness but 1400x900 screen real state).
All in all, I personally believe that "retina" in a laptop is nothing but a marketing gimmick. In an iPhone/iPad it's great because you hold the device much closer to your face, but in a laptop it's not really necessary.
I am going to check out this fang-dangled new computer and its alleged blurriness this week.
This is what Mark said at 9to5Mac a few weeks ago when they mostly nailed the new Retina MacBook Pro specs:
Link: http://9to5mac.com/2012/05/14/apple-readies-revamped-15-inch-macbook-pro-retina-display-ultra-thin-design-and-super-fast-usb-3-3/
So I'm hopeful that Mountain Lion will bring settings to control the size of the UI elements. I'm guessing optimal for the 15" would be 1440x900, with large being 1280x800 and small being 1680x1050. I'd prefer the benefit of small with the extra sharpness. My current (soon to be old) machine does 1680x1050 which I've found to be optimal for creating my web designs in Photoshop. I think that size is perfect for all my tool panels and active work space.
Ok so I just left this reply window and carefully sized my Photoshop window inside 1440x900 (including the OS X Menu Bar) and I don't like what I'm seeing. Feels too cramped and my web designs don't have enough space (just a little too big as I design 960px wide with a 160px margin on each side to get a feel for background repeat, a total of 1280px). I'm actually a little concerned now—here's to hoping Mark is right about the resolution-independent scaling settings. Today I split my time between an external display and the MBP display roughly 70/30, but the display is getting old and has some scratches so I'm going to full time MBP display since it uses IPS with better contrast and color in addition to the retina qualities. Now I'm concerned I made the wrong choice!
Edit to add: Do these screenshots from AnandTech confirm the resolution independence settings? Or is it just scaling down to 1920x1200 (making it fuzzy)? So basically what I'm asking is—is it just changing the size of the UI elements or the actual resolution being displayed? Since the settings look so different and don't mention physical resolution, I'm hoping it's the independent scaling of the UI? Here is the link: http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/2078#1
EDIT #2: Ok, after some more digging it looks like it's actually scaling without a hit to resolution! Here is a clip from AnandTech:
So there you have it. And based on the top end, I'm interpolating the low end numbers here for all the scale settings:
Larger Text: 1024x640px
In-between Large: 1280x800
Best (Retina): 1440x900
In-between More Space: 1680x1050
More Space: 1920x1200
What I like is that he says it's easy to bounce between the different settings. What I don't like is that he seems to be seeing a performance hit because it renders everything large and scales down. So I bet Apple is including all graphics at 3840 x 2400 so they can scale. Wonder if that's the resolution for the new 21.5" iMac? Or in a 16:9 ratio instead. If that's the case, then the next 27" iMac/Thunderbolt Display will be at 5160x2880? That's pretty ridiculous, but if true, why we won't see a retina iMac until next year. That's a whole lot of pixels to push! Nearly 15 megapixels at 60fps...wow!
I hope there is a way to quickly switch between modes. I like the idea of browsing the web at 1440x900 so it's more casual and easier on my eyes, but switching to 1680 or 1920 for when I'm in design mode and need the real estate.
Link: http://9to5mac.com/2012/05/14/apple-readies-revamped-15-inch-macbook-pro-retina-display-ultra-thin-design-and-super-fast-usb-3-3/
So I'm hopeful that Mountain Lion will bring settings to control the size of the UI elements. I'm guessing optimal for the 15" would be 1440x900, with large being 1280x800 and small being 1680x1050. I'd prefer the benefit of small with the extra sharpness. My current (soon to be old) machine does 1680x1050 which I've found to be optimal for creating my web designs in Photoshop. I think that size is perfect for all my tool panels and active work space.
Ok so I just left this reply window and carefully sized my Photoshop window inside 1440x900 (including the OS X Menu Bar) and I don't like what I'm seeing. Feels too cramped and my web designs don't have enough space (just a little too big as I design 960px wide with a 160px margin on each side to get a feel for background repeat, a total of 1280px). I'm actually a little concerned now—here's to hoping Mark is right about the resolution-independent scaling settings. Today I split my time between an external display and the MBP display roughly 70/30, but the display is getting old and has some scratches so I'm going to full time MBP display since it uses IPS with better contrast and color in addition to the retina qualities. Now I'm concerned I made the wrong choice!
Edit to add: Do these screenshots from AnandTech confirm the resolution independence settings? Or is it just scaling down to 1920x1200 (making it fuzzy)? So basically what I'm asking is—is it just changing the size of the UI elements or the actual resolution being displayed? Since the settings look so different and don't mention physical resolution, I'm hoping it's the independent scaling of the UI? Here is the link: http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/2078#1
EDIT #2: Ok, after some more digging it looks like it's actually scaling without a hit to resolution! Here is a clip from AnandTech:
So there you have it. And based on the top end, I'm interpolating the low end numbers here for all the scale settings:
Larger Text: 1024x640px
In-between Large: 1280x800
Best (Retina): 1440x900
In-between More Space: 1680x1050
More Space: 1920x1200
What I like is that he says it's easy to bounce between the different settings. What I don't like is that he seems to be seeing a performance hit because it renders everything large and scales down. So I bet Apple is including all graphics at 3840 x 2400 so they can scale. Wonder if that's the resolution for the new 21.5" iMac? Or in a 16:9 ratio instead. If that's the case, then the next 27" iMac/Thunderbolt Display will be at 5160x2880? That's pretty ridiculous, but if true, why we won't see a retina iMac until next year. That's a whole lot of pixels to push! Nearly 15 megapixels at 60fps...wow!
I hope there is a way to quickly switch between modes. I like the idea of browsing the web at 1440x900 so it's more casual and easier on my eyes, but switching to 1680 or 1920 for when I'm in design mode and need the real estate.
Last edited:
This system gives me much of confusions. Until I use it actually. But I don't know when I have enough money. 
Looking at AnandTech's screenshot dimensions, it's not true resolution independence.
Apple is taking advantage of the fact that this panel is rather high res, and hoping people don't notice.
Here's how it's working:
1024x640, HiDPI to 2048x1280, ordinary raster scale up to 2880x1800
1280x800, HiDPI to 2560x1600, ordinary raster scale up to 2880x1800
1440x900, HiDPI to 2880x1800
1680x1050, HiDPI to 3360x2100, ordinary raster scale down to 2880x1800
1920x1200, HiDPI to 3840x2400, ordinary raster scale down to 2880x1800
Basically, it's the same as running the pre-HiDPI display modes on a 1440x900 display, but because all of the modes are so much higher resolution than before, as well as the panel, most people won't notice.
I'm going to ask that people not spread this link around, due to bandwidth constraints on my end, and the pics are about 3.1 to 3.7 MiB a piece - feel free to rehost the images, all I did was rescale AnandTech's images in IrfanView. But, here's what I predict it'll actually look like: http://bhtooefr.org/images/AnandRetinaScaled
Filenames are of the logical mode X axis dimension.
Whatever you're using to look at these images, make sure you zoom it in all the way.
Apple is taking advantage of the fact that this panel is rather high res, and hoping people don't notice.
Here's how it's working:
1024x640, HiDPI to 2048x1280, ordinary raster scale up to 2880x1800
1280x800, HiDPI to 2560x1600, ordinary raster scale up to 2880x1800
1440x900, HiDPI to 2880x1800
1680x1050, HiDPI to 3360x2100, ordinary raster scale down to 2880x1800
1920x1200, HiDPI to 3840x2400, ordinary raster scale down to 2880x1800
Basically, it's the same as running the pre-HiDPI display modes on a 1440x900 display, but because all of the modes are so much higher resolution than before, as well as the panel, most people won't notice.
I'm going to ask that people not spread this link around, due to bandwidth constraints on my end, and the pics are about 3.1 to 3.7 MiB a piece - feel free to rehost the images, all I did was rescale AnandTech's images in IrfanView. But, here's what I predict it'll actually look like: http://bhtooefr.org/images/AnandRetinaScaled
Filenames are of the logical mode X axis dimension.
Whatever you're using to look at these images, make sure you zoom it in all the way.
Last edited:
Hmm, so from what is being said, you would set a game to use 1440x900 in it's settings menu, that would normally give pretty good performance on the MB Pro, but what about the Retina screen machine? Looks like Bare Feats is yet to get his hands on one.
AnandTech also discusses gaming here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis
I'm not sure what's going on with Portal 2 there. It's looking like it's actually rendering at 1440x900, but thinks it's rendering at 2880x1800? So, botched HiDPI support strikes hard? That may also mean that Apple is actively preventing software from directly touching the 2880x1800 mode, which would SUCK. (Let's just say that I want 2880x1800, no HiDPI.)
Artifacts at 1920x1200 gaming being mentioned suggests to me that the HiDPI support is screwing with things, and scaling even games to 3840x2400 first.
I would say, though, if a game does not support HiDPI, or stresses the GPU, might want to set it to 1440x900 - that will put the least strain on the GPU (it'll do the least intensive scaling in that mode), I think.
I'm not sure what's going on with Portal 2 there. It's looking like it's actually rendering at 1440x900, but thinks it's rendering at 2880x1800? So, botched HiDPI support strikes hard? That may also mean that Apple is actively preventing software from directly touching the 2880x1800 mode, which would SUCK. (Let's just say that I want 2880x1800, no HiDPI.)
Artifacts at 1920x1200 gaming being mentioned suggests to me that the HiDPI support is screwing with things, and scaling even games to 3840x2400 first.
I would say, though, if a game does not support HiDPI, or stresses the GPU, might want to set it to 1440x900 - that will put the least strain on the GPU (it'll do the least intensive scaling in that mode), I think.
Last edited:
Thanks for the link, interesting read, shame the author doesn't mention gameplay in Portal 2. But Diablo 3 runs at the full 2880x1800!!! Wow, and the SSD performance is great too. This is shaping up to be THE performance machine in the most portable chassis.
It looks like Portal 2 is running at full 2880x1800 there. The main menu UI in Portal 2 is resolution independent since it's both a PC and a console game.
Zoom into the image. Note the pixelation.
The screenshot dimensions are 2880x1800, and the console looks small enough to be 2880x1800, but it almost looks like this is going on:
Portal 2 is rendering elements at the correct size for 2880x1800, but the GPU is only giving 1440x900 for whatever reason (meaning, things that are resolution independent are fine, but things that AREN'T (like the console) end up unusable).
Then, it's being scaled back up to 2880x1800 by the HiDPI support.
The screenshot dimensions are 2880x1800, and the console looks small enough to be 2880x1800, but it almost looks like this is going on:
Portal 2 is rendering elements at the correct size for 2880x1800, but the GPU is only giving 1440x900 for whatever reason (meaning, things that are resolution independent are fine, but things that AREN'T (like the console) end up unusable).
Then, it's being scaled back up to 2880x1800 by the HiDPI support.
Last edited:
Probably because the font and UI images aren't that high a resolution, so the engine is stretching them a bit to keep them the same size on the higher res screen. You would have to see an actual in-game screenshot to tell if the rendering engine is putting out a full 2880x1800.
That was actually my first impression, until I saw the console.
Here's a partially downscaled screenshot of Portal 2, showing the console, on a non-HiDPI machine (no idea what it's on, actually): http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r63/69viper/tut5.png
Compare the console fonts. It looks like a raster font, but whatever's on the Mac is being drawn at the raster font's normal size - not being stretched - at the right size for 2880x1800. Then, it's being scaled down to 1440x900 (at least I think), then scaled back up to 2880x1800. The console font is actually being shown with LESS resolution than it should be, because of what's happening here.
Here's a partially downscaled screenshot of Portal 2, showing the console, on a non-HiDPI machine (no idea what it's on, actually): http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r63/69viper/tut5.png
Compare the console fonts. It looks like a raster font, but whatever's on the Mac is being drawn at the raster font's normal size - not being stretched - at the right size for 2880x1800. Then, it's being scaled down to 1440x900 (at least I think), then scaled back up to 2880x1800. The console font is actually being shown with LESS resolution than it should be, because of what's happening here.
Last edited:
Yeah, everything is being scaled down from huge resolutions first.
Check out this screenshot from Anandtech in all its 3840x2400px glory. This is what the Retina MacBook Pro actually does when you scale it to 1920x1200 UI size. This seems like it will be a pretty serious performance hit. It's actually rendering that9.2 megapixels!! 60 times per second. That's crazy talk. So when you take a screenshot, you get the full resolution of the desktop environmentbasically a retina 21.5" iMac.
Link: http://bhtooefr.org/images/AnandRetinaScaled/1920.png
I think most of the time when I'm working in Photoshop I'll do 1680 which comes out to 7mp at 60fps. Wish there was a way for Apple to do this without blowing everything up so huge first. Here's to hoping the performance hit at 1680 won't be too bad and the image quality will look decent for design work. Not sure but the scaling might screw that up and make things a little less "precise" than they should be. I don't want to be jumping between pixels here or have fuzzy edges on my crisp lines. GAH I wish they had just pixel doubled 1680 natively but the display hardware probably wasn't there. Who wants to bet that they come out with a hi-res retina option in the next couple years? Lol...now that's an oxymoron.
Check out this screenshot from Anandtech in all its 3840x2400px glory. This is what the Retina MacBook Pro actually does when you scale it to 1920x1200 UI size. This seems like it will be a pretty serious performance hit. It's actually rendering that9.2 megapixels!! 60 times per second. That's crazy talk. So when you take a screenshot, you get the full resolution of the desktop environmentbasically a retina 21.5" iMac.
Link: http://bhtooefr.org/images/AnandRetinaScaled/1920.png
I think most of the time when I'm working in Photoshop I'll do 1680 which comes out to 7mp at 60fps. Wish there was a way for Apple to do this without blowing everything up so huge first. Here's to hoping the performance hit at 1680 won't be too bad and the image quality will look decent for design work. Not sure but the scaling might screw that up and make things a little less "precise" than they should be. I don't want to be jumping between pixels here or have fuzzy edges on my crisp lines. GAH I wish they had just pixel doubled 1680 natively but the display hardware probably wasn't there. Who wants to bet that they come out with a hi-res retina option in the next couple years? Lol...now that's an oxymoron.
Also, someone on AnandTech pointed out that these things may be using bilinear (triangle, in some software) scaling, rather than Lanczos, so for the lower resolutions (IrfanView only uses the filters for upscaling, so changing the filter on a downscale is pointless), I posted bilinear scaled shots. The Lanczos shots have been renamed as appropriate.
Oh, and once I get my hands on a retina MBP (I'll be ordering a 2.3/16/256 in a couple weeks, I think), I'm gonna try to get the thing to drive a REAL 3840x2400 display. (Yes, I have one.)![]()
Oh, and once I get my hands on a retina MBP (I'll be ordering a 2.3/16/256 in a couple weeks, I think), I'm gonna try to get the thing to drive a REAL 3840x2400 display. (Yes, I have one.)
Last edited:
Added some more shots. These aren't quite real, but close enough.
http://bhtooefr.org/images/AnandRetinaScaled/1024loreslanc.png
Took the "1024x640" shot from AnandTech, scaled it down to 1024x600 (basically, removing HiDPI from it), Lanczos scaled it up to 1440x900, straight scaled it up to 2880x1800. Basically, this gives a good side by side comparison to the previous 15.4" MBP showing a 1024x640 mode.
http://bhtooefr.org/images/AnandRetinaScaled/1280loreslanc.png
Same as above, but "1280x800".
I need to head to work, but I'll post more later, including maybe some comparisons to the 1680x1050 MBP scaled in the same way.
http://bhtooefr.org/images/AnandRetinaScaled/1024loreslanc.png
Took the "1024x640" shot from AnandTech, scaled it down to 1024x600 (basically, removing HiDPI from it), Lanczos scaled it up to 1440x900, straight scaled it up to 2880x1800. Basically, this gives a good side by side comparison to the previous 15.4" MBP showing a 1024x640 mode.
http://bhtooefr.org/images/AnandRetinaScaled/1280loreslanc.png
Same as above, but "1280x800".
I need to head to work, but I'll post more later, including maybe some comparisons to the 1680x1050 MBP scaled in the same way.
Last edited:
So, the display in question is an IBM T221 (DG5, in my case, but DGM and DGP are the same for these purposes, with the exception that DGM runs at 41 Hz max instead of 48). Can take between 1 and 4 links of DVI, in the following supported combos (without overclocking the DVI links, and basically any combo you can think of, even if refresh rates don't match, can work):
Single-link single DVI, up to 3840x2400 13 Hz
Single-link dual DVI, each port as up to 1920x2400 25 Hz (you can actually mix refresh rates and pixel formats here, too, and it's smart enough to figure it out)
Single-link quad DVI, each port as up to 1920x1200 41/48/60 Hz (it'll run the panel at 41 or 48 Hz depending on model)
Dual-link single DVI, up to 3840x2400 25 Hz
Dual-link single at 2624x2400 41/48 Hz plus single-link single DVI at 1216x2400 41/48 Hz
Dual-link dual DVI, each port at 1920x2400 41/48 Hz
The trick is, on Nvidia GPUs, that 2560x1600 limit is just a pixel rate limit - it can only push pixels fast enough for a 2560x1600 display at 60 Hz. That's actually a limit of dual-link DVI, there. (On ATI GPUs, at least the ones circa 2006, there's a hard 2880x2880 per link limit. Modern ones may be better. Of course, that's per link, so with a dual-link adapter or using two inputs on the monitor, you're fine too.)
My ThinkPad, with a Quadro FX 570M, which claims 2560x1600 max on its single dual-link DVI port, can drive my T221 just fine, at 33 Hz (hey, I did mention overclocking the DVI link...).
So, I predict that with a Mini DisplayPort to dual-link DVI adapter, and maybe some magic from SwitchResX or similar, it'll work fine. If it doesn't work fine, a second MiniDP to DL-DVI adapter, and problem solved, it'll just act like two monitors.
Single-link single DVI, up to 3840x2400 13 Hz
Single-link dual DVI, each port as up to 1920x2400 25 Hz (you can actually mix refresh rates and pixel formats here, too, and it's smart enough to figure it out)
Single-link quad DVI, each port as up to 1920x1200 41/48/60 Hz (it'll run the panel at 41 or 48 Hz depending on model)
Dual-link single DVI, up to 3840x2400 25 Hz
Dual-link single at 2624x2400 41/48 Hz plus single-link single DVI at 1216x2400 41/48 Hz
Dual-link dual DVI, each port at 1920x2400 41/48 Hz
The trick is, on Nvidia GPUs, that 2560x1600 limit is just a pixel rate limit - it can only push pixels fast enough for a 2560x1600 display at 60 Hz. That's actually a limit of dual-link DVI, there. (On ATI GPUs, at least the ones circa 2006, there's a hard 2880x2880 per link limit. Modern ones may be better. Of course, that's per link, so with a dual-link adapter or using two inputs on the monitor, you're fine too.)
My ThinkPad, with a Quadro FX 570M, which claims 2560x1600 max on its single dual-link DVI port, can drive my T221 just fine, at 33 Hz (hey, I did mention overclocking the DVI link...).
So, I predict that with a Mini DisplayPort to dual-link DVI adapter, and maybe some magic from SwitchResX or similar, it'll work fine. If it doesn't work fine, a second MiniDP to DL-DVI adapter, and problem solved, it'll just act like two monitors.
Last edited:
Anyone in photography knows to resize then sharpen an image for a specific resolution display results in optimal quality by far.
Now what the heck is the resolution of this display, and what processing is being done. Anand mentions internal upsizing and then it scales back down. The prefs app does not even offer 1:1 pixel mapping. What a mess if your trying keep control of your images at the pixel level.
I assume some apps will display pixels 1:1.
Windows 7 seems to handle high density displays better with it's UI scaling but leaving images and video at the pixel level?
Now what the heck is the resolution of this display, and what processing is being done. Anand mentions internal upsizing and then it scales back down. The prefs app does not even offer 1:1 pixel mapping. What a mess if your trying keep control of your images at the pixel level.
I assume some apps will display pixels 1:1.
Windows 7 seems to handle high density displays better with it's UI scaling but leaving images and video at the pixel level?
4:1 pixel mapping is as close as Apple wants you to get.
My understanding with that is, software gets to position things on a 1440x900 grid, and the OS uses 4 pixels instead of 1 to draw things in that grid.
It is annoying that a 1:1 mode isn't exposed by default, but as soon as I get my hands on one of these machines, I'll be looking for ways to get it, if someone else hasn't found it.
In any case, Win7's scaling is "better" in theory. In practice, no.
So, there's two classes of programs here, WPF and GDI.
WPF programs generally scale properly, although icons look like crap (partially because Microsoft only specs smaller raster icon sizes, and doesn't offer vector icons - then again, Apple doesn't do vector icons either). GDI programs don't scale at all - the GPU simply scales them in raster form - just as if you were running the whole machine in a non-native resolution - and the GDI applications aren't aware of this. (Which gets funny when you take a screenshot, paste it into a GDI graphics program, take a screenshot, paste it, etc., etc.)
Flash and Java get interesting, in that Flash doesn't scale the text to match (I think Flash is GDI but when embedded in a zoomed WPF program isn't getting raster scaled) and Java appears to be WPF but has some of the display element alignment issues that plagued the older form of GDI scaling that was tried back in the XP days.
The crap part is that almost all apps on Windows, other than Microsoft stuff, are GDI - WPF has had very poor adoption. So, might as well run non-native resolution, if you want things to be bigger...
My understanding with that is, software gets to position things on a 1440x900 grid, and the OS uses 4 pixels instead of 1 to draw things in that grid.
It is annoying that a 1:1 mode isn't exposed by default, but as soon as I get my hands on one of these machines, I'll be looking for ways to get it, if someone else hasn't found it.
In any case, Win7's scaling is "better" in theory. In practice, no.
So, there's two classes of programs here, WPF and GDI.
WPF programs generally scale properly, although icons look like crap (partially because Microsoft only specs smaller raster icon sizes, and doesn't offer vector icons - then again, Apple doesn't do vector icons either). GDI programs don't scale at all - the GPU simply scales them in raster form - just as if you were running the whole machine in a non-native resolution - and the GDI applications aren't aware of this. (Which gets funny when you take a screenshot, paste it into a GDI graphics program, take a screenshot, paste it, etc., etc.)
Flash and Java get interesting, in that Flash doesn't scale the text to match (I think Flash is GDI but when embedded in a zoomed WPF program isn't getting raster scaled) and Java appears to be WPF but has some of the display element alignment issues that plagued the older form of GDI scaling that was tried back in the XP days.
The crap part is that almost all apps on Windows, other than Microsoft stuff, are GDI - WPF has had very poor adoption. So, might as well run non-native resolution, if you want things to be bigger...
And this is what I get for not looking at the screenshots closely enough.
The Portal 2 screenshots are actually at 3840x2400, which means OS X HiDPI support is taking it at 1920x1200, when Portal 2 thinks it's at 2880x1800.
So, we get multiple levels of ugly scaling there.
The Portal 2 screenshots are actually at 3840x2400, which means OS X HiDPI support is taking it at 1920x1200, when Portal 2 thinks it's at 2880x1800.
So, we get multiple levels of ugly scaling there.