Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Poll: What resolution are you using with your RMBP?

Which setting do you spend the most time in?

  • Total voters
    319
I think some peeps need to get used to using full screen apps. I put Mail, Messages, Safari and FCP in Full Screen. Everything else I window. That way things don't get cluttered and I just swipe around to different things.

That said, I think the best for retina is enough real estate and looks great too. Obviously that's just, like, my opinion, man.
 
I'll be using best for retina. I like to have each windows in fullscreen. Obviously mission control was made for a reason and I use it a lot.
 
Eensy weensy versus Fisher Price...

Well, since I haven't received my MBPR nor seen on in real life, I've had to conduct some crazy experiments using a couple of screen-grabs from full-res (2880x1800) users. I measured 15.4" from bottom left based upon the aspect ratio and sized the grabs to see just how tiny the text actually will be. Sure, on a lower res panel such as the one I'm using you can't say much about the actual quality, but it gave me a good sense of just how small the various screen elements are.

From my experience with the iPad3, I find smaller fonts MUCH easier to read than the same sized fonts on a lower resolution panel, so I'm hopeful that I'll be able to work well at 2880x1800 as my number one priority has always been maximising the screen 'real estate'.

So, unless it truly is too small to be workable, I'll be in the 2880x1800 camp. My wife will no doubt want bigger fonts so her login will doubtless be 'best for Retina' and we'll switch between the two, with her complaining about my eensy fonts and me complaining about her 'Fisher Price' desktop.... :)
 
Techradar posted an interesting retina screen comparison between the iPhone 4S, new iPad, and rMBP. The HD video they use is 1920x1080. I am assuming all three devices were running in their native resolution. When watching the test video, I noticed a big difference in color accuracy and clarity. In my opinion, along with a few others who have posted on the YouTube blog, the iPad screen blows away the iPhone and rMBP. I have an iPad 3 and probably explains why I was not impressed with the screen on the rMBP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYu4JtUiAhU&feature=related
 
Last edited:
thomaskc said:
if you are happy with your scaled resolution, good for you! But the old highres panel still has a higher native resolution (where everything is sharp ) than the retina.

Anyway, I'm done trying to explain to people what it is they are buying.
Click to expand...

Mine rMBP hasn't shipped yet but I'm wondering if I've done the right thing as I have the late 2011 MBP with the HighRez screen!
 
thomaskc said:
You guys just don't get it do you? I can set my display to anything I want! but if it's not 1:1 pixel native ratio it has been scaled, and scaling is crap! period.
Click to expand...


You guys just don't get it do you? The world is flat. Flat! If Chris sails past the horizon, he's going to fall off the world and get eaten by dragons. Can't you see the dragons on the map?
 
I bounce around a bit, but have been at 19x12 for a few days and feel that it's a nice compromise.
 
thomaskc said:
if you are happy with your scaled resolution, good for you! But the old highres panel still has a higher native resolution (where everything is sharp ) than the retina.
Click to expand...

For a real life perspective, I am currently sitting with my rMPB (set to 1680x1050 equivalent) and high-res anti glare 2011 15" MBP side by side. Both monitors have been match calibrated with the Spyder4Elite. I have gone through several views (desktop, web via Chrome, full screen Aperture images). The rMBP is clearly sharper with better color depth in all cases. The 2011 HRAG just looks softer and when getting close I can see individual pixels. The scaled resolution on the rMBP clearly bests the native resolution of the HRAG. I was ready to hate this display because it wasn't matte, but I just can't do it. Also, beyond the display this machine just rocks (fast, quiet).
 
Tibits said:
For a real life perspective, I am currently sitting with my rMPB (set to 1680x1050 equivalent) and high-res anti glare 2011 15" MBP side by side. Both monitors have been match calibrated with the Spyder4Elite. I have gone through several views (desktop, web via Chrome, full screen Aperture images). The rMBP is clearly sharper with better color depth in all cases. The 2011 HRAG just looks softer and when getting close I can see individual pixels. The scaled resolution on the rMBP clearly bests the native resolution of the HRAG. I was ready to hate this display because it wasn't matte, but I just can't do it. Also, beyond the display this machine just rocks (fast, quiet).
Click to expand...

But you are still running a scaled resolution, your computer is using power on running and displaying everything at 2880x1800 and you aren't even taking advantage of it, because its totally overkill on a 15" laptop. But whether you think its sharper or better or not really doesn't matter because my ague is, its still scaled! you are not running a native resolution which causes issues of all sorts when things starts to get real and people aren't just browsing or looking at family photos.
 
thomaskc said:
But whether you think its sharper or better or not really doesn't matter because my ague is, its still scaled!
Click to expand...
Yet scaled it looks superior to native on the HRAG, which is what I am most concerned about.

thomaskc said:
You are not running a native resolution which causes issues of all sorts when things starts to get real and people aren't just browsing or looking at family photos.
Click to expand...
Actually, I've been putting this machine through it's paces and there have been no issues of any sorts. I am a professional photographer, and am using the MBPR for video editing as well, so I would call my peak use pretty "real".


Do you have/use the rMBP? I am just providing perspective from a real user so people don't pick up misinformation on this board.
 
Tibits said:
Yet scaled it looks superior to native on the HRAG, which is what I am most concerned about.


Actually, I've been putting this machine through it's paces and there have been no issues of any sorts. I am a professional photographer, and am using the MBPR for video editing as well, so I would call my peak use pretty "real".


Do you have/use the rMBP? I am just providing perspective from a real user so people don't pick up misinformation on this board.
Click to expand...

Yeah I second that. I've had mine since June 12th and have been switch back and forth like crazy. I've finally decided on 1440x900 (i think). It boils down to a choice—more screen real-estate versus more clarity. Performance is a non-issue. Performance issues will only arise when using a scaled resolution while using an external display(s).

If you can get passed the "fuzziness" (as the poster points out, still better than any other mac to-date) of the scaled resolutions (I couldn't), you're better off with the scaled as you simply get more screen real-estate.

This is hands-down the best notebook I've ever owned and love it, but the fact 1680 and 1900 do not look as sharp, clear, etc. is a disappointment. It's probably something, which will fade with time, but as of this posting, I wish I could run at 1680 with the quality of 1440...
 
thomaskc said:
But you are still running a scaled resolution, your computer is using power on running and displaying everything at 2880x1800 and you aren't even taking advantage of it, because its totally overkill on a 15" laptop. But whether you think its sharper or better or not really doesn't matter because my ague is, its still scaled! you are not running a native resolution which causes issues of all sorts when things starts to get real and people aren't just browsing or looking at family photos.
Click to expand...

are you still that lost? he has it set to "looks like 1920x1200" that is not really 1920x1200, he is running 2880x1800. Retina aware apps use directly 2880x1800, everything else is rendered at 3840x2400 and then scaled down to 2880x1800 in a way things resemble the size they would be on a 1920x1200 screen.

Scaling things from large mages down provides MUCH MUCH better pictures than just scaling things up. normally running a 2880x1800 panel at a true 1920x1200 (not just a "looks like") would be stretching everything out to fit on a 2880x1800 panel which does look bad.
 
I like both the retina and "Even more Space 1920x1200". However I use alot of charts that need the big space so ill switch around ;)
Cant wait for the future retina displays to come the next decade :)
Retina mac bookpro was a great buy!
 
doh123 said:
can you be more specific?
Click to expand...

My Fault: *"Note: Scaled resolutions do not offer the same visual quality as the Retina setting. Scaled resolutions may also impact graphics performance depending on which applications you are using."

Granted the graphic performance impact is negligible... but still!
 
I've been switching back and forth between the 1900 x 1080 scaled or the Best for Retina setting. The best retina is the nicest / sharpest and lowest impact on the GPU performance - yes it's negligible but the difference is there and I can tell. But the 1900x1080 looks sweet with the extra desktop space. I'm still leaning over to the best retina though because of the reasons listed above.
 
I am using the 1680x1050 for a day now and I think i'm gonna stick with this. Coming from a 1680 hi res screen from a 2011 macbook pro, I can't justify going lower res.

Besides. the quality of this retina display is far higher and noticeable than the hi res 2011 mbp display (duh!)

Peace
 
I have a rMBP. Any of the scaled resolutions make the display noticeably less sharp. You really lose the Retina wow factor. But the Best for Retina display is a little cramped - things are incredibly crisp but it's 1440x900 screen real estate.

So you choose your compromise - do you want super crisp but not a lot of room or more room but less crisp? Simple really.
 
Wow almost everyone is using best for retina. You guys are insane. How is that even functional? Everything is huge and takes up tons of space on your screen. And I can't even see the difference between 1920x1200 and best for retina. They both look sharp, clear and crisp to me. I just cant tell the difference
 
doh123 said:
are you still that lost? he has it set to "looks like 1920x1200" that is not really 1920x1200, he is running 2880x1800. Retina aware apps use directly 2880x1800, everything else is rendered at 3840x2400 and then scaled down to 2880x1800 in a way things resemble the size they would be on a 1920x1200 screen.

Scaling things from large mages down provides MUCH MUCH better pictures than just scaling things up. normally running a 2880x1800 panel at a true 1920x1200 (not just a "looks like") would be stretching everything out to fit on a 2880x1800 panel which does look bad.
Click to expand...

I'm a newly minted retina owner, and I gotta say, you're both right and you're not hearing him out. That scaling that is going on in the background (from 3840 down to the resi you select) actually takes up some computing power. So you're getting a better image, but you are actually taking a performance hit, over say the non-retina 15"
 
surjavarman said:
Wow almost everyone is using best for retina. You guys are insane. How is that even functional? Everything is huge and takes up tons of space on your screen. And I can't even see the difference between 1920x1200 and best for retina. They both look sharp, clear and crisp to me. I just cant tell the difference
Click to expand...

For me, the drop in quality is substantial when you switch above Best for Retina.
 
Why are people talking about resolution on the rMBP? The unit is ALWAYS running at 2880x1800 regardless of the setting used. The scaled "resolutions" are simply rendering the GUI larger to be more visible. Setting it at larger scale does NOT change the resolution at all! NOW...that being said....3rd party applications with low res GUI elements will look worse because they are being zoomed in on in order to accommodate the scaling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back