I am curious about something, and I'm by no means an expert, so please bear with me.
I'm under the impression that one of the most important things for evaluating monitors is resolution and that resolution is, more or less, number of pixels per unit surface area. The more pixels per inch (or per centimeter, or whatever), the better.
I understand that this isn't the only thing to determine screen quality, but it is at the top of the list.
So, I'm reading about the Pro Display XDR. It has a resolution of 6016 by 3384. It also has a width of 28.3" and 16.2". I did some calculations. If I'm correct, that means that horizontally, its resolution is approximately 212.5 pixels per inch, and vertically, its resolution is approximately 209 pixels per inch. That sounds fantastic.
But then I read that the display on the 16" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 226 pixels per inch (presumably both horizontally and vertically) and the display on the 13" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 227 pixels per inch (also presumably both horizontally and vertically).
Since the display of the 16" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 3072 by 1920, that means that the width of its display ought to be approximately 13.6" and the height of its display ought to be approximately 8.5". I don't know if that's true, but if I use the Pythagorean theorem, I get a hypotenuse of approximately 16" (which is what I expect).
Since the display of the 13" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 2560 by 1600, that means that the width of its display ought to be approximately 11.3" and the height of its display ought to be approximately 7". Again, I use the Pythagorean theorem, and I get a hypotenuse of approximately 13.3" (which, again, is what I expect).
Here are my questions:
What's going on here?
I'm under the impression that one of the most important things for evaluating monitors is resolution and that resolution is, more or less, number of pixels per unit surface area. The more pixels per inch (or per centimeter, or whatever), the better.
I understand that this isn't the only thing to determine screen quality, but it is at the top of the list.
So, I'm reading about the Pro Display XDR. It has a resolution of 6016 by 3384. It also has a width of 28.3" and 16.2". I did some calculations. If I'm correct, that means that horizontally, its resolution is approximately 212.5 pixels per inch, and vertically, its resolution is approximately 209 pixels per inch. That sounds fantastic.
But then I read that the display on the 16" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 226 pixels per inch (presumably both horizontally and vertically) and the display on the 13" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 227 pixels per inch (also presumably both horizontally and vertically).
Since the display of the 16" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 3072 by 1920, that means that the width of its display ought to be approximately 13.6" and the height of its display ought to be approximately 8.5". I don't know if that's true, but if I use the Pythagorean theorem, I get a hypotenuse of approximately 16" (which is what I expect).
Since the display of the 13" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 2560 by 1600, that means that the width of its display ought to be approximately 11.3" and the height of its display ought to be approximately 7". Again, I use the Pythagorean theorem, and I get a hypotenuse of approximately 13.3" (which, again, is what I expect).
Here are my questions:
- Shouldn't the $4,999 Pro Display have a greater resolution than the MacBook Pros?
- How can pixel density be greater horizontally than vertically? Aren't pixels square? Isn't that the point?
What's going on here?
