Resolution question

[Silly John Fatty]

So I have the Apple Studio Display, and in System Preferences > Display, it says the resolution is set to "2560 x 1440 (Standard)".

But I also have options of up to 5120 x 2880.

Does this mean I'm not using the full potential of the display, if I'm for example watching something in 4K?

If I chose this very high resolution, everything (= Finder windows, Dock, Menu bar, etc.) become super small. I guess I'd have to resize them in the settings. But I tried that and it's difficult, even with the largest settings.

Do you also think I'd be "using" the Display "more" if I set it that way? Like, am I wearing it more?

And what's the point of all of this in the first place? It looks to me like that high resolution setting isn't practically usable. Why have it in the first place?

 

[jz0309]

So I have the Apple Studio Display, and in System Preferences > Display, it says the resolution is set to "2560 x 1440 (Standard)".

But I also have options of up to 5120 x 2880.

Does this mean I'm not using the full potential of the display, if I'm for example watching something in 4K?

If I chose this very high resolution, everything (= Finder windows, Dock, Menu bar, etc.) become super small. I guess I'd have to resize them in the settings. But I tried that and it's difficult, even with the largest settings.

Do you also think I'd be "using" the Display "more" if I set it that way? Like, am I wearing it more?

And what's the point of all of this in the first place? It looks to me like that high resolution setting isn't practically usable. Why have it in the first place?

the resolution looks like 2560x1440, it upscales the fonts/menus etc as if you had a 2560x1440 display.
your videos, photos etc will be displayed in true 5120x2880 ...

 

[Silly John Fatty]

the resolution looks like 2560x1440, it upscales the fonts/menus etc as if you had a 2560x1440 display.
your videos, photos etc will be displayed in true 5120x2880 ...

Alriiight, I see. They should have clarified that imo, it's not clear at all. Thanks Jz!

 

[jz0309]

Alriiight, I see. They should have clarified that imo, it's not clear at all. Thanks Jz!

I had those exact thought prior to getting my 5k iMac in 2017, so I can relate
you can run some tests, set the resolution to normal and then watch videos in different resolution, eg 4k, HD, SD etc, then switch to 5120x2880 and watch the dame videos ...

 

[Silly John Fatty]

I had those exact thought prior to getting my 5k iMac in 2017, so I can relate
you can run some tests, set the resolution to normal and then watch videos in different resolution, eg 4k, HD, SD etc, then switch to 5120x2880 and watch the dame videos ...

No, I believe you. Basically you can't even run the Display in any other resolution, can you? Although when I chose some of the lower resolutions, you can actually see that the resolution IS lower - the quality is really bad. Or do you think the Mac converts the video only to a higher resolution, but keeps the rest (like desktop, etc.) in lower resolution?

 

[jz0309]

No, I believe you. Basically you can't even run the Display in any other resolution, can you? Although when I chose some of the lower resolutions, you can actually see that the resolution IS lower - the quality is really bad. Or do you think the Mac converts the video only to a higher resolution, but keeps the rest (like desktop, etc.) in lower resolution?

I remember playing around with the resolution when I first got my iMac, but that is 6 years ago now so don’t remember details.
Never really saw the need to change it from the default and haven’t even played with it on the ASD.

 

[CWallace]

So I have the Apple Studio Display, and in System Preferences > Display, it says the resolution is set to "2560 x 1440 (Standard)".

But I also have options of up to 5120 x 2880.

Does this mean I'm not using the full potential of the display, if I'm for example watching something in 4K?

The Apple Studio Display by default runs in HiDPI mode which is effectively 5120x2880 rendered at 200% zoom so it is the equivalent of 2560x1440 (QHD), but with much higher clarity thanks to having double the pixels. This way text and icons look "readable" as opposed to "tiny".

With videos, opening a 4K video at "100%" view in the player, it fills up maybe 60% of my screen?

 

[Silly John Fatty]

The Apple Studio Display by default runs in HiDPI mode which is effectively 5120x2880 rendered at 200% zoom so it is the equivalent of 2560x1440 (QHD), but with much higher clarity thanks to having double the pixels. This way text and icons look "readable" as opposed to "tiny".

With videos, opening a 4K video at "100%" view in the player, it fills up maybe 60% of my screen?

Okay. The only thing that matters to me is that even when set to 2560 x 1440, it is still "5K". That was confusing, because when I chose a lower resolution, the quality is definitely worse. I've tried to compare a 4K video on Youtube in 2560 x 1440 vs. 5120 x 2880 but couldn't notice a difference. Maybe the eye can't see the difference.

 

[joevt]

thanks to having double the pixels

quadruple the pixels, since their are twice as many pixels horizontally and vertically.

Okay. The only thing that matters to me is that even when set to 2560 x 1440, it is still "5K". That was confusing, because when I chose a lower resolution, the quality is definitely worse. I've tried to compare a 4K video on Youtube in 2560 x 1440 vs. 5120 x 2880 but couldn't notice a difference. Maybe the eye can't see the difference.

You are probably getting 5K, but there's no way to know for sure without looking at the timing info. Using SwitchResX, you can double click the selected resolution in the current resolutions list to see the timing info (active pixels, pixel clock, etc.).

For example, macOS can say "Looks like 2560x1440", "Resolution 5120x2560" even when it's actually outputting only 4K. macOS only reports the framebuffer resolution and color depth. It does not report the output resolution or output color depth.

 

[Silly John Fatty]

quadruple the pixels, since their are twice as many pixels horizontally and vertically.

You are probably getting 5K, but there's no way to know for sure without looking at the timing info. Using SwitchResX, you can double click the selected resolution in the current resolutions list to see the timing info (active pixels, pixel clock, etc.).

For example, macOS can say "Looks like 2560x1440", "Resolution 5120x2560" even when it's actually outputting only 4K. macOS only reports the framebuffer resolution and color depth. It does not report the output resolution or output color depth.

I don't want to install any third party apps on my Mac to be honest. But I'm curious why it's all even set this way by default. You'd think they want people to get the most out of their Mac. If the resolution really isn't 5K, I wonder why they made it 5K in the first place, when the default setting doesn't use 5K and makes it nearly impossible to use 5K (even on max. sized settings for Font, Dock, etc., maximum speed for mouse, etc., it's still not ideal).

 

[CWallace]

But I'm curious why it's all even set this way by default. You'd think they want people to get the most out of their Mac.

Apple's goal with their "retina" displays is for the pixels to not be visible at standard viewing distances. Hence why the native (unscaled) resolutions are so high. The disadvantage of running them at native (unscaled) resolution is text and icons and UI elements are extremely small. So Apple runs them at "2X scaled" (in general) which makes text/icons/UI elements more readable and because they have four times the pixels of a screen with the same native (unscaled) resolution that text/icons/UI elements are far sharper.

For example. I connect my iMac 5K to a second monitor with a native (unscaled) resolution of 2560x1440. Even though text/icons/UI elements are the same size on both displays (since the iMac 5K is scaled 200% to an effective 2560x1440), they are significantly sharper on the iMac 5K.

 

[Silly John Fatty]

Apple's goal with their "retina" displays is for the pixels to not be visible at standard viewing distances. Hence why the native (unscaled) resolutions are so high. The disadvantage of running them at native (unscaled) resolution is text and icons and UI elements are extremely small. So Apple runs them at "2X scaled" (in general) which makes text/icons/UI elements more readable and because they have four times the pixels of a screen with the same native (unscaled) resolution that text/icons/UI elements are far sharper.

For example. I connect my iMac 5K to a second monitor with a native (unscaled) resolution of 2560x1440. Even though text/icons/UI elements are the same size on both displays (since the iMac 5K is scaled 200% to an effective 2560x1440), they are significantly sharper on the iMac 5K.

So you're saying, like @jz0309 earlier, that the real resolution is in fact 5K but Apple basically calls it 2560 x 1440, right?

 

[CWallace]

So you're saying, like @jz0309 earlier, that the real resolution is in fact 5K but Apple basically calls it 2560 x 1440, right?

Effectively, yes.

The native resolution of the Apple Studio Display is 5120x2880 pixels (so there are ~14.8 million pixels in the display). At that resolution, text/icons/UI elements are probably too small to be comfortably read, so Apple offers "scaled" resolutions that simulate a display with a resolution lower than 5120x2880.

macOS does not do sub-pixel rendering, which is a trick operating systems like Windows use to make scaled (non-native) resolutions look better. As such, the default "Best for Display" resolution for the Apple Studio Display is 1/2th the native resolution (equivalent to 200% zoom in Windows). So on the iMac 5K or Apple Studio Display, that is the equivalent of a 2560x1440 QHD display.

A QHD display with a native resolution of 2560x1440 has ~3.7 million pixels, which is 1/4th the number of pixels of a 5120x2880 display. So even when running at "Best for Display" / 2560x1440 simulated, the iMac 5K/ASD still has four times as many pixels and that is why text/icons/UI elements look significantly sharper than they do on a QHD display set right next to it even though both displays are at the same (effective) 2560x1440 resolution.

 

[Silly John Fatty]

Effectively, yes.

The native resolution of the Apple Studio Display is 5120x2880 pixels (so there are ~14.8 million pixels in the display). At that resolution, text/icons/UI elements are probably too small to be comfortably read, so Apple offers "scaled" resolutions that simulate a display with a resolution lower than 5120x2880.

macOS does not do sub-pixel rendering, which is a trick operating systems like Windows use to make scaled (non-native) resolutions look better. As such, the default "Best for Display" resolution for the Apple Studio Display is 1/2th the native resolution (equivalent to 200% zoom in Windows). So on the iMac 5K or Apple Studio Display, that is the equivalent of a 2560x1440 QHD display.

A QHD display with a native resolution of 2560x1440 has ~3.7 million pixels, which is 1/4th the number of pixels of a 5120x2880 display. So even when running at "Best for Display" / 2560x1440 simulated, the iMac 5K/ASD still has four times as many pixels and that is why text/icons/UI elements look significantly sharper than they do on a QHD display set right next to it even though both displays are at the same (effective) 2560x1440 resolution.

I don't know if it's possible and how, but it would be interesting to measure the bandwidth that travels from the Mac to the Display. I don't know if that plays a role. I know that of the 40 Gb/s of Thunderbolt, around half of that is reserved for the Display.

 

[CWallace]

5120x2880 at 60Hz with 8-bit color needs about 27Gbps.