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

Will the next generation MacBook Air have a retina display?

  • Yes

    Votes: 64 43.0%
  • No

    Votes: 85 57.0%

  • Total voters
    149
To be honest, I have to disagree there. Whilst I don't expect anyone to sit as close as one foot I definitely think they'll be sitting closer than two -- that's quite a distance for an 11.6 inch display.

The minimum viewing distance for my 21.5 inch iMac is 33 inches, but I sit regularly at about 20, or two thirds of that -- a "retina" iMac would have a minimum viewing distance of 16.5 inches which is enough for me by a few inches.

I think you need an eye test in that case, sorry but to be frank that is a bit unusual

----------

When I see comments like this I start to suspect variations in people's eyesight being the issue. The retina display iPad (like the iPhone before it), makes a massive difference to me, but it would for a Mac also: I have seen pixellation on every desktop and laptop computer screen I've ever used, and have been longing for hi-DPI displays for years. I thought I was the only one worrying about it until I heard Steve Jobs' views on the matter.

Even Jobs said Retina-standard resolution would only see us through the next (15-20?) years or so. Not sure of the exact quote, but he wasn't proffering Retina as the be-all-and-end-all, and that makes sense to me. I can see pixellation on the new iPad occasionally, and professional print dpi is higher. I can certainly see it on my HDTV, depending on the material. 1080p is much lower res. than 35mm film, hence restorations being done in 4K+.

So when people post things like "Macbooks are already Retina" or "HDTVs are already Retina," I have to question either their eyesight or their understanding of the concept.

Thats all very well and yes eyesight is key, but so is distance from the screen which is a point you fail to address...of course you'll see pixelation on a 1080p HDTV....if you're sitting close enough!?
 
[/COLOR]The retina term...Stop using it. Just say "better screen".
That wouldn't work, because some people would think that better screen equals/means higher color gamut(you know over 83% or so), better contrast ratio, and viewing angles(both vertical and horizontal).
 
I don't know if they will include retina on the MBA but I'm hoping they don't. For the 3 reasons you listed above.

It seems like Apple had to work so hard to accomodate retina in the new iPad, that I would recommend to my friends the cheaper iPad 2 with a better battery life.

I would much rather the MBA price drop $100 and increase battery life than go retina and stay the same price and reduce battery life. If you want retina, go mbp

Yesterday,I had to adjust some sync settings on my wife's iPad 2, it was at that very moment, I realised,I could never give up my Retina Screen on my iPad 3, I say bring it on across the board, in the 11",13",15" MBA's:eek:,as well as both the MBP's,as well as the iMac.Simply put,Retina will set :apple: apart from the crowd, and in the end, isn't that what we all expect?:D Let the rest of the Industry play HEINZ, (Ketchup)
 
Last edited:
It actually amuses me how many people here claim to know what "retina" is.

Yes there are websites out there that claim to have worked out some clever maths and think they know what Apple means - they are wrong, they are just guessing and only give their interpretation of what they think "retina" is. Truth is, they over complicating something that Apple kept simple for good reason.

There are some people on this forum that chastise people that claim that something is already "retina" because of it's pixel density - they are wrong too, and so incidentally are the people they are chastising.

In fact anybody who claims to be able to define "retina" in any more words (or science, math or anything else) than what Apple already has...is wrong, it really is as simple as that. It's their definition not anybody else's.

Apple dreamed "retina" up and they will apply it and define it as they see fit and however they dam well please. It's all just marketing gush to be quite honest and i'm surprised that apparently "clever" people try to take it further.
 
That wouldn't work, because some people would think that better screen equals/means higher color gamut(you know over 83% or so), better contrast ratio, and viewing angles(both vertical and horizontal).


You really think the vast majority of people buying iPhones give a ****** about gamut and contrast ratio?
 
You really think the vast majority of people buying iPhones give a ****** about gamut and contrast ratio?
And the vast majority didn't care about PPI and high pixels really until they were told that they need to have it. Most people I have spoke to said they didn't care about Retina/high PPI displays until the iPhone came with it. I'd personally rather have the current MBA(ignoring the rest of the sad specs) with high color gamut and contrast, with better viewing angles at least horizontally(specially when out in the sun).


Yesterday,I had to adjust some sync settings on my wife's iPad 2, it was at that very moment, I realised,I could never give up my Retina Screen on my iPad 3, I say bring it on across the board, in the 11",13",15" MBA's:eek:,as well as both the MBP's,as well as the iMac.Simply put,Retina will set :apple: apart from the crowd, and in the end, isn't that what we all expect?:D Let the rest of the Industry play HEINZ, (Ketchup)

I doubt it would be a cut above seeing as that heap of a machine known as the Vaio Z has a near retina like display, same goes for that upcoming Asuks ultrabook. One issue maybe the lower color gamut of the MBA, its like under 60%, right? That not really a good thing when you are increasing res as you will see lack of color change on some things. You better hope apple increases that to a more acceptable 77% or higher.
 
Last edited:
I think you need an eye test in that case, sorry but to be frank that is a bit unusual
What would I need an eye test for? I sit closer than the minimum for the display to appear "retina", and I'd bet most people do too.
It actually amuses me how many people here claim to know what "retina" is.

Yes there are websites out there that claim to have worked out some clever maths and think they know what Apple means - they are wrong, they are just guessing and only give their interpretation of what they think "retina" is. Truth is, they over complicating something that Apple kept simple for good reason.

There are some people on this forum that chastise people that claim that something is already "retina" because of it's pixel density - they are wrong too, and so incidentally are the people they are chastising.

In fact anybody who claims to be able to define "retina" in any more words (or science, math or anything else) than what Apple already has...is wrong, it really is as simple as that. It's their definition not anybody else's.

Apple dreamed "retina" up and they will apply it and define it as they see fit and however they dam well please. It's all just marketing gush to be quite honest and i'm surprised that apparently "clever" people try to take it further.
Apple didn't dream up the term "retina", it's mathematics, and you can calculate the various minimum viewing distances for devices here: http://bhtooefr.org/displaycalc.htm

Steve Jobs said the 300+ PPI mark is the limit for the eye for devices held between 10 and 12 inches.
 
All i know is that my lower resolution, lower DPI Super AMOLED Galaxy S II screen impresses me far more than my iPad3 screen.
 
It actually amuses me how many people here claim to know what "retina" is.

Yes there are websites out there that claim to have worked out some clever maths and think they know what Apple means - they are wrong, they are just guessing and only give their interpretation of what they think "retina" is. Truth is, they over complicating something that Apple kept simple for good reason.

There are some people on this forum that chastise people that claim that something is already "retina" because of it's pixel density - they are wrong too, and so incidentally are the people they are chastising.

In fact anybody who claims to be able to define "retina" in any more words (or science, math or anything else) than what Apple already has...is wrong, it really is as simple as that. It's their definition not anybody else's.

Apple dreamed "retina" up and they will apply it and define it as they see fit and however they dam well please. It's all just marketing gush to be quite honest and i'm surprised that apparently "clever" people try to take it further.

While there's bound to be leeway in Apple's definition, there's still is something we can call a definition. Well, definition-ish.

It's simply a pixel density/viewing distance ratio - you can use this to calculate the "needed" arcseconds if you so wish. I'm guessing Apple has picked a reasonable margin to use for "retina" (to conform to what screen resolutions are widely available for order, if nothing else).

And of course some clever people will claim that using the "retina ratio" their relatively low res TV sets are "retina". The problem with doing that is that this goes against the motivation behind the term, which is to convey a significant jump in resolution to what we had before.

It's not that retina will ever become a good scientific term, but for marketing purposes I don't think it's controversial to expect a significantly higher resolution compared to what Apple have delievered previously in an Apple product that claims it's "retina". So all in all I don't mind the term, to be honest.

I don't even think Apple have shot themselves in the foot with this one as we can probably expect a significant jump in resolution across the line. It's not in defense of the term, just that I expect them to deliver when it comes to resolution. In a couple of years we might even see it go away as most consumer devices strive toward these resolutions.
 
Last edited:
What would I need an eye test for? I sit closer than the minimum for the display to appear "retina", and I'd bet most people do too.

Apple didn't dream up the term "retina", it's mathematics, and you can calculate the various minimum viewing distances for devices here: http://bhtooefr.org/displaycalc.htm

Steve Jobs said the 300+ PPI mark is the limit for the eye for devices held between 10 and 12 inches.

Thats interesting, because not anywhere in any mathematics reference material have I ever come across a defined term for "retina".

As I said, if it's not Apple's definition then it's somebody elses interpretation of what they think Apple meant, and so should be taken with a very big pinch of salt.

You won't be able to prove otherwise and thats a fact, you can only offer somebody elses view so you may as well give up now, unless you think regurgitating third party websites is the correct information.
 
The retina term is very gay, Stop using it. Just say "better screen".

I find it very difficult to engage with anyone who uses that word as a derogatory term. Even as a school teacher I rarely hear it used in that way any more. Like an earlier poster, I am forced to question your maturity.
 
I don't know if they will include retina on the MBA but I'm hoping they don't. For the 3 reasons you listed above.
Exactly. I'd also prefer a long-lasting battery and cool chassis at a competitive price point to a "retina" panel. Retina for the redesigned Pros makes sense. For the Air, maybe not so much. Even just for readability, a res bump will likely be a liability on 11"/13" screens unless Mountain Lion introduces some resolution independence wizardry. (I hope they do....)

When it comes to screens, the Air needs an IPS panel to improve viewing angles and color. The new ASUS Zenbook has one, and to be outstripped upon the next refresh by the only legitimate competitor in this form factor - a form factor that Apple pioneered! - will be a glaring shortcoming.

The retina term is very gay, Stop using it. Just say "better screen".
Retina is a brilliant marketing term, despite its disputed nature, as evinced by its quick adoption. Also, who uses "gay" to talk smack in the 21st Century? Follow your own advice and "Stop using it."
 
Thats interesting, because not anywhere in any mathematics reference material have I ever come across a defined term for "retina".
And that isn't what I said.
As I said, if it's not Apple's definition then it's somebody elses interpretation of what they think Apple meant, and so should be taken with a very big pinch of salt.
Apple's definition is based on mathematics. Apple has said countless times in their Keynotes that "retina" is a pixel density so high that at an average viewing distance the pixels are indistinguishable -- for the iPhone that's 10 - 12 inches, and the iPad is a little further back then that -- according to Apple.

The link I provided simply allows you to calculate the minimum viewing distance given a visual acuity, and screen size and resolution. For the iPhone 4/4S it results in a minimum viewing distance of 10.5 inches, and for the iPad 3, it's 13 inches.
You won't be able to prove otherwise and thats a fact, you can only offer somebody elses view so you may as well give up now, unless you think regurgitating third party websites is the correct information.
I'm not offering anyone else's view, and I'm not "regurgitating third party websites".

What's to prove? Apple has outright said that it's based on pixel density and viewing distance. That's that, you seem to have the "interpretation" that it isn't.
 
And that isn't what I said.

Apple's definition is based on mathematics. Apple has said countless times in their Keynotes that "retina" is a pixel density so high that at an average viewing distance the pixels are indistinguishable -- for the iPhone that's 10 - 12 inches, and the iPad is a little further back then that -- according to Apple.

The link I provided simply allows you to calculate the minimum viewing distance given a visual acuity, and screen size and resolution. For the iPhone 4/4S it results in a minimum viewing distance of 10.5 inches, and for the iPad 3, it's 13 inches.

I'm not offering anyone else's view, and I'm not "regurgitating third party websites".

What's to prove? Apple has outright said that it's based on pixel density and viewing distance. That's that, you seem to have the "interpretation" that it isn't.


SO if you're so right, then show us Apple's mathematics!!
 
SO if you're so right, then show us Apple's mathematics!!
I've already told you what Apple themselves have said about it.

There's three factors to this: viewing distance, pixel density, and your visual acuity. Apple has said that at an average viewing distance, which they say is 10 to 12 inches, your eye isn't able to resolve the pixels in the display after 300 PPI.

The link I posted earlier calculates the minimum viewing distance for a display where your eye can't resolve the pixels, and the results line up with the above.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia which explains it in more detail:

The screen is marketed by Apple as the "Retina Display", based on the assertion that a display of approximately 300 ppi at a distance of 12 inches (305 mm) from one's eye, or 57 arcseconds per pixel[42] is the maximum amount of detail that the human retina can perceive.[43] With the iPhone expected to be used at a distance of about 12 inches from the eyes, a higher resolution would allegedly have no effect on the image's apparent quality as the maximum potential of the human eye has already been met.

This claim has been disputed. Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies, said in an interview with Wired magazine, that the claims by Jobs are something of an exaggeration: "It is reasonably close to being a perfect display, but Steve pushed it a little too far". Soneira stated that the resolution of the human retina is higher than claimed by Apple, working out to 477 ppi at 12 inches (305 mm) from the eyes, or 36 arcseconds per pixel.[44]

However, Phil Plait, author of Bad Astronomy, whose career includes a collaboration with NASA regarding the camera on the Hubble Space Telescope, responded to the criticism by stating that "if you have [better than 20/20] eyesight, then at one foot away the iPhone 4's pixels are resolved. The picture will look pixellated. If you have average eyesight, the picture will look just fine".[45][46]
 
I can't believe anyone with a background in math thinks retina is a technical standard/controlled term or being represented as such. It's Apple-created marketing diction, duh.
 
All of these arguments about what a retina display technically is are trivial to me. The reality of the situation is that retina means that your eyes can't distinguish individual pixels of a screen at a normal viewing distance, plain and simple. As of now you can distinguish the individual pixels of a MacBook Air's screen at a normal distance, there's no question about that.
 
http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

Not sure if anybody has posted this yet. But there is the mathematics behind Apple's 'retina' display.

That article uses 1 arcminute figure. Meaning at that distance (10''-12'') angular resolution of the display will be 60 pixels per degree.

I have slightly above average vision and I'm not able to distinguish separate pixels (this test, fist pair) when angular resolution is 125 pixels per degree.

Apple took very loose figure. Don't believe me? Test your visual acuity.
 
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/06/01/sharp_to_show_oled_retina_display_for_laptops/

The tech is here, but what GPU is required to drive this resolution in a satisfactory manner?
For 2D, Intel's HD 4000 graphics will be fine, but for 3D such as games there's really nothing -- but games can be run at half resolution. Even the most powerful mobility GPU, the 7970M, will have no chance at keeping 30 FPS in most high end games on high settings at 3840x2160 yet alone 5120x2880 -- it should be able to do it at 2560x1440 though, and maybe on low settings at the higher resolution.

Best case scenario for the high end MacBook Pro (and 1080p iMac's) is the 7870M though.
 
I've already told you what Apple themselves have said about it.

There's three factors to this: viewing distance, pixel density, and your visual acuity. Apple has said that at an average viewing distance, which they say is 10 to 12 inches, your eye isn't able to resolve the pixels in the display after 300 PPI.

The link I posted earlier calculates the minimum viewing distance for a display where your eye can't resolve the pixels, and the results line up with the above.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia which explains it in more detail:


Right, so yet again you've failed to provide us with what Apple actually have published (because they haven't as we all know), and yet again you've regurgitated yet another third party website which is not endorsed by Apple.

Stop trying to pretend that Retina means anymore than what Apple have published, it's misleading people.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.