retina eye candy

[flipnap]

have a few buddies working on this and its been a long hard road getting this done. the new trailer was just released today. I went to the apple store just to watch this after work tonight on the rMBP, and it alone swayed me to buy one. I watched the clip a few times marveling at this screen. it was like watching dye sublimation printed paper animating in front of my face. mind blowing.

sit back and enjoy. the films particle work looks amazing on the retina. every hair, sparkle and grain of sand, every ice chip and flake..crystal clear. me, three employees and two other customers sat there with our jaws dropped, quiet as a shadow. literally.

Enjoy the beauty of the retina.. wow

Click on trailer 2, pulldown menu for 1080p.

Rise of the Guardians

 

[biscuitsxluv]

Wow, gorgeous on this display!!! I love it. Can't wait to show my husband!

Thank you for sharing!

 

[Randomoneh]

It will look even better one day.

 

[phas3]

even on my lousy mbp 13" screen it looked awesome!

 

[flipnap]

it will look even better one day.

not so sure about that. Im a compositor and the techniques we use today are technically at the point where theres no need to advance (image integration alone). We can seamlessly merge images without the eye detecting it. As opposed to 20 years ago where heavy matte lines were seen, tracking wasnt available so composites slid around, green screen light bled onto the actors and couldn't be removed.

Take the green screen bleed removal. We can eliminate 100 percent of it. So how could there be an improvement? or should i say, why would one be technically needed when its 100 percent successful?

You hit a point in tech where certain things have reached successful integration and theres no need to "improve". I feel the retina and upcoming 4k displays for windows laptops will be the "end point" for displays. Theres a HUGE difference in standard displays and the retina. Anyone who cannot see it are either lying or aren't blessed with good eyes (my eyesight is TERRIBLE and i can see a huge difference).

If the eye cannot detect pixels on this screen, how would adding more eliminate the problem of pixel detection? doesn't logically make sense and I'm not sure it would make a bit of difference if they released a 10k screen for image quality.Apple named this "retina display" because this is the threshold where the eye cannot detect a pixel, and like modern compositing methods, this display has reached its goal and pushing past this density would be a moot point.

 

[Freyqq]

not so sure about that. Im a compositor and the techniques we use today are technically at the point where theres no need to advance (image integration alone). We can seamlessly merge images without the eye detecting it. As opposed to 20 years ago where heavy matte lines were seen, tracking wasnt available so composites slid around, green screen light bled onto the actors and couldn't be removed.

Take the green screen bleed removal. We can eliminate 100 percent of it. So how could there be an improvement? or should i say, why would one be technically needed when its 100 percent successful?

You hit a point in tech where certain things have reached successful integration and theres no need to "improve". I feel the retina and upcoming 4k displays for windows laptops will be the "end point" for displays. Theres a HUGE difference in standard displays and the retina. Anyone who cannot see it are either lying or aren't blessed with good eyes (my eyesight is TERRIBLE and i can see a huge difference).

If the eye cannot detect pixels on this screen, how would adding more eliminate the problem of pixel detection? doesn't logically make sense and I'm not sure it would make a bit of difference if they released a 10k screen for image quality.Apple named this "retina display" because this is the threshold where the eye cannot detect a pixel, and like modern compositing methods, this display has reached its goal and pushing past this density would be a moot point.

I think it will probably improve in different ways over time. For instance, perhaps we have hit a wall with LED displays, but OLED allows for flexible displays that could potentially be very cheap and low power.

 

[leman]

If the eye cannot detect pixels on this screen, how would adding more eliminate the problem of pixel detection? doesn't logically make sense and I'm not sure it would make a bit of difference if they released a 10k screen for image quality.Apple named this "retina display" because this is the threshold where the eye cannot detect a pixel, and like modern compositing methods, this display has reached its goal and pushing past this density would be a moot point.

I agree that there is no much sense in going beyond 200-300 PPI - but its only one dimension of picture quality. Another one is color accuracy, contrast etc. At some point we will have HiDPI screen with 'natural' colors and very high contrast. One would need materials which can create a truly black (completely light absorbing) pixels though.

 

[flipnap]

freyqq, i completely agree. Im simply talking about pixel density and color fidelity. Theres no need at this point to go higher, and if so it wouldn't make much of a difference (law of diminishing returns so to speak). Technical aspects of screen build is another story. transparent panels, flexible panels, NO panels, all good..

 

[Free Ale]

All I can say is wow!

I watched this video in Best for retina mode. It really is amazing! Not only it the video quality astounding, the sound quality it absolutely fascinating!

I might have to buy an external drive just to watch movies on this device.. and I have a HD Sony TV

 

[PaulAtkinson]

That would be NICE.

I might have to buy an external drive just to watch movies on this device.. and I have a HD Sony TV

I was looking into this, but I am not sure it will work. I think I read that the MacOS prevents viewing Blu-Ray Disks, somehow. I wonder if anyone can verify this.

 

[Randomoneh]

If the eye cannot detect pixels on this screen, how would adding more eliminate the problem of pixel detection? doesn't logically make sense and I'm not sure it would make a bit of difference if they released a 10k screen for image quality.Apple named this "retina display" because this is the threshold where the eye cannot detect a pixel, and like modern compositing methods, this display has reached its goal and pushing past this density would be a moot point.

I agree that there is no much sense in going beyond 200-300 PPI - but its only one dimension of picture quality. Another one is color accuracy, contrast etc. At some point we will have HiDPI screen with 'natural' colors and very high contrast. One would need materials which can create a truly black (completely light absorbing) pixels though.

Not seeing pixelation does not mean you wouldn't benefit from higher pixel density (up to a certain point).

Check out work done by NHK. Limit is at least double 60 pixels per degree of field of view ("Retina"). It is a matter of diminishing returns but you can't say that if you put two identical images aside each other, one with angular resolution of 60 ppd ("Retina"), and other with 300, you wouldn't see the difference.

Studies have been done on this subject, I suggest you both read it.

I'm not saying new MacBook pro doesn't have a great display. All I'm saying is that it could, and will be even better and here I'm not talking just about black levels, brightness and color gamut. I'm talking about resolution too.