Retina Macbook Pro 1680x1050 Scale

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by syan48306, Jun 15, 2012.

  1. syan48306 macrumors 6502a

    syan48306

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #1
    Has anyone else physically seen the retina macbook pro under a 1680x1050 scaling? Anyone got opinions about it?

    I went to the Apple store today to see how well the scaling worked. It was very crowded and didn't get much time with it but it looked like the 1680x1050 scaling was much better than I expected. Though I couldn't tell if it was my mind playing tricks on me or if it really was slightly fuzzier.

    Thus, can anyone else chime in with their experience with a retina macbook pro under a 1680x1050 scaling?
     
  2. juicywaterhouse macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Location:
    Southern California
    #2
    I can speak to it

    Yeah so I've had mine since tuesday, I've been bouncing back and forth. There's definitely a drop in quality when leaving 1440x900. With that said, I have my girlfriends 13 inch air with me, and at 1680x1050, the pro is still significantly better than the 13 in terms of crispness & image quality.

    It's just hard—once you see how amazing everything looks at 1440x900, it's hard switching, even though you want to (for more real estate), because it can't match that same quality.

    If you're into display quality, the RMBP at 1680x1050 looks the best out of all macs rendered at 1680x1050.If fact, it's not even close. There's just that once caveat of it not being as awe inspiring as it appears rendered at its naive 1440x900.
     
  3. Lagmonster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    #3
    I have. I spent about 10 mins on one yesterday. It was good but before I take the plunge I need to spend a little more time at the Apple store. I am at a 90% confidence rate. Hoping I can hold out until the Anandtech review is up.
     
  4. EvilShenaniganZ macrumors 6502

    EvilShenaniganZ

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    #4
    Using it right now. May like it better than "best for retina". I'm no expert though... I'll use it a bit and look at different sites and see how it works out.
     
  5. Sean Dempsey macrumors 68000

    Sean Dempsey

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
  6. ljx718 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    #6
    is performance exactly the same or does it slow down a bit
     
  7. Diversion macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #7
    Your post makes zero sense.. It could be because you don't understand how native resolution works on an LCD. If you throw up a 1680x1050 screen on a native res 1440x900 screen yes it will look horrible.

    But since you can order a native res 1680x1050 lcd for the Macbook Pro, at native 1680x1050 it will look better than 1440x900.. 1440x900 will be blurrier on a 1680x1050.

    Using native resolution for any LCD is the ultimate pixel-by-pixel clarity. Deviation from native resolution, you take a hit in clarity.
     
  8. 2Turbo macrumors 6502

    2Turbo

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    #8
    My concern is the blurryness of 3rd party apps and things not optimized for retina. How do things not designed for retina compare to your MacBook Air image quality? Please let me know as I'm dying to get to the bottom of this issue. I can't expect the entire desktop and internet to update to retina anytime soon.... :mad:
     
  9. Eallan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    #9
    I don't think you understand. When he's saying 1440, he means the normal "best for retina" setting. The RMBP doesn't use fuzzy scaling like a typical computer forcing non native. Resolution, it scales in software and outputs 2880x1800 to the display.

    Hes saying that the best for retina setting looks much better than the scaled setting simulating 1680x1050, which looks better than a native mbp at 1680x1050.
     
  10. karohan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    #10
    You're wrong. This doesn't apply so simply with the RMBP
     
  11. fryrice macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2012
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #11
    just use 1920 x 1200 for now until there are apps that support retina. like many reviews say its a "growing pain" for getting the latest and greatest. i plan on using that resolution 1920 x 1200 when i get mine until there are updates on chrome and other applications that i will be using.

    now if only apple has these in stores, just take my $$ already :D
     
  12. Diversion macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #12
    It does apply. I'm sorry. Scaling on such a high res minimizes the amount of blur. Apple is using a very nice scaling engine when you're using OSX, and it works well - but outside of the OSX gui, all bets are off.
     
  13. 2Turbo macrumors 6502

    2Turbo

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    #13
    Are you saying the 1920x1200 setting looks better than the 1440 for old apps? That would be cool. I don't mind using a higher res if everything looks clearer. Just can't stand buying a computer that makes everything look blurry. :eek:
     
  14. Sean Dempsey macrumors 68000

    Sean Dempsey

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #14
    Yes, it makes the "old app" aliasing better.

    I can't tell if the resolution scaling makes it any slower. Feels fine.
     
  15. 2Turbo macrumors 6502

    2Turbo

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    #15
    Cool. Mind posting a screen shot? Thanks man!
     
  16. Diversion macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #16
    It's Apple fault for not allowing a 1:1 ratio for their GUI to take advantage of the real estate.

    They seem to think people want their old native 1440x900 resolution MBP to look just like their new RBP. This works on most normal, unknowing customers - but to not allow a 1:1 ratio for the GUI is causing these issues in the first place for people who are smarter than their average customer.

    How about that "trick" someone uncovered to allow for a 1:1 ratio.. should fix all of these complaints. It may not be the cleanest method but it will have to work for now. You can't expect to full screen apps these days on high resolution screens anymore.

    You *will* get used to not fullscreening apps on high resolution displays.. And then you will appreciate the real estate to be able to have tons of apps in view.

    The only time when fullscreening really comes into play is gaming, photography, videography, etc. (these are examples of true situations, not just opinion).
     
  17. karohan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    #17
    Sure, but the OP has indicated nothing about using something besides OS X. Your initial statement makes it seem like the blurriness will exist in OS X too.
     
  18. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #18
    I played with one today and there is definitely a slight degradation. Its nothing horrible but you will notice it here and there.
     
  19. Diversion macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #19
    It works for OSX's GUI because the elements being shown aren't static images that have to be forced to higher resolution.. Most things are pixel scalable with no loss to clarity.

    What happens when you go to play a game that doesn't support 2800x1800? It's going to look blurry because now the LCD (or GPU) built in scaling takes over at this point.
     
  20. Sean Dempsey macrumors 68000

    Sean Dempsey

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #20
    I mean, it's not perfect. But oh well. that's 1920x1200. Frankly it will never be as good as "native" like this. The world will have to catch up /shrug.

    Diablo 3 runs at a true 2880x1800 though and holy crap, it's like realism.
     

    Attached Files:

  21. Sean Dempsey macrumors 68000

    Sean Dempsey

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #21
    Oh that's funny - that image is 3840x2400 haha. Weird.
     
  22. Diversion macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #22
    It's not weird, Apple is downscaling a bigger workspace into the 2800x1800 screen.. A lot of people noticed this when taking screenshots, i'm not exactly sure why they are doing this though, I guess to give you the feeling of a screen of more than 2800x1800 pixels.. It makes retina more retina? :p
     
  23. VacantPsalm macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #23
    Down scaling looks WAY better than upscaling. To take true 1920x1200 and stretch it out to 2880x1800 would look much blurrier than to render it as 3840x2400 and shrink it down.
     
  24. syan48306 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    syan48306

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #24
    I think the problem is, even though 1680x1050 scaling on the rmbp looks better than a native 1680x1050, the 1440x900 scaling will almost make me feel like I'm missing out.

    Damn you apple for making me feel like I'm getting cheated even though you gave me an upgrade :confused:
     
  25. juicywaterhouse macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Location:
    Southern California
    #25
    Exactly
     

Share This Page