Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Retina MacBook Pro & CS5?
- Thread starter Brittanydavie
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
wow wow, what? so there is no actual screen size change? its all pixel scaling/DPI change? in OSX at least correct?
Hmm
Hmm.. This makes me confuse even more haha. 3days reading but still don't have true answer
.I thought that 1440x900 res is the one that fully supported by retina display and 1680/1900 res is scaled down to fit the resolution. The application is still pixelated ,but in 1680/1900 res isn't it barely noticeable with normal distance (from our eyes to the monitor)??
I'd never get a Mac laptop without it
That still potentially needs me leaving to send it in for battery and hard drive replacement though.That's actually a large part of the reason I have both a laptop and an iMac right now, redundancy. In order to do a RMBP I'd probably have to get rid of both which I'm hesitant to do.
Hmm.. This makes me confuse even more haha. 3days reading but still don't have true answer
I thought that 1440x900 res is the one that fully supported by retina display and 1680/1900 res is scaled down to fit the resolution. The application is still pixelated ,but in 1680/1900 res isn't it barely noticeable with normal distance (from our eyes to the monitor)??
So bottom line is, there is scaling going on, aka there nothing new in the LCD/LED panel itself, its just apply creating loopholes to make things look good at times where they normally wouldn't, but only as long as it's supported.
Aka - I will be buying the "old" macbook pro 15 with the new hardware and the native 1680x1050 screen.
hehe scaling is NOT an option and that native resolution on a 15" is just plain stupid.Hmm.. This makes me confuse even more haha. 3days reading but still don't have true answer
I thought that 1440x900 res is the one that fully supported by retina display and 1680/1900 res is scaled down to fit the resolution. The application is still pixelated ,but in 1680/1900 res isn't it barely noticeable with normal distance (from our eyes to the monitor)??
It is my understanding that whatever scale setting you choose, the screen will always run at double the resolution it appears to be running in terms of screen real estate. If I remember correctly, I read that the "looks like 1920x1200" setting is actually rendering everything at 3,840x2400 and then scaling that to the native 2880x1800 resolution of the 15.4" display. So apps that haven't been updated for retina display will always look half-quality, as will your documents within those apps.
Whether it would be "barely noticeable" that the image quality is half what it ought to be at 1920x1200 would depend on how good your eyesight is at a normal viewing distance. But if you're a designer perfecting pixels, I can't imagine looking all of your documents at 50% quality would be acceptable.
I hope Adobe doesn't just fix CS6 and fixes CS5 too for retina. I don't want to be forced to update to CS6 just for this "feature".
confusion
Hi
my first post here
Just saying i want to buy the retina version but i am a bit confused and frustrated reading of people that are disgusted and other that like it...
i almost never seen in any comment which kind of options are activate for the display.
i cant see a model live where i live but as i have seen on internet ther are 2 main options:
- retina
- the one with 5 different resolutions
I imagine that run the first one meant for an optimized applicaiton with not optimized ones is quite useless....
but i dont understand the problem with the middle of the 5 resolution options...
in this case 1 pixel ( old) will be 4 on this display in the same space ( afterall it s always a 15") so ther is no a manipulation of the image, it s the same composed by 4 pixel ( for each old pixel ) in the same space (ok now each unit presents a small cross inside and this can probably just give a dark impression to the color of the 4 pixel unit)
2880x1800 = 2 X(1440x900) it s the same proportion! u shouldn t see any difference....theoretically anything is upscaled to a double resolution 8 and tha s why engineers in apple chose this resolution for the full retina)
can someone post please pictures of not optimized application running on the middle option ( retina best)??
i suspect that many are using it in other scaled resolutions or in the retina optimized app version..
thx
Hi
my first post here
Just saying i want to buy the retina version but i am a bit confused and frustrated reading of people that are disgusted and other that like it...
i almost never seen in any comment which kind of options are activate for the display.
i cant see a model live where i live but as i have seen on internet ther are 2 main options:
- retina
- the one with 5 different resolutions
I imagine that run the first one meant for an optimized applicaiton with not optimized ones is quite useless....
but i dont understand the problem with the middle of the 5 resolution options...
in this case 1 pixel ( old) will be 4 on this display in the same space ( afterall it s always a 15") so ther is no a manipulation of the image, it s the same composed by 4 pixel ( for each old pixel ) in the same space (ok now each unit presents a small cross inside and this can probably just give a dark impression to the color of the 4 pixel unit)
2880x1800 = 2 X(1440x900) it s the same proportion! u shouldn t see any difference....theoretically anything is upscaled to a double resolution 8 and tha s why engineers in apple chose this resolution for the full retina)
can someone post please pictures of not optimized application running on the middle option ( retina best)??
i suspect that many are using it in other scaled resolutions or in the retina optimized app version..
thx
I'd never get a Mac laptop without it
I've had my MBP for over 3 years and battery still works like the day I got it. Their batteries are still better than the competition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orb_CuHhnXA
As for the harddrive, SSDs have a MUCH MUCH longer MTBF. Not to mention no moving parts and will not be damaged when dropped. All of which means when you would normally have to replace a HD, you wouldn't need to for an SSD.
If you do, replacing the SSD would actually be easier than replacing a hard drive. It is a blade SSD like the MBA and connects more like RAM. Whereas with a hard drive, you have multiple screws, mounting brackets, and the SATA ribbon cable.
By scaling the image down you've effectively eliminated the issue. You'd have to post the full resolution screenshot for people to see what's going on, and a document containing type would do much more to show the issue (a photo can be captured soft or out of focus, so there's no way to know how sharp your photo was in the first place).
You've had much better luck with batteries than I have
I was under the impression that the SSD in the RMBP wasn't a removable component like the drives in the current MBPs? I've replaced hard drives in everything from an '06 iMac to current Mac laptops so no real worries there.
I scaled the size of the screenshot down simply because it was 8 megs. Still look as sharp as it did before. Also, compared to the image on the first page. Mines looks nothing like that. And that one was scaled down as well.
We weren't looking at the quality of the picture. But also the toolbars etc..
I hope that you can provide full res image with text in it
, PM me if you want some help to host the full res image..But scaling the screenshot essentially eliminates the pixel doubling, thereby making the issue invisible to the eye. So posting a screenshot that's been scaled down to 50% it's original size shows nothing.
Andy Ihnatko did some great screenshots of the MacBook Pro retina display at it's different scale settings. If you view this screenshot at 50% or less it's original size you will not be able to distinguish the retina-capable apps from those that haven't been updated. But if you view the 3840x2400 screenshot at 100% it's original size,, then the horribleness of the Pages App interface and type in the lower right corner becomes readily apparent. It's like the app looks like it's blown up to 200%, and the same will be true of Photoshop.
But, if you take that screenshot, and a screenshot from a native 1920x1200 screen, and make the Pages text the same size... they're the same. And yes, that looks horrible compared to things that are optimized, but I don't think that means it's objectively horrible.
Now again, this does not negate the problem of the retina display making the flaws in lower resolution images sharper, but that problem isn't going to be demonstrated by screenshots.
Yes, in complete fairness the screenshots don't tell the whole story, because the size of the 15.4" display, your eyesight and your distance from it are equal factors. So the question becomes: how far away from the MacBook Pro with Retina Display do you have to sit before the non-retina applications look the same as the retina applications when the screen is set to "looks like 1920x1200"? And because eyesight is a factor, the answer to that question will be different for everyone.
I think for me, the question is more like "at a normal viewing distance, with the RMBP set to an effective 1680x1050 or 1920x1200, do non-retina applications look about as good, or better, than they would on a native 15.4" 1680x1050 display?" Obviously I would like everything to be retina optimized, but as long as non-optimized applications don't look significantly worse than they would on a non-retina screen, I'll be fine. 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen is still a crazy high effective PPI, even if an application can't make use of the true PPI.
Here are three of my laptops I use for CS6 Master Collection at both work and home.
They are listed in order of speed, effeciency, and working with colors
Good: 2012 MBP_R / 2.7GHz i7 / 16GB / 768GB Samsung (BTO Apple Online)
(Too new, retina renders fuzzy, software update should resolve)
Better: 2011 15" MBP / 2.3GHz i7 / 8GB / 512GB Samsung 830 (user installed)
(The best MBP yet for CS & other engineering work)
Best: 2012 ThinkPad W530 / 2.9GHz i7-3920XM / 15.6" FHD 1920x1080 anti-glare / NVIDIA Quadro K2000M /
Color Sensor w/Bezel / 32GB / 180GB SSD Bay 1 / 1TB HDD Bay 2 / Gobi 3000 / Win7 Pro
(The Best Laptop for all my engineering, scientific, mathematics & design work)
They are listed in order of speed, effeciency, and working with colors
Good: 2012 MBP_R / 2.7GHz i7 / 16GB / 768GB Samsung (BTO Apple Online)
(Too new, retina renders fuzzy, software update should resolve)
Better: 2011 15" MBP / 2.3GHz i7 / 8GB / 512GB Samsung 830 (user installed)
(The best MBP yet for CS & other engineering work)
Best: 2012 ThinkPad W530 / 2.9GHz i7-3920XM / 15.6" FHD 1920x1080 anti-glare / NVIDIA Quadro K2000M /
Color Sensor w/Bezel / 32GB / 180GB SSD Bay 1 / 1TB HDD Bay 2 / Gobi 3000 / Win7 Pro
(The Best Laptop for all my engineering, scientific, mathematics & design work)
yes, you are right. I'm also looking forward for the answer of this question.
Designing web graphics is what concerns me on the Retina Macbook Pro. If I bought one, it would be my only machine. The Retina display does look great, but you have to design websites for regular resolution monitors.
The adoption of Retina displays may never come about, and if they do it will take years to become standard. It's amazing how many people are still on 1024x768 monitors.
The adoption of Retina displays may never come about, and if they do it will take years to become standard. It's amazing how many people are still on 1024x768 monitors.
I hope that you can provide full res image with text in it
I'll upload one later today..
You've had much better luck with batteries than I have
I was under the impression that the SSD in the RMBP wasn't a removable component like the drives in the current MBPs? I've replaced hard drives in everything from an '06 iMac to current Mac laptops so no real worries there.
It uses an SSD blade similar to the blade in the MacBook Air.