rMBP and the Web: How bad do Web pages truly look?

[Dralt]

You are forgetting the thing about the pixel density. In your examples you upscale the image and show it on the same display (so of course it will look blurry). But with the rMBP, the image will be shown on a display with a much higher pixel density, i.e. the upscaled image will have the same physical dimensions than the original on the non-retina display.

For instance, simple 2x2 closest neighbour sampling (pixel-doubling) does not actually invent any data. A 'regular' 100x100 image can be pixel-doubled to 200x200 and then each of the 2x2 pixel blocks on the retina display will exactly correspond to one pixel on the normal display. The pixel data to physical surface will be exactly the same.

I agree with you to some degree.

But in your example, the 200x200 image will contain 4 times as many pixels as the original image and occupy the same area (let's say 1 inch by 1 inch) on both screens. Pixel doubling would be the best case scenario, but would not improve visual appearance over what you perceive on a non-HiDPI display.
Beyond pixel doubling, more "sophisticated" scaling methods involving interpolation are bound to actually lessen the visual impact by adding blur to your perception.

In summary, for those images designed for the "old" Web, what you perceive can look the same, in the best case scenario, or worse depending on the type of scaling performed.

Or, if your eyesight is not 20/20, it'll all look the same to you in 99% of the cases. (but, in that case, the benefits of a HiDPI display are probably lost on you in the first place.)

Thanks to all for participating in this survey.

 

[gentlefury]

honestly, its an optical illusion.

You are seeing graphics the same on the retina screen as you would on a reg screen, but you are seeing it bumped up next to crystal clear vector graphics....which makes it look really bad. If you did a side by side comparison tho and blocked out only the areas of rastor graphics they would look identical. All the retina display does is proves that other displays are vastly inferior!

 

[Dralt]

There's definitely a difference between pages optimized for Retina and pages that aren't. I think frequently updated sites will definitely adjust at some point, especially as pixel doubling technique is adopted by other manufacturers (Samsung is working on it, no joke )

I've personally updated my sites and they look miles better on the new iPad and even better on Retina MacBook Pro. The latter has a better display no doubt. My tech blog is in the sig if you want to have a sample of a retina optimized site.

Ps: post for educational purposes only, no shameless self promotion.

Hi Robin,

Good job on adapting fast! The solution you picked is indeed very good. (http://retina-images.complexcompulsions.com/)

 

[leman]

I agree with you to some degree.

But in your example, the 200x200 image will contain 4 times as many pixels as the original image and occupy the same area (let's say 1 inch by 1 inch) on both screens. Pixel doubling would be the best case scenario, but would not improve visual appearance over what you perceive on a non-HiDPI display.
Beyond pixel doubling, more "sophisticated" scaling methods involving interpolation are bound to actually lessen the visual impact by adding blur to your perception.

I am actually not sure if pixel-doubling is best quality-wise. I think it may cause images to appear 'grainy' on a HiDPI screen, so that's why Apple chose to do bilinear filtering instead.

In summary, for those images designed for the "old" Web, what you perceive can look the same, in the best case scenario, or worse depending on the type of scaling performed.

Don't forget that the rMBP actually has an IPS screen with vastly superior contrast and colors. This is something which is clearly visible when you look at both screen (retina and regular) side by side - the regular just looks very washed out and dull, even for standard web content. BTW, I wear glasses but I do have 100% eyesight in them.

----------

honestly, its an optical illusion.

You are seeing graphics the same on the retina screen as you would on a reg screen, but you are seeing it bumped up next to crystal clear vector graphics....which makes it look really bad. If you did a side by side comparison tho and blocked out only the areas of rastor graphics they would look identical. All the retina display does is proves that other displays are vastly inferior!

This is my experience as well.

 

[Dralt]

Don't forget that the rMBP actually has an IPS screen with vastly superior contrast and colors. This is something which is clearly visible when you look at both screen (retina and regular) side by side - the regular just looks very washed out and dull, even for standard web content. BTW, I wear glasses but I do have 100% eyesight in them.

Yes, that's a very good point that goes beyond resolution.

I am actually not sure if pixel-doubling is best quality-wise. I think it may cause images to appear 'grainy' on a HiDPI screen, so that's why Apple chose to do bilinear filtering instead.

Pixel-doubling is best in the sense that it is totally faithful to the original data. (each pixel value is repeated 4 times)
As you say, though, the visual effect may be less pleasing, though.

As a side note, and jokingly, if it were possible to increase quality and resolution using software, you would simply upscale your photos instead of upgrading from a 10-megapixel camera to a 20-megapixel camera.