Upcoming 14-Inch and 16-Inch MacBook Pro Display Resolutions Likely Revealed in Latest macOS Monterey Beta

[leman]

Why can't they do just 4K, the resolution is already close to that and 4K is an industry standard... also with M1 chips I'm sure there won't be any issues with the battery

I'd rather be able to see watch true 4K content on my display, not this sub 4K weird resolution...

Who cares really? As long as you are not sitting there with a lens, there is no noticeable difference. What you should care about is pixel density, not the resolution.

But to answer your question, well, it's fairly simple. Official 4K is 16:9 aspect ratio, while Apple is using the more professional 16:10 aspect ratio (with these new displays going for the even more professional 3:2).

 

[alpi123]

Who cares really? As long as you are not sitting there with a lens, there is no noticeable difference. What you should care about is pixel density, not the resolution.

But to answer your question, well, it's fairly simple. Official 4K is 16:9 aspect ratio, while Apple is using the more professional 16:10 aspect ratio (with these new displays going for the even more professional 3:2).

You can still have true 4K with any aspect ratio. I'm aware they use 16:10. So does the Dell XPS 9500 and it has a real 4K display.

I just think that if they're advertising the machines for "Pros" then a native 4k display should be a must. There's a lot of 4K content being pumped out and it's useless if you don't have a proper display to see it on.

 

[chucker23n1]

Effectively, it does. Fractional scales are achieved by rendering at double the logical resolution and then downsampling to the native resolution.

For interpolation, yes. What it doesn’t do is scale the UI to fractional scale factors. There was a preview feature in Tiger and Leopard that let you, but they ultimately dropped it.

This is in contrast to Windows, where you can set something like 250% or 150% if you prefer. However, that comes with its own warts; many apps, including of Microsoft’s own, don’t handle it well.

 

[Falhófnir]

Why can't they do just 4K, the resolution is already close to that and 4K is an industry standard... also with M1 chips I'm sure there won't be any issues with the battery

I'd rather be able to see watch true 4K content on my display, not this sub 4K weird resolution...

Basically because that’s not how MacOS scaling works. The physical resolution of the display is a byproduct of the ‘looks like’ resolution, exactly 4x whatever they choose for ‘looks like’. 1920x1200 would be the ‘looks like’ resolution for a 4K physical panel, and that is very small on a 15.4” display so I can’t imagine it’s much better at 16”. You’d probably need to grow up to at least 17”, preferably 17.3” like the old 17” MacBook Pro before that becomes workable. Otherwise we need to keep compromising on a default scale that isn’t properly retina integer @2x, which takes away some of the sharpness which IMO is a big selling point for the whole computer.

 

[chucker23n1]

Why can't they do just 4K, the resolution is already close to that and 4K is an industry standard...

For movies, sure. Not sure how that’s relevant.

I'd rather be able to see watch true 4K content on my display, not this sub 4K weird resolution...

You wouldn’t be able to discern the difference anyway.

You can still have true 4K with any aspect ratio. I'm aware they use 16:10. So does the Dell XPS 9500 and it has a real 4K display.

I just think that if they're advertising the machines for "Pros" then a native 4k display should be a must.

Which is it? Do you want a “Pro”, or do you care about watching content?

There's a lot of 4K content being pumped out and it's useless if you don't have a proper display to see it on.

4K content is useful if you have a 60-inch TV in the living room.

 

[archimacpro]

Let's just hope that Apple don't do the Macbook pro update like the latest Watch. Barely an update apart from cosmetics. I do want it now, but I want it right. Not some half baked and pointless update.

 

[leman]

You can still have true 4K with any aspect ratio. I'm aware they use 16:10. So does the Dell XPS 9500 and it has a real 4K display.

I just think that if they're advertising the machines for "Pros" then a native 4k display should be a must. There's a lot of 4K content being pumped out and it's useless if you don't have a proper display to see it on.

If there is no discernible difference then it’s good enough. Resolution doesn’t matter once you hit a certain threshold. It’s a fixed problem. Apple is focusing on other aspects of image quality such as high dynamic range and wide colors.

For watching 4K content, their resolution is more than good enough. For editing, it’s the same. Unless you expect to do pixel perfect editing on a 250ppi display? That sounds like a fun idea

For interpolation, yes. What it doesn’t do is scale the UI to fractional scale factors. There was a preview feature in Tiger and Leopard that let you, but they ultimately dropped it.

This is in contrast to Windows, where you can set something like 250% or 150% if you prefer. However, that comes with its own warts; many apps, including of Microsoft’s own, don’t handle it well.

You are right, I was just pointing out that you get the same net effect. Apple abandoned the fractional rendering because 2x/3x scaling simplifies drawing algorithms and ultimately improves performance. Also, it’s easier to deal with bitmap UI contents. But rendering at 2x and then downscaling by, say, 25% will effectively give you the fractional scaling that you can have on Windows. Just with less choices of scaling factors and higher rendering quality.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

They’re not bad for editing. You need room for controls under the video.

I agree now that someone else pointed that out

However from a purely watching experience it will be kinda bad

 

[karranz]

And I’d love to buy one. Unfortunately they don’t support parallels any more. I have to buy a Windows machine instead (which is sad).

parallels has a version for M1 Macs.

 

[adrianlondon]

No, forgetting to put on pants is an embarassment.

People around here seem to use words weirdly.

In British English, most people wouldn't know if you forgot to put on pants!

What's the excitement around having 2x scaling? My 2020 MBA's default resolution is 1440x900 on a 2560x1600 display, which is not 2x.

I actually run it at 1680x1050 (and wear my reading glasses to be able to use it!) and it looks fine to me.

 

[randomsalad]

That sounds interesting, but I'll probably get a Mac Mini M1.

 

[sparkie7]

When are the new 16"s being announced / released, soon?

 

[dustSafa]

When are the new 16"s being announced / released, soon?

Most likely it will be 12th or 19th of October

 

[Ray2]

Need might sway me but I’d rather have an M2 Air this year. My Air's have been far more reliable than my Pro's. The additional ports don’t matter as I’ll need a hub anyway.

 

[FridgeToaster]

To make things easier I made this table:

 

[polyphenol]

I would love if these displays came with ProMotion 120hz.

I see the new Microsoft Surface has 120 Hz display. So it does appear technically feasible...

 

[scaramoosh]

Please just fix the ****** graphics driver implementation when using an external screen.

I’m planning to buy the 16” regardless, the trackpad on my 2014 finally gave out and the suspect build quality of every generation thereafter kept me from buying another Mac. I bought a Lenovo X1 to tide me over, but I’d prefer a Mac that doesn’t have a ton of compromises (thermals, graphics drivers, lack of ports, low refresh rates, reliability, having a Touch Bar, etc)

Seems to be an Apple problem as I've had unless issues with external displays and Macs since I can remember. Even buying an eGPU with my old Intel Mac didn't fix it, I just then had issues with the eGPU and Mac OS. Like how if the Mac went to sleep, the eGPU would crash the OS.... so I hd to turn sleep off lol.

 

[businessnumbersmoneypeopl]

To make things easier I made this table:

View attachment 1843890

So, unless you want to operate with really small font sizes etc., the effective increase in screen estate is 72 width and 82 pixels height for the 14". Kind of difficult to grasp how much that is in actual use, but doesn't feel like that much.

 

[joiwomcow]

…yes, but what resolution is the emojibar??

 

[chucker23n1]

You are right, I was just pointing out that you get the same net effect.

I wouldn't agree with that.

With Windows's approach, when it works (which is sort of a big if), it lets you keep the display sharp while displaying elements at different sizes. macOS can only do that at 1x or 2x (and hypothetically 3x, like some iPhones do).

Apple abandoned the fractional rendering because 2x/3x scaling simplifies drawing algorithms and ultimately improves performance.

Yes, drawing is hard. Lots of weird edge cases.

Also, it’s easier to deal with bitmap UI contents.

Definitely.

But rendering at 2x and then downscaling by, say, 25% will effectively give you the fractional scaling that you can have on Windows. Just with less choices of scaling factors and higher rendering quality.

Nah.

Like, if you buy a 24-inch 4K display on Windows, you can simply set it to 150% or something, and get an effective logical resolution somewhere between 1080p and 2160p, but sharp, because only the text is scaled.

 

[businessnumbersmoneypeopl]

…yes, but what resolution is the emojibar??

I think it's going to be a ultra-futuristic hologram projection that creates emojis that float two inches above the keyboard at random moments when doing work.

 

[Rickroller]

The actual aspect ratio will likely still be 16:10. They both meet this spec, but with 74 extra height pixel which are for some specific reason yet to be disclosed. Maybe to set out from the rounded edges…?

 

[TrapDoorSpider]

I know its cliche.

But my wallet is LITERALLY READY.

Yeah I’m trading in my iPhone 12 Pro Max for a gift card so I can pounce on this puppy the moment it’s up for adoption from the Apple pound.

 

[AppelGeenyus]

FFS Apple stop faffing around and just give us real 4K so we can have 1920x1200 @2x

 

[jonbones]

the hardest decision of the year: 14 or 16??