Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What are the legitimate use cases for Retina?

Just skimmed this thread, and I didn't notice anyone mention video games. For shame. I realize the graphics card leaves something to be desired, but a retina display should be revelation. Diablo 3 looks gorgeous and certain FPS games should look great too. The damn graphics card won't be able to play most of these games very smoothly at the full resolution though. I'd imagine that it could play many of them better at 1920x1200 than the outgoing 17" pro could. That's still an improvement and the additional pixels should reduce the need for anti-aliasing.

Also:
Vido edition
Picture editing
I imagine that reading large documents (as I'll do in law school) would be easier on the eyes, as well.
 
skywalkerr69 said:
Boy didn't know you needed so much horse power to take red eye out or remove a tree in the background. But hey what do I know?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't presume to speak to what you know. What I know is that I routinely eat up my current machine's 4GBs of RAM when using Photoshop, and that 25MB RAW files take some horsepower to work with when you have a few layers in play.

I'm sure the iPad is lovely for photo tweaking, and I know from seeing it in stores that it's absolutely beautiful for photo viewing. For serious editing or post processing though (especially with large batches of photos)? I doubt it.
 
skywalkerr69 said:
Boy didn't know you needed so much horse power to take red eye out or remove a tree in the background. But hey what do I know?
Click to expand...

Some of us are professionals that need to run Final Cut Pro for hours on end, which is something that definitely can't be done on an iPad.

Plus, the viewing window for Final Cut on the RMBP is holds the same number of pixels and is essentially exactly what will be seen on an HD TV. It's nice while editing.

I'm fine with the iMacs our production team uses, but I sure wouldn't mind staring at the retina display for hours at a time instead.
 
I just got mine yesterday and the screen is amazing. Also it would have cost more to buy the non retina MacBook pro with the same specs so why not get it :)
 
skywalkerr69 said:
Companies keep sites up to date to sell products, if it has no effect on sales they won't do it. Business 101 they need a good ROI to even consider it. They could care less if the E is a little sharper on your screen verses the other guy.
Click to expand...


That is 100% BS. If that were the case, technology would be so much farther behind where we currently are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just can't see website developers flocking to update their companies entire site for support of higher resolution graphics for what is at the moment a small niche of customers, at least not until the Windows users start getting high DPI screens. However, having said that, I will end up updating my website, mainly because I like to keep up with technology standards.
 
punchwalk said:
To #1 I say that if you're using your MBP mostly to read text then you should probably be using something like an iPad instead.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse "you" with "I". For your needs/wants the iPad might work. Doesn't mean that it's the best fit for everyone else out there.

What is or isn't "legitimate" is subjective. The retina display does help with text clarity. Whether or not that is a benefit that makes the RMBP a better fit or not is up to each person to assess individually. If the RMBP doesn't suit you then don't buy it.
 
I also remember people trying to convince me that there was no legitimate use case for a graphical user interface: all that anyone needed was a command line.
 
ladeer said:
Actually it's a lot harder to do web design on retina at least for the next year until your tools are updated. Simply because if you make let's say a 100x100 image on your page, that image will look extremely small on your screen and different than what ur users will see.
If you use scaling, that image will scale 200% on ur computer so you can see it the same physical size as your customer. But your image will look jagged and blurry. U can't really know what it will actually look like.

This is just one of many examples I can think of.
Click to expand...
Lol I want to go to an apple store and get on a retina and look at my website , built fir and based on 1024x768. It would be tiny..
 
astroboy907 said:
Lol I want to go to an apple store and get on a retina and look at my website , built fir and based on 1024x768. It would be tiny..
Click to expand...

they scaled up automatically. in fact, that's how safari in iPad 3 works as well. they assume all websites are built for non-retina screen and scale up all the photo 4x (hence they all look blurry), and change the font to high resolution font.

however, if you want to show your customer high resolution images, you need to specifically code a stylesheet for high-res screen and detect the user's screen resolution first. by default, the image name will end in @2x which your browser will load if it's on a retina screen.

what i am saying in my post earlier, was from the perspective of a graphic designer on a retina screen. if you are designing for regular non-high resolution art work on an un-optimized image editing app, you will have a different result/experience than editing a non-high resolution art work on an optmized editing app, etc. it's very confusing and sometimes the result would be unexpected.
 
Graphic design. Pretty much all my design friends are drooling over this thing and upgrading on their normal cycle. Photography as well. This is the first MacBook Pro to feature an IPS display. Even taking away the retina, it's still the best MacBook display ever shipped.

As far as my design use-cases, I want to start designing retina-ready websites. Viewing everything 1:1 in Photoshop is much less of a pain. My only concern as an artist (for my personal website) is that my work is easily able to be stolen now since I'm putting out such a high-res, easily printable version. There's a big difference between an 800px piece and a 1600px piece. But I suppose it's still not the same as the ~5000px original.

Eye strain will also be lower (dpi + better contrast and viewing angles of IPS). Oh and the possibility of running with more desktop real estate in 1920 mode, which allegedly runs smoother on Mountain Lion. My eyesight is still decent so I'm going to try it!

Not to mention certain games will look insane and not require anti-aliasing.
 
punchwalk said:
To #1 I say that if you're using your MBP mostly to read text then you should probably be using something like an iPad instead.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous comment.

Browsing the web requires you to mostly read text. You should also tell all those office workers, writers, students, professionals etc.. who use word processors that they should be typing away on an iPad instead.
 
Xcallibur said:
I just can't see website developers flocking to update their companies entire site for support of higher resolution graphics for what is at the moment a small niche of customers, at least not until the Windows users start getting high DPI screens. However, having said that, I will end up updating my website, mainly because I like to keep up with technology standards.
Click to expand...

I work for a web development company and I can say that it hasn't been a major point of discussion at this point. However, we do use a lot of Google fonts, so I would assume Google will solve for that issue. Our graphic designers all use Macs, so we'll see what happens in the next few months.

In my opinion, I think that the majority of updates that will be made will be to software and apps. Some people are still using REALLY old practices for their websites and won't even update to the technology of a few years ago.
 
punchwalk said:
I'm trying to understand the practicality of the Retina MBP. To those of you who bought one, can you please answer me this question:

What will a Retina MBP allow you to do better than a non-Retina would?
Click to expand...

It's really a stupid question, and I'm one to usually say there are no stupid questions. It's a MBP with a vastly better screen that reduces eye strain. That's it. Your question is like asking in 2008 what will a 1080p HDTV do better than an 480i SDTV. You make it sound like the RMBP is a niche 2-seater Ferrari that gets 8 MPG.

Truth is the RMBP is actually less expensive than the non-Retina 15" with identical specs ( unless you do the upgrades yourself, then its the same price). The difference is you don't get the amazingly beautiful screen. But when using a computer, the screen is one of the most important parts, at least that's why my eyes keep telling me.
 
My main hobby is photography. So I'm excited to have a lot more of my picture showing at 100% pixel view. Other than that, I think editing video would be improved but I don't do any video work.

And no, I can't edit my 5D3, 5D2 and 7D Raw files properly or efficiently on an ipad3 as someone mentioned. I have an ipad3 so trust me on that. If you use a point and shoot then maybe:D

I don't think the benefits to text display is very important. I'm usually too far away from the laptop that probably the existing hi-res screen would be retina spec.

However, I've never owned a 15" before because of the size and weight. This one takes it down to a size and weight that I'm comfortable with.
 
ladeer said:
Actually it's a lot harder to do web design on retina at least for the next year until your tools are updated. Simply because if you make let's say a 100x100 image on your page, that image will look extremely small on your screen and different than what ur users will see.
If you use scaling, that image will scale 200% on ur computer so you can see it the same physical size as your customer. But your image will look jagged and blurry. U can't really know what it will actually look like.

This is just one of many examples I can think of.
Click to expand...

scaling to 200% on a retina display will make it look like 100% on most other screens. This is because even though 4 pixels are being used in place of one, those 4 pixels are the same physical size as a single pixel on most screens.

The reason things become blurry on most screens when you expand them is that those 4 pixels become 4x the size of a normal pixel, making it apparent that what you're looking at is composed of squares of color.

----------

being able to edit 1080p content at full resolution with the whole editing interface onscreen as well is quite useful
 
punchwalk said:
I'm trying to understand the practicality of the Retina MBP. To those of you who bought one, can you please answer me this question:

What will a Retina MBP allow you to do better than a non-Retina would?
Click to expand...

It's not about what Retina will do and not do. It is once you are used to Retina there is NO GOING BACK.

It's like after iPhone 4, I hated my iPad and my Macbook screen resolution.

Once you are used to the high resolution display like the RMBP, it will be very painful to go without. This essentially shutout competitors for my laptop purchase decisions.
 
As a lawyer, I need to be able to create documents while reviewing something else - a case, a financial model, a contract, whatever. This requires enough pixels for side-by-side display, but benefits greatly from even more screen real estate - I really need 1200 pixels vertically. IPS is also really important, since with a TN display at that resolution it's hard to find a viewing angle that accurately displays the content both at the bottom and at the top of the screen. The laptop should also not be more than 5 pounds - I want it to be reasonably portable.

I bought a thinkpad 8 years ago that satisfied all these criteria (for around the price of the new MacBook), and have been using it since. I started looking for a replacement for it in 2008, but nothing has met my criteria until the retina MacBook pro. For me, not is there only a use case for the display, but it shows Apple has finally surpassed IBM's zenith of computing (albeit 8 years later).
 
strausd said:
That is 100% BS. If that were the case, technology would be so much farther behind where we currently are.
Click to expand...

oh boy thats true!! Thats why you see all those 3D ads out there for the huge amount of 3D TVs out there. yippee!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chupa Chupa said:
It's really a stupid question, and I'm one to usually say there are no stupid questions. It's a MBP with a vastly better screen that reduces eye strain. That's it. Your question is like asking in 2008 what will a 1080p HDTV do better than an 480i SDTV. You make it sound like the RMBP is a niche 2-seater Ferrari that gets 8 MPG.

Truth is the RMBP is actually less expensive than the non-Retina 15" with identical specs ( unless you do the upgrades yourself, then its the same price). The difference is you don't get the amazingly beautiful screen. But when using a computer, the screen is one of the most important parts, at least that's why my eyes keep telling me.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't understand the intent of the question doesn't make it stupid. Then again, I'm assuming your statement about believing there are usually no stupid questions is disingenuous anyway.

I'll give a more thorough example: As a software developer, I use IDEs like Visual Studio to develop and maintain software. Those IDEs have code windows that use something in the neighborhood of 10pt font. This works OK on non-Retina resolutions, but 10pt font displayed at NATIVE 2880x1800 resolution on a 15" screen would be too small for most people to read. Perhaps the font would look smoother on scaled 1440x900 on a Retina, but I'd consider that a subtle aesthetic benefit that doesn't do much to increase my productivity.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are things (like movie editing, for example) that are better served with higher resolution. Things like being able to have a 1080p clip displayed natively without taking up the entire screen, for example, seem like they'd be helpful.
 
But why do you need a flat screen tv? What does it do better?

But why do you need the 4S? What does it do better?

But why do you need a BMW? What does it do better?

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back