What Resolution is your iMac 5k set on?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by N2bnfunn, Mar 1, 2015.

  1. N2bnfunn macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    #1
    Hello am I the only one with a iMac Retina that's sick of changing the resolution basic on the applications?

    I have windows 8.1 using Parallels and I am able to set the resolution to 4k and run all my programs with not have to use a magnify glass to see the fonts, by just changing the system fonts to 250% and it works great.

    Come on Apple please update the system fonts size ability.
     
  2. dyt1983, Mar 1, 2015
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2015

    dyt1983 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Location:
    USA USA USA
    #2
    edit: To remove personally identifying information not relevant to the thread.
     
  3. touchUpInside macrumors member

    touchUpInside

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Location:
    UTC -07:00
    #3
    default for display (2560x1440)

    I believe retina content (images and videos) are presented at retina resolution.


    .
     
  4. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #4
    High resolution content is presented at native resolution in "retina resolution" aware apps. There is no such thing as "retina content".
     
  5. touchUpInside macrumors member

    touchUpInside

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Location:
    UTC -07:00
    #5
    Thanks. Guess, that's the correct way to put what I attempted to say.

    Cheers !
     
  6. robgendreau macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #6
    Well, sorta there is. You'll see icons and whatnot that are the same size as icons used on non retina machines, but they contain 4x as many pixels. Ditto with some web content; some sites will use the lower rez (and lower bandwidth) images if they know you're not using retina, and vice versa.

    And I think we need to get away from "native" resolution; that seems to be confusing some people. The display always has the same number of PPI; the image shown on it, however, may vary. The beauty of the independence is that my UI shows icons and such with a higher pixel density, but same size as 2560x1440 use to display them; IOW, twice as big dimensionally. But images that I'm editing and stuff are shown 1:1. No need to change resolution in Displays.

    I guess for the OP that's the problem with running Windows on a retina Mac. Dunno that this is something Apple needs to fix....
     
  7. redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #7
    Duplicate thread. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1829424

    I, like those who posted in that thread, prefer to run it at the default 2560x1440 HiDPI. It provides plenty of screen room for me without the quality loss associated with scaled resolutions.

    I despise how Windows does HiDPI.
     
  8. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #8
    Icons and "whatnot" are not content. ;)

    Maybe I should have said "real" resolution, instead of native resolution. I am not even sure what the correct term for that would be. Anandtech has a great explanation of "retina" resolution in the review of the 2012 rMBP, so there is little point in repeating it. :)
     
  9. redheeler, Mar 1, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2015

    redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #9
    So images on a website or in an app are not content? I would imagine some websites even serve videos based on the pixel density of your display.

    "Retina content" is simply content intended for high pixel densities. It could be anything as long as it's served when a high pixel density is detected.
     
  10. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #10
    We are going off topic here, but not even Apple calls that "retina content". It is referred to as "high-resolution content". There are "retina" displays. There is no "retina" content. It makes no sense.
     
  11. redheeler, Mar 1, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2015

    redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #11
    There are retina displays, there is content intended for retina displays. If you choose not to call it "retina content" that's entirely up to you. I don't like the term "high-resolution content" as it is very vague and could mean anything of a high resolution.
     
  12. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #12
    That makes no sense at all.
     
  13. redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #13
    How so? Please explain.
     
  14. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #14
    Apple's developer reference is very clear on high resolution content and how it should be used for retina displays. There is no such thing as retina content. We can argue until we are both blue in the face, but it won't change matters. What makes the least sense is saying that content intended for retina displays is retina content. There are plenty of good explanations on how content is rendered on a retina display and I won't try to repeat them on a phone.

    By the way, I am surprised that you think the term high resution is vague, but you don't feel the same away about "retina".
     
  15. kepler20b macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2014
    #15
    dont get confused between by the difference between shear pixel volume and resolution.

    retina in the purest sense doesnt really exist.
     
  16. N2bnfunn thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    #16
    I think you are missing the point you paid for 5k you want to be able to run your iMac in 5K. Not 4k or 2.5 but 5k
     
  17. gmanist1000 macrumors 68030

    gmanist1000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    #17
    I've always wondered, when I watch a 4K video on YouTube when the Retina iMac is running at 2560x1440, am I seeing it in 4k, or is it being scaled down?
     
  18. redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #18
    You can if you want, hold down Option when clicking "Scaled" in System Preferences > Displays and it will appear there at the top of the list.

    I prefer 2560x1440 HiDPI because it brings increased clarity and doesn't make things so small.

    Yes, you are seeing it in 4K.
     
  19. N2bnfunn thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    #19
    2560 X 1440 is NOT 4k,4k is 4096 X 2160 5K is 5120 X2880 what you have is 2.5 k half the Resolution of 5k. Why buy a 5k when you are watching in 2.5 k
     
  20. ixxx69 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Location:
    United States
    #20
    There seems to be some misunderstandings here about HiDPI and how it works.

    When someone talks about HiDPI 2560x1440, the display is using the full 5120x2880 resolution of the 5K retina display, but the composited desktop is "scaled" as a 2560x1440 desktop, i.e. the desktop elements/text are the same size as they would be on a native 2560x1440 display, they're just twice as sharp since the elements/text are composed of twice as many pixels in each direction.

    The 5K display is always using all 5120x2880 pixels, it's just up to the user to determine what scale size they want the elements/text to be on screen by selecting a different HiDPI scaling.

    It works the same way with 4K displays, which are commonly 3840x2160, double the standard 1920x1080.

    To almost anyone who has actually used a HiDPI/retina display, they will appreciate how sharp it looks, even more so on the larger screens where we're used to seeing noticeable pixels. On a 4K/5K display, text and HiDPI content look almost "laser printed" on the screen.

    If people have questions about how retina/HiDPI/4K/5K displays work in conjunction with OS X HiDPI scaling, they would be wise to ask, rather than drawing conclusions and making assumptions without understanding how it all works.
     
  21. robgendreau macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #21
    Thank you.

    Part of the issue is that the word "resolution" since it's so ambiguous. It's used as shorthand for how many pixels a screen has, although this is independent of the dimensions (as in cm) of the display. This could be 1080 pixels on a jumbotron or a mobile phone screen. To confuse it further, we speak of different "resolutions" on say a 1080 screen, as compared to its "native resolution." Not helpful. What we're really referring to is say a 1280 pixel wide desktop IMAGE on a 2560 pixel wide SCREEN. So it's scaled. A 1280 pixel image on a 1280 pixel screen is at 1:1 and hence "native." Whew.

    Not only that, but elsewhere when we refer to resolution we may be talking about what we can resolve visually, which adds the variable of distance, and is relevant to the whole Apple concept of "retina."

    And the cool thing is that now we have "resolution independence." And hiDPI, which is ambiguous too. And even points now. See this:

    https://developer.apple.com/library...al/HighResolutionOSX/Explained/Explained.html

    ----------

    Assuming it really is 4K (which seems to have two flavors in common usage, 3840 wide or 4096 wide) then yes, it is scaled. For another example, take an iPhone. My iPhone 5 does 3264 pixel wide photos. So if I were to open that in an application like Aperture at fit to screen on a 2560x1440 iMac, it would have to scale it down. At 1:1 or "actual size" it flows out of frame. I assume the same would happen with your video, unless YouTube makes it into 1080p or something before casting it to you.
     

Share This Page