What would Retina do for us?

[redheeler]

What I don't understand is how you would scale it to 1440x900. That goes against everything that I ever heard about LCD's. When you don't use the native resolution (or an exact scale of it, like the iPhone did) won't it be blurry because the resolution doesn't align with the pixels perfectly?

As I said there is a slight loss of quality at the pixel level which is why I prefer not to use scaled resolutions.

I would rather run a 13" rMBP at 1440x900 HiDPI scaled down than a MBA at 1440x900 non-HiDPI 1:1. The rMBP still looks crisper due to its smaller pixels, just slightly less so than at native 1280x800 HiDPI.

 

[Hacks]

That's what I don't understand. How could an LCD that is displaying pixels that don't line up be crisper than one that has all pixels lined up perfectly?

I've tried to use non-native resolutions on LCDs over the years and it's always looked terrible.


P.S. I think the current 13" MBA is bad to use in this example because the display is pretty poor. I've seen much better displays on other laptops.

 

[redheeler]

That's what I don't understand. How could an LCD that is displaying pixels that don't line up be crisper than one that has all pixels lined up perfectly?

I've tried to use non-native resolutions on LCDs over the years and it's always looked terrible.

There is quality loss at the pixel level like any non-native resolution, but the physical size of pixels on a retina display is so small that it isn't even noticeable from a normal viewing distance. This will likely be even more the case on the rMBA if the pixels on it are smaller.

 

[Hacks]

There is quality loss at the pixel level like any non-native resolution, but the physical size of pixels on a retina display is so small that it isn't even noticeable from a normal viewing distance. This will likely be even more the case on the rMBA if the pixels on it are smaller.

I see. I still think it's odd

1440x900 is the optimal resolution for a 13" display so they should have made the retina display 2880x1800.

 

[pasadena]

I see. I still think it's odd

1440x900 is the optimal resolution for a 13" display so they should have made the retina display 2880x1800.

... for you. I tend to run my display as high as they can (currently running my riMac at 3200x1600 and I like 1680x1050 for a 13" (and no, I don't have bionic vision - I wish). My point is, we're all different !

I think as long as the ratio is the same for H and W, there is no (discernable) problem. The resolutions for the rMBP 13" are :

Native resolution: 2560 by 1600 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1680 by 1050, 1440 by 900, and 1024 by 640 pixels.

So that's 1.77 to go from 2560x1600 to 1440x900. Not sure I understand your problem.

 

[Hacks]

... for you. I tend to run my display as high as they can (currently running my riMac at 3200x1600 and I like 1680x1050 for a 13" (and no, I don't have bionic vision - I wish). My point is, we're all different !

I think as long as the ratio is the same for H and W, there is no (discernable) problem. The resolutions for the rMBP 13" are :

Native resolution: 2560 by 1600 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1680 by 1050, 1440 by 900, and 1024 by 640 pixels.

So that's 1.77 to go from 2560x1600 to 1440x900. Not sure I understand your problem.

I don't have a problem. I made myself very clear. Never once did I mention aspect ratio, which is what you're talking about.

 

[Natzoo]

I see. I still think it's odd

1440x900 is the optimal resolution for a 13" display so they should have made the retina display 2880x1800.

i really don't get why the put that it is 2880x 1800, but when I'm watching youtube it formats to that resolution. And if you kept the 2880X 1800 the screen would be so big and text would be so small

 

[pasadena]

I made myself very clear.

well...

 

[redheeler]

i really don't get why the put that it is 2880x 1800, but when I'm watching youtube it formats to that resolution. And if you kept the 2880X 1800 the screen would be so big and text would be so small

I tried to briefly explain how HiDPI works earlier in this thread:

1 pixel on the grid equals 4 actual pixels. Everything is then rendered at twice the resolution and sized down to fit on the grid so it appears as the same size but is 4 times as crisp.

The video and text is rendered twice the resolution, but sized down to a standard pixel grid.

 

[Hacks]

well...

Yes, you should go back and read the discussion and you would understand it better.

Redheeler did a great job of explaining it. Essentially, what's going on is wrong, just like it is with every other LCD when not using it's native resolution. Only it's less noticeable on the retina display due to small pixel size. But it's still wrong. Some people with OCD need their pixels to match up perfectly.

 

[motrek]

Yes, you should go back and read the discussion and you would understand it better.

Redheeler did a great job of explaining it. Essentially, what's going on is wrong, just like it is with every other LCD when not using it's native resolution. Only it's less noticeable on the retina display due to small pixel size. But it's still wrong. Some people with OCD need their pixels to match up perfectly.

No, nothing is "going wrong" if you increase vertical and horizontal resolution by 2x.

You can display whatever image you were looking at before, scaled up, and it will look just as sharp as before and everything will line up just fine, since 1 old pixel corresponds exactly to 4 new small pixels.

What Apple does is render text and graphics and images (when possible) at twice the resolution so you end up seeing all the same stuff, just sharper.

 

[Hacks]

No, nothing is "going wrong" if you increase vertical and horizontal resolution by 2x.

Exactly.

But when using 1440x900 on the 13" rMBP, it's not 2x. I explained this in detail earlier in the thread.

You can display whatever image you were looking at before, scaled up, and it will look just as sharp as before and everything will line up just fine, since 1 old pixel corresponds exactly to 4 new small pixels.

Only when using 1280x800 resolution. When using 1440x900 everything is off. Again, this was discussed earlier.

 

[motrek]

Exactly.

But when using 1440x900 on the 13" rMBP, it's not 2x. I explained this in detail earlier in the thread.

Only when using 1280x800 resolution. When using 1440x900 everything is off. Again, this was discussed earlier.

Sorry, I didn't realize there had been so many posts that I missed and you were talking about a different resolution.

Yes, things will not line up exactly if it's not 2x native resolution.

This is arguably sub-optimal.

Then again, the pixels are so small you can't really tell.

If you're going to get bent out of shape about it, let me ask you a question. The monitor you're looking at now has three colored pixels for every logical pixel of the screen image. Are you super bent out of shape about that?

 

[Hacks]

Sorry, I didn't realize there had been so many posts that I missed and you were talking about a different resolution.

Yes, things will not line up exactly if it's not 2x native resolution.

This is arguably sub-optimal.

Then again, the pixels are so small you can't really tell.

If you're going to get bent out of shape about it, let me ask you a question. The monitor you're looking at now has three colored pixels for every logical pixel of the screen image. Are you super bent out of shape about that?

I'm not bent out of shape, I'm just citing a wrong.

I don't see anything wrong about what you stated in the last part of your post. The monitor I am using now is set to the native resolution and is properly displaying 1:1.

 

[motrek]

I'm not bent out of shape, I'm just citing a wrong.

I don't see anything wrong about what you stated in the last part of your post. The monitor I am using now is set to the native resolution and is properly display 1:1.

That's exactly what I'm saying though, it's not displaying 1:1.

You think you see one white pixel?

Actually it's three pixels: one red, one green, one blue. None of them are white. It seems like a white pixel because the actual pixels are so small that you can't distinguish them visually.

So already you're looking at an imperfect system, it's just that the imperfections are so small that it doesn't matter.

So, make the logical pixels so small that they're the size of the subpixels you already can't see and I don't see how it's that much different.

Yes, one might end up being a shade of grey instead of exactly black or exactly white, but how is that any worse than an entire subpixel being a completely different color altogether?

 

[ixxx69]

I get the impression that the OP doesn't really want to understand and is just being obstinate, but for anyone who is actually interested in understanding how HiDPI works, here's an excellent Apple Developers article that explains it.

HiDPI (retina) displays are like SSDs... once you've really used them, there's no going back. I can barely stand to use non-HiDPI displays anymore.

 

[motrek]

I get the impression that the OP doesn't really want to understand and is just being obstinate, but for anyone who is actually interested in understanding how HiDPI works, here's an excellent Apple Developers article that explains it. ...

That reminds me:

Apple has reworked all their software so that coordinates are now in "points" instead of pixels.

So what we all used to think of as a pixel is now a "point."

So that makes it entirely reasonable for your screen to be 1440x900 "points" but everything is being rendered to 2880x1800 pixels (for example). That just means that each point corresponds to 2 pixels.

It doesn't even have to be 2 pixels. It could be 1 pixel, in the case of non-retina displays. Or it might be 3 pixels, in the case of the iPhone 6 Plus.

If we all adopted this terminology it would probably eliminate some confusion but it'll be tough to get the word out.

 

[abta1]

Coming from an owner of a 2013 11" MBA as their main computer, a high resolution display such as 'Retina' seen on the MBPs would be great for the sharpness on screen with one major caveat. Battery life of the MBA must be as good or better.

The latest non Apple offering that is drawing comparison with the Air as the new market leader of ultrabooks seems to be the XPS 13 which, granted has a fantastic screen (both res and design) and comparable specs, just doesn't cut it when it comes to real life battery usage. Dell's claims are similar to the MBA but when reviewers have actually tested this, they have found it to be much lower even when performing non taxing tasks.

Battery life (and OSX) is the key issue for me as I bought the MBA as it's the apex of prtability while still being a fully fledged laptop.

So again if a new retina MBA is launched and has comparable or better battery life then great, I would upgrade in a heartbeat. Otherwise, I'm happy to stick with my current Air.

 

[venom600]

I get the impression that the OP doesn't really want to understand and is just being obstinate

Let's try it this way... effectively what we are seeing with monitors is what we saw with printers in the 90s. Actual resolution is almost irrelevant. It's all about DPI. With a HiDPI display and an OS that supports it ( iOS, OS X or Windows 10 do it best), along with displays that are laminated onto the glass the effect becomes such that it appears you are looking at a a photorealistic image that is printed directly onto the glass.

The effect can be staggeringly beautiful when looking at high resolution photography or vector imagery like text. Go take a look at a 5k iMac at the Apple Store to see the effect at it's grandest. Once you do, looking at anything that isn't HiDPI is almost painful. Like a dot matrix printer.

 

[qcmacmini]

Let's try it this way... effectively what we are seeing with monitors is what we saw with printers in the 90s. Actual resolution is almost irrelevant. It's all about DPI. With a HiDPI display and an OS that supports it ( iOS, OS X or Windows 10 do it best), along with displays that are laminated onto the glass the effect becomes such that it appears you are looking at a a photorealistic image that is printed directly onto the glass.

The effect can be staggeringly beautiful when looking at high resolution photography or vector imagery like text. Go take a look at a 5k iMac at the Apple Store to see the effect at it's grandest. Once you do, looking at anything that isn't HiDPI is almost painful. Like a dot matrix printer.

I still believe the MBA line is not ready for retina, but Apple should release one anyway. When battery and CPU technology catch up, it will be great 3 years from now.

 

[redheeler]

I still believe the MBA line is not ready for retina, but Apple should release one anyway. When battery and CPU technology catch up, it will be great 3 years from now.

The CPU technology in the rMBA will be the very reason battery technology won't have to catch up. The more efficient Core M CPU will help compensate for a power-hungry retina display.

 

[tillsbury]

I am following that the actual resolution is 2560x1600 and I also follow how scaling that down to 1280x800 will look super sharp. That scaled down resolution is proportionate to 2560x1600, each pixel displayed will be made up of 4 actual pixels.

What I don't understand is how you would scale it to 1440x900. That goes against everything that I ever heard about LCD's. When you don't use the native resolution (or an exact scale of it, like the iPhone did) won't it be blurry because the resolution doesn't align with the pixels perfectly?

You're right to be suspicious, but retina displays differ from traditional LCDs in two ways. The display is drawn double-sized and rendered down. In conjunction with the other difference (the tiny pixels) this means that the traditional worry of the resolution not matching the pixels perfectly doesn't come into it. I'm writing this on a 5k imac which comes out of the box running at 2560x1440, a relatively low resolution, but it looks immaculate. But for day-to-day use I run at 3200x1800, a much more useful scale. The display is still perfect. For really big stuff I sometimes run native (5120x2880) but the point with retina is that it doesn't matter. It always looks amazing.

I would love a MBA (I recently sold my 2012 rMBP). I will be getting one the day they have retina displays. I will never buy a non-retina display again.

 

[iRun26.2]

I would love a MBA (I recently sold my 2012 rMBP). I will be getting one the day they have retina displays. I will never buy a non-retina display again.

I've been waiting for a retina MBA since 2010. I'd have bought one as soon as they were released. Hopefully I don't need to wait much longer.

I expect to run mine at the native resolution (with good reading glasses).

 

[theSeb]

Bear with me for a moment, I am just trying to wrap my head around this.

Currently I have a 13" MBA which has a 1440x900 native resolution. That's the biggest resolution that I could comfortably have with this size display, anything bigger would cause everything being displayed to be too small and hard to see.

Ok, so if the new MBA's come with a Retina display, what will happen? We can have it set for the full native resolution because everything would be tiny and hard to see. So we would have to set it for a scaled down resolution. By doing that, what would be the point? Will the display be better looking even if it's not at the native resolution?

I would suggest that you go into a store and actually look at a Mac equipped with a retina display. Everything will then be "clear" and it will then be much easier to "wrap your head around this". Not being mean, but I am genuinely surprised by questions like these considering the fact that my rMBP came out in 2012.

 

[MkVsTheWorld]

I have a 2011 17" MBP and used a rMBP and don't see the point in upgrading to a rMBP. All content I look at is in 1080P. Right now, the rMBP is an oddball resolution that's not being adopted. If the rMBP were 4k/5k then maybe I'd be sold as that's where content format is headed.