Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What would Retina do for us?
- Thread starter Hacks
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Content is no longer resized by skipping or doubling scan lines. It hasn't been for years. It's resampled, so it would be impossible to notice pixel boundaries. No pixelation to worry about.
I think you're perhaps confusing a computer with a TV. If you want to watch 4k content get a nice tv. There isn't any significant 5k content and almost certainly never will be. Retina displays are for using a computer, not watching videos.
I do occassionally watch movies on my MBP. It works well for me. I have a 27" iMac for when I need those extra pixels. When Apple brings 5k to the MBP line, that will probably be when I upgrade.
You're confused. The 1080p content will not be pixelated on a "retina" screen. I would suggest that you actually try it before spreading misinformation.
Easy now, I'm not spreading any "misinformation". I'd suggest you re-read the thread. I already said that I tried it and didn't see the allure. And yes, viewing content on a monitor with a higher resolution than the content will cause pixelation. Here's some examples:
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1146568?tstart=0
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4072756?start=15&tstart=0
http://blog.macsales.com/14111-15-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-lessens-web-experience
All of those links you pointed to are people complaining about things looking PIXELATED IN COMPARISON TO RETINA GRAPHICS.
In other words, they don't look any more pixelated than they would on a non-retina display.
So basically you are telling us that you prefer displays with s****y resolution so that everything will look uniformly s****y. Smart.
You're still confused. I urge you to actually read those threads. They are complaining about non-retina aware apps, which was an issue in 2012 right after the first mac with a retina screen came out. This has not been an issue for a long time since all of the apps have been updated. Again, please stop spreading misinformation.
First off, please don't shout at me. There's no need for yelling or hostility here.
Secondly, all of those links reference content that isn't equipped for a display that isn't Retina. If I watched a 1080p movie on a Retina MBP, then my movie won't look as well as it would on a hi-res display. It's a similar issue you'd get if you were to watch SD content (480p) on a HDTV (1080p). Therefore, if I don't do any video/photo editing, then the Retina display will just be overkill and alter the quality of the films I watch.
I did. Please read my explanation above. I don't get why this is as difficult for you to comprehend.
Secondly, all of those links reference content that isn't equipped for a display that isn't Retina. If I watched a 1080p movie on a Retina MBP, then my movie won't look as well as it would on a hi-res display. It's a similar issue you'd get if you were to watch SD content (480p) on a HDTV (1080p). Therefore, if I don't do any video/photo editing, then the Retina display will just be overkill and alter the quality of the films I watch.
I did. Please read my explanation above. I don't get why this is as difficult for you to comprehend.
Good point. Can I assume you have a 480p CRT TV so you can watch DVDs at home without having to suffer the degraded quality of 1080p?
No, my last tube died back in 2009. My Xbox One upscales the content, although it still looks poor, IMO.
Sort of like how if you watched 1080p content on a retina display it would be upscaled?
That would largely depend on the app. But yes it's possible. I try to avoid that though.
*sigh*
Scaling happens every time you display an image (or video) at its non-native resolution.
If you're watching 1080p content on a MacBook full-screen, then it's being scaled, because there are no MacBooks with 1080p displays. This is unavoidable.
There are different algorithms for scaling. The oldest, simplest, fastest, and worst algorithm is to drop or duplicate the appropriate number of scan lines. This will lead to obvious pixelation if your content is very low resolution.
The good news is that nothing really does that anymore because good scaling is handled by GPUs these days and is fast and cheap. It's called resampling. The way it works is to treat an image as a continuous field of color. The pixels of the content correspond to points in this field and specify the colors at these points. Think of a wooden board with a grid of closely-spaced nails in it (pixels) and they have different heights (colors) and you drape a blanket over it. To display the image, the field is divided into a grid matching the pixels of the output image and each square of the grid is 'sampled.' In the analogy, the average height of the blanket for that square is calculated. Since it's a continuous, smooth field, there are no hard pixel edges, i.e., there is literally no pixelation to be seen.
Basically, this means if what you're seeing seems to be low quality, that's because the original content is low quality and it has nothing to do with how the image is being scaled up or down or with the native resolution of your screen or whether or not the native resolution matches the content resolution.
The other part of this equation is that graphic designers often design static content to line up with pixel boundaries. You might have an argument that such content wouldn't look as good when scaled up or down because it would no longer line up with those pixel boundaries.
But if you're talking about video, it's not like people shoot video in order for their content to line up on pixel boundaries, that would be impossible and the idea is ridiculous. Already you're looking at a pixelated representation of something that doesn't have pixel boundaries, so even if you're looking at content in its "native" resolution, it's still pixelated. Scaling such an image up or down isn't going to make the content of the image align to pixel boundaries any better or worse.
The other issue with video is that you've got much bigger problems than any perceived "pixelation." If you pause a video and blow it up, you can see that it's full of video compression artifacts. Frankly any video looks like absolute crap if you look at it on a per-pixel basis. But everything moves around so fast that you can't possibly tell. And if your brain can't figure out that a 16x16 block of pixels is all the same color when it should actually be a smooth gradient, then what do you care if there's a tiny, tiny inaccuracy in the colors of a 2x2 block of pixels that's the result of content pixels not lining up exactly right with output pixels?
Basically, your idea video looks better when displayed at its native resolution in a way that a human being would be able to notice is not correct from a scientific, technical standpoint for several different reasons.
In other words, buy whatever MacBook you want with whatever screen resolution you want and watch whatever content you want and it will look good. Or as good as the quality of the original content, anyway.
You're patting yourself on the pat quite a bit there. You really didn't do much, motrek is the one who explained it for the guy.
I don't think I am "patting myself on the pat" at all. I don't think that's even possible.
Hey look, a guy who points out a typo on a forum where most of the posters are using devices that autocorrect in odd ways. How awesome of you.
Great posts!
-----------------
I'll just add a comment about "perception".
I was just listening to "This American Life" radio program, and they had a discussion about the shades of gray eye trick images, where you put two fields of identical shades of gray in different contexts, and you would swear on your life that they were different shades of gray. The perceived difference can be astounding. Kind of reminded me a little of this discussion.
Possibly some of the confusion about the "scaled" images looking "bad" and "fuzzy" compared to their "native" display is the context? If you isolate a "low quality" image (e.g. 1080p) on both displays of the same size and relative resolution (i.e. a normal 1440p display and a 4K HiDPI 1440p setting), they would actually look the same. However, put that same image on a website, surrounded by HiDPI content (text and graphics), and your brain gets tricked into thinking the image isn't as sharp as it was on a non-4K display.
While Windows handles multiple monitors better than OSX does, scaling on OSX is pretty perfect. Higher resolutions don't mean things get smaller, they stay the same size with more pixels to them, so they're much sharper.
Just look at the current 13" Retina MBP, that display is a treat to look at.
Just look at the current 13" Retina MBP, that display is a treat to look at.
Sincerely curious what you mean by that? I use both OS X and Windows extensively, and I use both extensively with two displays, and I'm trying to think of what situation or features you might be referring to?
In my experience, OS X is "easier" with multiple displays, and that's especially so if 4K is part of the setup.
The only thing I can think is the ability to stretch one window across multiple displays.
There is a setting to toggle that either allows for spanning across screens or allowing multiple desktops per screen. Needs a logout to apply.
http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/106541/mavericks-window-across-multiple-monitors
http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/106541/mavericks-window-across-multiple-monitors
Ahh. Thanks for that. Personally I prefer monitors having separate spaces. It's more logical for the way I work.