Where do you change the resolution?

[kat.hayes]

Using a 2015 MBP, where is the option to change the display resolution?

Thanks.

 

[andreyush]

Sistem Preferences -> Displays -> Resolution - > Mark SCALED -> Change the resolution how you like it

 

[kat.hayes]

Thank you. The default resolution is 1280x800, it seems low, is there a reason why the resolution is not set higher?

 

[ajay96]

Thank you. The default resolution is 1280x800, it seems low, is there a reason why the resolution is not set higher?

That's the default for retina, i believe it's "true" display is 2560x1600, but it's displayed at 1/2 that. You can try to go to 1440x900, which is what I use most of the time, but it isn't as crisp.

 

[kat.hayes]

For clarification, if the display is 2560x1600, why is not as crisp at 1440x900?

 

[leman]

For clarification, if the display is 2560x1600, why is not as crisp at 1440x900?

I never understood that as well. The usual argument is that the default 1280x800 resolution can be mapped pixel-perfectly to the 2560x1600 panel (every logical pixel is simply a 2x2 array of physical pixels) while scaled resolutions must use linear interpolation across pixels (that is, a physical pixel represents a blend of colours of logical pixels). But I think that this is a gross oversimplification of the real story. First of all, in HiDPI mode the content is drawn using sub-pixel precision. Second, the pixels are small enough that linear interpolation shouldn't introduce any noticeable artefacts — after all, any display hardware, be it CRT or LCD or anything else, ends up 'interpolating' the source image in this way or another. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that even in the default (non-scaled) mode the non-HiDPI content is upscaled using linear interpolation rather then simple 2x2 upscaling.

Personally, I can't see any difference in image quality between different scaled modes and the non-scaled mode. Then again, I am not a trained artist, so my eyes might be not good enough. Even if there are artefacts, they would probably be limited to low-DPI images.

 

[ajay96]

I never understood that as well. The usual argument is that the default 1280x800 resolution can be mapped pixel-perfectly to the 2560x1600 panel (every logical pixel is simply a 2x2 array of physical pixels) while scaled resolutions must use linear interpolation across pixels (that is, a physical pixel represents a blend of colours of logical pixels). But I think that this is a gross oversimplification of the real story. First of all, in HiDPI mode the content is drawn using sub-pixel precision. Second, the pixels are small enough that linear interpolation shouldn't introduce any noticeable artefacts — after all, any display hardware, be it CRT or LCD or anything else, ends up 'interpolating' the source image in this way or another. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that even in the default (non-scaled) mode the non-HiDPI content is upscaled using linear interpolation rather then simple 2x2 upscaling.

Personally, I can't see any difference in image quality between different scaled modes and the non-scaled mode. Then again, I am not a trained artist, so my eyes might be not good enough. Even if there are artefacts, they would probably be limited to low-DPI images.

The reason that i've always understood is what you basically said, the 2 to 1 pixel ratio. I did notice a battery decrease also if you go to a higher resolution, not much but enough to notice. I do tend to switch between them fairly often, I use a Program that does it with ease from the task bar.

 

[leman]

The reason that i've always understood is what you basically said, the 2 to 1 pixel ratio. I did notice a battery decrease also if you go to a higher resolution, not much but enough to notice. I do tend to switch between them fairly often, I use a Program that does it with ease from the task bar.

Battery decrease is to be expected - maintaining higher resolutions results in a quadratic increase of GPU work/memory transfers. But as I've said, i find it difficult to buy the quality argument.