Why do old apps look so terrible on the Retina display? ["solved"]

[ladeer]

That's why we need post like this...... so someone who has retina can provide such info... Do you realize that we still don't have rMBP right? How can we check? and no...apple store in Singapore still doesn't have rMBP displayed.

So if you kind enough to provide screenshot (although it maybe not 100% accurate but at least we have some idea what you are talking about)

I have been using rMBP for 24 hours so you can trust that when I say FB looks like ****, it does. I have a 2011 MBP 15 Matte High-Res too, and they definitely DO NOT LOOK the same at the same resolution. U want a pic? Fine, I will take one for you.

edit: sorry i failed. i can't get any camera to take a picture that can show the difference between a retina-optimized pic from a website picture, mainly because 1. i don't have a decent camera 2. i don't have macro lens to take really close up pic 3. the resolution of retina is simply too high i am not sure if a camera is able to capture it unless it's a real macro shot (5+x).

 

[Dammit Cubs]

I don't get why you had to do this experiment to come to this conclusion. Helpful yes, but if you just think about it, then you don't have to.

It screen is 2880x1800. That's double the size of 1440 x 900. IF you want to keep the same real estate at 1440 x 900 but in retina, its not like apple lowers the resolution to 1440 x 900. No. Instead they just scaled anything that isn't a hidpi image. it just makes everything 4x larger or rather 2x horizontal and 2x vertical. The reason why certain icons look better is because they were already stored AT 2X the PIXEL DENSITY to start with.

I really don't get people were arguing about but its common sense to see why some icons look back. You have two options: you can A) keep 1440 x 900 resolution (which isn't native btw) and scale down the hidpi images OR you do the opposite and probably more recommend way of keeping the 2880 x 1400 and scaling everything so that it looks like a 1400 x 900.

We all knew this. Your data just proved it further. It's not like this should be a shocker. Its common sense. Just like when the new iPad came out and some iPads looked like crap. Because you have 4x more pixels to populate with something.

 

[MythicFrost]

You really haven't read this thread have you?

Yep, I have. Your point? The only reason old apps look worse than they do than before is because you're used to looking at the sharper stuff. That's it.

 

[kolax]

Yep, I have. Your point? The only reason old apps look worse than they do than before is because you're used to looking at the sharper stuff. That's it.

If you placed a retina and a non-retina 15" MacBook Pro (both at 1440x900 size), the same non-retina app looks worse on the retina than it does on the non-retina.

It is nothing to do with "being used to sharper stuff on retina" when the old apps look worse than they did on the non-retina.

 

[MH01]

Just used a Retina display instore to look out the websites we support, yeah it did not look great, images looked blurry, the webpages look alot better on a non-retina display. I know there is no way we are going to update our sites just for this one model. Having second thoughts about the retina MBP, it will be fantastic for photoediting, but just using the web will be frustrating.

 

[MythicFrost]

If you placed a retina and a non-retina 15" MacBook Pro (both at 1440x900 size), the same non-retina app looks worse on the retina than it does on the non-retina.

It is nothing to do with "being used to sharper stuff on retina" when the old apps look worse than they did on the non-retina.

Have you tested this? Technically what you're saying is impossible. The old apps are being stretched two fold in each dimension, which results in a quadrupling of pixels, but since four pixels on the new display are the same physical size as one on the old display, it's not possible to see ANY difference. It's only that because you've become used to the sharpness, everything else that isn't is much more noticeable.

The easiest way to test this is to open up a 1440x900 image on both the RBMP and MBP and go into full screen mode and compare them. You can't pick the two apart. I suppose you could do the same with a full screen app which hasn't been updated as well.

 

[zerotiu]

I have been using rMBP for 24 hours so you can trust that when I say FB looks like ****, it does. I have a 2011 MBP 15 Matte High-Res too, and they definitely DO NOT LOOK the same at the same resolution. U want a pic? Fine, I will take one for you.

edit: sorry i failed. i can't get any camera to take a picture that can show the difference between a retina-optimized pic from a website picture, mainly because 1. i don't have a decent camera 2. i don't have macro lens to take really close up pic 3. the resolution of retina is simply too high i am not sure if a camera is able to capture it unless it's a real macro shot (5+x).

Not that I don't trust you but this is more like personal choice. Something "****" for you maybe good enough for me. I've seen cs5 screenshot, msWord screenshot, msOultook screenshot in 1680x1050 resolution. But not so many for 1440x900 comparison. That's why if you can provide the screenshot, it is better. If you can't, it's okay. I'm only collecting data here

 

[millerrh]

The easiest way to test this is to open up a 1440x900 image on both the RBMP and MBP and go into full screen mode and compare them. You can't pick the two apart. I suppose you could do the same with a full screen app which hasn't been updated as well.

You really are missing the point. This thing you just said is exactly what IS happening. The retina display makes things look worse than the non retina display when in 1440x900 mode on retina display and comparing to a 1440x900 non-retina display. It is VERY easy to tell them apart. The retina display looks horrible with the scaling applied. To the point that it is unusable on photo editing/design apps that haven't been updated and frustrating to look at on word processing and other apps.

Have you actually seen the retina display yourself? What you are saying is correct in theory since the "pixels" are the same size, but is not what is actually happening.

 

[corvus32]

You really are missing the point. This thing you just said is exactly what IS happening. The retina display makes things look worse than the non retina display when in 1440x900 mode on retina display and comparing to a 1440x900 non-retina display. It is VERY easy to tell them apart. The retina display looks horrible with the scaling applied. To the point that it is unusable on photo editing/design apps that haven't been updated and frustrating to look at on word processing and other apps.

Have you actually seen the retina display yourself? What you are saying is correct in theory since the "pixels" are the same size, but is not what is actually happening.

You can't blame a high DPI display for making low DPI images look bad, and you can't blame it for software that developers haven't updated.

 

[imladris]

I don't get why you had to do this experiment to come to this conclusion. Helpful yes, but if you just think about it, then you don't have to.

It screen is 2880x1800. That's double the size of 1440 x 900. IF you want to keep the same real estate at 1440 x 900 but in retina, its not like apple lowers the resolution to 1440 x 900. No. Instead they just scaled anything that isn't a hidpi image. it just makes everything 4x larger or rather 2x horizontal and 2x vertical. The reason why certain icons look better is because they were already stored AT 2X the PIXEL DENSITY to start with.

I really don't get people were arguing about but its common sense to see why some icons look back. You have two options: you can A) keep 1440 x 900 resolution (which isn't native btw) and scale down the hidpi images OR you do the opposite and probably more recommend way of keeping the 2880 x 1400 and scaling everything so that it looks like a 1400 x 900.

We all knew this. Your data just proved it further. It's not like this should be a shocker. Its common sense. Just like when the new iPad came out and some iPads looked like crap. Because you have 4x more pixels to populate with something.

What you say has been argued a number of times in the thread already. It has also been described many times that this is not the only reason why the scaled apps look bad. This makes it sound like you haven't read the thread. For some reason the same content on a 15" 1440x900 MBP does look better than the exact same content, pixel doubled, on a 15" 2880x1800 RMBP. This cannot be explained by saying that they look the same. Reasonable explanations have been given for this effect, but I'm still waiting for the macro shots of the pixels of the screens (and for the RMBP to arrive in my Mac shop). I trust Anandtech to provide good information about this issue.

 

[millerrh]

You can't blame a high DPI display for making low DPI images look bad, and you can't blame it for software that developers haven't updated.

I'm not blaming anything. Not sure what your point is. Just stating observations. Of course the high DPI display makes low DPI images look bad. It just means you need to wait before going to the retina display if you care about this sort of thing. I love the new display for the promise of the future once apps are updated. It's absolutely beautiful when being leveraged with high quality artwork. I think as soon as Adobe releases updates for Lightroom and CS I'll be in. I'm willing to overlook web pages that don't look that great.

 

[salmoally]

Finally got to see one in the flesh today.

Honestly most of the web looks like karp on the retina display at the "best for retina display" setting. I scaled to 1920x1200 and tbh still a tiny bit of blur but looked more than fine to me. I guess this is because the images/fonts are taking up much less "Physical" space on the screen that it starts to appear more sharper.

When I get mine I'll be using it a 2880x1800 with the hack when running photoshop until the update. Saw some screenshots of the work area you get and it's amazing. For more normal use I'll be at the scaled 1920x1200.

I highly recommend trying one out if you can, I was racking my brains on what to do but now that I've seen it, for me it's a no-brainer to get the retina.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

What you say has been argued a number of times in the thread already. It has also been described many times that this is not the only reason why the scaled apps look bad. This makes it sound like you haven't read the thread. For some reason the same content on a 15" 1440x900 MBP does look better than the exact same content, pixel doubled, on a 15" 2880x1800 RMBP. This cannot be explained by saying that they look the same. Reasonable explanations have been given for this effect, but I'm still waiting for the macro shots of the pixels of the screens (and for the RMBP to arrive in my Mac shop). I trust Anandtech to provide good information about this issue.

The same content looks better on the non retina because it's 1:1 pixel matching!! I don't understand why people don't understand that. In monitor, just because you have a high resolution screen doesn't mean you have good quality. You have to match it 1:1. If the size of the viewing real estate is the same, then one thing much change. either Hidpi icons decrease or lowdpi icons increase.

You never EVER!!! want use a resolution that is not native. the non-retina low dpi images are not native matched. (before scaling). If you compare the icons: hidpi actually have a 200+ dpi (exactly the same ratio of that entire screen). But the low DIP icons have a 100+ dpi (which was ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR NON-RETINA displays). Why do you think on the new ipad, certain apps still look like crap because they have been optimized for the high resolution screen. its exactly the same reason. You want 1:1 pixel ratio or else you will always see flaws.

I'll explain it another way, its now a 1inch screen can look so good. Because they match the photo pixel for pixel so its harder to see blemishes. If you a photo that is 2x larger or 2x smaller, you will see more blemishes that actually matching it 1: 1 ratio.

This really isn't rocket science.

 

[ladeer]

The same content looks better on the non retina because it's 1:1 pixel matching!! I don't understand why people don't understand that. In monitor, just because you have a high resolution screen doesn't mean you have good quality. You have to match it 1:1. If the size of the viewing real estate is the same, then one thing much change. either Hidpi icons decrease or lowdpi icons increase.

You never EVER!!! want use a resolution that is not native. the non-retina low dpi images are not native matched. (before scaling). If you compare the icons: hidpi actually have a 200+ dpi (exactly the same ratio of that entire screen). But the low DIP icons have a 100+ dpi (which was ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR NON-RETINA displays). Why do you think on the new ipad, certain apps still look like crap because they have been optimized for the high resolution screen. its exactly the same reason. You want 1:1 pixel ratio or else you will always see flaws.

I'll explain it another way, its now a 1inch screen can look so good. Because they match the photo pixel for pixel so its harder to see blemishes. If you a photo that is 2x larger or 2x smaller, you will see more blemishes that actually matching it 1: 1 ratio.

This really isn't rocket science.

sir u failed at reading comprehension.

i already posted so much and now eating lunch, so please let someone else explain to u what is going on here. hint: 1:4 pixel mapping at same size shouldn't look worse than 1:1 mapping

 

[MythicFrost]

You really are missing the point. This thing you just said is exactly what IS happening. The retina display makes things look worse than the non retina display when in 1440x900 mode on retina display and comparing to a 1440x900 non-retina display. It is VERY easy to tell them apart. The retina display looks horrible with the scaling applied. To the point that it is unusable on photo editing/design apps that haven't been updated and frustrating to look at on word processing and other apps.

Have you actually seen the retina display yourself? What you are saying is correct in theory since the "pixels" are the same size, but is not what is actually happening.

Have you actually compared the two with a full screen non-retina app? Or with a full-screen 1440x900 image? The only reason it can look different is that you've become used to the sharper quality.

I've not seen the MacBook Pro's Retina display yet, but I have an iPod touch 4 and iPhone 3GS which I've compared with a full screen 480x320 image and they look identical, and it's the same process (one pixel stretched to four, but four pixels the same physical size as one on the old display) so that doesn't matter.

From a technical perspective the difference isn't noticeable, but because your mind has become accustom to the higher pixel density it makes the non-retina content stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[killmoms]

I've not seen the MacBook Pro's Retina display yet, but I have an iPod touch 4 and iPhone 3GS which I've compared with a full screen 480x320 image and they look identical, and it's the same process (one pixel stretched to four, but four pixels the same physical size as one on the old display) so that doesn't matter.

Eh, there is a slight difference, perceptually, in that the lower resolution panels have physically larger (and thus more noticeable) groups of sub pixels with thicker voids between them. This leads to what some call the “screen door effect” on LCDs. Because of the significantly higher density of pixels on a Retina display, those voids are perceived as being less present. This can sometimes cause your eye to pick up on the squared off, pixel-doubled assets more clearly than you’d notice them on the original, low res panel.

 

[sahot]

sir u failed at reading comprehension.

i already posted so much and now eating lunch, so please let someone else explain to u what is going on here. hint: 1:4 pixel mapping at same size shouldn't look worse than 1:1 mapping

I think you might fail at you know, imaging scaling algorithms? I mean, there is no such thing as scaling without losing quality. It's just not how image scaling works. In Retina, When OSX shows you an image, say 400x400 it upscales it to 800x800, that's the end of the story.

OSX straight up makes images bigger to make them not tiny at the very high resolution it's running at, that's why in all of apples developer docs for ipad and such double what they actually are.

There is no way to scale an image and not distort it, the act of scaling an images distorts it. Remember, all they are doing in a retina display to make the UI not look tiny is making everything twice as big, the monitor is still running at full resolution.

Also, 1 to 4 pixel mapping isn't a thing.

 

[killmoms]

Also, 1 to 4 pixel mapping isn't a thing.

Not by that name, but you knew what he meant. Don’t be a pedant.

 

[DanBergundy]

Have you actually compared the two with a full screen non-retina app? Or with a full-screen 1440x900 image? The only reason it can look different is that you've become used to the sharper quality.

I've not seen the MacBook Pro's Retina display yet, but I have an iPod touch 4 and iPhone 3GS which I've compared with a full screen 480x320 image and they look identical, and it's the same process (one pixel stretched to four, but four pixels the same physical size as one on the old display) so that doesn't matter.

From a technical perspective the difference isn't noticeable, but because your mind has become accustom to the higher pixel density it makes the non-retina content stick out like a sore thumb.

I went to BB today and compared retina vs. non-retina. I pulled up the same websites and compared 72ppi images. They DID look worse on the retina display. It's not enough to make me cancel my order but I wonder how it will make web design difficult if 72ppi images look bad to you when they really don't on a normal screen.

 

[millerrh]

Eh, there is a slight difference, perceptually, in that the lower resolution panels have physically larger (and thus more noticeable) groups of sub pixels with thicker voids between them. This leads to what some call the “screen door effect” on LCDs. Because of the significantly higher density of pixels on a Retina display, those voids are perceived as being less present. This can sometimes cause your eye to pick up on the squared off, pixel-doubled assets more clearly than you’d notice them on the original, low res panel.

I believe this is exactly what I am talking about. You notice the squared off pixel shape on a retina display. You don't really notice an individual pixel on a regular display though. Probably due to the screen door effect. It has nothing to do with that I'm used to a sharper image.

It's a very real visual difference and affects how you view something. Won't matter once more apps update. Then we'll all be wondering how we lived without this display.

You see it on old iPhones and iPads too. But the effect is less because those pixels are even smaller.

 

[MythicFrost]

I went to BB today and compared retina vs. non-retina. I pulled up the same websites and compared 72ppi images. They DID look worse on the retina display. It's not enough to make me cancel my order but I wonder how it will make web design difficult if 72ppi images look bad to you when they really don't on a normal screen.

I'm not saying that they didn't look worse, I'm just saying they look worse because you become accustom to the higher pixel density. If you were to put a 1440x900 on full screen on both displays you won't be able to see the difference. The same should be true of a non-retina app too, full screen though.

 

[sahot]

I went to BB today and compared retina vs. non-retina. I pulled up the same websites and compared 72ppi images. They DID look worse on the retina display. It's not enough to make me cancel my order but I wonder how it will make web design difficult if 72ppi images look bad to you when they really don't on a normal screen.

As a Web developer, I don't think it will be bad, you'll just have to use double sized images and always set a width and height on the browser. More annoying certainly...

It will also make everything a bit slower, incidentally. Bigger images. Longer download.

 

[killmoms]

If you were to put a 1440x900 on full screen on both displays you won't be able to see the difference.

Yes, you would, for the reasons I explained above. It’s not a night and day difference, but it is there.

----------

As a Web developer, I don't think it will be bad, you'll just have to use double sized images and always set a width and height on the browser. More annoying certainly...

It will also make everything a bit slower, incidentally. Bigger images. Longer download.

There are many more granular ways to do this (from using Javascript to load 2x images after the fact if a device supports them, a la Apple, to using CSS media queries) that will only affect download times for users that have Retina displays.

 

[DanBergundy]

I'm not saying that they didn't look worse, I'm just saying they look worse because you become accustom to the higher pixel density. If you were to put a 1440x900 on full screen on both displays you won't be able to see the difference. The same should be true of a non-retina app too, full screen though.

And I am telling you that this is 100% not true. It had nothing to do with perception. I literally put them side by side and compared thoroughly. I have a keen eye for details. They rendered differently.

 

[MythicFrost]

Eh, there is a slight difference, perceptually, in that the lower resolution panels have physically larger (and thus more noticeable) groups of sub pixels with thicker voids between them. This leads to what some call the “screen door effect” on LCDs. Because of the significantly higher density of pixels on a Retina display, those voids are perceived as being less present. This can sometimes cause your eye to pick up on the squared off, pixel-doubled assets more clearly than you’d notice them on the original, low res panel.

Mmm, if that was true then it should be true on an iPhone 3GS and iPod touch 4, but I've tested that myself and they look identical.

Yes, you would, for the reasons I explained above. It’s not a night and day difference, but it is there.

Same as above. I'll have to test the RMBP myself when I get the chance, but the way the pixels work from MBP to RMBP shouldn't be any different from on an iPhone 3GS > iPod touch 4. If one is noticeable, the other should be too.

And I am telling you that this is 100% not true. It had nothing to do with perception. I literally put them side by side and compared thoroughly. I have a keen eye for details. They rendered differently.

What exactly did you test on them? Images? non-retina apps? Did you go full screen and where you looking at the same viewing distance?

I have trouble believing it because from a technical perspective it shouldn't happen.