A thing to remember, when someone develops something for an iPhone or an iPad, they only have one resolution they have to program for. However, computer programs don't program only for Macbook Pros, so you will have the same upscaling that is taking place.
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.
Why do you want a retina display?
- Thread starter 92jlee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A thing to remember, when someone develops something for an iPhone or an iPad, they only have one resolution they have to program for. However, computer programs don't program only for Macbook Pros, so you will have the same upscaling that is taking place.
Erm, when someone develops for iPhone, they must make 320x480 AND 960x640 versions of the graphics.
Same with the iPad. 1024x768 AND 2048x1536.
Computer programmers make graphics for STANDARD display resolutions, meaning only up to 2560x1600. Anything above that is considered non-standard from what I remember. Upscaling that to 2880x1800 could work but for all that work, why not make the friggin display 2560x1600 and save us from the misery of dealing with a non-standard display?
Wow, fine. 2 resolutions. What I was getting at is that they only have to worry about the specific native resolution of an iPhone/iPad.
Not true.
They have to worry about the specific native resolutions of multiple products (four resolutions total), which is no different from what computer graphic designers must worry about.
Plus, computer designers have it easy. It's much easier to make a 2560x1600 interface and downscale it all the way to 1366x768 than upscale a 1366x768 to 2560x1600.
Both platforms will thus be theoretically be able to use upscaling. Except it's not available on iOS; it's FORCED to use the native resolution. Therefore it always looks sharp. Computer graphics have a choice; lessen the resolution and make everything blurry, or raise it and make it laggy.
better
It's clearer ,and I can even distinguish minute sawtooth of icons through the old display,which I just feel kind of incomplete . But with Retina , it perfects!
It's clearer ,and I can even distinguish minute sawtooth of icons through the old display,which I just feel kind of incomplete . But with Retina , it perfects!
Why is everyone getting confused about 'blurriness'?
Seriously, why is everyone confusing the issue here. A retina display will likely double the resolution along either axis, which means that what was once displayed as a single pixel will now be addressable by a two-by-two pixel array.
So, for retina-resolution interface elements (e.g. text) we'll get more detail, but for un-optimised graphics all that will happen is that they will look *exactly* as they do currently - no better*, no worse.
Nothing gets 'blurry'.
This, of course, will change if Apple decide to 'retinise' on a non-integer multiple, e.g. 1.75x, because then aliasing would need to be done. I won't go into the details but it's pretty easy to understand the theory.
However, I can't see Apple doing this based on what they've done historically with the iPhones and iPads.
I, for one, welcome our Retina Overlords.
* okay, so they might look slightly better (based upon a direct comparison between my iPad 1 and iPad 3 showing the same web-page)
Seriously, why is everyone confusing the issue here. A retina display will likely double the resolution along either axis, which means that what was once displayed as a single pixel will now be addressable by a two-by-two pixel array.
So, for retina-resolution interface elements (e.g. text) we'll get more detail, but for un-optimised graphics all that will happen is that they will look *exactly* as they do currently - no better*, no worse.
Nothing gets 'blurry'.
This, of course, will change if Apple decide to 'retinise' on a non-integer multiple, e.g. 1.75x, because then aliasing would need to be done. I won't go into the details but it's pretty easy to understand the theory.
However, I can't see Apple doing this based on what they've done historically with the iPhones and iPads.
I, for one, welcome our Retina Overlords.
* okay, so they might look slightly better (based upon a direct comparison between my iPad 1 and iPad 3 showing the same web-page)
Blurrinezz as the guy with the ipad 3 gaming describes it might come from post processing. If you zoom pictures there is the way of only making 4 pixels from 1 with exactly the same color info or other methodes that blend in and try to create a more attractive zoomed picture.
Photoshop, Gimp when they scale images they offer multiple ways to wash out hard corners. That may result in smoothed somewhat more fuzzy pictures.
It might also just be that switching between properly supported retina ipad 3 and a game that practically runs ipad 2 res just appears bad but wouldn't in a direct comparison between ipad 3 running game and ipad 2 running the same.
In the Windows picture viewers are two ways implemented that show it quite nice. The normal gui only zooms sharp but the slide show zooms smooth. Sharp -> with a 4x4 or 8x8 pixel block you can clearly see single pictures if you zoom in a lot. Smooth-> poor low res pictures still look somewhat viewable if zoomed to the same level.
Interpolation is not quite such an easy subject not even with perfect matching double pixel counts.
Photoshop, Gimp when they scale images they offer multiple ways to wash out hard corners. That may result in smoothed somewhat more fuzzy pictures.
It might also just be that switching between properly supported retina ipad 3 and a game that practically runs ipad 2 res just appears bad but wouldn't in a direct comparison between ipad 3 running game and ipad 2 running the same.
In the Windows picture viewers are two ways implemented that show it quite nice. The normal gui only zooms sharp but the slide show zooms smooth. Sharp -> with a 4x4 or 8x8 pixel block you can clearly see single pictures if you zoom in a lot. Smooth-> poor low res pictures still look somewhat viewable if zoomed to the same level.
Interpolation is not quite such an easy subject not even with perfect matching double pixel counts.
Retinising
My point was that interpolation is not necessary. Scaling is not going to change the way an image displays, provided that it is done on an integer multiple across x- and y-axes. That's not to say that interpolation can't be applied - just that it doesn't have to be.
In theory, unless a developer chooses to interpolate, there is absolutely no reason for an 800x600 image (say) displayed on a non-retina x * y display to look any different when displayed on a 2x * 2y retina display, provided that an exact doubling-up of pixels along both axes is performed, which I suspect will be the case in the OS implementation. Therefore, that 800x600 image will appear exactly the same size on the screen.
The beauty of retina is that it also opens up the possibility of using those extra pixels to add in more detail (e.g. viewing an image at 50% rather than 25% in Photoshop - same size of view, but lower scaling down and therefore greater displayed detail for Retina). So, you have no drawback apart (perhaps) for graphically intensive games (see below) and perhaps battery life, but many advantages.
Where games are concerned, it's possible that as much 'grunt' is required to interpolate for lower resolutions so as to avoid obvious jaggy lines; for retina class displays, the need for interpolation (as a way to avoid the jaggy lines) is much reduced if not removed entirely, which liberates processing cycles to cope with the increased resolution, so it's possible that concerns over performance may not materialise.
My point was that interpolation is not necessary. Scaling is not going to change the way an image displays, provided that it is done on an integer multiple across x- and y-axes. That's not to say that interpolation can't be applied - just that it doesn't have to be.
In theory, unless a developer chooses to interpolate, there is absolutely no reason for an 800x600 image (say) displayed on a non-retina x * y display to look any different when displayed on a 2x * 2y retina display, provided that an exact doubling-up of pixels along both axes is performed, which I suspect will be the case in the OS implementation. Therefore, that 800x600 image will appear exactly the same size on the screen.
The beauty of retina is that it also opens up the possibility of using those extra pixels to add in more detail (e.g. viewing an image at 50% rather than 25% in Photoshop - same size of view, but lower scaling down and therefore greater displayed detail for Retina). So, you have no drawback apart (perhaps) for graphically intensive games (see below) and perhaps battery life, but many advantages.
Where games are concerned, it's possible that as much 'grunt' is required to interpolate for lower resolutions so as to avoid obvious jaggy lines; for retina class displays, the need for interpolation (as a way to avoid the jaggy lines) is much reduced if not removed entirely, which liberates processing cycles to cope with the increased resolution, so it's possible that concerns over performance may not materialise.
Progress? The MBP has been stuck at 1280x800, 1440x900 and 1920x1200 for quite a while now. The average laptop in this price range has a full HD screen but even that hasn't changed much over time. Resolution and pixel density will go up eventually, why not now?
I don't think the MBP needs a quadrupling of the resolution. If you do the math, something like full HD is close to current "retina display" standards at typical viewing distances. I don't care if it is 2880x1800 or 1920x1080 but I want some kind of improvement. A change to IPS would be a nicer improvement for me.
When display resolutions increase, media will be there to keep up with it. Someone has to make the move first.
Why wouldn't you want a better looking display? The Ipad 3 has a gorgeous screen and I can only imagine how stunning a MBP screen will look.
That's where you lost me.
Keep in mind that all computer images that are not vectors have jagged edges. It's a stacking of colored squares that create the overall illusion of a smooth curve. Double the image, don't use interpolation, and you get a much more pronounced jagged edge.
You're going to get a sharper picture of a jagged curve, not the same image. Yes, the 800x600 image will be the same size, but the high-resolution will look much worse.
Also, if the OS uses anti-aliasing to smooth away these jagged curves, then what we will have is a twice-as-blurry edge, not a smooth curve.
Yeah, games will be a bit difficult, but that's the life of an early adopter, GPUs will be upgraded to handle this, especially when Windows starts copying it, in 3 years, everything'll look fantastic with no penalty.