Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Ploki, Jan 22, 2013.
As in, 3360*2100?
That would make it around 260ppi like ipad3 + more workspace @native res.
You could simulate 3360 x 2100 and even 3840 x 2400 on the current Retina.
It wouldn't make a difference because your eyes wouldn't be able to discern the difference when you're so far away from the screen.
More than likely, no. The ipad has a higher PPI because one tends to be closer to the ipad screen than a computer monitor. Increasing PPI past a certain point has diminishing returns.
I guess thats the point of retina huh, it doesn't look crappy at scaled resolutions.
I'd love that!
Image processing software, for instance, can only be used in either full native and Hi-DPI mode without additional scaling. But by going with double 1680x1050 in the next retina Apple will admit that their current scaling isn't perfect. And while the scaling is bad, Apple is just doesn't have enough balls to admit it. The way 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 modes are implemented now can be considered as a temporary workaround rather than a solution.
2880x1800 will be fine if only toolbars and interface could be scaled while displaying all content (images, video, text) at 1:1. This, however, requires a completely new OS engine and SDK. The transition will be much more painful and slow than adopting HiDPI mode.
Not sure what you mean by this. Photoshop and Lightroom work fine at scaled resolutions.
If you mean 1:1 zoom, it actually doesn't matter. Viewing the whole composition of any image larger than 5MP is always going to be scaled irregardless of the screen's resolution. Even by 3360 x 2100, the most you can view is 7MP give or take, so that's not enough space to even view the iPhone 4S/5 photos at 1:1.
heh, you mean using 2880*1800 but instead of having 1440*900 workspace you scale down GUI elements so they appear as they would on the 1680*1050 screen. I thought about that too.
He means that graphic editing programs don't give you 1:1 pixel when you have an image @100% and you want screen real-estate.
Well, it's not about viewing the whole composition. I prefer to have 1:1 or even 1:2 view so I can accurately adjust sharpness correction/deconvolution parameters or eliminate banding when playing with levels. Any additional scaling will mask all of those. And when it comes to 24-36MP files, there's still no solution to show them 1:1 without cropping
Exactly! And I want small toolbars but not 2880x1800 small!
Yes, you can say it this way too.
As a bottom line, to prevent any misunderstanding:
I actually like unscaled HI-DPI mode since the content is displayed at 1:1 (as it would be on a regular 2880x1800 screen) and menus are scaled by a factor of 2x.
Just give me a set of other scale factors for menu/toolbars to reduce their size, and I'd be happy. Sure, scaling menus by 1.5x isn't as straightforward as doubling, but it's worth it.
In both Photoshop and Lightroom, you can move and hide toolbars until you have the majority of the screen for viewing.
Whenever you are adjusting sharpness on either Photoshop or Lightroom, there is a small window view that allows you to see a 1:1 representation of a small area. I'd think that should be enough.
And I don't get why you need 1:1 view for super huge files. Pixel peeping is bad enough at 16 - 18MP. Given your camera and lens don't suck so much, you shouldn't have to adjust sharpness at 1:1.
Also eliminating banding on your computer screen wouldn't matter if the screen itself doesn't cover 100% real-life color depth, right?
Or if you are not printing your work, then why bother keeping around 36MP files? Most computers would be lucky enough to see 2MP at 1:1, so they'd only be able to see about 1/18 of your actual photo.
No matter what, you can't get 1:1 representation is the whole output is scaled down.