How do you make this?≠
How do you make this?≠
Last edited by kilobits; 15-06-2012 at 02:01 PM.
LinkyDisplay resolution versus pixel resolution
There's confusion that I'm seeing all over the place between display resolution and pixel density. I went through this myself, when the new iPad came out. If it had such a higher resolution, why wouldn't I see more on screen? After all, when I've bought monitors with higher resolutions over the years, I was always able to see more on them.
MG Siegler, expert in all things Apple, helped me understand through a Twitter conversation that the iPad wasn't upping the display resolution. It was upping the pixel density. The new iPad was displaying the same real estate as before; the extra pixels were being used to bring that real estate into better focus, to make it sharper, clearer.
That's what's happening with the MacBook Pro Retina. Despite what I keep reading repeatedly in various reviews, there is no 2,880 by 1,800 display resolution. There is a 2,880 by 1,800 pixel density that Apple calls the MacBook Pro Retina's resolution, which is being confused with the display resolution by some.
All those pixels are being pumped into a 1,440 by 900 display resolution, by default. They're being used to make what's displayed look better, not to make the screen have more overall real estate. In particular, Apple seems to be doing the same type of 4:1 ratio that it has used for its other Retina displays.
When the iPhone 4 came out, Apple talked about how (as it still does now) the phone had four times more pixels than its predecessor. The same thing happened with the new iPad. Its Retina display is positioned as having four times the number of pixels of the iPad 2.
When MacBook Retina isn't four times more
Plenty of people keep using that four-times language about the MacBook Pro Retina, but I haven't seen Apple say that in its press materials or on its site. Apple simply gives the 2,880 by 1,800 pixel figure and says there are more than 5 million pixels in the display.
I think the math explains why Apple doesn't seem to be using the 4:1 ratio -- unless I've completely missed that -- with the MacBook Pro Retina. It may also explain why Apple seems to be avoiding mentioning that "Best for Retina display" is a 1,440 by 900 display resolution.
A regular MacBook Pro with a native 1,400 by 900 display resolution should have 1.26 million pixels. That's the two figures of the display resolution, 1,400 and 900, multiplied together. The MacBook Pro Retina, with a 2,880 by 1,800 resolution, should have 5.18 million pixels -- slightly more than four times the non-Retina 15-inch MacBook Pro.
That's not four times more than the Hi-Res versions of the non-Retina MacBook, however. The Hi-Res versions have a display resolution of 1,680 by 1,050, which means 1.76 million. For the MacBook Pro Retina to have four times more pixels than that, it would need 7.06 million pixels. With 5 million pixels, the Retina MacBook Pro is packing three times as many pixels as the Hi-Res non-Retina MacBook Pro, not four times.
More important, in order to have a full-fledged Retina-quality display, Apple actually has to take some MacBook Pro owners (like myself) back from a 1,680 by 1,050 display resolution to a 1,440 by 900 display resolution. Perhaps Apple figures if it doesn't mention 1,440 by 900 in association with the Retina MacBook Pro, no one will notice.
Last edited by kilobits; 16-06-2012 at 08:44 PM.
The Retina MBP panel is physically 2880x1800 pixels. Read AnandTech's article on the matter & why Apple chose not to expose 1:1 pixel rendering in the OSX UI (quite obvious on a 15" screen).
Last edited by Roman4604; 16-06-2012 at 09:47 PM.
Still here ... FTL drives offline
Even without a working NVIDIA driver, I was able to get a feel for what a 2880 x 1800 setting would look like on a traditional desktop under Windows 8. If you remember back to our scaling and display analysis articles, Apple doesn't offer a desktop resolution equivalent higher than 1920 x 1200 under OS X. The thinking being that unscaled 2880 x 1800 would just be too small for the desktop, icon text and default UI elements. The screenshot below shows the Windows 8 desktop at default (no DPI scaling) settings at 2880 x 1800:
It is a true 2880x1800 screen. But they're doing exactly what they did with the other retina class products and creating new assets for them with greater pixel density, so that the screen doesn't just become too cramped. Then they offer a range of viewing options which either increase or decrease the ratio of pixel density vs on-screen space. It's a fairly elegant solution. Your eyes see the same thing but much sharper.
Secondly since when is fixability a cause to fight for? Isn't the build quality of the item the first most crucial cause for the consumer, and then other concerns distantly important? More memory would be nice to add but 8gb as a baseline is pretty sweet. Bigger hard drive, but then again normal platters are much cheaper for storage purposes, so won't most of us just augment an ssd with a ton of externals?
Who makes these 2880x1800 panels?
Wondering if we will be seeing them in other laptops.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
I think Samsung. They made some other Retina displays for Apple. I think iPad '3'. I've had a look into this a while back as I'd like to see a 17" at least and a desktop 23" at least before I just jump on the bandwagon.
Custom 600T | i7 email@example.comGHz | 16GB DDR3 1600 | GTX 580 3GB x2 SLI | Force GT 120GB SSD | 23"@1920x1080
It looks like LG are also one of the Apple Retina display manufacturers... not much meat to this info... but a relevant link none the less.
LinkyFollowing the teardown report on the latest MacBook Pro with Retina display this morning, iFixit revealed via Twitter one extra detail that many have been curious about. Who supplies the Retina display? Well, it turns out that the panels aren’t Sharp’s IGZO displays as rumors have recently claimed, but are instead from LG
Display expert Dr. Raymond Soneira had speculated that Apple would be using Sharp’s IGZO displays, which are said to be dramatically more efficient and less power hungry. It seemed to make sense, since the battery boost in the new Retina MacBook pro wasn’t as large of a leap as seen between the iPad 2 and the new iPad.
However, it appears that by switching to Intel’s latest Ivy Bridge chips and swapping conventional hard drives for SSDs along with other tweaks, Apple was able to make some gains on battery life without the IGZO display.
Apple does use several suppliers for parts, so it’s possible that other MacBook Pro units could feature Retina displays made by other manufacturers. Sharp’s IGZO displays may still be in the roadmap for future Apple products. Apple’s primary manufacturing partner, Foxconn, recently increased its stake in Sharp, fueling speculation that Sharp’s panels could be used in the much rumored Apple iTVs.