Double-resolution icons in OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion hint at Retina Macs

2

Comments

  • alanskyalansky Posts: 235member
    How can Apple double the resolution of Mac displays unless they also figure out how to rasterize screen text independent of the screen resolution? With current rasterization technology, a Mac with twice the resolution would render all interface elements at half their current size. In other words, many interface elements would be too small to read. This would be an unmitigated disaster.
  • desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tails View Post


    You are seeing the pixels unless you are sitting quite far away from your screen.



    Not really.

    At current MBP resolution (133 ppi for the 17 inch) and at a 20 inch viewing distance, it is very nearly a retina display already (about like having an iPhone with a resolution of 266 ppi at 10 inches.) A 25% increase over current MBP resolution (rather than the article's proposed 100% increase) would easily move them into the "retina display" category.



    The news is — OS X may be finally making the move to a "resolution independent interface."

    The "Retina Macs" conclusion shows little understanding of what's what.
  • tailstails Posts: 35member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Not really.

    At current MBP resolution (133 ppi for the 17 inch) and at a 20 inch viewing distance, it is very nearly a retina display already (about like having an iPhone with a resolution of 266 ppi at 10 inches.) A 25% increase over current MBP resolution (rather than the article's proposed 100% increase) would easily move them into the "retina display" category.



    The news is ? OS X may be finally making the move to a "resolution independent interface."

    The "Retina Macs" conclusion shows little understanding of what's what.



    Yeah, but like I said, that's only for laptops. iMac is 109 ppi, which can go up to 160+ ppi for becoming retina, so it's nowhere near retina.
  • drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by c4rlob View Post


    I'm starting to think a Retina display is how Apple plans to 'resolutionize' the TV market.

    Although I'm not sure how they would get the jump on Sharp and LG with that, since those companies are also Apple's screen suppliers.



    TVs already have "Retina" displays. You could not see the pixels of a full-HD 32'' screen from 6-7 feet away.



    I'm starting to think that all it takes to be impressed with new technology is poor imagination and limited understanding of how current technology works.
  • kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    This would surely require a 2X button to be implemented at the OS level? If not, those little icons in the likes of Maya and Photoshop are going to become awfully tricky to click on...
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fulldecent View Post


    ... and let me guess, they halve the size of the fonts on the screen again!



    You're missing the point. The probelm with the HiRes displays they offer is that they shrink the size of the elements.This gets around that limitation that has kept PC displays so low for so many years.



    Notice that the image in the article isn't smaller, but larger because it's trying to render 4x the number of pixels. The solution is to make everything more clear while keeping all the elements the same size... just like with the iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4 and iPad 2 to iPad (3).



    Of course, they won't be doing the same double resolution scaling because it's not a requirement for a windowed so the elements could be slightly bigger or smaller depending on the resolution used, but the effect will be the same either way.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tails View Post


    We have calculated the average PPI for an 27" iMac screen to be considered retina, and it's along the lines of 160 ppi if you are sitting approximately 20 inches away from the screen.



    The current iMac screen is 109 ppi. Hence if the iMac screen was made retina, then it'd have approximately 2k vertical resolution instead of 1.6k.



    High res laptop screens Apple ships are 130 ppi. So they are closer to retina than desktop screens atm if they are being used at the same distance.



    But that's as much as they can go. So they can't ever produce a 27" display which has 4k vertical resolution. Because at that point if the viewer stands exactly at the retina limit, he/she cannot see the entire screen due to the limits of the vision. So 2k seems to be around what we can ever hope to see on a desktop screen.



    Oh but, they'll go 4k when they want to give 2k 3D.



    This!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    TVs already have "Retina" displays. You could not see the pixels of a full-HD 32'' screen from 6-7 feet away.



    I'm starting to think that all it takes to be impressed with new technology is poor imagination and limited understanding of how current technology works.



    The equation for 20/20 vision is: 3438 * (1/x) = y, where x is the minimum distance away from your eyes it has to be placed and y is the number of pixels per inch.



    For example, if you have a 46" 1080p HDTV that is 48 PPI so the equation is: 3438 * (1/x) = 48, which means you need to sit over 6" away for the pixels to become indistinguishable. Of course, there are other factors involved but that is the basis of the definition.



    (Please check my math)
  • elmsleyelmsley Posts: 120member
    Getting to the point that they have to upgrade all the other iMac pieces to make it worthwhile. Would you upgrade your iMac just for a display? "Web surfing" is clearly adequate with any model, and the parts are all just great. How many of us have external HDs and all they really need is a thunderbolt/usb3/esata, and a retina display? ("need" being relative, of course..)
  • bluefish86bluefish86 Posts: 115member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tails View Post


    We have calculated the average PPI for an 27" iMac screen to be considered retina, and it's along the lines of 160 ppi if you are sitting approximately 20 inches away from the screen.



    The current iMac screen is 109 ppi. Hence if the iMac screen was made retina, then it'd have approximately 2k vertical resolution instead of 1.6k.



    High res laptop screens Apple ships are 130 ppi. So they are closer to retina than desktop screens atm if they are being used at the same distance.



    But that's as much as they can go. So they can't ever produce a 27" display which has 4k vertical resolution. Because at that point if the viewer stands exactly at the retina limit, he/she cannot see the entire screen due to the limits of the vision. So 2k seems to be around what we can ever hope to see on a desktop screen.



    Oh but, they'll go 4k when they want to give 2k 3D.



    I never thought of this before - the whole maximum resolution for an eye thing - it's really interesting. I'm kind of confused by your logic though. You're basically saying that 27" is the biggest monitor you could use at a 20" distance? Experimenting with my monitors, I can focus on any point on a 114 deg horizontal range and 104 deg vertical range without moving my neck - remarkably close to Wikipedia's 120 and 100 respectively. At 20" distance that works out to a monitor that's 69.3" wide and 47.7" tall. Obviously that's a bit ridiculous but you could definitely go larger than 27".



    Also interesting is that the human field of vision has a 16:11 aspect ratio, not 16:9. I wonder if at some point in the distant future we'll see a shift in monitor aspect ratio...



    Slightly off topic but again interesting, the resolution of the average human eye is 7200x6000, but this doesn't map directly to a monitor because the eye is spherical and a monitor is planar. The difference is really important as you start to get into peripheral vision.
  • jowie74jowie74 Posts: 540member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post


    I think there is a good possibility that when it comes out the Apple TV (can they call it iTV? - I don't think so because of copyright issues) will have an Ultra-High-Definiton screen with over 3 million pixels like the new iPad, rather than everybody else's boring 2 million pixel HDTV.



    boring 2 million pixel HDTV?



    Hardly anyone thinks Apple are likely to produce a TV set for several reasons, mainly financial... So why would they want to produce a TV with more pixels than is humanly possible to see, unless the entry-level screen is something like 200 inches?!
  • rob55rob55 Posts: 1,174member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jowie74 View Post


    boring 2 million pixel HDTV?



    Hardly anyone thinks Apple are likely to produce a TV set for several reasons, mainly financial... So why would they want to produce a TV with more pixels than is humanly possible to see, unless the entry-level screen is something like 200 inches?!



    This is just me thinking out loud, but it seems to me the point of a retina display was to make pixels indistinguishable (and whatever is being viewed on them subsequently sharper) on devices with screens that are viewed up-close. So, to agree with you, putting a retina display on a "large" screen like a TV would definitely be pointless unless the viewer is sitting that close to it.
  • jowie74jowie74 Posts: 540member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    This is just me thinking out loud, but it seems to me the point of a retina display was to make pixels indistinguishable (and whatever is being viewed on them subsequently sharper) on devices with screens that are viewed up-close. So, to agree with you, putting a retina display on a "large" screen like a TV would definitely be pointless unless the viewer is sitting that close to it.



    And if the definition of Retina now is some formula of DPI / distance from screen, then technically speaking most HD TVs are already "Retina". Any more pixels would be a pointless exercise.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    This is just me thinking out loud, but it seems to me the point of a retina display was to make pixels indistinguishable (and whatever is being viewed on them subsequently sharper) on devices with screens that are viewed up-close. So, to agree with you, putting a retina display on a "large" screen like a TV would definitely be pointless unless the viewer is sitting that close to it.



    Yes and no. If we're just talking about pixels that the human eye can discern (assuming 20/20 or 6/6 vision) and ignoring everything else then going far past Retina Display quality is pointless. However, it's my understanding there are more factors to consider than just that one metric, especially when it comes to video. As we know video is just a series of still photos that trick the eye into perceiving motion.



    There is also the issue of size. Today's HDTVs are getting large enough that at a normal viewing distance they are no longer considered Retina Display. 46" at 6' just makes the cut but how many who are thinking about buying a new HDTV are considering sizes much larger than that? How about in a couple years?



    A 3840x2160p (2k) HDTV at 56" has a PPI of 79. That would mean it would be Retina Display quality at 3.6'. In 5 years will 56" be somewhat small? If that's an 80" HDTV then the PPI is only 55. That means you've have to sit more than 5' away to be considered Retina Display quality.



    I've seen 70" HDTVs already on the market that are only 1080p which means you have to sit over 9.2' away to get the Retina Display affect so we're already getting to a point where we need a higher resolution in our HDTVs.





    Equation: 1 ÷ (x ÷ 3438) = y, where x is the PPI and y is the minimum distance in inches you have to be from the display.
  • rob55rob55 Posts: 1,174member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    There is also the issue of size. Today's HDTVs are getting large enough that at a normal viewing distance they are no longer considered Retina Display. 46" at 6" jut makes the cut but how many who are thinking about buying a new HDTV are considering sizes much larger than that? How about in a couple years?



    So let me get this straight, you're saying that at 6" (6 inches) a 46" 1080p flat-panel display is considered retina. Don't you mean 6' (6 feet / 1.82 meters) or am I missing something? The chart below suggest the latter.



  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    So let me get this straight, you're saying that at 6" (6 inches) a 46" 1080p flat-panel display is considered retina. Don't you mean 6' (6 feet / 1.82 meters) or am I missing something?



    It's a typo as the equations in my post will verify.
  • rob55rob55 Posts: 1,174member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    It's a typo as the equations in my post will verify.



    That's what I thought, but you did it for every example and it had me scratching my head.
  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 12,933member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Cool, man, cool.



    Credit card ready.



    Me too!



  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 12,933member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iVlad View Post


    So i guess this is how Apple wants to differentiate themselves from PC world. I really don't understand the retina on a mac, though. You're sitting far away that you don't see pixels. Isn't it retina already?



    Meg Whitman and the rest of HP can watch as Apple changes the game again.



    And I'm sure some Microsoft VP will blog bitterly about how Windows has had retina display since the days of Vista, but whine about how Apple is better at marketing someone else's innovation and how Microsoft needs to get better at that.
  • dunksdunks Posts: 1,155member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post


    This would surely require a 2X button to be implemented at the OS level? If not, those little icons in the likes of Maya and Photoshop are going to become awfully tricky to click on...



    Why? Can't any graphics files that not digitally signed as "retina ready" just be automatically upscaled like they are in iOS.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    That's what I thought, but you did it for every example and it had me scratching my head.



    Edited my post. I think I got all typos. In my defense I was typing that while trying to watch all the trailers before The Hunger Games started. FYI: was sitting in the very back with the brightness all the way down so no one was disturbed by phone use. Gotta stay connected!



    Bottom line: Only the smaller HDTVs are likely to still qualify as Retina Display quality until you sitting very close to your set so 2k is definitely needed to maintain this effect as we increase our display sizes.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dunks View Post


    Why? Can't any graphics files that not digitally signed as "retina ready" just be automatically upscaled like they are in iOS.



    Assuming the app was coded to Apple's guidelines bitmap image pixels will be represented by a 2x2 instead of 1x1, but they aren't really taking advantage of the Retina Display, they are merely being formatted correctly by the OS and app.
  • archangel21xarchangel21x Posts: 88member
    I understand the need for a retina display on post PC devices simply because people hold them so close to their face. I'm content with the resolution of my iMac and MacBook Air. On the other hand, it wasn't that many moons ago that I was also content with 1024 x 768 on a Dell Desktop. 2006 in fact.
Sign In or Register to comment.