Apple rumored to launch 2880x1800 Retina Display MacBook Pro in Q2 2012 - Page 3

True, that until they have a display that uses this, it doesn't mean all that much. My earlier point is still valid: Most users don't know this is happening and if they did, wouldn't understand what it means until they see it on a real product ("What's 'Quartz Debug'?", they might say...).

As to your assertion that Apple supports other resolutions, I only meant it in the context of HiDPi. Read the notes on Resolution Independence in the Ars review (if you haven't already), eventually ALL resolutions should default to this, I'm just discouraged that it's taken this long, given how much progress has already been made. Consider that TextEdit (One of Apple's favorite demo weapons of choice for showing new OS features) was 64-bit capable (In Cocoa, from what I can tell) AND largely resolution-independent in 2006. Probably wasn't completely done, but they were close, and then it seems like they stopped working on it.

In the bad old days, you could hook up just about any old mongrel display to Apple's products.

But now, with just an exception or two, each and every Apple product is a one-piece unit. The screen is a known factor.

There is no need to accommodate the weirdo displays anymore. Apple knows exaclty which display is to be used, and that is good enough. The devs all appreciate it.

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet but 2880x1800 is exactly 4x as large as the current display, not x2.

You think it was possible to produce the retina displaya display with a pixel density so high the eye can't distinguish between themcheaply and on a mass scale in 2006? If Apple does one thing right, it's not jumping on new technology before its ready and able to produce a superior user experience.

4x the pixels, but 2x the resolution.

Screen resolution is a measure of the number of pixels.

Display tech' has been pretty lethargic for some time.

Getting some retina tech into the iPad 3 (a 1st buy for me...) and a Mac Book makes sense.

It builds on Apple's tablet momentum and delivers retina tech' to the Mac line to further that platform's momentum.

As a creative type, having a 'retina' display on a Mac excites me most.

However, a retina display on an iMac may be further out than the laptops perhaps?

I remember when Apple first delivered the cinema displays...and the impact they had at 22 inch and later the big whopper 30 inch displays.

Going retina really puts the hurt on the PC competition. Maybe they've partnered with a firm to deliver all that display tech' across their iPad, Mac and even the 'Apple TV' line (which I'm guessing won't be retina...

Yes. An iMac with retina display, 6 cores and a beefier gpu with 8 gigs of ram and a flash drive?

I'd go for that... But I won't hold my breath for the foreseeable future.

Surprise me, Apple.

Lemon Bon Bon.

It's about time we had a shake up in display tech'. A long time coming...



Lemon Bon Bon.

Note the x between the values is a multiplier. Each value is doubled, that means 2x, which gives a total pixel count that quadrupled, that means 4x, but the resolution is still stated as n1 x n2 hence resolution is doubled, not quadrupled.

I should have read back a post or two. I think the forum is a bit overly optimistic on higher resolution displays. Development work for phones and laptops will eventually creep upward, but 27" panels are currently quite expensive. Using a fully custom panel rather than a variation on a generic LG solution would most likely be cost prohibitive (other manufacturers were unable to to really compete with LG on cost), but I'd expect to see a thunderbolt (or whatever they choose to call it) display before an imac. If we see some of the extreme resolutions in laptops next year, it could still be a couple years before the imacs catch on. Higher pixel densities have been available for years in desktop displays, but only in displays designed for medical use, and even then they're not at the level being discussed here. I looked up a couple to find 2048x1536 @ 21" (older format, not a wide screen) and 4096x2560 @ 30". Even at that level they're not what people on here would like to see. I'm less optimistic on timeline than some of the others. I get that you aren't as concerned with "retina" as I previously thought, but the exact formula here remains more of a marketing hype than anything.

The problem as I see it is that resolution independence and the support for 2X bitmaps are really two different things. Apple went with 2X bitmaps to simplify things for developers because as you note bitmaps don't always scale well. However that has nothing to do with vector operations and font drawing being resolution independent in Lion.


I suspect you are being charitable here.

No that is resolution independence. That is the system draws to gal world dimensions and not to pixels. Bitmaps have nothing to do with resolution independence because nobly in their right mind would depend upon scaling of bitmaps to give consistent results.

For developer with a lot of bitmaps in their products the jump to 2X makes life easier for them.

This I have to disagree with, it is a significant accomplishment and something that people have been waiting for for years.

Well I have to disagree again. Support for 2X bitmaps is not resolution independence in any shape or form. Rather it is providing a way to directly map graphics onto higher resolution screens. In effect the 2X support allows for same size images on a higher resolution screen, the images are not however resolution independent. Rather they are images designed to support specific resolutions.

This is a key point, 2X simplifies things for developers. Well as long as they can easily generate new bit maps as higher resolution versions of the original bit maps.

The whole point of 2x bitmaps is to get around the scaling artifacts that happen when scaling is done aggressively. The problem is that this has nothing to do with scaling of vector drawing in Mac OS.

I'm certain that Apples goals are to keep it as simple as possible for developers. However they very carefully point out in documentation that developers should not assume that 1X & 2X are the only scale factors they will ever see. In fact they go out of their way to make sure that developers know how to get the correct scale factor. The fact that they go to great lengths to tell developer not to assume any specific scale factor is a sign to me that they at least have considered other than integer multipliers. In the end this probably won't be a laptop issue but rather an issue with larger screens.

But will we have the Matte screen option? One wonders who it was that was insisting on only glossy. Perhaps Steve was, who knows. (he was pretty strong willed about certain things).

Should have mentioned it was on a projector screen.

When it really comes right down to it customers have a chance to vote for matte screens by buying matte screenss. I doubt Apple moves enough of such screens to even notice it at the end of each month. Matte screens lead to terrible user experiences thus very low demand.

In the end I don't think Steve had anything to do with it. Matte screens are just very hard to justify based on demand. Worst with a retina display the matte surface would make that nice new high resolution panel look like crap. I suspect that the days of matte screens are numbered.

...because resolution increases by the square.

Thus: 1x1 to 2x2 is like 1 to 4
Same going from 900x1440 to 1800x2880 is not doubling but quadrupling the resolution.
If you don't believe me or math, go count the pixels...

Anything surpassing 250 ppi on a screen the size of an iPad or larger is an impressive engineering feat. It remains to be seen how memory and battery usage will be affected.

But here's the thing I wonder about - I personally have not seen that many apps (any?) that really makes the Retina Display stand out on the iPhone, in a way that makes it a killer feature. Sure, images are crisper. But where is the app that would only work (or work well) with >250 ppi?

I'd ask the same question for iPad and MacBook scale displays. I see possibilities in scientific and medical applications, but those are rarely drivers for Apple design.

Resolution is measured in pixels per inch in a single direction.

AutoCad.

Medical imaging.

Photo editing.

Seriously some people could get by with teletype machines for "displays", that doesn't mean they would gravitate to something better.


Actually this is a real concern but let's face it there is plenty of room in an iPad for a bigger battery. It isn't just memory but the bandwidth to that memory that is important. This is one reason why I'm expecting something drastically different in the architecture of the machine if it indeed gets a retina display. They might switch to graphics memory or put the fram buffer on the SoC silicon. Whatever they do it will be focused on addressing significant increase in bytes they will have to move.

isn't this a bit silly to be asking? One of the goals of resolution independence is to avoid this issue of screen specific apps. In any event some of the benefits.

1. Better looking fonts.
2. Sharper drawing of vector based graphics.
3. Better looking pictures.
4. Sharper detail or more information on screen.

Few apps absolutely need all of the above but any of the above could make an app more compelling on a high resolution screen.

Not having seen one of these screens I can only guess but I suspect that the differences will be instantly noticeable. People will most definitely want such screens. The only possible exceptions would be gamers who will loose frame rates. Such screens would be far more pleasing to the average eye.

That's one that can be quite noticeable. Digital cameras can capture quite a lot of information even after you factor in the interpolated nature of the RGBG bayer array. So much of it is unfortunately wasted by low viewing resolution. I'm convinced that when we can view these things on screen close to 300 dpi consistently, people will adjust to that and the older stuff will just look pixellated by comparison.


It would be awesome for photo editing. Still image files can get up to some truly insane sizes with digital cameras in the 30-60 megapixel range having been available for some time. Of course you'd still want screen real estate, but not being able to see pixellation could clean up the workflow in many ways there. For cad work it would also be amazing as you could view splines without the use of hardware level anti aliasing, which amounts to little more than a moderately dithered line for the purpose of visual continuity.

A fair point. I had never tried to expand the menu text until you raised it, though. Now I feel deprived. Damn Apple!

And can someone at Apple perhaps include the apparently far-fetched idea of using IPS panels??????????????? I love my MacBook Pro and the screen is nice, but nowhere near as nice as my Cinema Display, iPad and iPhone.

I'm all for extreme high res and 250+ PPI (drrrooool!) but please...no more TN trash.

There are very few notebooks that offer them today and those that do charge a hefty price premium as well as much reduced longevity of user per charge. Better displays with higher resolutions and wider viewing angles along both axes will come but at least for now Apple has the best consumer notebook displays on the market.

I think the next round of MBPs will offer HiDPI displays but I'm not sure about IPS. LG offers a low power IPS technology that won't be as good for accurate color reproduction as the IPS in your iMac and then there are other low power display tech with wide viewing angles that are cropping up. The problem now seems to be getting production for these new technologies.

It's a matter of time before Apple retina's the iPad, ...and the Mac line will follow in due course. Most probably the portable line that offers up the bulk of Mac sales.

...if Apple goes super hi-def on TVs...that happily coincides with iMacs/desktops getting some big screen/and/or retina love as well.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Glad at least some folks here realize the importance of an IPS screen in a laptop as opposed to the TN panels that are currently used. All Apple laptops are useless for photo editing (or color grading in video, for that matter) on the go because of the extremely small viewing angle. Even tools such as Acratech's viewing angle gauge (http://acratech.net/product.php?productid=70) don't help b/c even if you are viewing the screen at the right angle, the lower part of your screen is brighter than the top (& only the middle of your screen is accurate).

I don't understand why Apple hasn't made it a priority to use an IPS panel in their laptops, especially in light of its existence in an iPad.