Everyone who thinks turning 1 pixel in 4 improves CLARITY needs to understand that Retina only makes each pixel physically smaller. That's it. All this hype over tinier pixels.
You need to stop talking until you do some research on what you're talking about.
Quote:
…it's impossible to SEE a single pixel because you don't get that close to the screen.
Hey. Guess what. That's the idea.
Quote:
Worse, do you fanboys realize that there is NO mode that lets you show video or pictures at FULL SCREEN resolution.
Except for full screen mode. On every application. And, you know, QuickTime, iTunes, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, and iPhoto's functions.
For better or worse, Apple is ruthless when it comes to eliminating products that don't generate desired revenue / profit.
I dunno, it seems like sometimes the choices are kinda arbitrary, or based on the mood/preferences of one of the small handful of decision makers at Apple. I'll bet Apple made more profit on the small quantity of 17" MBPs they sold than they've realized from the Apple TV, yet the latter survives because Apple management is curious about the TV market, despite the fact that it's an area with a very small chance of making any serious coin (as evidenced by three years of losses at Sony).
I think Apple drops products when the bigshots lose interest in them. Sometimes that may be because buyers don't respond, other times it may be because building them would require attention they'd rather devote to other things. Obviously bottom line is a consideration, but I get the feeling it's farther down the list than other issues.
One thing that's VERY obvious is that Apple is absolutely banking on the bizarre loyalty exhibited by its customers. They KNOW that even angry Apple buyers continue to buy Apple products, so there's really no reason for them to worry about upsetting smaller market segments. Maybe if we quit accepting whatever they offer as "close enough, I'll adjust" and instead buy something else they will become more responsive. Or, more likely, they'll continue to make $billions on iDevices and not really notice that their traditional market of content creators has gone elsewhere.
…it's impossible to SEE a single pixel because you don't get that close to the screen.
Hey. Guess what. That's the idea.
-----------------
YOU ALREADY CAN'T SEE A PIXEL ON A COMPUTER MONITOR. MAKING SOMETHING ALREADY INVISIBLE "MORE" INVISIBLE DOES NOTHING! The image isn't going to look any clearer. In fact, it will look less clear with artifacts because of 4X upscaling. You can never get "better" from "worse." You can make something bigger, but the source is still small.
--------------------------
"On every application. And, you [sic] know, QuickTime, iTunes, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, and iPhoto's functions."
These are Apple's toy applications. They give them away free. They are certainly not "EVERY" pro application -- by far. Safe to say very few pro's use iPhoto and iTunes. Aperture has been dead for years. Apple killed FCP.
But, your response proves my point -- the uneducated love hype even if they don't understand it. And, you clearly do not understand Retina technology. You just believe in it.
PS: the only use for QT is to view internet video. How many 2.5K movies do you watch?
That's exactly what I'm thinking. There just must be a misunderstanding somewhere.
Quote:
YOU ALREADY CAN'T SEE A PIXEL ON A COMPUTER MONITOR. MAKING SOMETHING ALREADY INVISIBLE "MORE" INVISIBLE DOES NOTHING!
Incorrect. And incorrect.
Quote:
In fact, it will look less clear with artifacts because of 4X upscaling.
Perhaps, on applications that aren't updated. But that becomes moot when you realize apps are going to be updated.
Quote:
These are Apple's toy applications. They give them away free. They are certainly not "EVERY" pro application -- by far. Safe to say very few pro's use iPhoto and iTunes. Aperture has been dead for years. Apple killed FCP.
Oh, I'm sorry, did you want us to respond to that? Come back when you're not a troll and have a coherent argument.
They kept it for sale the last time there was a case update. This isn't happening. Don't expect it. Don't make purchasing decisions based on it.
Maybe they are out of them?
You don't really know any more than the other people here.
Some rumors state that the 17" is expected in the Fall. Maybe that will happen, maybe not. But don't go claiming you know anything more than anyone else here. Because you don't, unless your name is Tim Cook Or Jony Ives.
The retina display does make a big difference. Even though you cannot see the pixels unless you get really close to the screen, a higher pixel count makes fore much sharper text and images. I would really appreciate a retina display on the 17 inch to come. I know when I purchased a iPad 3 with retina display, it was phenomenal. The imaging and text were surreal. The technology vanished. There was not pixelization at all. I want this experience on the mac book pro 17 inch.
I don't pretend to know about everybody else, but when I need to see pixels, I tend to sit close enough where I can see the pixels. I normally use two or three 24" displays, each 1920x1080 or 1920x1200, unless I'm on the road. And I tend to sit about 12" away from the display I am focusing on. It's a fairly high-resolution setup, but I can still see pixels.
With 4x the pixels, I might actually be able to ignore specific pixels - alas, even Retina doesn't actually give 4x the pixels, not when comparing a 2800x1800 display with a 1920x1200 one, only a little over double. Better, but not there yet.
As far as pixel-accurate vs interpolated graphics goes, it would be a pretty poor "professional" program to which I provide a 1920x1080 image but it gives me a full-size preview using an upscaled low-res thumbnail. If I am displaying an image at 100% scale, it had better not be interpolated. If I'm upscaling from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, the "interpolation" is easy to do without artifacts - just use four pixels instead of one, doubling both dimensions. If the program wants to apply smoothing, that's fine - as an option, since sometimes I want the actual original image.
However, a 30% upscale must necessarily introduce artifacts. An angled line that was smooth now has a jagged edge, since only 3 out of 10 pixels are doubled. Attempts at artificially smoothing these lines will affect the original image, which is why upscaled images often appear fuzzy. Either 25% or 50% will be significantly smoother than 30%, with an even 1 in 4 increase or every other pixel. It's not perfect, but at least it's even. Of course, many programs want to overly smooth the upscaled image even with a size multiple, and that feature may need to be disabled in some cases.
I guess the bottom line is that a Retina display is actually a higher-resolution display. It's not a fake spec, like 300hz TVs use, only allowing the source to provide 60fps. It does give a better image quality, and only interpolates when the image is lower-resolution than the display. If the display only accepted a 1400*900 image and upscaled it, that would be a different (and disappointing) matter.
I agree with ditching optical, etc., but ditching the 17 inch laptop is a boneheaded move. The 17 inch platform is PERFECT for a retina display. You can fit far more windows filled with crisp, readable text without the text having to tiny small print like you see on the back of an aspirin bottle. I'm now going to be looking to move away from Apple products and will purchase a 17 inch laptop from other hardware manufactures that increase resolution of their 17 inch laptops and "get it". I may at first try the hackintosh route, but I'm already preparing to move from Apple entirely and switching to Ubuntu Linux.
Apple done goofed. I will also after 20+ years of basically evangelizing Macs to countless people cease and desist from those activities. I will recommend a more stable platform to all my clients, friends and family in the future. If this is simply a supply issue and Apple plans on releasing 17 inch retina display laptops in the future, then they'd better come clean quick, because I have work to do and I throughly resent these distractions from Apple by being so wishy washy and dishonest about this. Apple is looking more and more like an unstable platform for professionals.
I will also move away from iPods, iPads, iPhone or any other Apple products as well. This is the final straw.
I'm hoping that this move by Apple will encourage other manufacturers to use higher-resolution displays.
1920x1200 was fairly common on 24" displays, and even some smaller laptops, for a brief while, but when HD TV standardized on 1920x1080, much of the hardware stagnated there. I had a Dell laptop with a 15.4" display that was 1920x1200. I loved the display, alas, the rest of the computer was lacking. Maybe some Windows 8 models will have 3840x2160 displays.
Which brings up another noticeable omission from this model - No touchscreen? Only a multitouch trackpad? Isn't the next OS supposed to allow iOS-style apps? They're introducing an iPhone/iPad-style Retina display, but not the touchscreen. Not yet, anyway.
Oh come on -- you are now into a world of technical nonsense.
I'm looking right a 21.5" 1920x1080 iMac at 18-inches. There are no pixels -- only objects. At 12-inchs, on a pure shade of gray, I can see pixels. Not very well, but you can see their structure.
Now YOU answer -- who puts their nose 12-inches from a 21.5 inch monitor?
NO ONE! We will look at such monitor from 18-inches. So Retina makes each pixel 1/4th the size. Once again, you'll not be able to see a pixel at 18-inches. (True, you'll now be able to look at the monitor from 12-inches and not see pixels, but who would do this?) You, tell me if you look at any COMPUTER screen this close?
But, what about a laptop. You might look at it only 12-inches. Won't I see pixels? Of course not because as the screen shrunk from 21.5" to 17" BY DEFINITION the physical pixel -- for 1920x1080 -- must have also shrunk in size. So now at 12-inches the pixels are already too tiny to be seen.
So Retina has no PRACTICAL value. None.
------
But, because of the 4X upscale -- the interpolation causes a loss in image quality. Have you enough schooling to understand interpolation? Making 1 large pixel into 4 small pixels does nothing. (Gee, I have one big blue pixel and I'll turn it into 4 tiny blue pixels that are THE SAME SIZE AS THE PIXEL I ALREADY HAD! The fundamental Retina model is that everything remains the same size. A 500x500 image becomes a 2000x2000 pixels where all pixels are one-quarter the size. Same size. No additional information fits on the screen -- UNLESS you don't scale it up as much so in fact you've now simply made everything smaller.]
Moreover, 4X more pixels to generate and move -- so much lower graphics performance. Which is why companies will not rapidly upgrade just to help Apple sell one VERY expensive Retina laptop. Why do they want worse quality and slower performance from their pro applications? They lose more than they can gain. They'll simply run in compatibility mode which does nothing better.
Time for you to stop BSing with your naming calling "we don't understand" and demonstrate HOW we are wrong. No cheating by using Apple marketing BS. Post some independent technical information. Show you are smart enough to post here.
Second, if they didn't sell enough to exist, too bad. It must be the screen size that the pros (both of them)
Quote:
Originally Posted by drekka
I remember reading that Apple only sold around 50,000 unit per year of the 17".
While I don't have specific fact/figures, I find it odd that people say 17" laptops are only for pros and there are such low sales. I have 4 neices in college. Three of them have 17" laptops (1 MBP, 2 PC) and the 4th an 15" MBP. They all have smartphones, none have tablets (of any kind). They rely on jobs and student loans to get through college, so it's not mom & dad buying them the larger laptops.
I agree the market for 17" laptops is small compared to smaller sizes, but citing such low sales figures just seems strange to me.
Oh come on -- you are now into a world of technical nonsense.
I'm looking right a 21.5" 1920x1080 iMac at 18-inches. There are no pixels -- only objects. At 12-inchs, on a pure shade of gray, I can see pixels. Not very well, but you can see their structure.
Now YOU answer -- who puts their nose 12-inches from a 21.5 inch monitor?
NO ONE! We will look at such monitor from 18-inches. So Retina makes each pixel 1/4th the size. Once again, you'll not be able to see a pixel at 18-inches. (True, you'll now be able to look at the monitor from 12-inches and not see pixels, but who would do this?) You, tell me if you look at any COMPUTER screen this close?
But, what about a laptop. You might look at it only 12-inches. Won't I see pixels? Of course not because as the screen shrunk from 21.5" to 17" BY DEFINITION the physical pixel -- for 1920x1080 -- must have also shrunk in size. So now at 12-inches the pixels are already too tiny to be seen.
So Retina has no PRACTICAL value. None.
------
But, because of the 4X upscale -- the interpolation causes a loss in image quality. Have you enough schooling to understand interpolation? Making 1 large pixel into 4 small pixels does nothing. (Gee, I have one big blue pixel and I'll turn it into 4 tiny blue pixels that are THE SAME SIZE AS THE PIXEL I ALREADY HAD! The fundamental Retina model is that everything remains the same size. A 500x500 image becomes a 2000x2000 pixels where all pixels are one-quarter the size. Same size. No additional information fits on the screen -- UNLESS you don't scale it up as much so in fact you've now simply made everything smaller.]
Moreover, 4X more pixels to generate and move -- so much lower graphics performance. Which is why companies will not rapidly upgrade just to help Apple sell one VERY expensive Retina laptop. Why do they want worse quality and slower performance from their pro applications? They lose more than they can gain. They'll simply run in compatibility mode which does nothing better.
Time for you to stop BSing with your naming calling "we don't understand" and demonstrate HOW we are wrong. No cheating by using Apple marketing BS. Post some independent technical information. Show you are smart enough to post here.
I do. As I posted earlier, I sit about 12" away from a 24" 1920x1200 display. And maybe 18" from a second one, and 24" from a third. I see the pixels, at least somewhat. I see roughness in angled lines, like those in this text.
And using a higher-resolution display does not inherently mean any interpolation. Instead of that 500x500 image, you can now use a 2000x2000 image - with "more information". Any dynamically-generated content, like text or vector graphics, will generate the graphics for the higher-resolution display, hence "more information."
However I always consider the laptops, mac mini's etc, but I'm waiting for USB3+TB+PCIe3 before I consider the Pro. There's no PCIe3 in the mini, so it' drops down the list of what I want to buy, and that leaves the MacBook Pro.
But I think Apple made a mistake with removing the Ethernet port and not adding another TB port at least. If you're capturing video you're going to have some combination of monitors, cameras and hard drives, and not all of those are going to run on the same bus and play nice.
What does the Mini need PCIe 3 for? Apple doesn't buy SSDs that are fast enough to max out PCIe 2, so no worries there. You have FW and TB running their own direct lines. Getting inside a Mini to swap a hard drive is a PITA. I'm missing the use case.
The Retina has 2 TB. you can chain a lot of things that way. Each of those will do 20Gb each direction simultaneously. I think w/2 of those running you will be able to run what you need to, plus you can run the HDMI port out to a monitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthorim
Well you can set the new retina MBP 15" to 1920x1200 if you want - it's one of the modes. Anandtech has screenshots of that, they look absolutely stunning, way better than I thought it would look.
Hahaha about the backpack comment, I gave up looking for a new, nice, small-as-possible, soft bag for my MBP17 - there's nothing out. I have a very nice backpack, AXIO, which is large enough, but need a shoulder bag so I can stuff it in a motorbike pannier. No dice. There's bags available of course, but almost all of them are designed for those MONSTER 17" PC laptops which are the size of a small fridge. All of the bags I found were just fugly. So now... on to the new 15" and I can probably still sell this 3 year old 17" MBP for close to $1000. Amazing, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic
One thought, is the Retina display one available in a matte finish?
Not full on matte, but Apple did say they have reduced glare on the Retina screen by 75%. I think that was Retina only. I'll be happy to be corrected and told it was the whole MBP line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthorim
Hahaha about the backpack comment, I gave up looking for a new, nice, small-as-possible, soft bag for my MBP17 - there's nothing out. I have a very nice backpack, AXIO, which is large enough, but need a shoulder bag so I can stuff it in a motorbike pannier. No dice. There's bags available of course, but almost all of them are designed for those MONSTER 17" PC laptops which are the size of a small fridge. All of the bags I found were just fugly.
A 17" with a 3091x1987 pixel display (extrapolated from the 15.4" model's resolution) would be nice. It's interesting that they went with a 14x9 aspect ratio - maybe to allow 16x9 video plus controls above or below?
They didn't, it's 16*10. 2880*1800. 1800/10=180. 180*16=2880. That is exactly the reason Apple has had 16x10 so often over the years instead of a more standard 16x9. BTW, the 17" would be 3840x2400, double the 17" MBP's 1920x1200. Which is also 16x10. Extrapolating pixel count from the screen diagonal isn't how it's done. There are screens of so many different sizes w/the same resolution numbers out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Pollard
With 4x the pixels, I might actually be able to ignore specific pixels - alas, even Retina doesn't actually give 4x the pixels, not when comparing a 2800x1800 display with a 1920x1200 one, only a little over double. Better, but not there yet.
2,304,000 vs 5,184,000 or 125% more pixels. It is 4x the pixels over the resolution that was the previous base for the 15" MBP (1440x900). 1,764,000 vs 5,184,000 or 193.88% more pixels over the 1680x1050 upgraded 15" MBP screen.
I'm hoping that this move by Apple will encourage other manufacturers to use higher-resolution displays.
1920x1200 was fairly common on 24" displays, and even some smaller laptops, for a brief while, but when HD TV standardized on 1920x1080, much of the hardware stagnated there. I had a Dell laptop with a 15.4" display that was 1920x1200. I loved the display, alas, the rest of the computer was lacking. Maybe some Windows 8 models will have 3840x2160 displays.
Which brings up another noticeable omission from this model - No touchscreen? Only a multitouch trackpad? Isn't the next OS supposed to allow iOS-style apps? They're introducing an iPhone/iPad-style Retina display, but not the touchscreen. Not yet, anyway.
It has to be supported by the OS. I can't see windows 8 suddenly adopting this out of the blue, but i can see them trying to clone it in windows 9.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by BahHumbug
Everyone who thinks turning 1 pixel in 4 improves CLARITY needs to understand that Retina only makes each pixel physically smaller. That's it. All this hype over tinier pixels.
You need to stop talking until you do some research on what you're talking about.
Quote:
…it's impossible to SEE a single pixel because you don't get that close to the screen.
Hey. Guess what. That's the idea.
Quote:
Worse, do you fanboys realize that there is NO mode that lets you show video or pictures at FULL SCREEN resolution.
Except for full screen mode. On every application. And, you know, QuickTime, iTunes, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, and iPhoto's functions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mn3416
For better or worse, Apple is ruthless when it comes to eliminating products that don't generate desired revenue / profit.
I dunno, it seems like sometimes the choices are kinda arbitrary, or based on the mood/preferences of one of the small handful of decision makers at Apple. I'll bet Apple made more profit on the small quantity of 17" MBPs they sold than they've realized from the Apple TV, yet the latter survives because Apple management is curious about the TV market, despite the fact that it's an area with a very small chance of making any serious coin (as evidenced by three years of losses at Sony).
I think Apple drops products when the bigshots lose interest in them. Sometimes that may be because buyers don't respond, other times it may be because building them would require attention they'd rather devote to other things. Obviously bottom line is a consideration, but I get the feeling it's farther down the list than other issues.
One thing that's VERY obvious is that Apple is absolutely banking on the bizarre loyalty exhibited by its customers. They KNOW that even angry Apple buyers continue to buy Apple products, so there's really no reason for them to worry about upsetting smaller market segments. Maybe if we quit accepting whatever they offer as "close enough, I'll adjust" and instead buy something else they will become more responsive. Or, more likely, they'll continue to make $billions on iDevices and not really notice that their traditional market of content creators has gone elsewhere.
You can't be this dumb.
Quote:
…it's impossible to SEE a single pixel because you don't get that close to the screen.
Hey. Guess what. That's the idea.
-----------------
YOU ALREADY CAN'T SEE A PIXEL ON A COMPUTER MONITOR. MAKING SOMETHING ALREADY INVISIBLE "MORE" INVISIBLE DOES NOTHING! The image isn't going to look any clearer. In fact, it will look less clear with artifacts because of 4X upscaling. You can never get "better" from "worse." You can make something bigger, but the source is still small.
--------------------------
"On every application. And, you [sic] know, QuickTime, iTunes, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, and iPhoto's functions."
These are Apple's toy applications. They give them away free. They are certainly not "EVERY" pro application -- by far. Safe to say very few pro's use iPhoto and iTunes. Aperture has been dead for years. Apple killed FCP.
But, your response proves my point -- the uneducated love hype even if they don't understand it. And, you clearly do not understand Retina technology. You just believe in it.
PS: the only use for QT is to view internet video. How many 2.5K movies do you watch?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BahHumbug
You can't be this dumb.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. There just must be a misunderstanding somewhere.
Quote:
YOU ALREADY CAN'T SEE A PIXEL ON A COMPUTER MONITOR. MAKING SOMETHING ALREADY INVISIBLE "MORE" INVISIBLE DOES NOTHING!
Incorrect. And incorrect.
Quote:
In fact, it will look less clear with artifacts because of 4X upscaling.
Perhaps, on applications that aren't updated. But that becomes moot when you realize apps are going to be updated.
Quote:
These are Apple's toy applications. They give them away free. They are certainly not "EVERY" pro application -- by far. Safe to say very few pro's use iPhoto and iTunes. Aperture has been dead for years. Apple killed FCP.
Oh, I'm sorry, did you want us to respond to that? Come back when you're not a troll and have a coherent argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They kept it for sale the last time there was a case update. This isn't happening. Don't expect it. Don't make purchasing decisions based on it.
Maybe they are out of them?
You don't really know any more than the other people here.
Some rumors state that the 17" is expected in the Fall. Maybe that will happen, maybe not. But don't go claiming you know anything more than anyone else here. Because you don't, unless your name is Tim Cook Or Jony Ives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadbag
Maybe they are out of them?
You're grasping.
But is not everything going to be smaller?
Dear. Mr. BahHumbug
The retina display does make a big difference. Even though you cannot see the pixels unless you get really close to the screen, a higher pixel count makes fore much sharper text and images. I would really appreciate a retina display on the 17 inch to come. I know when I purchased a iPad 3 with retina display, it was phenomenal. The imaging and text were surreal. The technology vanished. There was not pixelization at all. I want this experience on the mac book pro 17 inch.
deleted
I don't pretend to know about everybody else, but when I need to see pixels, I tend to sit close enough where I can see the pixels. I normally use two or three 24" displays, each 1920x1080 or 1920x1200, unless I'm on the road. And I tend to sit about 12" away from the display I am focusing on. It's a fairly high-resolution setup, but I can still see pixels.
With 4x the pixels, I might actually be able to ignore specific pixels - alas, even Retina doesn't actually give 4x the pixels, not when comparing a 2800x1800 display with a 1920x1200 one, only a little over double. Better, but not there yet.
As far as pixel-accurate vs interpolated graphics goes, it would be a pretty poor "professional" program to which I provide a 1920x1080 image but it gives me a full-size preview using an upscaled low-res thumbnail. If I am displaying an image at 100% scale, it had better not be interpolated. If I'm upscaling from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, the "interpolation" is easy to do without artifacts - just use four pixels instead of one, doubling both dimensions. If the program wants to apply smoothing, that's fine - as an option, since sometimes I want the actual original image.
However, a 30% upscale must necessarily introduce artifacts. An angled line that was smooth now has a jagged edge, since only 3 out of 10 pixels are doubled. Attempts at artificially smoothing these lines will affect the original image, which is why upscaled images often appear fuzzy. Either 25% or 50% will be significantly smoother than 30%, with an even 1 in 4 increase or every other pixel. It's not perfect, but at least it's even. Of course, many programs want to overly smooth the upscaled image even with a size multiple, and that feature may need to be disabled in some cases.
I guess the bottom line is that a Retina display is actually a higher-resolution display. It's not a fake spec, like 300hz TVs use, only allowing the source to provide 60fps. It does give a better image quality, and only interpolates when the image is lower-resolution than the display. If the display only accepted a 1400*900 image and upscaled it, that would be a different (and disappointing) matter.
I agree with ditching optical, etc., but ditching the 17 inch laptop is a boneheaded move. The 17 inch platform is PERFECT for a retina display. You can fit far more windows filled with crisp, readable text without the text having to tiny small print like you see on the back of an aspirin bottle. I'm now going to be looking to move away from Apple products and will purchase a 17 inch laptop from other hardware manufactures that increase resolution of their 17 inch laptops and "get it". I may at first try the hackintosh route, but I'm already preparing to move from Apple entirely and switching to Ubuntu Linux.
Apple done goofed. I will also after 20+ years of basically evangelizing Macs to countless people cease and desist from those activities. I will recommend a more stable platform to all my clients, friends and family in the future. If this is simply a supply issue and Apple plans on releasing 17 inch retina display laptops in the future, then they'd better come clean quick, because I have work to do and I throughly resent these distractions from Apple by being so wishy washy and dishonest about this. Apple is looking more and more like an unstable platform for professionals.
I will also move away from iPods, iPads, iPhone or any other Apple products as well. This is the final straw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Stallone
I will also move away from iPods, iPads, iPhone or any other Apple products as well. This is the final straw.
I love the people who make accounts just to say they'll never use Apple products again.
I'm hoping that this move by Apple will encourage other manufacturers to use higher-resolution displays.
1920x1200 was fairly common on 24" displays, and even some smaller laptops, for a brief while, but when HD TV standardized on 1920x1080, much of the hardware stagnated there. I had a Dell laptop with a 15.4" display that was 1920x1200. I loved the display, alas, the rest of the computer was lacking. Maybe some Windows 8 models will have 3840x2160 displays.
Which brings up another noticeable omission from this model - No touchscreen? Only a multitouch trackpad? Isn't the next OS supposed to allow iOS-style apps? They're introducing an iPhone/iPad-style Retina display, but not the touchscreen. Not yet, anyway.
Oh come on -- you are now into a world of technical nonsense.
I'm looking right a 21.5" 1920x1080 iMac at 18-inches. There are no pixels -- only objects. At 12-inchs, on a pure shade of gray, I can see pixels. Not very well, but you can see their structure.
Now YOU answer -- who puts their nose 12-inches from a 21.5 inch monitor?
NO ONE! We will look at such monitor from 18-inches. So Retina makes each pixel 1/4th the size. Once again, you'll not be able to see a pixel at 18-inches. (True, you'll now be able to look at the monitor from 12-inches and not see pixels, but who would do this?) You, tell me if you look at any COMPUTER screen this close?
But, what about a laptop. You might look at it only 12-inches. Won't I see pixels? Of course not because as the screen shrunk from 21.5" to 17" BY DEFINITION the physical pixel -- for 1920x1080 -- must have also shrunk in size. So now at 12-inches the pixels are already too tiny to be seen.
So Retina has no PRACTICAL value. None.
------
But, because of the 4X upscale -- the interpolation causes a loss in image quality. Have you enough schooling to understand interpolation? Making 1 large pixel into 4 small pixels does nothing. (Gee, I have one big blue pixel and I'll turn it into 4 tiny blue pixels that are THE SAME SIZE AS THE PIXEL I ALREADY HAD! The fundamental Retina model is that everything remains the same size. A 500x500 image becomes a 2000x2000 pixels where all pixels are one-quarter the size. Same size. No additional information fits on the screen -- UNLESS you don't scale it up as much so in fact you've now simply made everything smaller.]
Moreover, 4X more pixels to generate and move -- so much lower graphics performance. Which is why companies will not rapidly upgrade just to help Apple sell one VERY expensive Retina laptop. Why do they want worse quality and slower performance from their pro applications? They lose more than they can gain. They'll simply run in compatibility mode which does nothing better.
Time for you to stop BSing with your naming calling "we don't understand" and demonstrate HOW we are wrong. No cheating by using Apple marketing BS. Post some independent technical information. Show you are smart enough to post here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
Second, if they didn't sell enough to exist, too bad. It must be the screen size that the pros (both of them)
Quote:
Originally Posted by drekka
I remember reading that Apple only sold around 50,000 unit per year of the 17".
While I don't have specific fact/figures, I find it odd that people say 17" laptops are only for pros and there are such low sales. I have 4 neices in college. Three of them have 17" laptops (1 MBP, 2 PC) and the 4th an 15" MBP. They all have smartphones, none have tablets (of any kind). They rely on jobs and student loans to get through college, so it's not mom & dad buying them the larger laptops.
I agree the market for 17" laptops is small compared to smaller sizes, but citing such low sales figures just seems strange to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BahHumbug
Oh come on -- you are now into a world of technical nonsense.
I'm looking right a 21.5" 1920x1080 iMac at 18-inches. There are no pixels -- only objects. At 12-inchs, on a pure shade of gray, I can see pixels. Not very well, but you can see their structure.
Now YOU answer -- who puts their nose 12-inches from a 21.5 inch monitor?
NO ONE! We will look at such monitor from 18-inches. So Retina makes each pixel 1/4th the size. Once again, you'll not be able to see a pixel at 18-inches. (True, you'll now be able to look at the monitor from 12-inches and not see pixels, but who would do this?) You, tell me if you look at any COMPUTER screen this close?
But, what about a laptop. You might look at it only 12-inches. Won't I see pixels? Of course not because as the screen shrunk from 21.5" to 17" BY DEFINITION the physical pixel -- for 1920x1080 -- must have also shrunk in size. So now at 12-inches the pixels are already too tiny to be seen.
So Retina has no PRACTICAL value. None.
------
But, because of the 4X upscale -- the interpolation causes a loss in image quality. Have you enough schooling to understand interpolation? Making 1 large pixel into 4 small pixels does nothing. (Gee, I have one big blue pixel and I'll turn it into 4 tiny blue pixels that are THE SAME SIZE AS THE PIXEL I ALREADY HAD! The fundamental Retina model is that everything remains the same size. A 500x500 image becomes a 2000x2000 pixels where all pixels are one-quarter the size. Same size. No additional information fits on the screen -- UNLESS you don't scale it up as much so in fact you've now simply made everything smaller.]
Moreover, 4X more pixels to generate and move -- so much lower graphics performance. Which is why companies will not rapidly upgrade just to help Apple sell one VERY expensive Retina laptop. Why do they want worse quality and slower performance from their pro applications? They lose more than they can gain. They'll simply run in compatibility mode which does nothing better.
Time for you to stop BSing with your naming calling "we don't understand" and demonstrate HOW we are wrong. No cheating by using Apple marketing BS. Post some independent technical information. Show you are smart enough to post here.
I do. As I posted earlier, I sit about 12" away from a 24" 1920x1200 display. And maybe 18" from a second one, and 24" from a third. I see the pixels, at least somewhat. I see roughness in angled lines, like those in this text.
And using a higher-resolution display does not inherently mean any interpolation. Instead of that 500x500 image, you can now use a 2000x2000 image - with "more information". Any dynamically-generated content, like text or vector graphics, will generate the graphics for the higher-resolution display, hence "more information."
EDIT: It seems he has deleted his post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa
However I always consider the laptops, mac mini's etc, but I'm waiting for USB3+TB+PCIe3 before I consider the Pro. There's no PCIe3 in the mini, so it' drops down the list of what I want to buy, and that leaves the MacBook Pro.
But I think Apple made a mistake with removing the Ethernet port and not adding another TB port at least. If you're capturing video you're going to have some combination of monitors, cameras and hard drives, and not all of those are going to run on the same bus and play nice.
What does the Mini need PCIe 3 for? Apple doesn't buy SSDs that are fast enough to max out PCIe 2, so no worries there. You have FW and TB running their own direct lines. Getting inside a Mini to swap a hard drive is a PITA. I'm missing the use case.
The Retina has 2 TB. you can chain a lot of things that way. Each of those will do 20Gb each direction simultaneously. I think w/2 of those running you will be able to run what you need to, plus you can run the HDMI port out to a monitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthorim
Well you can set the new retina MBP 15" to 1920x1200 if you want - it's one of the modes. Anandtech has screenshots of that, they look absolutely stunning, way better than I thought it would look.
Hahaha about the backpack comment, I gave up looking for a new, nice, small-as-possible, soft bag for my MBP17 - there's nothing out. I have a very nice backpack, AXIO, which is large enough, but need a shoulder bag so I can stuff it in a motorbike pannier. No dice. There's bags available of course, but almost all of them are designed for those MONSTER 17" PC laptops which are the size of a small fridge. All of the bags I found were just fugly. So now... on to the new 15" and I can probably still sell this 3 year old 17" MBP for close to $1000. Amazing, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic
One thought, is the Retina display one available in a matte finish?
Not full on matte, but Apple did say they have reduced glare on the Retina screen by 75%. I think that was Retina only. I'll be happy to be corrected and told it was the whole MBP line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthorim
Hahaha about the backpack comment, I gave up looking for a new, nice, small-as-possible, soft bag for my MBP17 - there's nothing out. I have a very nice backpack, AXIO, which is large enough, but need a shoulder bag so I can stuff it in a motorbike pannier. No dice. There's bags available of course, but almost all of them are designed for those MONSTER 17" PC laptops which are the size of a small fridge. All of the bags I found were just fugly.
Waterfield Designs. sfbags.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Pollard
A 17" with a 3091x1987 pixel display (extrapolated from the 15.4" model's resolution) would be nice. It's interesting that they went with a 14x9 aspect ratio - maybe to allow 16x9 video plus controls above or below?
They didn't, it's 16*10. 2880*1800. 1800/10=180. 180*16=2880. That is exactly the reason Apple has had 16x10 so often over the years instead of a more standard 16x9. BTW, the 17" would be 3840x2400, double the 17" MBP's 1920x1200. Which is also 16x10. Extrapolating pixel count from the screen diagonal isn't how it's done. There are screens of so many different sizes w/the same resolution numbers out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Pollard
With 4x the pixels, I might actually be able to ignore specific pixels - alas, even Retina doesn't actually give 4x the pixels, not when comparing a 2800x1800 display with a 1920x1200 one, only a little over double. Better, but not there yet.
2,304,000 vs 5,184,000 or 125% more pixels. It is 4x the pixels over the resolution that was the previous base for the 15" MBP (1440x900). 1,764,000 vs 5,184,000 or 193.88% more pixels over the 1680x1050 upgraded 15" MBP screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Good riddance.
what kind of ridiculous comment is that? Especially from someone with the screen name apple 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Pollard
I'm hoping that this move by Apple will encourage other manufacturers to use higher-resolution displays.
1920x1200 was fairly common on 24" displays, and even some smaller laptops, for a brief while, but when HD TV standardized on 1920x1080, much of the hardware stagnated there. I had a Dell laptop with a 15.4" display that was 1920x1200. I loved the display, alas, the rest of the computer was lacking. Maybe some Windows 8 models will have 3840x2160 displays.
Which brings up another noticeable omission from this model - No touchscreen? Only a multitouch trackpad? Isn't the next OS supposed to allow iOS-style apps? They're introducing an iPhone/iPad-style Retina display, but not the touchscreen. Not yet, anyway.
It has to be supported by the OS. I can't see windows 8 suddenly adopting this out of the blue, but i can see them trying to clone it in windows 9.