Where is touch ID with multiuser login by fingerprint? This would make a nice impact on security and usability.
Why it isn't in apple laptops yet I don't really understand unless it is about production bottlenecks.
I will still holdout for more power savvy next generation intel chips (hopefully next year?).
Higher display quality I would NOT want since retina looks great already. I wouldn't want to further compromise on battery life.
I can't wait for a more cloud based integrated system with iOS improved seamlessness. I don't want to have to use dropbox, i prefer a comprehensive, os-level solution which yosemite seems to have. Touch ID should make cloud computing safer also I would think. Touch ID would certainly make me feel better about financial and personal info on my device without the hassle of complex password.
That's a great point, or even Touch ID on an Apple mouse for us desktop users. I would also like to see built in LTE modems, I find WiFi spots too congested; besides, I prefer the freedom of a modem and dislike USB dingbats attached to my laptop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quality doesn’t mean pixelage. It’d mean moving to H-IPS.
I think he meant higher quality Image (sharper edges smoother lines) due to a higher density display.
I think he meant higher quality Image (sharper edges smoother lines) due to a higher density display.
I know what he meant, and that’s silly. There’s no reason for more pixels, and so the only measure of better quality that matters wouldn’t really affect battery or performance.
At this point, the retina MBP15 is just about the most perfect computer that human beings have created.
The rMBP15 still seems to have issues with heat, which seriously affects its longevity in a negative way. We have just seen nvidiagate, radeongate and MeltBook Pro: as long as apple doesn't address quality concerns, this hardware is just another sad example of form over function.
I know what he meant, and that’s silly. There’s no reason for more pixels, and so the only measure of better quality that matters wouldn’t really affect battery or performance.
There may still be room for improvement in sharpness by way of increased density. The "retina" logic isn't really how your eye works. It's greatly simplified and only meant to predict at what point you would no longer be able to see individual pixels or aliasing. A difference in quality may still be possible, but you would just have to add so much to see any benefit. I think working on glare reduction with their screen coatings was a step in the right direction. You may see more work there. You may see attempts to better stabilize color drift. You may see attempts to improve warmup time or better compensate for panel non-uniformity. All of those topics are areas of active research, so I suspect Apple pays some kind of attention to them.
There may still be room for improvement in sharpness by way of increased density. The "retina" logic isn't really how your eye works. It's greatly simplified and only meant to predict at what point you would no longer be able to see individual pixels or aliasing. A difference in quality may still be possible, but you would just have to add so much to see any benefit. I think working on glare reduction with their screen coatings was a step in the right direction. You may see more work there. You may see attempts to better stabilize color drift. You may see attempts to improve warmup time or better compensate for panel non-uniformity. All of those topics are areas of active research, so I suspect Apple pays some kind of attention to them.
Of all the displays I have one my Apple devices, the 15" rMBP display is by far the nicest looking of them, followed by the 3rd gen iPad (the color/pixel density combination on the larger retina iPads are quite amazing) and then my Thunderbolt display. Even though the TB display has a lower pixel density than every other Apple display I have at the moment, from where I have it sitting on my desk relative to my eyes, I can't make out individual pixels.
What's really amazing to me is that on my Retina iPad mini how off the colors really are. In day to day usage, it's okay. But as soon as I grab the old 3rd gen, the color difference is immediately noticeable. And to my eyes, my iPhone 5 has similar color characteristics as the iPad mini. I happen to have the same background on both devices and I don't notice any differences when I switch between them. So there is a lot of room still to improve on the displays. But I'm not sure how much more Apple can squeeze out of the 15" display. It seems like it's approaching diminishing returns at this point.
One thing I would like to see more work on is use of adaptive sync technology to finally make tearing a thing of the past. That's an area where it would make a huge difference in the perception of the quality of the display, IMO. Hopefully we'll start seeing that roll out across the entire product line eventually.
Of all the displays I have one my Apple devices, the 15" rMBP display is by far the nicest looking of them, followed by the 3rd gen iPad (the color/pixel density combination on the larger retina iPads are quite amazing) and then my Thunderbolt display. Even though the TB display has a lower pixel density than every other Apple display I have at the moment, from where I have it sitting on my desk relative to my eyes, I can't make out individual pixels.
It's my favorite out of all notebook displays. HP used their dreamcolor branding on a couple older notebook displays. Those are probably runner ups for me, even though the desktop dreamcolor displays had problems. Both were extremely expensive. Most of what I would consider the best displays I've seen were designed with professional use in mind by companies that sell full solutions aimed at maintaining consistent color, tracking drift, and correlating multiple displays of different ages. That is far more specialized than what Apple produces, but they have a little bit of price overlap toward the low end of it. As of yet we don't have many desktop display options that are as sharp as the retina displays. If I go from using one to the other, I start to notice minor aliasing. I'm not actually a huge fan of the thunderbolt display. For that amount of money I would go with NEC.
Quote:
What's really amazing to me is that on my Retina iPad mini how off the colors really are. In day to day usage, it's okay. But as soon as I grab the old 3rd gen, the color difference is immediately noticeable. And to my eyes, my iPhone 5 has similar color characteristics as the iPad mini. I happen to have the same background on both devices and I don't notice any differences when I switch between them. So there is a lot of room still to improve on the displays. But I'm not sure how much more Apple can squeeze out of the 15" display. It seems like it's approaching diminishing returns at this point.
I've read similar opinions from others about the mini, but comparing one device to another isn't an exact science. The reason for this is that it's not possible to immediately say the other device is "correct". In fact the standard expectations for each device can differ in several areas including reproducible gamut, display gamma, and white point color temperature. I clarify white point, because it can drift somewhat through the display range. While iOS doesn't have explicit color management (unlike OSX) or any system level method of interpreting profiles embedded in image data, I can say that if something looks good on a display that closely parallels sRGB display and reasonably similar on their phone or tablet, they would consider that to be "accurate". It's a fairly involved subject. I just wanted to caution against saying something is more accurate because an image looked better on that display. Apple has used displays across anything from a 6504K white and a (roughly) 8000K white point****, so naturally appearance differs. Also note that the white is defined by a trichomatic max across all three channels. There's no such thing as "neutral", so they quantify it by the color temperature measured at that convergent point.
It's hard to really say a lot more on the subject, because there isn't a universal way of either describing the data or its adaptations. A "perfect" model would be one based upon alignment of spectral data across all devices, but that isn't possible with current technology.
****Edit : Edit: I don't mean to imply those values are exact. 6504K is what is sometimes referred to as D65. The retina macbook pro is right around there. I measured the preceding models (15" and 17" but neither was new) at 8000K with an X-rite i1 display using i1 profiler. Take it with some skepticism, but it was noticeably colder.
Quote:
One thing I would like to see more work on is use of adaptive sync technology to finally make tearing a thing of the past. That's an area where it would make a huge difference in the perception of the quality of the display, IMO. Hopefully we'll start seeing that roll out across the entire product line eventually.
In what way? Issues of juddering relate to the issue of typical video framerates not being a multiple of the display's refresh rates. I can't personally detect most of it when dragging a window around on a notebook, and iOS devices really design around that issue by not really using tabbed interfaces. I guess I'm just curious what you mean by adaptive sync. I tried to guess, but I'm still not 100% sure.
In what way? Issues of juddering relate to the issue of typical video framerates not being a multiple of the display's refresh rates. I can't personally detect most of it when dragging a window around on a notebook, and iOS devices really design around that issue by not really using tabbed interfaces. I guess I'm just curious what you mean by adaptive sync. I tried to guess, but I'm still not 100% sure.
It may just be that I'm more sensitive to tearing, but I've been able to notice it quite a bit, especially in games and especially on larger displays (like the 27" TB/iMac displays). Very rarely will every frame render in an even multiple of the display rate. There are just too many variables. But having the display hold the previous frame until the next is ready completely gets rid of the tearing problem.
It also should lead to better battery life as the GPU won't have to keep feeding the display a frame every 60th of a second or so when nothing has changed on the display. The GPU could actually be put into a lower power state while the display continues to hold the previous frame. This would have implications beyond gaming and also beyond just OS X. iOS devices could also theoretically benefit from this as well.
In what way? Issues of juddering relate to the issue of typical video framerates not being a multiple of the display's refresh rates. I can't personally detect most of it when dragging a window around on a notebook, and iOS devices really design around that issue by not really using tabbed interfaces. I guess I'm just curious what you mean by adaptive sync. I tried to guess, but I'm still not 100% sure.
NVidia has some technology to sync the display and GPU:
Screen tearing is something that should be eliminated entirely to avoid having to use patches like v-sync and unnecessary buffering. I notice it in Windows all the time:
Comments
Who really cares!
Where is touch ID with multiuser login by fingerprint? This would make a nice impact on security and usability.
Why it isn't in apple laptops yet I don't really understand unless it is about production bottlenecks.
I will still holdout for more power savvy next generation intel chips (hopefully next year?).
Higher display quality I would NOT want since retina looks great already. I wouldn't want to further compromise on battery life.
I can't wait for a more cloud based integrated system with iOS improved seamlessness. I don't want to have to use dropbox, i prefer a comprehensive, os-level solution which yosemite seems to have. Touch ID should make cloud computing safer also I would think. Touch ID would certainly make me feel better about financial and personal info on my device without the hassle of complex password.
That's a great point, or even Touch ID on an Apple mouse for us desktop users. I would also like to see built in LTE modems, I find WiFi spots too congested; besides, I prefer the freedom of a modem and dislike USB dingbats attached to my laptop.
Quality doesn’t mean pixelage. It’d mean moving to H-IPS.
I think he meant higher quality Image (sharper edges smoother lines) due to a higher density display.
I think he meant higher quality Image (sharper edges smoother lines) due to a higher density display.
I know what he meant, and that’s silly. There’s no reason for more pixels, and so the only measure of better quality that matters wouldn’t really affect battery or performance.
At this point, the retina MBP15 is just about the most perfect computer that human beings have created.
The rMBP15 still seems to have issues with heat, which seriously affects its longevity in a negative way. We have just seen nvidiagate, radeongate and MeltBook Pro: as long as apple doesn't address quality concerns, this hardware is just another sad example of form over function.
I know what he meant, and that’s silly. There’s no reason for more pixels, and so the only measure of better quality that matters wouldn’t really affect battery or performance.
There may still be room for improvement in sharpness by way of increased density. The "retina" logic isn't really how your eye works. It's greatly simplified and only meant to predict at what point you would no longer be able to see individual pixels or aliasing. A difference in quality may still be possible, but you would just have to add so much to see any benefit. I think working on glare reduction with their screen coatings was a step in the right direction. You may see more work there. You may see attempts to better stabilize color drift. You may see attempts to improve warmup time or better compensate for panel non-uniformity. All of those topics are areas of active research, so I suspect Apple pays some kind of attention to them.
There may still be room for improvement in sharpness by way of increased density. The "retina" logic isn't really how your eye works. It's greatly simplified and only meant to predict at what point you would no longer be able to see individual pixels or aliasing. A difference in quality may still be possible, but you would just have to add so much to see any benefit. I think working on glare reduction with their screen coatings was a step in the right direction. You may see more work there. You may see attempts to better stabilize color drift. You may see attempts to improve warmup time or better compensate for panel non-uniformity. All of those topics are areas of active research, so I suspect Apple pays some kind of attention to them.
Of all the displays I have one my Apple devices, the 15" rMBP display is by far the nicest looking of them, followed by the 3rd gen iPad (the color/pixel density combination on the larger retina iPads are quite amazing) and then my Thunderbolt display. Even though the TB display has a lower pixel density than every other Apple display I have at the moment, from where I have it sitting on my desk relative to my eyes, I can't make out individual pixels.
What's really amazing to me is that on my Retina iPad mini how off the colors really are. In day to day usage, it's okay. But as soon as I grab the old 3rd gen, the color difference is immediately noticeable. And to my eyes, my iPhone 5 has similar color characteristics as the iPad mini. I happen to have the same background on both devices and I don't notice any differences when I switch between them. So there is a lot of room still to improve on the displays. But I'm not sure how much more Apple can squeeze out of the 15" display. It seems like it's approaching diminishing returns at this point.
One thing I would like to see more work on is use of adaptive sync technology to finally make tearing a thing of the past. That's an area where it would make a huge difference in the perception of the quality of the display, IMO. Hopefully we'll start seeing that roll out across the entire product line eventually.
Of all the displays I have one my Apple devices, the 15" rMBP display is by far the nicest looking of them, followed by the 3rd gen iPad (the color/pixel density combination on the larger retina iPads are quite amazing) and then my Thunderbolt display. Even though the TB display has a lower pixel density than every other Apple display I have at the moment, from where I have it sitting on my desk relative to my eyes, I can't make out individual pixels.
It's my favorite out of all notebook displays. HP used their dreamcolor branding on a couple older notebook displays. Those are probably runner ups for me, even though the desktop dreamcolor displays had problems. Both were extremely expensive. Most of what I would consider the best displays I've seen were designed with professional use in mind by companies that sell full solutions aimed at maintaining consistent color, tracking drift, and correlating multiple displays of different ages. That is far more specialized than what Apple produces, but they have a little bit of price overlap toward the low end of it. As of yet we don't have many desktop display options that are as sharp as the retina displays. If I go from using one to the other, I start to notice minor aliasing. I'm not actually a huge fan of the thunderbolt display. For that amount of money I would go with NEC.
I've read similar opinions from others about the mini, but comparing one device to another isn't an exact science. The reason for this is that it's not possible to immediately say the other device is "correct". In fact the standard expectations for each device can differ in several areas including reproducible gamut, display gamma, and white point color temperature. I clarify white point, because it can drift somewhat through the display range. While iOS doesn't have explicit color management (unlike OSX) or any system level method of interpreting profiles embedded in image data, I can say that if something looks good on a display that closely parallels sRGB display and reasonably similar on their phone or tablet, they would consider that to be "accurate". It's a fairly involved subject. I just wanted to caution against saying something is more accurate because an image looked better on that display. Apple has used displays across anything from a 6504K white and a (roughly) 8000K white point****, so naturally appearance differs. Also note that the white is defined by a trichomatic max across all three channels. There's no such thing as "neutral", so they quantify it by the color temperature measured at that convergent point.
It's hard to really say a lot more on the subject, because there isn't a universal way of either describing the data or its adaptations. A "perfect" model would be one based upon alignment of spectral data across all devices, but that isn't possible with current technology.
****Edit : Edit: I don't mean to imply those values are exact. 6504K is what is sometimes referred to as D65. The retina macbook pro is right around there. I measured the preceding models (15" and 17" but neither was new) at 8000K with an X-rite i1 display using i1 profiler. Take it with some skepticism, but it was noticeably colder.
In what way? Issues of juddering relate to the issue of typical video framerates not being a multiple of the display's refresh rates. I can't personally detect most of it when dragging a window around on a notebook, and iOS devices really design around that issue by not really using tabbed interfaces. I guess I'm just curious what you mean by adaptive sync. I tried to guess, but I'm still not 100% sure.
In what way? Issues of juddering relate to the issue of typical video framerates not being a multiple of the display's refresh rates. I can't personally detect most of it when dragging a window around on a notebook, and iOS devices really design around that issue by not really using tabbed interfaces. I guess I'm just curious what you mean by adaptive sync. I tried to guess, but I'm still not 100% sure.
It may just be that I'm more sensitive to tearing, but I've been able to notice it quite a bit, especially in games and especially on larger displays (like the 27" TB/iMac displays). Very rarely will every frame render in an even multiple of the display rate. There are just too many variables. But having the display hold the previous frame until the next is ready completely gets rid of the tearing problem.
It also should lead to better battery life as the GPU won't have to keep feeding the display a frame every 60th of a second or so when nothing has changed on the display. The GPU could actually be put into a lower power state while the display continues to hold the previous frame. This would have implications beyond gaming and also beyond just OS X. iOS devices could also theoretically benefit from this as well.
NVidia has some technology to sync the display and GPU:
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/g-sync
They put some hardware into the 3rd party displays. John Carmack had suggested this feature "sync-at-60-tear-below":
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/nvidias-kepler-sports-a-game-changing-adaptive-vertical-sync-feature-pushed-by-john-carmack/
Screen tearing is something that should be eliminated entirely to avoid having to use patches like v-sync and unnecessary buffering. I notice it in Windows all the time:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/972194
It's noticeable on the Mac if you have a monitor that rotates vertically and drag desktop windows from left to right, they break in the middle.
http://www.staingate.org/