screen res on 17

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
new powerbook 17 1440x900 resolution



old 15 inch 1280x854 resolution



So thats only 44 pixels better in the vertical and 160 horizontally



That seems very poor in sharpness with an extra 2 inchs taken into account - I saw the new 17 inch and thought the res was no where near as sharp as the 15 inch
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Complaining about PowerBook screen resolutions as usual kittylitter... jk man



    Actually I think it would probably be better with a 1600x1024 screen like the old 22" Cinema display. That would make it a bit sharper than the current 12" iBook/PowerBook screen, but I think it would still be fine. I mean, there are PC laptops with 16" screens that have 1440x1050 or 1600x1200 resolution.
  • Reply 2 of 27
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Luca Rescigno





    Actually I think it would probably be better with a 1600x1024 screen like the old 22" Cinema display.






    I TOTALLY AGREE - the new 17ich res is very poor and soft and not good at all - I will wait till it gets revised to a 1600x1024 screen
  • Reply 3 of 27
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    Man, the resolution was too high, now it's too low...



    Maybe the next one will be juuuussssst right.







    I guess we have to find the perfect balance between having a high pixel density, and having 9 point text look big?
  • Reply 4 of 27
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    If this were any other model I would unleash a squadron of 's against you, but, given that we are talking about a 17" LCD display it can probably tolerate a few more points on either axis.



    1600 widths really are more for 19" and wider VIS displays, but given that a latop screen sits closer to your face most times a few extra dpi are tolerable.



    Depends on what's available out there, I don't see too many other 17" 16:10 displays out there.



    Personally, I wouldn't push the current display past 1536x960.



    However, even as is the real benefit of the size and resolution EXACTLY as they are, is that you can see a LOT more MORE easily than you might on any other other laptop display on the market, including those ridiculous 15.4" panels from Dell.



    As usual, Apple strikes the right balance between legibility and screen size, regardless of what a few hyperopic yunguns might think.
  • Reply 5 of 27
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    yeah, nothing is worse than an LCD that's to small at it's native res. so you have to drop it down. you instantly lose the only sharpness advantage LCD's have.
  • Reply 6 of 27
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Yup, which is why 1600x1024 is just on the very edge of usable. I haven't ever used one of those laptops with a 16" 1600x1200 screen, but I imagine it wouldn't be pleasant. I think they even have 15" XGA screens... Although you do have to remember that Macs use 1 point per pixel, so 72 pixels = 72 points = 1 inch in printing. PCs, on the other hand, use 4 points for every 3 pixels, which is why IE has a default text size of 16 point - in Windows, 16 point font looks the same as 12 point font on a Mac assuming you're using the same screen on each computer. There's a pretty detailed discussion of this sort of thing somewhere, I thought it was on Low End Mac, but I can't find the link anywhere. Anyway, Windows machines tend to make things look bigger, so a high resolution on a PC doesn't mean as much as a high resolution on a Mac.



    Using my handy-dandy pixel density calculator, the current 15" TiBook has 101 pixels per inch (ppi), the 12" iBook and PowerBook have 106 ppi, and the 17" PowerBook and iMac have 100 ppi. If the 17" PowerBook got a 1600x1024 resolution, it would be 112. Perhaps a bit high, but probably manageable unless you have bad eyesight.
  • Reply 7 of 27
    Darn it, when are we going to get an OS/GUI that's resolution agnostic? Think about it... more pixels should merely give you sharper, crisper images and text, not smaller.



    It would be so nice to be able to specify text in real points, and icons in units (inches, centimeters, whatever), and have the system produce that no matter what the pixel density (scaling the images and text to the appropriate number of pixels).
  • Reply 8 of 27
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Yes that would be awesome. And completely doable too. I don't know why it's not happening...



    I mean, if that was the case... imagine having a 12" iBook with a crystal-clear 2048x1536 screen.
  • Reply 9 of 27
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 10 of 27
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Also, hi-res displays would significantly reduce the effect a dead pixel has on the screen. Assuming manufacturing techniques advance enough to make a single dead pixel today as likely as a single dead pixel a few years in the future on a hi-res display, that one dead pixel would be so tiny that it would be almost unnoticeable. Also, super high resolution screens would make text look awesome because of all the new possibilities for antialiasing.
  • Reply 11 of 27
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Yes and no.



    The hardware and software isn't up to the task yet, and then there's all those bass-ackward web designers who insist on using miniscule font sizes...



    There really isn't a need for too much more resolution than what we see in HDTV (1920x1080) , we'll get more, and when the whole package (including the design and programming communities) is up to it, it will realize the advantages you point out, but for now there are much more important things to look after rather than supplying ppi's that can't be properly dealt with.
  • Reply 12 of 27
    chopper3chopper3 Posts: 293member
    I've always agreed with the 72dpi "rule", there are reasons why dull-type-freaks like that number, who am I to go against their word!



    That said I don't know that the dpi of a 17inch pb is.
  • Reply 13 of 27
    gargoylegargoyle Posts: 660member
    So do all my websites that I make GFX for at 72dpi look funny for some people ?



    If someone was to make a display system that showed an image 5cm wide regardless of resolution, that would require a fairly drastic change in a lot of programs and standards...



    Totally new XML/HTML definitions and style sheets. And totally rewritten browsers for two. Sounds like a good idea for html 6 or something tho
  • Reply 14 of 27
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Actually, XHTML is resolution independent right now.



    The "px" value is a W3 "pixel," not an actual screen pixel. It's defined at 96px = 1in, following the (unfortunate) Windows standard.



    So even if 300ppi screens rolled out tomorrow, the "pixel-precise" designs would simply be rendered to an accuracy of 96ppi. Whether browser makers actually implement this is another question, but the standard itself will need no modification.
  • Reply 15 of 27
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chopper3

    I've always agreed with the 72dpi "rule", there are reasons why dull-type-freaks like that number, who am I to go against their word!



    That said I don't know that the dpi of a 17inch pb is.




    Computers don't have actual 72 dpi screens. As in, if you put a ruler up to the screen, you won't measure 72 pixels in one inch. However, on the Macintosh, 72 pixels on the screen corresponds to 72 dots = 1 inch if you print out whatever is on the screen.



    If Apple used 72 pixels per inch so that all printed material was actual size in comparison to the screen, then a 17" PowerBook would have only about 1024x640 resolution. A 12" PowerBook would have a little over 640x480. So if you set your screen to those resolutions, you'll get as close to WYSIWYG as possible - print out a document, hold it up to the screen, and they'll be the same size. In reality, the 17" PowerBook's screen is about 100 pixels per inch. Bumping it up to 1600x1024 would bring it to 112 pixels per inch. For comparison, the DVI 15" PowerBooks are 101 pixels per inch and the 12" are 106.
  • Reply 16 of 27
    I think the 17" res is perfect for the size of the screen and format of the screen.



    I'm on a dell right now, 15.1" at 1400x1050, and it's way too small. It's crisp, but very tiring on the eyes.



    Where's my PB apple??!?!?!?1
  • Reply 17 of 27
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I'm confused, how does the mac assign points? Is the 72 or 96dpi don't actually correspond to any screen dpi does the mac accurately display the WSIWYG print size???



    Oh so confused.



    And printers like 72? OK, not 96, then why the fvck does 96 exist, is this another M$ standards cock-up?



    Anyone wanna explain in terms I can understand. Amorph has commented a couple of times that standards do exist, but I've yet to see it, most any page I visit is a slave to the screen res from display to display and hardly capable of displaying the text as the same no matter where.



    The best looking text I've seen is in mac browsers actually, but it is neither consistent nor standardized to any size as far as I can tell.



    Given that resolutions will increase, and we're getting to the point where we can have more than enough if we want it, why not use some multiple of 72 (if that makes sense for print) so that we can greatly simplify little rule of thumb equations for printers; or designers; or multidisciplinary digital artists.



    Wouldn't 144 then make sense as a point where everything looks extremely crisp on screen, and is an easy multiple of 72 for printers; or a sufficient multiplication factor (to 288) for people printing photos (which ought to return photorealistic prints)



    Oi Vey, me head hurts!
  • Reply 18 of 27
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    I'm confused, how does the mac assign points? Is the 72 or 96dpi don't actually correspond to any screen dpi does the mac accurately display the WSIWYG print size???



    Originally, Apple noted that a point is about 1/72 in, and so they made both the Mac 72ppi and the ImageWriter 72dpi (and then 144dpi) so that you would get what you saw on screen (and also so that fonts would display crisply at common sizes). As the Mac has drifted away from 72ppi screens it has drifted away from WYSIWYG, because WYSIWYG was enforced by the physical pixel density. Mac applications still "assume" 72ppi, even on screens that are over 100ppi. This is why the 14" iBook exists, with the same number of pixels as the 12".



    Apple could make it so that Quartz rendered to 72dpi regardless of screen resolution, but there are two reasons not to: First, it'll exact a performance penalty. (Believe it or not, QuickDraw was resolution independent all the way back in '84, but they had to compromise the design to get any sort of performance, and here we are. ) Second, screen resolutions are close enough to 72dpi that any such rendering will make everything look blurry. The original Mac worked because 1 pixel was 1 point, and so as long as you worked in even point sizes everything was tack-sharp.



    Quote:

    And printers like 72? OK, not 96, then why the fvck does 96 exist, is this another M$ standards cock-up?



    The only printer I'm aware of with 72dpi resolution is the original ImageWriter (and that might have been 144dpi — I can't remember). The first LaserWriter had a resolution of 300 dpi, which is high enough to render point sizes crisply even though 300 isn't an even multiple of 72. Current printers are much higher res than that.



    96dpi is a Windows cock-up; Windows is less efficient with screen real estate.



    Quote:

    Anyone wanna explain in terms I can understand. Amorph has commented a couple of times that standards do exist, but I've yet to see it, most any page I visit is a slave to the screen res from display to display and hardly capable of displaying the text as the same no matter where.



    The standards I've mentioned are relatively new, and my posts are thus forward-looking. Right now, yes, there is a tremendous legacy of HTML that makes all kinds of assumptions about screen size and resolution, and there are a lot of browsers that do as well. However, the newest ones have been pretty widely adopted, and they render to the W3C's logical 96dpi (which is why there was a storm of protest in Mac circles about Mozilla rendering text so large on their Macs).



    Quote:

    Given that resolutions will increase, and we're getting to the point where we can have more than enough if we want it, why not use some multiple of 72 (if that makes sense for print) so that we can greatly simplify little rule of thumb equations for printers; or designers; or multidisciplinary digital artists.



    Once resolutions reach a certain level, it really doesn't matter — witness the 300dpi LaserWriter. Certainly, multiples of 72 would be great in the mean time ( 144, 216, 288 ), since they'd bring back the Mac's original clarity and precision, and make any scaling algorithm simple, fast, and precise.



    The 96ppi web standard throws a wrench in the works (especially since the standard for images is 72dpi!), but only crazy people expect precision out of web pages anyway.
  • Reply 19 of 27
    removed to paste transparent image onto slightly darker tone of next post
  • Reply 20 of 27
    meh..



    in response to Matsu:



    useful historical and design origin info from Web Page Design for Designers typography pages



    excerpt from page four in the typo section, answering many questions



    Quote:

    There is a considerable amount of confusion about screen resolution and font sizes. Traditionally, fonts sizes are given in 'points' - a point being a typographic measure 1/72 of an inch square.



    Since their introduction in 1984, Macintosh computer screens have had a relationship of 1 point = 1 pixel, which is about as simple as it gets. Macs have always had high resolution screens that could display type and other images at 72 pixels per inch.



    Office computers (PCs) used to have lower resolution screens, with bigger pixels. They originally used dot matrix or daisy-wheel printers where there was little if any relationship between what you saw on screen and what was printed. When laser and ink-jet printers became available, PCs still had relatively low resolution displays. Rather than strain the operators' eyes, Microsoft made the default screen resolution in Windows 96 pixels per inch, effectively 33% larger than actual (printed) size. They couldn't make the pixels smaller, so they made the inches bigger.

    _ _ _ _

    Nowadays, Mac and PC share the same high resolution monitors and (nearly) everybody uses WYSIWYG programs but we are still left with this situation where 'points' on a Mac are 1/72 of an inch and on a PC they are more like 1/54 of an inch - one third bigger.






    it's all about the graphics, baby



    WPDFD has graphic examples (some hard to see on AI bkgnd), more explanations and comparison samples/charts on many aspects of web and design, but somwhat ironically the site has some design issues of its own, and some info seems a bit dated.
Sign In or Register to comment.