Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: Ligament on June 11, 2012, 03:39:17 pm
-
A question to those more knowledgeable than I:
"The new MacBook Pro -- which is in addition to the existing line of Pro's, which was also updated today -- is built around a 15.4" Retina display at a 2880x1880 resolution, 220 ppi with 5,184,000 pixels, with a display that is built directly into the unibody construction to make the notebook lighter. "
How will this 220ppi affect the image processing interface? Would it make you more accurate to print, etc?
-
Evidently Adobe is already at work updating Photoshop (and hopefully Lightroom) to accommodate the large "Retina" display.
-
Well I am about to find out how the new 15" MacBook Pro with the Retina display will work.
I ordered one about an hour ago. My current MacBook is a 2009 model and was time for an upgrade.
Was happy to see that the new system comes with USB 3.0.
Should arrive the end of the week or the first part of next week.
I have both Lightroom 4.1 and Aperture 3.2.4.
Mostly work with Lightroom.
Aperture is supposed to be optimized for the Retina Display: http://www.apple.com/aperture/whats-new.html
It is going to be interesting to see how it works.
Stu
-
I've ordered one as well and expect it next week. For someone like me that travels a lot, working on images with the new screen, not to mention 16GB of ram and a Dual Quad Core will be a pleasure.
I'll be writing up my impressions of the new screen once I have some experience with it.
Michael
-
I've ordered one as well and expect it next week. For someone like me that travels a lot, working on images with the new screen, not to mention 16GB of ram and a Dual Quad Core will be a pleasure.
I'll be writing up my impressions of the new screen once I have some experience with it.
Michael
Michael,
A couple of hours ago I received word from Apple that I should receive the new 15" MacPro around June 21st.
2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
512GB Flash Storage
I did add the extra ram but stayed with the 2.6GHz instead of the 2.7.
Also stayed with the 512GB Flash Storage.
Had to cut back on the cost somewhere.
Now I need to look at some USB 3.0 external hard drives.
I think I read somewhere that you can get a Thunderbolt to Firewire 800 cable.
Also I heard there is a Thunderbolt to
Hope that is true as I have a number of firewire 800 drives.
Will be looking forward to your review.
Best,
Stu
-
A question to those more knowledgeable than I:
"The new MacBook Pro -- which is in addition to the existing line of Pro's, which was also updated today -- is built around a 15.4" Retina display at a 2880x1880 resolution, 220 ppi with 5,184,000 pixels, with a display that is built directly into the unibody construction to make the notebook lighter. "
How will this 220ppi affect the image processing interface? Would it make you more accurate to print, etc?
Obviously, bumping the resolution means that more spatial detail can be rendered for images. Any reasonable sized print have had more spatial resolution than display up until now (I believe that it still will, but the distance should shrink). I use a 27" at 2560x1440 so at a somewhat larger viewing distance, my experience should be similar to the new MBP (larger distance might be a good thing for viewing fatigue and the inevitable near-sighted-ness that will come with age?).
Increasing the pixel density for a given display size/viewing distance will also affect how user interface elements and text should be rendered/scaled, and put more demands on graphics calculation hardware. I'll just assume/hope that this is somehow solved.
I guess one relevant question is "how much of that detail will be visible for a given user, at a given distance, for a given image etc". Conventional wisdom is that most "natural" images (what is shot by a camera) don't need the kind of resolution that sharp/aliased text and UI elements can benefit from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_arc#Human_vision
-h
-
And no more 17" w/anti glare screen?
Marc
-
Some thoughts on the new Mac Book Pros from outside the tight little photographic world: http://massivegreatness.com/to-buy-or-not-to-buy
-
100% pixel peeping will never have been so small! :D
-
Well for software that is not updated for the display, I believe the text will be VERY small. That's why software companies will need to adjust for this, unless Apple has something baked into the operating system? I expect things to be hard to read compared to normal conditions.
What I am very interested in finding out is what the color gamut and accuracy of the display will be as compared to my NEC 2690/3090 displays.
-Jonathan
-
AnandTech has articles about the new Retina MacBook… Interesting to see how scaling works: http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/2078
Edit: Analysis link > http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis
-
Well for software that is not updated for the display, I believe the text will be VERY small.
No, non-updated software will automatically be magnified, where necessary. "Where necessary" because things that are drawn by OS X (e.g., text) will automatically be drawn "retina aware". The retina display is in effect an "opt-in" system for apps. If the app doesn't opt in, it's assumed to want/need magnification for anything that it, rather than the OS, draws. Long and the short of that is that most text and UI elements will be the right size, and sharp, because they are drawn by the OS, not the app. However, some images and custom UI elements displayed by non-updated software on retina displays will appear slight pixelated.
Sandy
-
100% pixel peeping will never have been so small! :D
+1. Lens designers should be thankful. I guess people will now carry a non-retina device just to pixel-peep.
-
Oh very interesting - something that really got glossed over and confusing even to me until now - the new Retina Macbook Pro does NOT have a 2880x1600 resolution. It's mearly a greater pixel density. It still only goes up to 1920x1200, the extra pixels are only used to make it clearer. That actually makes perfect sense now, since using such a tiny screen for such a massive resolution would be almost pointless. Still - how does it help you work to just have the screen sharper but not displaying any more data? Nice perk, but worth the extra grand?
-
Oh very interesting - something that really got glossed over and confusing even to me until now - the new Retina Macbook Pro does NOT have a 2880x1600 resolution.
The physical panel is 2880x1800 pixels.
-h
-
Uh, yeah that's what I said. And the usable resolution is still only 1920x1200.
-
Uh, yeah that's what I said. And the usable resolution is still only 1920x1200.
And what do you mean by that?
Michael
-
I mean only 1920x1200 is displayed. Multiple pixels are used to do so but that is still the max resolution. This explains it in full detail http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-57454551-278/forget-retina-look-how-much-the-new-macbook-pro-displays/?tag=mncol;topStories (http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-57454551-278/forget-retina-look-how-much-the-new-macbook-pro-displays/?tag=mncol;topStories)
-
I mean only 1920x1200 is displayed. Multiple pixels are used to do so but that is still the max resolution. This explains it in full detail http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-57454551-278/forget-retina-look-how-much-the-new-macbook-pro-displays/?tag=mncol;topStories (http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-57454551-278/forget-retina-look-how-much-the-new-macbook-pro-displays/?tag=mncol;topStories)
I think you're misinterpreting a bit. Retina aware apps will display at 2880x1800 "pixel resolution". "Resolution" as found in the Apple control panel controls how many pixels make up screen elements such as fonts, UI items, etc. So in effect, the resolution setting in the control panel is kind of a zoom for the various UI elements. Note however that at normal viewing distances, you won't (shouldn't) be able to see 2880x1800 pixels, the pixels are too small to be distinguished individually - that's the point of a retina display.
Recommended resolution for the is 2880x1800 screen is 1440x900, because that is two pixels per "point", points being what Apple actually measure screen dimensions. That will be the sharpest setting for the various UI elements, because that is the resolution that artwork is created at for the retina screen.
Sandy
-
I'm not misinterpreting anything.
To put it simply - if you pull up a 2560 wide photo on the retina display, you only see 1920 lines. Pure and simple. They just look sharper is all.
If you pull up a 2560 wide photo on a 30" screen, you see 2560 lines.
It's like taking your 1920 monitor and running it at 1024. More dense, not more resolution. That's what they have done with the retina macbook (and iPad).
-
You beat me to it Sandy.
With Retina aware applications, be it Photoshop or games, the full resolution is available. And as photographers, that's what we're looking for.
Michael
-
Now I believe it is you guys who are misinterpreting. 'Retina Aware' applications do NOT give full 2880 support. All they do is make text and buttons larger and clearer - NOT more resolution. Image display size is the same. You can prove me wrong when Adobe releases the update.
-
To put it more simply, what you see on the Retina MBP is the same as the typical 24" screen, 1920x1200. You will not see more of a photo than that. You see more on a 27" monitor, and more on a 30" monitor.
-
To put it more simply, what you see on the Retina MBP is the same as the typical 24" screen, 1920x1200. You will not see more of a photo than that. You see more on a 27" monitor, and more on a 30" monitor.
Pardon my thickness, but I currently own a 17" MacBook Pro with 1920x1200 resolution.
Would the Macbook Pro Retina display and my 17" MacBook Pro display an image any differently? Thanks.
-
"Gaming at 2880 x 1800
You'll notice that OS X doesn't, by default, expose the Retina Display's native 2880 x 1800 resolution anywhere in the standard, user-facing elements of the OS. In fact, 1920 x 1200 is the highest screen "resolution" you can select - a way of appeasing displaced 17-inch MacBook Pro owners."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis)
"What's the catch about the new display? Your files look best when they're running on apps specifically updated for the Retina display. We checked out several high resolution RAW files in Aperture and they looked incredible. We are interested to see, though, how similarly-sized images look in software that's not optimized for the display. We'd be nervous to make any critical image-editing decisions on a non-Retina-optimized app because, when viewing in one of those, the image (or any info displayed) undergoes a sort of interpolation process. In it, each pixel is displayed four times, so your image may look a little "grainy". The Retina-ready version of Photoshop was on view in beta form at the WWDC this past Monday, so we are hoping that means that the updated version of CS6 will be available soon. In the mean time, all Apple’s apps that ship with the machine are Retina-ready, as are Aperture and FinalCut Pro."
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/06/first-imressions-apple-macbook-pro-retina-display-and-aperture-33 (http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/06/first-imressions-apple-macbook-pro-retina-display-and-aperture-33)
-
Hi Michael,
I just copied this from the system information off the MacBook Pro with Retina Display I received yesterday.
Intel HD Graphics 4000:
Chipset Model: Intel HD Graphics 4000
Type: GPU
Bus: Built-In
VRAM (Total): 512 MB
Vendor: Intel (0x8086)
Device ID: 0x0166
Revision ID: 0x0009
gMux Version: 3.2.19 [3.2.8]
Displays:
Color LCD:
Display Type: LCD
Resolution: 2880 X 1800
Retina: Yes
Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes
Built-In: Yes
Connection Type: DisplayPort
I have it setup for Best for Retina display and it shows resolution of 2880 x 1800 as seen with the above.
So I am assuming that this display is 2880 x 1800.
Best,
Stu
-
... I have it setup for Best for Retina display and it shows resolution of 2880 x 1800 as seen with the above...
Wouldn't that be easy to check? Display an image with 1440x900 dimensions, and it should fit exactly 1/4 of the screen.
-
Pardon my thickness, but I currently own a 17" MacBook Pro with 1920x1200 resolution.
Would the Macbook Pro Retina display and my 17" MacBook Pro display an image any differently? Thanks.
Just sharper, no more detail, no more actual image pixels.
-
Wouldn't that be easy to check? Display an image with 1440x900 dimensions, and it should fit exactly 1/4 of the screen.
Or rather one at 1920x1200 should be full screen at 100% zoom :)
-
This is tiresome.
When you display a 1920X1080 HD video file in FPX it occupies a corner of the screen. What more evidence do you need?
I'm done.
Michael
-
I received mine yesterday. I can confirm that 1920x1200 is the highest resolution you can set the screen to. This is done with the Scaled Resolution set to "More Space". As of now Photoshop and Lightroom behave exactly as they do on a system with a 1920x1200 display (or what ever resolution you have the screen set to). All the screen text and images are scaled to this resolution, and things look just like a normal display, except with greater clarity/smoothness.
Once Photoshop is updated for the Retina display it will be interesting to see if a 1:1 view can fully utilize the native pixels. I assume this is what Adobe are working on. Given that FPX can display full res video in the corner I see that as good evidence that if apps are written with the new APIs for this display they can address the native pixels. But apps that are not written to use the new APIs obviously are scaled and end up looking the same as they do on any other 15" display (as far as size of screen elements go).
The screen is very smooth, and switching to the external monitor you really notice the visible pixels again. That seems to go away in a few seconds, but I can't wait for the 30" version of the Retina display. I suspect we are at least 2 years away from that.
-
Same here, that's what I really want - a big, useable size high density screen! I would pay really good $$ for a 30" retina-class panel. As long as it's a normal 1:1 scaling monitor, not this processed stuff. 2880 at 30" would be a dream-screen!
-
You would need 5120x3200 in a 30" display to get to the Retina pixel density. I know Viewsonic has a screen in the works, but apparently it will be $30K or more at launch.
-
#1, give it time :) Prices will come down steadily as demand goes up. I'm very positive we'll see 24 and 27" versions fairly quickly. I know 30's will be a wishlist item, since there is barely any demand for them even now, hence the ridiculous premiums for the panels.
#2, 'retina' is not a defined number, and since it keeps dropping with display size, it won't be all that extreme. I would expect 150dpi at a 30" level to qualify given the history from iphone to ipad to 15" panel size dropped from 360 down to 220. something around 3500x2300 would probably happen.
-
"I can confirm that 1920x1200 is the highest resolution you can set the screen to."
Yes, that's understood. Otherwise on-screen text would be too small. But individual programs, such as Final Cut X, can address the full resolution.
I don't understand why people are having trouble understanding this.
Michael
-
Other than the preview window of FCX (how useful is watching a 10" bluray when you can't distinguish 1080 from 720 from even smaller anyway) - what else can use it? Nothing, right? Adobe won't even say what the 'retina update' will do other than fix the text and control rendering.
-
Are you just being argumentative for the sake of it or are you now obfuscating to cover up your misunderstanding about the Macbook Pro Retina's not having true 2880 X 1880 resolution?
Anyone editing in Aperture or iPhoto can take advantage of it today, as can editors working in Final Cut X, users of Safari and soon Chrome as well. Adobe has already announced that they will update Photoshop, and no doubt in the weeks ahead most graphic apps from others will as well. It's just a matter of making the correct calls to the Apple API so that text renders at an appropriate size while raster elements can use the full resolution.
If a high resolution 15" laptop doesn't meet your needs, fine. But why rain on everyone else's parade with faulty information?
Are we done yet?
Michael
-
Not covering up anything. If you are saying that in aperture, you can open a 2880x1880 image right now and see each actual image pixel, then cool, I'm wrong. I don't see anyone reporting that though, just a sharper image from the additional pixels - but not more image information. Adobe has not stated at all, that that is what they are working on either. Please prove me wrong with any info about that.
How about a file with alternating 1px stripes at 2880x1880 shown full screen. You should see each one, take a shot with a macro lens, simple test.
-
Incidentally using Windows on the machine or using 3rd party control tools, you can use the whole thing. Here's how rediculous actual full resolution looks lol
(http://cloudmancer.com/images/trueretina.jpg)
-
Thanks for the screen shot. I found the SwitchResX app and installed it. While you say how ridiculous the actual full resolution looks, I have to say it looks fantastic. The images have a sharpness that that is missing on the scaled version, or the pixel doubled version. Sure the screen items are small, but in many ways it makes Lightroom a better program on the 15" screen (more room the image). Even if you don't plan on running at the full resolution it is a very nice preview of what the screen is truly capable of. Once Adobe modifies Photoshop and Lightroom I suspect many of us will not want to go back to a regular pitch monitor. Now they just need to make a 30" version.
-
I completely agree that for image display it has to be nothing short of awesome. I only mean ridiculous for practical use, given the size of controls.
-
It's not actually too bad. In fact I like it over the default. but I think the 1920x1200 scaled is the right size for me as far as controls go. I'll just need to wear my reading glasses more ;)
-
I completely agree that for image display it has to be nothing short of awesome. I only mean ridiculous for practical use, given the size of controls.
Which is why OS X does its "two resolutions in one" thing, for want of a better, single term. Text and icons rendered at a usable size and other applications able to use the full resolution to display images etc.
I haven't tried it, but you can presumably achieve something similar on Windows 7 because you can scale icons, text and other OS elements (you should try that and then take a screen shot). Text should scale well, but icons without additional base resolution may just look a little clunky (but at least be at a workable size).
My understanding is that OS X has gone for a much simpler scaling paradigm and the reason is pretty obvious - it suits Retina.
-
Text and icons rendered at a usable size and other applications able to use the full resolution to display images etc.
And that's the whole crux of this debate...besides the FCX preview window, what apps use the real res? So far I have yet to see any and Adobe has not said what the next update will do as far as that goes either.
-
If FCX can do it, and Windows can do it, what makes you think other OS X apps won't be able to by addressing the appropriate API?
-
And that's the whole crux of this debate...besides the FCX preview window, what apps use the real res? So far I have yet to see any and Adobe has not said what the next update will do as far as that goes either.
This seems to be the case:
1. The new MBP is capable of displaying 2880x1800 unique pixels - be they image pixels, font pixels or gui elements
2. To prevent "legacy" applications from undesirable appearance (e.g. too small text), the default behaviour is that those apps will be rendered to something like 1920x1080, then scaled to 2880x1800
3. I assume that most commercial, actively developed applications will be able to take advantage of the higher resolution shortly
The main issue seems to be that OS rendering is "pixel-centric", not "size-centric". Applications have been rendering their gui elements etc into a frame-buffer where an area of 8x8 pixels was taken to be "large enough to display a readable single letter". When those 8x8 pixels shrink, the assumption fails. The reason for this is obvious: given low-resolution screens and low-performance hardware, you want to let the applications pre-render and pixel-peek all of their elements for optimal performance and looks.
One might hope that in the future, the design would just be "render this vector object into 1 degree of the viewers field of view".
All of this is kind of moot for photographic content. Photos are always scaled anyways, rendering into a higher resolution buffer is just a matter of changing the scaling-factor.
-h
-
All of this confusion would be unnecessary had OS X designers applied a standard convention and allowed modification of a DPI setting instead of confusing people by showing interpolated resolution. Then controls and icons would be rendered in inches (or, even better, SI units) and bitmaps would be rendered at pixel level at their 100% magnification.
-
And that's the whole crux of this debate...besides the FCX preview window, what apps use the real res? So far I have yet to see any and Adobe has not said what the next update will do as far as that goes either.
By this question, you query the utility of something you had previously asserted, vehemently, did not exist, and which you continued to assert did not exist even when corrected by those better-informed than you.
Have I missed your public apology to Michael?
Jeremy
-
BTW, John Nack posted about this on his blog and it was responded to by Jerry Harris:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2012/06/photoshop-cs6-retina-display-support.html#comments
"Jerry Harris — 5:20 PM on June 16, 2012 Reply
Patience please, as only a handful of adobe folks knew of this secretive effort. Most on the team learned of it at the same moment as the rest of the world."
Jerry's a senior engineer at Adobe (Senior Computer Scientist II is his correct title, I believe), so it's very much worth listening to anything that he says.
It seems that CS6 will have retina support, but due to limited knowledge distribution, it's not really been focussed on before now so they don't have an ETA. That's pretty normal for Apple - I don't think anyone should be surprised. But what we can know from this is that support is coming.
-
And that's the whole crux of this debate...besides the FCX preview window, what apps use the real res? So far I have yet to see any and Adobe has not said what the next update will do as far as that goes either.
kaelaria, I fear you're confusing some aspect of the discussion. You're mixing the "old" way to define the resolution with the new retina approach.
In the past the "size" of the graphical elements was set my the density of the pixels alone, i.e.: the resolution for the specific screen size.
Apple is now going for the same "1440x900"-sized graphical elements with a much clearer rendition.
The new 2880x1800 won't be usable in the old fashioned way.
The 1920x1200 resolution is not the native one (so bad for every LCD panel), and it's left for those non optimized apps which need a lot of "space".
You really won't want to use it at resolution other than the native retina one, except for legacy high resolution softwares.
Every major Mac app should be updated to take this into account. Software houses will than decide between just render the graphical elements better (as for iPad 2 -> New iPad) or let the user reduce the size of them without artifacts, thus simulating a bigger screen.
-
One topic I haven't seen discussed much is the issue of sharpening when working on such a high resolution display.
The higher resolution by default will make your on screen images appear much, much sharper. This is going to make it tougher to sharpen for the web for the average viewer who isn't going to see the picture on such a high resolution device.
I already experience some difficulties with this, since I run a dual screen setup with a Dell U2711, a fairly high resolution/dense pixel display, next to a Dell 2408 which is more of a normal 24" resolution/density. What looks properly sharpened on the 27" screen looks undersharpened on the 24" screen.
-
Unfortunately there's no straightforward answer to that. You are effectively presenting your images on many possible viewing devices. Ideally you would have separate copies of the image prepared optimally (sharpened separately) for all the possible viewing devices (i.e., screen types), but of course that's impractical. You could provide lo-res and hi-res copies of the images for web display, as some web sites are doing now.
-
Unfortunately there's no straightforward answer to that. You are effectively presenting your images on many possible viewing devices. Ideally you would have separate copies of the image prepared optimally (sharpened separately) for all the possible viewing devices (i.e., screen types), but of course that's impractical. You could provide lo-res and hi-res copies of the images for web display, as some web sites are doing now.
Only the web-browser/renderer knows what the final size/resolution will be.
Seams that (ideally) the website should contain atleast high-rez images (no output sharpening) that browsers could download and resize/output-sharpen depending on user setup.
-h
-
i looked at one today, i had to check the normal MBP next to it as it didn't look much different and only up close do you notice the absence of a screen pattern. the best thing about it is the D-max without reflections, better than a matt screen with reflection haze and poor blacks and better than glossy.
i'll be spending the money i save not buying one on beer.
-
i'll be spending the money i save not buying one on beer.
Stay away from your car - you're likely to be falling over ;)
Jeremy
-
i don't drive ;D i will also be going for quality craft beers from around the world and drinking in moderation. ;)
-
Well I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong and this time I'm happy to be. Aperture has finally been shown to indeed show full res images. Hopefully more apps follow suit shortly too ! http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/6 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/6)