Musings on possible retina displays writ large, i.e., on MBPs and iMacs

[rockymtnhigh]

Ok, the rumor mill is aflutter with retina displays coming to MacBook pro and maybe even the iMac line. See, i.e.,

Thinner Apple MacBook Pro With Retina Display Coming - ABC News

Retina Displays Also Coming to Next-Generation iMac? - Mac Rumors

The question I have is what will the consequence of this be for graphics on computers, for battery life for MBPs, for web graphics in general? With the iPad next, the retina display is on a 10" screen. And for "retina-ready" applications, it is stunning. But often when browsing the web, it becomes clear that a lot of website graphics are optimized for low resolution. Things often look fuzzy in compared with retinized images. Take the "Facebook" logo on the top of the screen; it is just not very clear. Heck, even the splash screen for the SatGuys iPad app looks pixelized (Note to Scott: fix that please! ).

What happens when people are running monitors at 2880 x 1800? or even higher? Will the web simply get fuzzy? Or will designed be forced to up the resolution on graphics? And if so, what will that do to bandwidth? Bigger graphics = bigger files = slower downloads.

Another question, as it is, Macs run displays at resolutions higher than the typical PC, and force users to adapt to really small text. Load up Microsoft Word 2011 on a Mac, and you need a magnifying glass to read at 100% (I routinely zoom to 155% when working in word). What on earth will retina displays do to that problem? We're all going to need eye doctors!

I love the retina display on my iPad, and am intrigued by the idea on a mac, but I think these are real questions, and I am not sure that its necessary to double the resolution on the 13" MBA I am writing this on. Heck, it may already be close to retina as it is. Pretty crisp resolution. Interesting times. And that, dear friends, is all I have this Tuesday morning at 7am....

 

[Ilya]

I don't think this will present any problems at all. The computer industry has faced the resolution changes many times in the past (CGA -> EGA -> VGA -> XGA, etc.) It was a bigger problem in the past, when fonts were all fixed-size, icons had single resolution and video cards were not powerful enough to do image scaling on-the-fly. Today it's less of an issue, especially for the web. Yes, there will be some pressure (on web designers) to upload images at higher resolution, but other than that, no changes will be needed. All the texts and page layouts will scale automatically to whatever resolution you have and will look nice and sharp.

Also, keep in mind, that computers will have much more powerful video cards than iPads and will do much better job in rescaling images and smoothing out the edges.

Sent from my iPad 3 using SatelliteGuys

 

[rockymtnhigh]

You are missing my point -- you can smooth text all you want, it will do absolutely nothing to improve the looks of low-resolution graphics. Rescale it all you want, when the source sucks, it will not get better. Just remain blurry.

And there is a consequence of moving to ulta-high resolution graphics -- many applications for the iPad next have doubled in size. While monthly magazines on the iPad 2 were usually about 160MB an issue, they are routinely closer to 400MB. And that = more bandwidth consumption.

Sure, desktop processors can handle its, but there are many implications - good and bad - from these changes.

 

[Ilya]

Like with SD to HD video conversion, of course, you can't make true HD out of SD. Nevertheless, some scalers do much better job than others. iPad is not perfect when it comes to upscaling images. Laptops with their much more powerful CPUs and GPUs should be able to do much better job in image interpolation.

As for the file size, I wouldn't worry about that either. Storage space, RAM, Internet bandwidth - all follow Moore's law and essentially double every couple of years or so. So if the files are now twice bigger than they used to be two years ago - no big deal!

Sent from my iPad 3 using SatelliteGuys

 

[meStevo]

Heh, as of last month the most popular resolution online was 1366x768, finally inching up from 1024x768. This change means little/nothing outside of Apple.com. Things will be smaller on your screen or they'll be upscaled by some process, and more often than not those (72dpi) images will have never been intended to increase in size and show it.

Applications from within the ecosystem and made for the resolution could look great, very sharp, very nice... but at the expense of most websites not looking so great.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Heh, as of last month the most popular resolution online was 1366x768, finally inching up from 1024x768. This change means little/nothing outside of Apple.com. Things will be smaller on your screen or they'll be upscaled by some process, and more often than not those (72dpi) images will have never been intended to increase in size and show it.

Applications from within the ecosystem and made for the resolution could look great, very sharp, very nice... but at the expense of most websites not looking so great.

Exactly.

 

[John Kotches]

Has anyone discussed what the cost increases would be (if any) by utilizing the higher pixel densities?

To maintain the "retina" density on an iMac screen would be a ridiculously high resolution. If 300ppi/dpi is what is "retina" a 22" Display would need to have about a 5600x3500 resolution in a 16:10 format. That's "only" a resolution of 19.6 megapixels or, well, you get the point.

This is my source link for calculating the resolution:
http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

Input: Vertical @ 5600, Horizontal @ 3500 and Diagonal @ 22

Perhaps my understanding of PPI/DPI is wrong, but you get my point. Or maybe they'll water down the term "retina".


Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

 

[John Kotches]

A 15" MBP would need to have a display resolution of 3840/2400 (quad HD) to maintain "retina" display.

Same site, with 15" diagonal input.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I think the definition of retina actually changes based on the size of the screen, and anticipated distance from the screen and the person using it.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the retina display on the iPhone and iPad, but there are consequences of cranking up the resolution. And I don't see hardware scaling solving most of them. It will be interesting to see what happens. Heck, it will be interesting to see if this "rumor" even proves true.

 

[isaacmorseMI]

I think 1920x1080 Full HD would be a good first step...

Sent from my iPad 2 using Forum Runner

 

[John Kotches]

Rocky:

At least for me, tablets and laptops are pretty close to the same distance away, roughly 18". Monitors are at about 24" or so.

I'm ballparking this with std issue 8.5x11" paper so the measurements are not of high precision


Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Rocky:

At least for me, tablets and laptops are pretty close to the same distance away, roughly 18". Monitors are at about 24" or so.

I'm ballparking this with std issue 8.5x11" paper so the measurements are not of high precision


Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

Apple has said that they made the decision on the PPI for the iPhone different from the iPad because it is expected that the iPhone is held closer to the eye than the iPad. Or I know I read that back before the iPad next came out.

Regardless, they are packing lots of pixels, and lots of resolution on the screen.

 

[mike123abc]

I think it is more of just a marketing term than a real science... I am sure they will say laptops are farther away than tablets so you can have around the same resolution of the iPad.

 

[Ilya]

In very general terms, Apple defines retina resolution as a resolution at which "your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels." So, it all depends on the size of the screen and the viewing distance. For example, a 1080p TV set at a typical viewing distance can be considered a retina display by Apple's definition.

It also depends on your eyesight. Apple assumes 20/20 vision. For people with vision worse than 20/20, retina resolution can be achieved at a lower dpi number. On the other hand, some people have vision better than 20/20 (up to 20/10) and for them even the new iPad would not qualify as a true retina display.

Sent from my iPad 3 using SatelliteGuys