1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Displays Retina Displays for normal people?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by fuus, 11 Jun 2012.

  1. wyx087

    wyx087 Homeworld 3 is happening!!

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    11,987
    Likes Received:
    706
    yes, that's what i mean. basically asking usefulness of high pixel density display for photo editing.
     
  2. xinaes

    xinaes What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2
    Clearly if pixel-peeping super high precision editing is needed, then you just zoom beyond 1:1

    Doesn't change the fact that you'll get a nice sharp view when zoomed out.
     
  3. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    561

    Yes.. which was my point. A small ultra hi res display is a useful as a chocolate teapot. They only make sense when you add that resolution to a large display.
     
  4. azrael-

    azrael- I'm special...

    Joined:
    18 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    124
    But then you couldn't (mis)label it "retina display"... :p
     
  5. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    561
    What's in a name? :)
     
  6. azrael-

    azrael- I'm special...

    Joined:
    18 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    124
    For Apple? Everything.
     
  7. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    561
    Touché
     
  8. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    176
    The thing is, not everyone feels the same way, I for one love screens with high pixel densities. I do a lot of reading on my iPad 3 and the typography is wonderful on a screen with such clarity, it's hard going back to a lower res screen.

    As a developer I have a collection of iOS devices and believe me the difference in quality between retina and non retina is chalk and cheese.

    But it's a personal thing, for you a lower res screen is obviously fine on your mobile devices, and that's cool... but it doesn't devalue there being an option for those who feel the screen is one of the most important aspects of any device as it's the window we all have to look through.

    Try telling a photographer they don't need high res screens, or a video editor working on location and shooting 1080p. The new MBP will allow editing of 1080p with the video playback window docked in the corner and showing full 1080p at 1:1 mapping. That's cool for those that need it!

    But I'm with you on 'real estate' being extremely important when working, and so does apple. That's why they have pioneered ultra high rest screens on desktop machines (30" / 27" displays) and continue to support a 1920x1200 screen res on this new machine.

    Look how far we've come -

    My first computer had a 10" screen with 3072 addressable pixels ( 64x48 ) in 1bit colour depth. (Actually it was 1.5 bits per pixel at this resolution but that's too silly to go into)

    My iPad has 3,145,728 pixels in 24bit in a screen only slightly smaller.

    That's 1024 as many pixels and up to 24,576 as much information on screen.

    This is real progress!

    Pixels are cool!! But even cooler when we don't see them, and that's why many people love high pixel density screens (Call them retina if you like) and technology such as anti-aliasing is so heavily used to work around lower resolution screens. Same with sub pixel rendering, font smoothing etc - all there to work around screens not having enough addressable pixels.

    Subject: Once it's impossible to spot individual pixels we don't need anti-aliasing..... discuss.
     
  9. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    561
    I am a photographer, and I don't need a SMALL hi-res screen.

    That's the difference here. I love hi resolution screens. I have a 2560x1600 screen and can't WAIT to go 4k. The difference is the size. On a 15" screen, these ultra hi-resolutions are pointless, because if run natively will result in having to zoom in excessively due to the small size of everything. Once the pixels of the image being worked on are larger than the pixels on your monitor, you lose whatever benefits you thought you had anyway. However.... working at native 4k res on a 30" screen will be SWEET! You can run in native res and work 1:1 and not have to zoom in as much.

    Plus any serious photographer working on a 15" screen for editing needs to seriously rethink the words "serious" and "photographer". I'd struggle to work effectively on anything less than a 24" screen. How people work on a damned laptop is beyond me.

    I suppose it's NICE to have a retina display on a iPad3, but they are designed to be viewed fairly close, especially when reading a book on it, as you hold books fairly close... well I do anyway. However.. a Laptop? if you have a 17" screen then anything more than 1080P on a laptop is stupid, as it will need to be scaled. Surely extra desktop working space is the big advantage of high resolutions... not smooth aliasing when it's pressed up to your nose.
     
    Last edited: 12 Jun 2012
  10. xinaes

    xinaes What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2
    I expect you'll still get visible aliasing artifacts without anti-aliasing.

    CD players have anti-aliased DACs for a reason (even though you can't hear the frequencies near nyquist), similar signal processing principles apply here I'd have thought.
     
  11. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    561
    Good point. You'll still get all manner of interference and artifact effects that AA will be needed for.

    Besides... back to my size issue. I sit 3ft from a 30" 2560x1600 panel and I cannot see individual pixels.
     
  12. xinaes

    xinaes What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2
    Really? How about the little 1px high dots and lines representing words in the "quote" icon on this forum interface for example?
     
  13. azrael-

    azrael- I'm special...

    Joined:
    18 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    124
    (Shhh... His eyesight might be going bad without him realising it... :p)
     
  14. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    561
    From 3ft I can't see individual pixels... and (with my glasses on) my sight is perfect. :)

    You both have larger dot pitch on your screens than I have I think. I have to go close to see individual pixels. From three feet away that icon is REALLY small on my screen.

    [​IMG]


    Besides... there are no lines and squiggles in that icon. It's a gradient blue.. maybe you need a new monitor after all :)

    [​IMG]

    Don't get me wrong... I'm not disagreeing as such... just that you would need a large screen to full appreciate such resolutions... or perhaps a device you would normally hold very close. A laptop fits neither of those really.

    I feel paying extra for a retina display on a 15" Macbook a poor investment. The flip side is I'd pay thousands to have it on a 30" display.
     
    Last edited: 12 Jun 2012
  15. Guest-44432

    Guest-44432 Guest

    This is why I will be happy with a 50" 4k screen, as the DPI will be that of (Or close as) a 30" 1600p monitor now.

    This will be me when that day comes, whilst I'm sat 2ft away from a 50" 4k monitor!
    [​IMG]
     
  16. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    561
    I'll be mirroring that here when the day arrives :)
     
  17. Guest-44432

    Guest-44432 Guest

    These monitors/displays, are to small for such high resolution...

    [​IMG]
     
  18. xinaes

    xinaes What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2
    The interesting thing of course being, that whatever the intrinsic technical merits of the technology, Apple do have a big influence on trends at the moment, particularly in design etc. At present, it seems quite a lot of graphic elements that we see on our screens are predicated on the notion of '1px' being substantial enough to constitute a visible element. Looking at my Windows desktop now, I can see icons on the taskbar with 1px thick lines, quite bold looking lines on the CPU graphs in Task Manager 1px thick, lots of 1px details in emoticons, etc etc. It's quite likely that in a few years time, all of these things will look dated... in a way that, nauseating as it may seem particularly to those skeptical of the term, will probably be distinctly recognisable to many as 'pre-retina'.

    In terms of hardware again, and more particularly laptops, I've always been a fan of quite high pixel densities and always found it frustrating how much it limited ones options... but I never dreamed I'd want something as high-dpi as these new Apple devices. I honestly thought that the gossip columns predicting the new iPad resolutions had to be wrong; didn't they realise that would be 4* the resolution, not double?

    1680x1050 on my 15.4" laptop always struck me as fairly reasonable. It serves my interests that consumers are being made to think that higher densities are a good thing - it means that next time I'm laptop shopping, I'll probably have more favorable options screen-wise (also of course with the rising popularity of IPS) even if I don't opt for a possibly OTT 'retina' model.

    Now that I'm getting used to the idea of these retina displays though, I think there is some real sense in it. Sure, if you edit an image such that the magnification is the same as it would be @ 1:1 on a 15" 1440x900 screen, that will be rather ridiculously blown up... it already is, at that magnification on that screen!

    I will be getting a new iPad soon, and tbh I absolutely cannot wait to see how the app I'm working on will look on it. I'm conscious of turning into one of those born-again types, but I do think this is an instance of Apple pushing the envelope in a good way. The sensation of looking at a screen like that is really just a different thing as far as I'm concerned. I do think it will gradually change the way we think about and use pixels, not because of anything particularly inventive Apple have done, but to a large extent because of the forces they exert.

    Sorry if I'm loosing coherence here, really didn't mean for such a long post and want to get on with other things, so no time to edit...
     
    Last edited: 12 Jun 2012
  19. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,577
    Likes Received:
    196
    Well on the topic of anti-aliasing, would I be wrong in saying that the overhead for such a large display is larger than the overhead for 2-6 layers worth of AA sampling?

    It would however make it redundant, but the Graphical Horsepower (especially VRAM) would be monstrous.

    What I miss are 4:3 monitors. A high resolution 24" in the form of a 4:3 montior would be fantastic. Laptop screens however are just guilty for being poor. No IPS, relatively low res, and widescreen. ugh. The problem with widescreen is simply that it makes no sense in the productivity context. The need to scroll is much more and most of the horizontal space is wasted.
     
  20. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    I agree and considering that Dell Latitude E6430/E6530 is ~2400$ when equipped with similar specs as the new MacBook Pro, complete with a huge power brick (Dell stop offering their used to be new slim line PSU's), no disk (you have to pay extra), now with junk included, a crummy TN panel 1600x900 16:9, and horrible keyboard layout, and unimpressive looks and design (looks like the Inspiron), and build quality is getting lower and lower, it's inexcusable. I am sick and tired of manufacture selling crap, and be the last thing in the universe, innovative. ASUS is the only one trying, so far. Last interesting Dell product is back in 2008, which was the original, sleek, super long battery life, feature filled, Latitude E6400 model, followed by the Dell U series monitors. Then it stopped. E6410/E6510 was crap build quality, and then what we have now. HP is getting better in quality and design, but with the long time crap they release.. it will be very hard for me to trust them again.
     
    Last edited: 12 Jun 2012

Share This Page