How will the Macbook Pro Retina display affect image processing?

[kaelaria]

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). 

[michael]

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

[kaelaria]

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. 

[kaelaria]

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.

[Ligament]

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.

[michael]

"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

"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

[StuartOnline]

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[kaelaria]

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.

[kaelaria]

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

[michael]

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

[LGeb]

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.

[kaelaria]

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!

[LGeb]

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.

[kaelaria]

#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.

[michael]

"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

[kaelaria]

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. 

[michael]

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

[kaelaria]

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.

[kaelaria]

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