Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: How will the Macbook Pro Retina display affect image processing?  (Read 12189 times)
LGeb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2012, 01:54:00 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2012, 01:56:28 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

LGeb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2012, 02:20:06 PM »
ReplyReply

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 Wink
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2012, 06:41:06 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2012, 09:24:40 PM »
ReplyReply

  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.
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 17, 2012, 11:11:06 PM »
ReplyReply

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?
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677


« Reply #46 on: June 18, 2012, 02:15:39 AM »
ReplyReply

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
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 02:18:32 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 18, 2012, 10:58:56 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Danijel
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3948



« Reply #48 on: June 18, 2012, 01:42:27 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 18, 2012, 05:39:34 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #50 on: June 19, 2012, 08:47:42 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 805


« Reply #51 on: June 19, 2012, 09:38:41 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2012, 11:26:31 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677


« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2012, 12:33:55 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 855



WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2012, 01:14:19 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3948



« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2012, 02:04:56 PM »
ReplyReply

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  Wink

Jeremy
Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 855



WWW
« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2012, 05:30:44 PM »
ReplyReply

i don't drive Grin i will also be going for quality craft beers from around the world and drinking in moderation. Wink
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #57 on: June 23, 2012, 08:36:44 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad