Q: New Retina Screen VS. Prior Anti-Glare Screen

I didn't look at video, but I see a decent superiority in looking at photographs, even jpgs on line seemed to be crisper. What I need to do is take my older laptop down and look at the same thing in comparison.

YOU HAVE FOUND THE PROBLEM WITH RETINA DISPLAYS!

They ONLY are optimized for 1440x900 on the 15" mbp's !!!

If you try to use the display at 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 ALL the pixels will be BLURRY for pictures, video, anything that the computer does not draw itself.

I'll explain.

Basically the native resolution of the retina display is 2880x1800.

so if you're using 1440x900 then everything is perfect (which is why apple recommends it). Every pixel can be mapped to 2 pixels of the retina display, and everything is sharp.

Many of us know that 1440x900 isn't enough for many types of work (programming, graphics, video editing, web development).

so you want to use the larger resolutions provided (1920x1200 or 1680x1050).

Unfortunately, this means there's no direct relation between the pixels you want to use, and the native screen, so apple interpretes EVERYTHING.

Every single (clear) pixel, gets blurred with it's neighbors, or displaced and doubled, changing the size and shape of the displayed images.

Imagine two grids. One is 2x2 (4 pixels total). The other is 3x3.
Now if you scale up the 2x2 to the 3x3, you'd think you'd be ok, because the 3x3 is bigger, but what do you do with the middle pixel? Which corner's color does it get?

if you choose any color, you distort the image, so the only choice is a blurred mix of all 4 colors. It's a mess.

So a movie can easily look great on a desktop with a native resolution of 1920x1200, but if the macbook has the same resolution (1920x1200) it has to blur all the pixels to match the resolution.

As a photographer all I can say is...

no thanks.

I'm waiting for a 17" macbook pro with a decent native resolution, or it's time for another brand of computer.

Jason Fredregill wrote:

 

None of the ThB drives on the market (few as they are after a whole 18 months in Macs) offer multi ports; in other words, they don't also have FW800 or USB or even eSATA - just ThB. That sounds like a requirement vs. what the manfacturers probably would like to do. Their forcing ThB down our throats - sure, you can buy 'old legacy tech' as they put it, but all ths means is the next versions will be ThB only as well. This, despite few drive options.

 

By default, you seem to be defending Apple putting out tech a month ahead of an adapter, which makes no sense. All they had to do was change a timeline for release on one or the other. Instead, they push out the 1.0 Retina MBP with no way to connect to the 'legacy' tech they pushed on us for a decade. So - yes - I will wait to buy if I buy at all, no, I won't buy a $2,300 box that cannot read any of my other four drives. Duh.

That's why I don't recommend FW, it's been 'going away' for a while now.

so if I want a higher resolution I am better with the anti-glare option? the only thing I hate about the non-retina Macs is you cannot put in 16GB of memory, if I read the specs correctly

You can put in 16 GB.  Apple tests the less-expensive and more available RAM, which is 2x4GB thus 8.  Go to crucial.com or macsales.com and you will see they sell 16 GB kits for about $160.

studUS wrote:

 

so if I want a higher resolution I am better with the anti-glare option? the only thing I hate about the non-retina Macs is you cannot put in 16GB of memory, if I read the specs correctly

That's the problem.

Apple eliminated the 17" option with great resolution (1920x1200).

The "anti-glare" 15" is a crappy 1440x900 and the retina only runs at a crappy 1440x900

Although the 1440 is enhanced when apps take advantage of the retina calls, you don't get screen real estate like you do on a 1920x1200 screen unless you're using the screen at 1920x1200... in which case the mac has to interpolate all the pixels.

Apple's left the consumers who need a lot of real estate nothing but crappy crappy options.

they've made 1440 spectacular, but most people I know who do serious graphics work or programming just don't like that resolution.

The "anti-glare" 15" is a crappy 1440x900

the anti-glare screen is 1680 x 1050 so it's not crappy at all and that is why I asked if I'm better with this one than with the retina one

studUS wrote:

 

The "anti-glare" 15" is a crappy 1440x900

 

the anti-glare screen is 1680 x 1050 so it's not crappy at all and that is why I asked if I'm better with this one than with the retina one

ack! yes, that was a typo.

The anti-glare is 1680x1050

for me that's crappy because it can't even play an HD video without scaling.

also after workign with pallettes and screen real estate on a 1920x1200 screen, going down to 1680x1050 cuts off too much real estate for me.

joshcali wrote:

 

after workign with pallettes and screen real estate on a 1920x1200 screen, going down to 1680x1050 cuts off too much real estate for me.

yes, I agree with you even though the HD scaling is not as big a problem as is for a HDTV... just think about how you are watching the blurays at 1080p scaled up to a 60" screen !! and we still got used to it.

but the real question here was choosing between the antiglare and the retina. which one has a "better" 1680x1050 quality, and what would be the advantages and disadvantages for both?

The antiglare screen will be unambiguously better at 1680x1050; the pixels will be crisp and exact, and you'll have less glare.

I'm having this discussion in my head now too, so it's nice to see others--especially photographers--are parsing the new MBPRD--discussing and debating the pros and cons of each.  I will mostly be using a MBP for PShop processing, with possibly some video--Final Cut PRO-- in the future.

Jason, you mentioned in a separate post that you did a side-by-side comparison.  Did you record this on video? Did you post this anywhere?

I'm debating between buying the MBP Standard Hi-Res Anti-Glare (1680X1050) vs. the MBPRD.

Main factors:

1. MBP RD lack of upgradeability; proprietary enclosure. IOW: Locked down.

2. Retina display may not be optimized for the apps with which I plan to use it, or I may have to purchase newer version of PShop, or worse, wait months before it's available.

I must say I prefer the anti-glare model in general. I'm working mostly in Adobe CS6 (PShop, Illus., and InDesign)--the usual suspects.  The only thing that really bites is: I want to know when PShop could be expected to release new Retina-friendly PShop. Likely by 2013.  Probably not much earlier.

I put off buying a new computer for 5 years. I guess this is now an "opportunity" depedning on how you see it.

michaelevan wrote:

 

The only thing that really bites is: I want to know when PShop could be expected to release new Retina-friendly PShop. Likely by 2013.  Probably not much earlier.

I've been following numerous posts on the Photoshop forum in re a release date for the Retina version of Photoshop. As you know, it was shown at the Apple WWDC but, thus far, marketing is not talking. Will it be a simple upgrade, a new purchase, etc. And no release date in sight. If you're purchasing for what's available now, get the 15" non-Retina with HD anti-glare screen. I can't image running the CS6 suite on a 5-year-old computer! I also recommend the non-Retina because it's user upgradeable - you can add up to 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD and have a screaming machine. And you can do it for $500-560 - far less than what Apple charges in the Retina model for similar upgrades.

Best of luck,

Clinton