Perhaps there is some confusion about resolution then:
TKDigiCom wrote:
As is, the only way to watch a 1080p movie is full screen at the scaled max width of 1920. Actually thinking about it there is no way to watch a 1080p movie without scaling because the 1920 width is by dafault scaled. If you simply drag the window smaller it lowers the resolution of the movie lowers the quality. If I do that I might as well watch youtube.
Resloution has very little to do with actual screen measurement (i.e. full screen). As it is a scaling attribute, A true 1080p movie would take up one-fourth of the screen based on pixels. That is what resolution defines. Since retina displays have a much larger density of pixels than a traditional MBP screen, you're able to flesh out details that are otherwise lost at lower pixel densities. This is important mostly to creative professionals, i.e photographers, designers, and video editors. As I do that for a living, I see a value in something like this.
If you are just planning on watching movies, checking email, and reviewing a twitter feed, I'd suggest avoiding this screen since the pixel density will not be any more useful, rather just being pretty eye candy.
And no, scaling a video down is not the same as Youtube, as Youtube deals in low pixel density as streaming video has to do in order to transfer at decent frame rates online (even to fast internet connections). The lower pixel densities are what determine quality of video, not screen real estate.
TKDigiCom wrote:
Yes there was 5 settings. The middle of the 5 was "best retina" and was 1440x900. Any of the other settings are scaled and if selected "may affect performance" and sacrafice image quality. The highest pixel selection (more space) is only 1920x1200. 4 of the 5 settings say what dementions they are under the image on the left, and at any of the 5 settings if you cmd,shift,4 and select the whole screen it tells you that the display dementions match the setting selected, not 2880x1800.
This you are most certainly mistaken. This laptop does not say it is 1440x900 or any resolution. Look at this write up and especially the pictures for a clear and direct answer. No resolutions are labeled anywhere:
http://9to5mac.com/2012/06/12/new-macbook-pros-retina-display-reviewed-and-bench marked/#jp-carousel-194836
Further, if you go on to read the article, you will clearly see that while it "mimics" the traditional 1440x900 for "Best (Retina)", it actually renders the screen at twice the pixels in order for it to look so nice and clear. While real estate might appear to be the same size, the density is much more and therefore a crisper more detailed view. A good way to understand this is by using the built-in zoom feature under Universal Access, and zooming in on the screen. Retina will be clear much further down, showing you that the density is much better. Versus a traditional MBP will start to have pixelation on UI elements/text/etc.
TKDigiCom wrote:
Am I crazy for feeling that advertising a display as 2880x1800 without being able to set it at 2880x1800 is false advertising.
This most certainly is not false advertising. There have been thousands that have demoed, inspected, and even now own this Retina laptop, many of which work in the tech industry or tech news fields and have unanimously agreed that this is a 2880x1800 display. Most are non-biased reviewers and I'm sure many would love to find a mistake in Apple's new wonder-product, but this is what they say it is.
Perhaps you should check it out one more time at the store after reviewing the above link, and perhaps researching on Pixel Density, but from what it sounds like you need it for, perhaps you best stick with a laptop like the standard 15 inch MBP which can easily show an HD movie in its correct pixels, matching your full screen resolution.
This machine is not for everyone, but it is most certainly a step in the right direction for quite a few people like myself.
