While writing an article about the display resolutions of the future MacBookú Pro and iPad 3rd generation, my colleague and I thought about what this resolution is actually good for. The first thought that comes to mind is of course to improve the quality of the content display, but when you think about it again, you realize that there is no content to improve. For a perfect display, you need to have perfect content. However, we currently not only do not have it, but we cannot create it either. First of all, you need to realize that content with a resolution of 1024×768 pixels will be displayed on a third of the display on a display with a resolution of 2880×1800, when it will be so small that we cannot read the text, for example. Otherwise, when switching to Full-screen mode, there will be a rapid deterioration in quality, comparable to when you launch an application from iPhone 3G on iPad.
Videos? nothing like it is currently being filmed!
2880x1800 resolution is much higher than Full HD resolution, but you can't legally play even that on your computer. Whereas the Apple iTunes Store provides movies and series only in 720p resolution and computers Apple Macs don't have Blu-ray drives, so there's no way to legally play a Full-HD movie on a Mac. If you buy a movie on iTunes Store, will have a resolution almost three times smaller than the resolution of your computer's display. So if you want to watch a movie in good quality, it will only be displayed on a third of the display, otherwise when switching to full-screen display you have to accept that every single pixel will be enlarged three times, which of course means you will lose quality.
If we ignore the legality, even 1080p videos will not provide you with sufficient quality to enjoy the same picture as on a 1080p TV, you can fit almost two Full-HD videos displayed side by side on the screen. Moreover, Full-HD is a relatively new format that will not be replaced anytime soon. In Japan, they are currently experimenting with films in Ultra Full-HD, which is four times the resolution of Full-HD, i.e. 4320p. However, you can count these films on the fingers of one hand and they are definitely not videos intended for home distribution. It is very unlikely that Full-HD resolution will be pushed out of the market for now.
When considering the resolution of movies, it is also necessary to take into account the size of the video files. For example, Full-HD Blu-ray rip movies are 25 GB and we are still talking about a resolution of "only" 1080p. In the case of Ultra In Full-HD, the size of a single movie can easily climb to 100 GB. The biggest problem with large video files will be MacBooky Air with 64/128/256GB SSD drives. The same will happen to iPads if they get the aforementioned resolution and the necessary video content starts to be produced. Apple can hardly sell a computer whose disk can fit one or two movies.
Photo? Of course, if you shoot with an SLR
Of course, I exaggerated the title of the paragraph, but you will no longer be able to count on the fact that the photos from iPhone, which you transfer to a computer with a resolution of 2880×1800 will dazzle your friends just as much as photos displayed on a display with a normal resolution. In the case of photos, we also have to remember the speculation about the higher resolution of the 3rd generation iPad display, which is supposed to reach even 2048×1536 pixels. That sounds perhaps even more interesting than the resolution MacBookFor, the question remains, what camera will it be equipped with? Apple the new iPad. The camera will have to shoot in 1536p resolution so that the display really stands out and displays photos and videos from its own production in perfect quality, but such a camera is not produced and certainly not in a size suitable for the iPad.
Websites, iTunes, Software, Social Networks and everything else
Apple of course it has tremendous power, but is this company's power really so great that it can force every website owner in the world to increase their resolution? Even today, websites are mostly made compatible with a resolution of 1024×768 pixels, or 1080p. The biggest problem with the transition will not be the websites themselves, which are mostly made up of textual content, but especially the advertising banners from which the websites live. Moreover, speaking of text, even most Fonts are not made in 1800p resolution.
Social networks containing hundreds of millions of photos have noancand replace stored low-resolution photos with higher-resolution photos. The software will have to be completely redesigned, for example, even seemingly nonsense such as smileys in communication applications will have to be repainted to a higher resolution. Even iTunes itself does not offer the necessary resolution, and not only in the case of movies. Neither are music album covers or podcast covers prepared for a similar resolution.
The high resolution we are talking about is also unusable for reading texts. Apple recently boasted a new feature of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, displaying applications in Full-screen mode, which the internet browser also boasts Safari. At a resolution of 2880×1800 pixels and running Safari in full-screen mode you will have trouble finding a web page on the display, let alone specific text. In addition, it is important to remember that web pages intentionally provide content with the smallest possible download size. Typically, the size of a server's initial web page is maxat least up to 1MB. Otherwise, the user has to wait for the page to load. In case the adminiIf website designers and graphic designers wanted to provide sufficiently high-quality content (in terms of display), the size would climb from 1MB to 5-7Mb, while the loading time of the website would increase 5-7 times. Not only users would have a problem with the increase in the size of downloaded data, but especially hosting service providers, mobile operators and internet connection providers. Data flows would thus increase fivefold, which is currently unthinkable.
Summary
The 2880×1800 resolution is certainly an interesting idea, but the question remains whether the whole world will be willing to adapt to it. We are not just talking about the adaptation of "a few tens of thousands" of developers who changed the resolution of their applications for Retina display used in iPhone 4. The resolution would have to be changed by everyone who has to do with content displayed on computers. High resolution will of course be very interesting at a time when there will be a sufficient amount of quality content that makes sense to display on a display with a resolution of 2880×1800 pixels. However, at present, it does not make sense to produce computers with such a high resolution. In our editorial opinion Apple next year it will not come with a display with the above-mentioned resolution, because it would have no use for them.
Very nice article... I agree with the opinion, but for working with a photo it's ideal... to have several photos next to each other :-)
Thank you for the article
Roman, great idea. I would like to disagree with you. You forgot about DPI, PPI as you like. That will play a major role. Just like the content on iPhone with or without retina retina resolution. The difference in hw will be that 1cm2 will display x times the number of pixels, so I would see it as the content itself.oneinformation about DPI as it is now and the SW will distinguish if it displays, let's say that retina or notretina content. So the problem with the display size is not that everything will be the same size. What I agree with you about is the size of the data and the hardware requirements. That will be the Achilles heel and I don't know why I'm getting into it apple Let's face it, hw is trying to screw us as much as possible and most devices run on economical mobile cards, processors, etc...
Mirecek: That's nice, but if there's no camera that can record data in the required resolution, it doesn't matter what information the file contains.oneIt's true. The same applies to everything except SW, where as you write it's the same as iPhone, but I'm not specifically writing about the SW in the article, even though it will have to be redrawn. Try playing a video in HD resolution on Full Screen on an iMac or Thunderbolt display... you'll see that the quality is really quite poor and if you want to run it in 100% the quality in which it is recorded, it doesn't even start on half the screen...
What nonsense is this that the quality will deteriorate. The quality will not deteriorate, but it will be displayed on a larger area. Therefore, the observation should also be from a greater distance and then the difference will not be noticeable. Iphone 4/4s has a much higher resolution than normal screens, even full HD ones, and Internet content is displayed on it in order. You just have to find your size. In my opinion, it is good both in terms of photos and video editing, where I can display two videos at once or a larger number of necessary panels.
960×640 pixels (that is, the resolution is exactly half that of Full-HD) u iPhone 4/4S as you write is a lot higher resolution than Full-HD resolution 1080p? Also, it is important to remember that we are talking about resolution on computers. MacBook, where I honestly don't know how far you can reach the keyboard and touchpad. I assume you will be "looking" at the computer screen from the same distance as now, otherwise I can't imagine how you would read the content on the screen. Even when watching a movie, what you write cannot be true. If you play a 1080p movie on a 1080p screen, you see one pixel from the movie recording on one pixel of the screen. If you play a 1080p movie on a 1800p TV, one pixel from the recording must be almost twice as large.
The easiest way to find out how everything works is to start a 27p HD video somewhere on an iMac 720″ or Thunderbolt display.
Or, even better, when you turn on the web on this display, you will only see a thin strip in the middle of the display
Well, it will be terrible for photos. It will be interesting to sharpen it on such a resolution, for people who will have a standard resolution
I'm talking about dpi and yes iphone has a higher resolution than a full hd monitor in relation to size (dpi). And that's actually the point here. That on a screen with a high dpi it is not possible or it works poorly to display content with a lower native resolution as you write. That's why I write that iphone 4/4s has high resolution and can display content with a lower resolution than the native resolution without any problems or loss of quality. iphone. Or do you mean that if I buy a 1080p TV and play a 480p movie on it, will the movie lose quality due to the high resolution of the TV? And if I play a movie on my iMac, I should be at a certain distance from it at which it is recommended to watch (for example, a TV about 105cm should be watched from about 2,5 meters - that's an example, I don't know if it's exactly that). And besides, I really don't need to play a video with my hand on the keyboard and mouse because of that apple remote. And if I'm going to work or surf the web, I'll adjust the size so that it fits as best as possible. There are other sizes than the native page size and full screen display. So I adjust the size of the window to a size that suits me. Do we understand each other?
Overall, the article is spot on and I personally consider the pursuit of resolution to be nonsense. But I have to disagree a little when it comes to movie playback. Here I wouldn't worry about resolution. There is a ratio between the size of the display, its resolution and viewing distance. This means that if I have a 22″ display with a huge resolution, I won't play a full HD video on it in a 1:1 ratio, but of course I will enlarge it to full screen. In no case is the video quality reduced. The pixels of the film are just displayed larger, but their number remains the same. It is necessary to maintain an appropriate size of the displayed video so that the viewer perceives it in its entirety with their viewing angle. The larger the diagonal, the greater the distance from the display. When you play a full HD video on a 127cm TV, you don't sit 15cm from it and you don't complain that the video is of poor quality because you can see every pixel, but you sit at such a distance that it is lost. The reverse is also true. The higher the resolution, the smaller the display size and the shorter the viewing distance. Resolution 2880×1800 on Macbookis crap, anyway, playing a movie on this diagonal in fullscreen and this resolution will be of good quality. You will still be sitting the same distance from it as if it had only a resolution of 1920×1080. You will not perceive the pixels with your eyes, on fullscreen they will be the same size for the eye in both cases!!
"when you turn on the web on this display, you will only see a thin strip.." I will just add that I use 3 monitors connected next to each other and each has a resolution of 1280×1024. I have the website open on the left monitor, the desktop on the middle and the toolbars on the right monitor. If I had one monitor with a resolution of 3840×1024 (3×1280), it does not mean that I will now put the website in fullscreen so that I have a thin noodle in the middle of the monitor! I will put the website in the left third and keep the other two thirds for work. But the display would also have to be about a meter wide, i.e. the size of my three current monitors combined. If someone were to fit this resolution into a 15″ display, it would be unusable!!!
I probably forgot to mention that in the article, that's exactly what it's about, there's speculation that they'll have this resolution MacBook Pro released next year, that's why this article was created. On an iMac, Thunderbolt display, it's of course possible, although on the other hand: If you put three windows next to each other, they will be extremely small, so you won't be able to read small text clearly.
Perfect article, completely changed my perspective on what I had read about it so far. It's great that you know how to guide people...I had no experience in this area. Well, good to know.
It's a bit confusing for you, I think the purpose of the flood was misunderstood - standard resolution 15" MacBookthe pro has 1440×900 pixels, which is not exactly half of 2880×1800. Precisely for this reason, mentions of the so-called HiDPI mode, which ensures that 1 pixel from the standard resolution will be displayed using 4 pixels on a HiDPI display. It's exactly the same situation as when switching from iPhone 3 to double resolution"Retina" on iPhone 4. Simply, unless graphic data is available in a higher resolution, the HiDPI mode ensures that everything will look like the current MacBooku for. At least that's my idea.
And I don't think it's nonsense at all, a higher resolution will bring much better smoothing of texts and graphics, and looking at the display will also be less of a strain on the eyes. I'm just worried that SW mammoths such as Adobe will take forever to adjust their mac app UI for higher resolutions, but it will be much more difficult than when iOS applications. But I'd like to be wrong...
in reality, the only problem that can arise with the deployment of hdpi displays is that the images and video will look "terrible". rescaling text/svg graphics to any resolution (vectors) is not a problem, only images will be flooded and sw scaled to "higher resolution". in koneas a result, the website will be view its text ultra sharp and it will be killed by blurry images/graphics.
I personally can't imagine it and apple won't drain the product either. the same applies to an iPad with an HDPI display.
The article confuses and confuses everything together. Lucie Zavrelova – misunderstood. Everything remains large (buttons, text, graphics, etc.) only the number of DPI changes, so that a very sharp rendering is achieved as a result, as we know from iPhone retina display. Where I see the problem is in acceleration at such a high resolution, because current hardware is not powerful enough to render everything without any problems. Another thing to note: it is best to go to a graphic designer who prepares print output in 300dpi compared to web graphics, which are in 72dpi. Then it will be easier to understand that increasing the resolution is not an attempt to reduce objects, but only to add more pixels to render the same object.
In any case, a higher resolution LCD will not mean a reduction in the quality of the screen display. How did you come up with this???
Check out the website on iP 3 and 4! The size of the web page is the same, only on the iP4 the text is much sharper thanks to the higher resolution.
If it's on a computer LCD, then it's up to you if the web doesn'tchatev in native resolution 1024×768, as the author programmed it and therefore it will be tiny on your LCD with a huge resolution and will be difficult to read from a distance or you can simply enlarge it. Every modern browser offers this and you can have it full screen like on a monitor with a resolution of 1024×768 with the only difference that the texts will be beautifully drawn like on the iP4.
It works similarly with video. Full HD video on a 30″ LCD with Full HD resolution or with 2x higher resolution will look basically the same! Only LCD with higher resolution will be able to display better the video recorded in higher resolution in the future.
I don't understand, so what do you see as the problem?
Jarys: exactly right. I'll just add that it was written a long time ago that there are hints of icons with high resolution in Lion. this is just another proof that the developer will be able to deliver a GUI as smooth as a child's butt, but the icon will still be physically the same size.
to roman: well, the comparison is exactly the same as when the display comes as guys write with higher HiDPI, it's like when you're preparing something for printing. A4 72dpi is ok, a4 300dpi is better, a4 600dpi is super fine and fine, but it's still A4, the letters are the same size, only sharper and smoother. this will have to be solved by the system as such. you will see that the mega resolution will apply to the GUI, the application, etc. and you will already be able to control what should be displayed. Comparing the 14″ 1024×768 and iMac 27″ 2560×1440 with the new panel with a higher ppi is not out of place.
romane: vlkoun explains it absolutely perfectly with a very good example
There will be something on that apple :-)
I think that it will be used (if they come with such a display) mainly by developers, graphic designers and professional photographers. But I agree with the opinion of the editors that it is still early. But who do you Apple he knows how to surprise all his fans ;)
Usually the articles here are worth something, but this one is really out of the ordinary. The iPad needs a higher resolution like salt and not even MacbookI wouldn't mind something better (1280×800 is awfully low for a 13″, I was used to 1600×900 on a Vaio and the display resolution really disappointed me after switching to a Mac). It's not so much about photos or video, it's about luxury – I really don't like the jagged font on the iPad. Safari, Books and elsewhere, the graphics of the applications would also be much nicer in "retina" resolution. I can see the monitor well with my glasses, I can certainly imagine that I could easily fit 13% more information on a 30" monitor (for example, if I run Visual Studio, so I can't see anything from the code and I have to turn off the sidebars or connect an external monitor). Graphic example LSA is nonsense – if the diagonal remains the same, nothing will be blocky – only the fonts will be finer. And as for noodles – the iPad at 1024×768 resolution displays websites made for 1280×1024 resolution without any problems – it just zooms them out (and the fonts are unfortunately hard to read mainly due to the low resolution). If the iPad had double the resolution, I'm not afraid that the website wouldn't stretch across the entire screen so that the experience would be the best. To sum it up – we don't live only in a bitmap world, Mr. Zavřel ;-)
I have a 30″ LCD 2560×1600 and as I wrote, I do not register any problems. If the website or photo is too big for me, I'll just enlarge it :)
Okay, okay. I also think Roman didn't understand, the size of icons and toolbars etc. will be the same, they will just be finer – they will have more DPI, that's something I've been waiting for for several years for the manufacturer to think of because if we consider that LCDs today only have about 72DPI and every printer can do 300DPI and more, the font on monitors is not smoothed! Exactly as you write the comparison iPhone (1-3) vs. iPhone (4-5..) – it's still the same on the screen, only it's more subtle.