+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Nice comparison with Retina display vs. former screen resolution (/showthread.php?tid=137523)
Pages:
1
2
Nice comparison with Retina display vs. former screen resolution - tuqqer - 06-14-2012
Re: Nice comparison with Retina display vs. former screen resolution - Marc Anthony - 06-14-2012
The "retina" evolution be a boon to those who are used to viewing their screens with magnifying glasses.
Re: Nice comparison with Retina display vs. former screen resolution - rgG - 06-14-2012
I wish they would not show me things like this.
Re: Nice comparison with Retina display vs. former screen resolution - Ombligo - 06-14-2012
I just can't understand the hoopla over retina. Yes it is sharper but it isn't like I can't read my present screen. Honestly, it is the same with HDTV.. it's sharper but I really don't care (especially watching old movies).
I know, my problem not anyone else's.
Re: Nice comparison with Retina display vs. former screen resolution - JoeM - 06-14-2012
Your retinas will thank you
Re: Nice comparison with Retina display vs. former screen resolution - Acer - 06-14-2012
I was skeptical, but after switching to an iPod touch with retina, my old iPod touch looked like it was stippled with crayons. Once you go retina, you'll never go back!
Re: Nice comparison with Retina display vs. former screen resolution - yeoman - 06-14-2012
I have a mid-2010 MBP with matt screen. The only way to get this matt screen was to buy the hi-res model that has resolution of 1680 x 1050. I wonder what model was used in the above comparison. I doubt it was 1680 x 1050.
Re: Nice comparison with Retina display vs. former screen resolution - Lew Zealand - 06-14-2012
I'm sure they used the 1440x900 version as the 2880x1800 is exactly 4x that (2x in each height & width).
IMO, Retina displays don't mean much for pictures and mean almost nothing for moving images but mean everything for reading text. This is simply your biology working. You can't distinguish nearly as much detail in moving images as you can in static images, and you can't distinguish nearly as much detail in low contrast images (pictures) as you can in high contrast images (text, as high as contrast can get: black & white).
We have a Retina iPhone and iPad and will be adding an MBP to that list when the finances allow. The text is worth it.
Re: Nice comparison with Retina display vs. former screen resolution - zero - 06-14-2012
We will be finally be able to read the Macresource forum in it's true spendor!
I'm in for 1!
Re: Nice comparison with Retina display vs. former screen resolution - RAMd®d - 06-15-2012
Yes it is sharper but it isn't like I can't read my present screen.
I can understand.
I've got the first two 'Pads, and thought the screen was quite good. Sure, if I actually looked, I could see the pixels at normal reading distances, but it was still very nice.
Then I got the new iPad. WOW! I went from a 3GS to a 4S and the difference was noticeable, but not nearly as much as with my 'Pads.
For me, the difference was very similar to looking at a half-tone image in an old news paper, then looking at a high-quality photograph. Night and day. The whole screen looks far better. I felt the same impact going from my 20" G5 iMac's matte display to my 24 and 27" iMac and ACD's glossy screen.
The Retina displays aren't anything most people need. It just looks sooooo much better.