Daniel Hruska In 2010, Steve Jobs proudly presented the iPhone 4. In addition to a completely new design, it brought an unprecedented display resolution in a mobile device. In a surface with a diagonal of 3,5″ (8,89 cm), Apple, or rather its display supplier, was able to fit a matrix of pixels with dimensions of 640 × 960 and the density of this display is 326 PPI (pixels per inch). Are fine displays coming for Macs as well?
First, let's define the term "Retina display". Many think that this is just some kind of marketing label that Apple simply invented. Yes and no. High-resolution displays were here even before the iPhone 4, but they were not used in the consumer sphere. For example, displays used in radiology and other medical fields, where literally every dot and detail in the image matter, achieve respectable pixel densities in the range 508 to 750 PPI. These values oscillate at the limit of human vision in the "sharpest" individuals, which allows these displays to be classified as Class I i.e. 1st class displays. The production price of such panels is of course very high, so we will definitely not see them in consumer electronics for some time.
Going back to the iPhone 4, you'll remember Apple's claim: "The human retina is unable to distinguish individual pixels at densities above 300 PPI." Just a few weeks ago, the third-generation iPad was introduced with twice the display resolution compared to previous generations. The original 768 × 1024 was increased to 1536 × 2048. If we consider the diagonal size of 9,7″ (22,89 cm), we get a density of 264 PPI. However, Apple also refers to this display as Retina. How is this possible when two years ago he claimed that a density above 300 PPI was needed? Simply. That 300 PPI only applies to mobile phones or devices held at the same distance from the retina as the mobile phone. Generally, people hold the iPad a little further away from their eyes than the iPhone.
If we were to generalize the definition of "Retina" in some way, it would sound like this:"A retina display is a display where users cannot distinguish individual pixels." As we all know, we look at different displays from different distances. We have a large desktop monitor set tens of centimeters further from our head, so 300 PPI is not needed to trick our eyes. In the same way, MacBooks lie on the table or on the lap a little closer to the eyes than large monitors. We can also consider televisions and other devices in a similar way. It can be said that each category of displays according to their use should have a certain pixel density limit. The only parameter that must someone to determine, is just the distance from the eyes to the display. If you watched the keynote for the unveiling of the new iPad, you may have caught a brief explanation from Phil Schiller.
As can be noticed, 300 PPI is sufficient for an iPhone held at a distance of 10″ (approx. 25 cm) and 264 PPI for an iPad at a distance of 15″ (approx. 38 cm). If these distances are observed, the pixels of the iPhone and iPad are roughly the same size from the observer's point of view (or small to invisible). We can also see a similar phenomenon in nature. It is nothing but a solar eclipse. The Moon is 400 times smaller in diameter than the Sun, but at the same time it is 400 times closer to the Earth. During a total eclipse, the Moon simply covers the entire visible surface of the Sun. Without another perspective, we might think that both of these bodies are the same size. However, I have already digressed from electronics, but perhaps this example helped you to understand the issue - distance matters.
TUAW's Richard Gaywood ran his calculations, using the same mathematical formula as in the image from the keynote. Although he estimated the viewing distances himself (11″ for the iPhone and 16″ for the iPad), this fact had no effect on the result. But what can be speculated about is the distance of the eyes from the giant surface of the 27-inch iMac. Everyone adapts their workplace to their needs, and the same is true of the distance from the monitor. It should be roughly an arm's length away, but again - a two-meter young man certainly has a considerably longer arm than a petite lady. In the table below this paragraph, I have highlighted the rows with the values of the 27-inch iMac, where you can clearly see how much distance plays a role. A person does not sit upright on a chair all day at the computer, but likes to lean his elbow on the table, which puts his head at a smaller distance from the display.
What can be read further from the table above? That almost all apple computers are not that bad even today. For example, the display of a 17-inch MacBook Pro can be described as "retina" at a viewing distance of 66 cm. But we'll take the iMac with a 27" screen to the show again. In theory, it would only be enough to increase the resolution to less than 3200 × 2000, which would certainly be some progress, but from the point of view of marketing, it is definitely not a "WOW effect". Likewise, MacBook Air displays would not need a significant increase in the number of pixels.
Then there is one more possibly slightly more controversial option – double resolution. It has gone through the iPhone, iPod touch, and recently the iPad. Would you like the 13-inch MacBook Air and Pro with 2560 x 1600 display resolution? All GUI elements would remain the same size, but would be rendered beautifully. What about iMacs with 3840 x 2160 and 5120 x 2800 resolutions? That sounds very tempting, doesn't it? The speed and performance of today's computers is constantly increasing. Internet connection (at least at home) reaches tens to hundreds of megabits. SSDs are beginning to displace classic hard drives, thereby rapidly increasing the responsiveness of the operating system and applications. And the displays? Except for the use of newer technologies, their resolution remains ridiculously the same for many years. Is humanity doomed to look at a checkered picture forever? Certainly not. We have already managed to eradicate this disease in mobile devices. Logically now must laptop and desktop computers also come next.
Before anyone argues that this is pointless and today's resolutions are fully sufficient - they are not. If we as humanity were satisfied with the current state, we probably wouldn't even get out of the caves. There is always room for improvement. I quite vividly remember the reactions after the launch of the iPhone 4, for example: "Why do I need such a resolution in my mobile phone?" Practically useless, but the picture looks much better. And that's the point. Make pixels invisible and bring the screen image closer to the real world. That's what's going on here. A smoothed image looks much more pleasant and natural to our eyes.
What is missing from Apple to introduce fine displays? First of all, the panels themselves. Making displays with resolutions of 2560 x 1600, 3840 x 2160 or 5120 x 2800 is not a problem these days. The question remains what their current production costs are and whether it would be worthwhile for Apple to install such expensive panels already this year. A new generation of processors Ive Bridge it is already ready for displays with a resolution of 2560 × 1600. Apple already has the power required to operate retina displays, at least as far as MacBooks are concerned.
With twice the resolution, we can assume twice the power consumption, just like the new iPad. MacBooks have been boasting a very solid durability for many years, and Apple will certainly not give up this privilege in the future. The solution is to constantly reduce the consumption of internal components, but most importantly - to increase the battery capacity. This problem also seems to be solved. The new iPad includes a battery, which has almost the same physical dimensions as the iPad 2 battery and has a 70% higher capacity. It can be assumed that Apple will also want to supply it in other mobile devices.
We already have the necessary hardware, what about the software? In order for applications to look better at higher resolutions, they need to be graphically modified a bit. A few months ago, Xcode and OS X Lion beta versions showed signs of the arrival of retina displays. In a simple dialog window, he went to turn on the so-called "HiDPI mode", which doubled the resolution. Of course, the user could not observe any changes on the current displays, but this very possibility suggests that Apple is testing MacBook prototypes with retina displays. Then, of course, the developers of third-party applications themselves have to come and additionally modify their works.
What do you think about fine displays? I personally believe that their time will surely come. This year, I could imagine MacBook Air and Pro with a resolution of 2560 x 1600. Not only will they certainly be easier to manufacture than the 27-inch monsters, but most importantly they make up the largest share of Apple computers sold. MacBooks with retina displays would represent a huge leap ahead of the competition. In fact, they would become absolutely unbeatable for a period of time.
Absolutely great article! Ever since I got the iPhone 4, it's been a pain to look at those gross rasters. On my MacBook, 1280x800 is absolutely miserable. When I have a notification wheel for emails or updates in the app store on the dock, I am not really able to recognize what kind of number it is - the number "4" made up of 10 pixels is barely recognizable. Retina displays on MacBooks will be a big and, above all, necessary progress, which I am exactly waiting for.
I absolutely agree. On my 24″ monitor with FullHD resolution, the badges are also sketchy and sometimes I have to guess the number.
"The new iPad contains a battery that has almost the same physical dimensions..." shouldn't there be more "physical" dimensions?
Of course, thanks for the heads up.
I don't want to dig, but none of the mentioned devices have a resolution of 4x, but only 2x. If it were 4x, the new ipad has 4096x3072, which would certainly be nice, but in reality it has a resolution 2x higher than the original, as well as the iPhone and iPod Touch. Otherwise, I believe that Apple will come up with this, i.e. also the reason why I bought the 13″ Air and not the Pro because the Air has a better display.
You can dig, but you are not right. It is taken by the number of pixels - the old iPhone 320 x 480 = 153 and the new iPhone 600 x 640 = 960, the old ipad 614 x 400 = 1024 760 and the new iPad 7782 x 40 = 2048. Which is exactly 1536 times as many . :)
Well, the number of pixels is one thing and the resolution itself is another ;) the resolution is 2x that and Apple itself says so and the number of pixels is 4x that, but the article confuses the resolution and the number of pixels and that is nonsense. In the final, yes, it is the case that every single item of resolution has doubled, so the resolution has doubled in numbers (1024×2 = 2048 and 768×2 = 1536 and because it is a 2x item that has increased by 2x, so in the final the number of pixels is 2 ×2 which is based on how this number is calculated 1024×768 i.e. from the calculation (1024×2)x(768×2) = X if we remove the resolution items then X = 4 if not X = 3,1MPix) they are mainly mistaken here 2 units, i.e. area or area equivalent (number of pixels) and height/width, i.e. resolution. That's like rolling centimeters and square centimeters, of course, if the width and height are increased by 2x, the area will quadruple. So you are not right.
Yes you are right. Resolution really isn't equivalent to the number of pixels.