Previous news story    Next news story

Apple launches MacBook Pro with 2880 x 1800 pixel 'Retina' display

By dpreview staff on Jun 11, 2012 at 20:24 GMT

Apple has updated its MacBook Pro with the addition of the highest-resolution screen currently used in a laptop. As rumored for some time, the latest Pro model features a 2880x1800 pixel 15.4" display panel. The screen, which equates to a resolution of 220 pixels per inch, is being branded as a 'Retina' display - Apple's name for a display with pixels too small to discern at a sensible working distance. The cheapest version, which features a 2.3GHz quad-core i7 processor and 8GB of RAM, will cost $2199. The MacBook Pro is likely to herald a wave of high-resolution screens on laptops and mobile devices, with companies such as Sharp developing high-res, low-power displays.

As is usual with Apple, it's not yet known who is providing the MacBook Pro's display, but it is common knowledge that Sharp has been working on IGZO (Indium gallium zinc oxide) displays that can offer higher resolutions and lower energy consumption than conventional amorphous silicon designs. Sharp proposed that its technology could offer 10 inch screens with 2,560 x 1,600 pixels - more densely packed, at 300 ppi, than the panel in the Macbook. It has already started production but the specifications of the panels it's making have not been announced.

In conjunction with0 Semiconductor Energy Laboratory, Sharp has also recently announced work on crystalline IGZO designs that should exceed even these devices, including a proposed 13.5" 3840 x 2160 OLED screen, which would offer 326 ppi. The good news for photographers being that we can expect portable high resolution displays to become increasingly common in the near future.

Comments

Total comments: 233
12
markbonolac
By markbonolac (Jun 21, 2012)

The Retina Display will be useful for the mobile professional who edits on the go; however, If you are concerned about upgradeability, you can always get a Mac Pro or a Macbook Pro non Retina and buy a display that suits your needs. The premium is quite high right now, but if you "need" and you have the money for it then you are a creative professional that can afford it. It is a luxury item in one sense. I really do not see this as an absurd price for the creative pros who are willing to purchase Full frame DSLRs with corresponding glass.

My fear is that of a few others on this blog. The hard drive and the ram are not as easily replaceable as in the former models. Although the other models are still available the price difference almost pushes you to the Macbook Pro Retina Display.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
phudson126
By phudson126 (Jun 20, 2012)

As always Apple’s products would continue to be gadgets of glory to its fans. The question is “Do you need such a sophisticated feature list for a laptop?” I know for a fact that ‘the more you offer in a gadget, the more the number of people ready to buy them’. But I would go for a high end HP laptop rather than this one any time.

1 upvote
Daniel Bliss
By Daniel Bliss (Jun 16, 2012)

The display is fantastic. If that was the only point of debate, I would unhesitatingly buy one. Unfortunately, what's on the other side of the hinge is a big problem. Put simply, the computer is too proprietary for the sake of long-term ownership and maintenance. 7mm SSD drives? No -- a card that's even more non-standard than the one in the Macbook Air. So-DIMMs? No -- RAM soldered to the logic board. A battery that clips or screws into the case? No -- a series of battery packs that are glued to the case.

Of course the display is pretty non-standard too; a new-age panel not yet available on the open market that is laminated to the display glass. Not exactly repairable. But unlike the storage, RAM, battery and other innards, at least you get something in return with the display. Even there, though, software developers have a lot of catching up to do.

I'd be more comfortable if Apple would offer a four or five year Applecare on this.

2 upvotes
tommy leong
By tommy leong (Jun 23, 2012)

YES
i think you are onto something here.
Its TOTALLY no repair, then, Apple should have atleast a 5yr Applecare on it.

0 upvotes
Daniel Payne
By Daniel Payne (Jun 16, 2012)

I've used 17" laptops for 9 years now, 6 years on PC and the last 3 on a MacBook Pro. I also own the new iPad (3rd generation). I can tell you that the Retina display on the iPad makes the images from my Canon 5D look stunning at full size.

My only complaint is that Apple has NO MacBook Pro 17" with Retina display. Photographers and web developers love the biggest screen available, and at my office I use the 17" plugged into two external 24" monitors, so for me bigger is always better.

I would never consider down-sizing to a 15" or 13" MacBook Pro.

1 upvote
tommy leong
By tommy leong (Jun 23, 2012)

"at fullsize" its stunning.
At normal size, its.....difficult to make out the difference.

but how often do you view your photos at full size, and then, the complete glory of the photo is lost, since we are viewing at full size.

0 upvotes
Strachen
By Strachen (Jun 15, 2012)

PC and macs definitely an article for religious times weekly. I have seen the ipad 3 and the retina display is to die for. I think this innovation is great. I can hardly wait til it comes to the pc, which it will and cost half as much. I had last weeks generation of mac air and sold it. I have a couple of programs that the mac version basically gutted. And I found the O/S to be to frustrating and most mac users could not help me as what I was doing was too complicated. I would not like to see the world without macs. And definitely glad they are not the only choice. Displays aren't relevant in photography magazines???

1 upvote
John Usa
By John Usa (Jun 14, 2012)

This is a garbage of a model.
I hate Apple as they trick and fool the world with looks and poor hardware quality inside. Here is a great and informative article from experts:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/MacBook-Pro-with-Retina-Display-Virtually-NonUpgradeable-iFixit-396267/
Apple undeservedly is the most over-hyped tech company in the world.
I will never touch any of their inferior, garbage and over-priced products.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 15, 2012)

As a lifelong PC user, I used to think the same thing. Then I got an iPad. Love it so much, I got an iMac. Love it so much, I'll probably get an iPhone. They've definitely won me over.

I still have Windows PC's which I still use alongside my Mac. The comparison is very sad. My Mac makes every PC I've ever owned look and operate like junk! LOL. I don't even want to use my Windows machines anymore. If they can turn a longtime PC user like me around, Apple is definitely doing something right!

Are Apple products "inferior, garbage, and overpriced"? After my switcher experience, I have to say "no." Getting Apple gear has been worth every penny. The quality of their products is very high. The user experience has been excellent for me. It's only when I look at my PC's that the words "inferior, garbage" come to mind! LOL.

I think you should keep an open mind and not be so blinded by irrational hatred. I don't think it's any different than buying a premium brand of car.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
RC
By RC (Jun 15, 2012)

1. It IS upgradeable, just not by amateurs.
2. You can order the 16GB RAM, 768GB SSD and 2.7GHz CPU version and you're good for at least three years.
I don't get your point. Oh wait...you are somebody who probably never used a Mac Pro. *LOL*

4 upvotes
Iamdisappoint
By Iamdisappoint (Jun 16, 2012)

So your idea of upgradeable is ordering it already upgraded?
Adding nearly $1000 to the price?
Mac logic.
I've had a Macbook pro in my home since 2006 and have never been disappointed with any of them.
Everyone needs to stop being such elitist jerks.
It's a computer. You probably do nothing more than use it to go on the internet and argue anyways.

2 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Jun 17, 2012)

They don't need to be as upgrade frienly because you don't need to upgrade them as often, PCs you need to upgrade by the time it arrives by UPS and then again every time you restart it. The reason why an older Mac with lesser specs does the same task better than a neer PC with higher specs is because it was somply designed and built better from the beginning. Even I know that and I am a PC user (out of neccessity related to work).

0 upvotes
phassat
By phassat (Jun 17, 2012)

I switched to mac on 2007... before I was a windows user and I am on my computer daily... 8-12 hr per day.
The difference between mac and PC is night and day... I still try PC every now and then just to check if it is better now but it is still too far away... I can work much quicker on a mac.
My macbook on 2007 is still usable and as quick as before... never have to do any defragmentation or using anti virus such as when I am in windows. I add Macbook Pro on 2010 and it is stunning. I changed me from mouse user to trackpad user. Screen is much better compared to other windows laptop... Add SSD and I think I'm pretty happy for 2-3 years (except that now retina MBP is around... huffff.... want one)

2 upvotes
Frosteh
By Frosteh (Jul 5, 2012)

I can say that the comment about not needing to upgrade them as often is complete BS. For the record, I'm typing this reply on a '11 MBP fully loaded and it still has trouble running the basic Adobe suites. The memory management system in UNIX is god awful compared to PC's. I bought this laptop thinking I wouldn't need to bring my desktop with me to college, but I have no choice. They simply cannot keep up with a well built PC. As for the Mac Pro, let me know when I can run the latest graphics cards and CPU's in it for any reasonable price. $6000 for a semi-comparable Mac is ridiculous. Mac has yet to offer any truly revolutionary updates as they keep claiming. Ever since the iPhone, nearly every Apple release has just been an excuse for fan boys to jerk each other off.

0 upvotes
Ken Ballweg
By Ken Ballweg (Jun 14, 2012)

It's not clear what can be swapped out. The Mac Airs supposedly didn't have user replaceable SSDs, but I easily changed mine from 64 GB to 180 GB. The SSDs plug into a socket on the Airs and no reason to believe that the Pro's will be different. The base RAM is soldered in place, so order the largest configuration of that that you can afford.

As to why DP would cover this, the computer is now the darkroom in the digital age. Questioning the inclusion would be like questioning why advances in enlargers were included in print photography mags in the 80's.

Having done a hands on yesterday with my 3 year old MBP side by side, I can tell you that, soft proofing on it will be so much easier and accurate. The glare control alone is a major plus. What kept me from springing for it yesterday wasn't the added cost of the display, it's the prohibitive cost of SSD storage: $500 US to go from 256 GB to 512 GB (still too small for me) was the deal breaker.

0 upvotes
Sarge_
By Sarge_ (Jun 14, 2012)

Tempting, but the deal killer is you can't upgrade the hard drives. Everything is glued/soldered in place (RAM too). This, I think, will prove to be a mistake that they correct in future versions. That might be fine for ipods and iphones, but this is another matter.

Not being able to upgrade the drives, and contemplating a D800? Not compatible plans, really.

In the prior Macbook Pro's, you could also replace the optical drive with a hard drive, making for up to 2 TB of storage (or 1.2 TB of SSD storage w 600GB x2 drives), and when the battery wears out, it's easy to replace (and/or have a charged backup at the ready).

I'm a fan of Macs overall, but I'm disappointed with the absolute lack of repairability and upgradability of this new machine. Looks like I may scoop up one of the last 17" MBP's before they're gone. Surely Apple will rethink this strategy eventually?

0 upvotes
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Jun 14, 2012)

That's not a mistake. How else do they expect you to buy external HDD's via Firewire 800 (oh, I forgot, they killed that favored connection completely in their last iteration for plain USB2.0), I mean that Thunderwire connection (this laptop DOES have it, right?).

Besides, you're just going to upgrade to the new model when it comes out. You won't have enough time to fill up the space on this model by the time you get the new one. Who skips each version of Apple products? Clearly you're not a true Apple minion.

0 upvotes
ddesignboy
By ddesignboy (Jun 14, 2012)

The new MBP design obviously favors small size over expandability. Apple sacrificed expandability to make the most efficient use of space. User-removable drives and RAM require adding SO-DIMM slots, etc, which take up too much space. I go everywhere with my MBP, and I keep most of my files on external drives, so I don't need to be able to expand the HD. Apple's design choices fit my needs perfectly.

However, I hope Apple's notebook lineup continues to offer machines with upgradeable components for those who need that, even if they are thicker and heavier. One size doesn't fit all.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Jun 14, 2012)

Crazy resolution for photo editing. Tempting but pricey... :p

0 upvotes
photobyingo
By photobyingo (Jun 13, 2012)

Fine,at last!

0 upvotes
chrisnfolsom
By chrisnfolsom (Jun 13, 2012)

It is amazing that apple is the first to market (perhaps drive) this resolution - I was annoyed at the demise of the 1920x1200 screen for the more commercial 1080P (1920x1080) size which took away 9% of my desktop - I would love the 2880x1800 in a 27", or 35" monitor, but I believe it is a bit of an overkill for 13" or 15" screens. This also creates some confusion in the adaption of the 4K screen that will come out with the QFHD (3840x2160) resolution - will that bin in at 13" laptop? Perhaps they will issue a loupe with the display so you can actually see the pixels ;)

1 upvote
chrisnfolsom
By chrisnfolsom (Jun 13, 2012)

I find this a bit similar to the megapixel resolution race in cameras. I won't necessarily knock apple for doing it - although I would like it to be more clear how much you are paying for the screen, and how much for the computer. I don't believe the resolution they are using is correct for the smaller laptop sizes. Although I am always interested in more resolution - the quality of color and the contrast ratio/black levels are of more interest - along with refresh rate, power usage and off-angle viewing.

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Jun 14, 2012)

For these statistics (black level, contrast ratio), you may be interested in this article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

I can't really compare this to the MP race. There's a difference in that there was a point to increase dot pitch like they've done here (you can often quite easily spot pixels on normal displays today), but no reason to increase it further, and it probably won't happen either since that would make the display go out of even Apple's pricing range for no reason (a person with normal vision wouldn't see a difference). Conversely, MP counts are bumped even to this day and the effect is often worsened high ISO performance... It's a pure marketing race for no reason.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
friedbrains
By friedbrains (Jun 13, 2012)

funny, so many negative comments when i don't think nobody here has even seen it yet first hand, let alone used it on real life application... :rolleyes:

2 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Jun 14, 2012)

It's in to hate on Apple products.

0 upvotes
Richard
By Richard (Jun 13, 2012)

This is a dumb feature on a 15 inch laptop. While I would agree this would be great for a big screen tv if Blue Ray could capture those resolution in movies that were recorded that high resolution. Yes I read the article everyone is slinging around but even the writer said "Thankfully Apple offers 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 scaling options that trade a bit of image quality and performance for added real estate. "

You are trading that resolution away so you can actually read the text and see the pictures. Dumb idea for a 15 and probably even a 17" laptop. My rezound phone has 320dpi, I can see no difference to lower resolution phones with the naked eye. Again another gimmick to help sell overpriced laptops. Sure the contrast and brightness is better but unless you are out in sunlight again not needed. On huge displays, this might be disirable but as the reviewer said, you are going to scale back the resolution anyway so you can actually see the text. But people will buy this anyway.

0 upvotes
Freeman-Jo
By Freeman-Jo (Jun 13, 2012)

I disagree though, I would even prefer seeing high-res screen retina-like on more notebook even 13-inch. The problem isn't the resolution or ppi factor but rather the OS or application that have yet to take full advantage for it. Higher resolution isn't just for viewing higher res pictures, but when the OS is done properly, it can display text sharper and crisper, thus easier on the eyes. There are more things that effect our eyes than just resolution, there are other thing like refresh rate also.
Traditional computer generally don't have much consideration into the display, I mean most of the time we don't even have specific drivers for our monitor, a generic monitor is all there is to it. The problem is relationship like PPI or monitor size is never report back to the OS. So, the OS isn't design properly. So the text and icon sometime small and sometime larger than what we like them to be.
We are not there yet, doesn't mean there is no room for improvement or just ignore it.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 13, 2012)

People loved the higher resolution Retina displays of the iPhone. People loved the higher resolution Retina display of the latest iPad. People are going to love the higher resolution Retina display of this new Macbook Pro. I don't think it's "dumb" at all. Seeing is believing.

Originally I wasn't interested in the Retina display of the latest iPad, thinking it wasn't such a big deal. Then I saw one! Wow, that screen is stunning! I think a lot of naysayers are going to feel the same way once they see this new Macbook in person.

1 upvote
slobodanr
By slobodanr (Jun 13, 2012)

There have been some so-so stories in the news section at times, but this is really a step too far. What has this got to do with Digital Photography? Are we going to be getting an in-depth review of it? Is every laptop/monitor that gets announced with an interesting new feature going to be advertised here, or is that only reserved for Apple products?

0 upvotes
PaulRivers
By PaulRivers (Jun 13, 2012)

(rolls eyes) This is pretty interesting for photography stuff for me, as it's the *first time EVER* that you can get anywhere this kind of resolution on laptop - or, I think, any monitor below about 30".

I'm personally really interested in this, from a photography perspective.

2 upvotes
teeoh717
By teeoh717 (Jun 13, 2012)

...seriously? DPR simply announced a product that applies this breakthrough screen technology to the mobile platform. 2880x1880 is far higher than any previously released 15" screen on a mainstream product, hands down—that's not an "interesting new feature", that is going to change how you LOOK at your photos sans the individual pixels.
If you can't connect how that is related to DIGITAL photography... well then maybe you should crawl back under your bridge.

4 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 13, 2012)

The Macbook is probably the most widely used laptop in the photography industry. It makes sense that a new Macbook with a Retina display would be featured on a photography site. This does not mean that "every laptop/monitor that gets announced" is going to get an in-depth review.

1 upvote
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Jun 14, 2012)

What does it have to do with photography? How about making you able to spot if a photo is in focus or out of focus merely by looking at the thumbnails in Lightroom or Aperture? This display is that sharp that it'll allow you to do that, and thus change parts of your photography workflow.

Full-size photos will be displayed in 5 Megapixels and look like printed photos directly on the display, or perhaps rather photos on a light table due to the backlight. :p

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Jun 14, 2012)

@Northgrove:

You clearly don't realize that a higher rez is not going to magically make your thumbnails "sharper" and make workflow smoother. Even a 640x480 picture will look sharp/iin focus until you zoom in 1:1 on the original and see it has a slight camera shake. When I record video with my DSLR (don't judge me), even with the 3" screen, I can't tell if I have my subject in critical focus till I put it on a 1080p screen. I have a 7" 1024x600 rez monitor that I can focus better with. It's not the resolution, it's the screen size WITH a decent resolution that will let you focus properly.

Hence why looking at 640x480 2" thumbnails on your laptop aren't going to tell you if you got it in "perfect" focus. The exact detail is truncated (said averaged) in a thumbnail. There's a reason why you don't "see" the same detail on a 4x7 photo from film than the same photo in poster size. Film is endless resolution, but the bigger size lets you see more detail.

0 upvotes
globethrottle
By globethrottle (Jun 14, 2012)

apple is all about attention, and attention is what they know how to get. Nothing new and groundbreaking in any way, just a good old hype. Its like my 12 year niece is saying; its soo nice, and It just needs a "Internet and face book button"

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jun 13, 2012)

Another stupid technology. Reading nano letters becomes cool. I have 22" 1900*1200 and I cann't normally read in internet (I don't wear glasses and have good vision). Have to scale up to 125%. Well, all pictures are scaled up too.
On the win7 I also scale up everything to 125%. But old programs, which do not support that, it is practically impossible to work. Letters are under 1 mm height.
Same problem in PS. If I paint (i.e. the mask), I can not see the border very good. So I have to scale up the image to 150-200%.

So what is the use of that excessive resolution?
Another p. enlargement pill?

0 upvotes
PaulRivers
By PaulRivers (Jun 13, 2012)

Because Apple makes the Mac OS, there's no reason why the fonts would get small. It happens on windows because the OS (and past Mac OS's) were to stupid to simply display the fonts and everything being larger but at higher resolutions.

I don't know if it will solve *your* problem - if you're having trouble with 1900x1200 on a 22" monitor, you might still have a problem.

But fonts shouldn't get smaller. They should just get higher resolution, but stay the same size.

1 upvote
teeoh717
By teeoh717 (Jun 13, 2012)

"Another stupid" interpretation of the retina display. OS X uses effective resolution independence.
Clearly this is just another user dismissing something like a child because they don't understand it.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 13, 2012)

Another stupid comment from someone who doesn't understand how Apple is implementing this new screen.

1 upvote
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Jun 14, 2012)

The use of this resolution will be apparent once you've used this laptop in your photography workflow. Scaling? OS X and HiDPI already support this to make text readable and you won't need to mess with DPI settings in a Control Panel and cross your fingers. OS X isn't Windows 7.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Kevin Perera
By Kevin Perera (Jun 14, 2012)

You don't seem to understand the significance of this - It's not just another laptop with more pixels crammed into the same size screen. It's actually pixel doubling - the first time in almost 30 years of personal computing that the native screen resolution has changed for fixed sized, raster objects. All raster image software will have to be updated to take advantage of it (Photoshop etc) but your OS menus and palettes and of course all text and vector graphics will look crisp and better defined.

Those of us who have been using the new iPad have become acutely aware of how low-res the other computer screens in our lives appear - it's like looking through a screen door, the grid of pixels looks so prominent, text so jagged in comparison.

1 upvote
Vegasus
By Vegasus (Jun 13, 2012)

So many ppl complaining about the price. Pls just stop, Its Expensive bcos Apple wants to know how many rich ppl will buy, or how many ppl who needs it bcos of the Technology, FAST n LIGHT.

So., dont worry guys. chill out.

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Jun 14, 2012)

People complaining about the price should point me to the cheaper laptop with these specs...

0 upvotes
abi170845
By abi170845 (Jun 13, 2012)

Meh, I'd rather spend the money on world class photo trips by world class photogs or go to photogenic destinations, with minimal P.P the people that sees your photos won't even care if you used a 500U.S laptop or 3000U.S MBP.

1 upvote
Kenneth Margulies
By Kenneth Margulies (Jun 13, 2012)

I have the new iPad and the display is amazing. The iPad II's display was state of the art, but next to the new iPad's retina display, it looks fuzzy.. The new iPad gets 10 hours to a charge and is great with quick photo editing with iPhoto and other photo apps.

1 upvote
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Jun 12, 2012)

good thing: - sharp fonts and sharp images, crisp display
bad thing: now it takes twice as much power and the battery also has to be nearly twice larger to keep with last year MBP - and nothing inside is now user replaceable or upgradeable, everything is soldered.

I see this retina craziness really counterproductive with the much increased energy consumption..
The ipad 2 has 25w/h battery for 10 hr run, the ipad 3 needed 45w/h battery to drive the power hungry retina so it can still get 10 hours.
Now an ipad 3 with non retina display would easily run 18 hours.
If I have choice I would choose 18hr run time over retina display any time.

Same for MBP, yes retina is nice to look at but now we need to run the devices with twice as much power!

3 upvotes
pforan
By pforan (Jun 13, 2012)

Or you could have a Kindle with 380 hours of battery life! I'm not sure I understand your complaint. There are plenty of tablets out there with lesser screens and longer battery life. If that's what's important to you, you're more than covered. For those of us that want high performance field photo/video monitoring and editing applications, we're covered too! Everyone wins when you have a choice.

2 upvotes
ksgant
By ksgant (Jun 13, 2012)

I have an iPad (3), my wife has an iPad 2. I read and surf the web and do various apps on my iPad and think to myself "meh, I could have stuck with an iPad 2...that is until I pick up my wife's and use it and it's like night and day. I swear, it's like I thought something was wrong with her iPad for a second because everything was just so different.

There's no way I could go back to that lower res screen now.

3 upvotes
Kevin Perera
By Kevin Perera (Jun 14, 2012)

Completely agree with you about the iPads. I thought the resolution on my iPad2 was fine - I felt there was absolutely no reason to upgrade. Then I got the new one - it is such a vast difference that it hurts my eyes to go back to the old iPad2. And I really notice the jagged text and underlying pixel grid of my computer monitors.

Now you could say that I've become suckered into Apple's product obsolescence cycle but I really welcome this new resolution movement if it means clearer reading and less eyestrain. We all upgrade our desktops and laptops eventually, so why not incorporate some of these kinds of enhancements in our next purchases.

I say bring on more of these technological improvements if that means enhancing our world and making our lives just that much nicer.

0 upvotes
jackpro
By jackpro (Jun 12, 2012)

apple does it again wow! i wish windows managed fonts as well as apple, well done :-)

0 upvotes
NancyP
By NancyP (Jun 12, 2012)

Good grief! Is anyone wondering how they will read their email, program buttons and boxes, and so on? 1650 x 1080 native is already hard to read , font size can be very small. If I want to pixel peep within Lightroom , I can do so easily in my mid-2010 MBP 15", and if I want to do color-critical work and printing, I do it on my calibrated NEC PA monitor.

1 upvote
Albert Silver
By Albert Silver (Jun 12, 2012)

Font sizes, pixel-density, there are plenty of solutions. I used to have a 14-inch monochrome monitor with 320x240 pixels. That doesn't mean the ideal was to stay at that resolution....

0 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Jun 13, 2012)

You're not thinking this through. If what you're saying is true, how can you possibly read a newspaper or magazine, since they are output at 1200-2400 dpi? Their text isn't miniscule...

0 upvotes
ksgant
By ksgant (Jun 13, 2012)

but that's not how this is working. Everything doesn't get smaller, it stays the same size, it's just that everything is "resolved" at a higher res.

It's like watching a 480p res movie on your 50" plasma. Even though the res of the plasma is 1080p, the movie still plays full screen and not as a tiny box in the middle. But then you put the same movie in with 1080p res and everything is resolved with a higher res.

3 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (Jun 13, 2012)

Resolution independent OSes, where the dimensions of text, icons, and all visual objects in the GUI aren't dictated by pixel width and length.

1 upvote
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Jun 14, 2012)

Nancy: OS X is resolution independent. The buttons and text won't get small, but much sharper. No pixel peeping necessary. :) There's a new HiDPI mode in the latest versions of OS X to address this issue. You will actually be able to adjust the interface size to your liking.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
openskyline
By openskyline (Jun 12, 2012)

The simple fact is that #Pixel is not the same #quality pixel. You forgot about megapixel vs sensor size already?

Agreed that Sony, and DELL came out with high rest screen long time ago. My DELL Latitude 9300 Pentium 4 has 1900x1200 6 or 7 years ago.

However, MBP with Retina is not only pixel, the black, white and contrast is top notch. Take a loot at here
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

At the end of the day, as a photographer, we need a good , high pixel screen. No other companies' laptops can do this at of now.

1 upvote
sardo007
By sardo007 (Jun 12, 2012)

Great!!! I've been expecting the new iPad with keyboard since the iPad 1... Finally they've launched it... I can't wait xDDDDD

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Jun 12, 2012)

For all the "it's more expensive than a wintel" ppl, do the math, compare the numbers on a, like quality wintel laptop - slower CPU, 1/2 the mem, and 1/4 the SSD and less pixels.

http://shopap.lenovo.com/au/en/products/laptops/thinkpad/w-series/
http://shopap.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/auweb/LenovoPortal/en_AU/builder.workflow:Enter?sb=%3A000000AD%3A000003E6%3A&smid=6B705CA322AC4DC9BA438330B16F57E7
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC976LL/A?

High End Default Lenovo W 520
CPU: i7 2.4Ghz
Memory: 4G
Solid State Drive: 128G
Screen Size: 15.6"
Screen Res: 1600x900
Video: NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (2Gb)
720p Camera: No
Ethernet Port: Yes
DVD Writer: Yes
Bluetooth: no
Cost: $2869

High End Default MacBookPro
CPU: i7 2.5G
Memory: 8G
Solid State Drive: 512G
Screen Size:
Screen Res: 2200x1600
Video: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M (1G) + Intel 4000
720p Camera: yes
Ethernet Port: no
DVD Writer: no
Bluetooth: yes
Cost: $2799
DVD and ethernet for the Mac cost $108.

2 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Jun 12, 2012)

To make the W520 closer to the MacBook in capabiloity you need to spend $624 to increase the CPU speed, memory, screen res, solid state capcity, and give it a camera and bluetooth.
CPU: 2.5G
Memory: 8G
Solid State Drive: 160G
Screen Size: 15.6"
Screen Res: 1920 x 1080
Video: NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (2Gb)
720p Camera: yes
Ethernet Port: yes
DVD Writer: yes
Bluetooth: yes
Windows 7 Pro
Cost: $3423
Note in this configuration you are down about 350G of solid state storage compared to the Mac.

To give the Mac the capabilities that it is missing that the W520 has you need to spend $104 to get an ethernet adaptor and an external DVD writer.
High End Default MacBookPro
CPU: i7 2.5G
Memory: 8G
Solid State Drive: 512G
Screen Size:
Screen Res: 2200x1600
Video: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M (1G) + Intel 4000
720p Camera: yes
Ethernet Port: yes - adaptr
DVD Writer: yes - external/portable
Bluetooth: yes
Cost $2907
Note in this config you have half (1G) the video memory of the W520

1 upvote
Albert Silver
By Albert Silver (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm guessing the model you chose was handpicked for its inclusion of the nVidia Quadro video card, which single-handedly raises the price far beyond normal specs. That and showing the Mac price in US dollars, and the Lenovo model in Australian dollars.

2 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Jun 12, 2012)

Both of you guys are insane for spending more than $1000 on a laptop.

3 upvotes
Albert Silver
By Albert Silver (Jun 12, 2012)

Who said anything about spending? I was merely pointing out his figures were fallacious. That said, *if* I had 2 grand to spend on a laptop, the new Macbook would be at the top of the list. That retina screen has to be magic for photography.

Although not the same, as it is "only" 1080p, and does not come with an SSD, this model by HP (http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Laptops/HP-Pavilion/B2P41UA?HP-Pavilion-dv6-7014nr-Entertainment-Notebook-PC) goes for US$1099.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ksgant
By ksgant (Jun 13, 2012)

I have to say though, when I was watching the description of the new MacBook, I was saying to myself "there's no way this is going to be under $3K". I was shocked to see it at "only" $2200.

But then again, even if it was $200 bucks I still couldn't afford it.

1 upvote
jtan163
By jtan163 (Jun 13, 2012)

Sorry, the currency was an mistake.
Still doesn't make much difference, the Apple is still at around the same price point.

From the Australian Apple store the top end Macbook Pro Retina with external SuperDrive and Ethernet adaptor is $3,323.00.
Still slightly cheaper than the W520.
Certainly not more expensive.

The W520 that I selected was selected because it had the larger screen i.e. to make it as close as possible in capability as the Mac (like for like). The lower end ones were I think 1600x1200. I emphasise I think - that means I'm not 100% sure.
I think they all of the 520s had the same video card and video memory.
I can't tell, because the 520 is now "out of stock" - and there is now a 530. I suspect the 520 has been "speed bumped".

The Pavillion is not really comparable feature wise because it has a mechanical hard disk, which makes a fairly decent difference in performance.

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Jun 13, 2012)

It is also not like for like.
The Pavillion is a home/entertainment laptop. It is not in the same class as a business computer (though it may be specced similarly)

It is aimed at the home market. Home market laptops tend to be less durable, and their components may change within the life time of the model. e.g. one copy of a given model manufacutured in January might have an intel ethernet chip and a June manufactured one might have Broadcomm.

In addition companies such as Lenovo and Apple tend to keep sufficient spares for business models, such that you can expect to be able to replace components 3-5 years after purchase.

Yes I know that a lot of people don't care about those things, but they have implications for businesses.
In any case when you compare like for like, i.e. Tier 1 against Tier 1, Apple's computers are not that expensive and are sometimes cheaper.

0 upvotes
Albert Silver
By Albert Silver (Jun 13, 2012)

If you stick a Quadro on the MBP, you can add $500. Simple as that. You can swap out the HD for an SSD, and it will never reach the price range of the MBP. In the end, the Pavilion is the closest to it. A couple of technical differences, but also half the price.

The talk about durability and market is a smokescreen. I know plenty of individual users who buy MBPs, but have never ever seen a company. In today's day and age, where a top of the line quad-core i7 by ASUS (for example) can be bought for $600, why would they consider spending well over $2000 on a Macbook Pro?

0 upvotes
Mike_D
By Mike_D (Jun 14, 2012)

One more item to consider when comparing prices. I don't know about you but for me, no Macbook is complete until it's had a copy of Windows installed. A copy of Home Premium (system builder) will add another $110.

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Jun 14, 2012)

Albert, for some people and some markets there is more to buying a laptop or PC than just specs.

The market is not a smoke screen. The reason that machines like the w520/520 exists and the T series etc is because there is a market that wants them - and buys them in fleets of hundreds and thousands and for those markets un varying build, durability and a a few years stocks of spares are important.

I'm not saying that individuals don't buy those machines and I'm not saying that Apple doesn't market to individuals.
What I am saying is that Apple (and HP and Lenovo etc business range) builds to higher standard than machines such as the Pavillion which are intended for home users.
Yep you can swap out the SSD but it won't be the same anymore. So that would not be "like."
I did say a comparison of like quality laptops.
The Pavillion may be similarly specc'd, but it is not like quality.
There's a difference. It may not be important to you, but it is there and is important to some people.

0 upvotes
JIMMYCHENG
By JIMMYCHENG (Jun 12, 2012)

Funny how different people react to the announcement here. Well for a start, I am a photographer and I do appreciate the benefit of extra pixels. Very much like some of my friends using the new iPad show casing their photos. The retina display instantly tell you your photos are sharp, in focus or not. This is a big benefit during photo selection.

Mind you, I am using the late 2011 17inch MBP with enough pixels to get my workflow done fairly quickly. I love the size of bigger screen not just pixel. I am a little disappointed that Apple has discontinued the 17inch line all together. I am not too bother about optical drive but I agree with some comments here that user can no longer upgrade the basics like RAM and flash drive. I was able to upgrade my hard disk to SSD and RAM with ease. If I want, I can also swap out my optical drive for a second SSD or hard drive for RAID configuration. This is a pro's computer.

I am unsure, apart from the screen, who this retina MBP will appeal to.

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Jun 12, 2012)

The problem is that most people also shoot their photos with the ipad as well.

1 upvote
Stollen1234
By Stollen1234 (Jun 12, 2012)

this is a site for photography...now what has a particular laptop company to do with this

i know you could use a laptop for whatever...but please keep it a photography site not a multimeia site

if you need laptop news and reviews..there are a plenty of website where you can get some great reviews and insite from real experts.

thank you

2 upvotes
Ross Murphy
By Ross Murphy (Jun 12, 2012)

how do you look at your photos ? 99% of people use there computer or mobile device, that's why we have the retina display

" and there was much rejoicing"

2 upvotes
dmanthree
By dmanthree (Jun 12, 2012)

I think a laptop with a superior display that will enable photographers to do a better job processing their photos is completely relevant to this site. How many shooters on this site don't own a PC?

9 upvotes
inteliboy
By inteliboy (Jun 12, 2012)

It's a hi-res retina display, on a consumer laptop. If you don't see why this is significant news for the photography world then maybe do a little bit of research.

5 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 12, 2012)

If there is one brand of laptop that is most widely used in the photography industry, it's gonna be the MacBook Pro. So it seems perfectly appropriate that a new MacBook Pro makes the news on a photographer site.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Jon Lewis
By Jon Lewis (Jun 12, 2012)

Hi All
No user upgradable ram be sure the get the right amount first time as its soldered on to the board.

Jon

1 upvote
Neil2112
By Neil2112 (Jun 12, 2012)

Seriously nice update.
Good work chaps, it's a beaut.

I know that a lot of the professional Apple haters will never get this, but as somebody that agonizes over every shot I really do have a deep appreciation for guys like Jony Ive at Apple that go to the trouble of making their gear as near-perfect as possible.

Did anyone watch the keynote? They designed the fans inside the MBP so that the sounds the blades emit cover a broader range of frequencies and so make them quieter..

If you as a photographer don't give a flying fig about stuff like that too, I **guarantee** your photography will reflect it.

4 upvotes
Jack
By Jack (Jun 12, 2012)

well, some companies probably use special fans but they don't make a song out of it. There's no actual measurements in decibels, so you're left to imagine it's the best laptop.

I don't know what kind of photographer you are, but if you need a better laptop than a sub-$1000 VAIO S15 with FullHD IPS to reflect on your work, you probably agonize over your gear, too.

8 upvotes
Stollen1234
By Stollen1234 (Jun 12, 2012)

you will not be a better photographer if you use apple tech...
i quarantee that you are a no one photographer...no body heard of you...and your work reflect that

1 upvote
hellocrowley
By hellocrowley (Jun 12, 2012)

You cant be serious. My MBP, bought this year, has a fan that sounds like a jet engine ready to take off everytime I open a few browser tabs. Even when CPU load is around 10%, the fan runs around 4000-6000rpm easily.

1 upvote
big_me
By big_me (Jun 12, 2012)

Please tell me ANY Professional photographer that uses a macbook (or any laptop) to edit their photos all year round. (I admit that i'm not anywhere near a professional or a serious photographer)

I'm pretty sure most of them use a desktop of some sort. So tell me if any of those screens they have attached have a ppi density of a retina display. Then tell me whether you think a retina display is necessary to produce the photos you see on magazines, posters, etc etc.

2 upvotes
photo_rb
By photo_rb (Jun 13, 2012)

Someone said "you will not be a better photographer if you use apple tech" and that is true.
...but if you are a better photographer you will likely use apple tech.

1 upvote
Neil2112
By Neil2112 (Jun 12, 2012)

Seriously nice update.
Good work chaps, it's a beaut.

I know that a lot of the professional Apple haters (such as 'makeitworst') will never get this, but as somebody that agonizes over every shot I really do have a deep appreciation for guys like Jony Ive at Apple that go to the trouble of making their gear as near-perfect as possible.

Did anyone watch the keynote? They designed the fans inside the MBP so that the sounds the blades emit cover a broader range of frequencies (and so make them quieter)? Do you honestly think HP, Sony or Dull bother? No of course not. They buy them off the shelf from Dung Shag Generic Parts Co. and have done with it.

If you as a photographer don't give a flying f about stuff like that too, I **guarantee** your photography will reflect it.

0 upvotes
Jink
By Jink (Jun 12, 2012)

It is a nice machine. However, I must correct one thing.... Apple never said the fans were quieter but that they have "less tonal impact" with the new design which translates to "we (Apple) feel the greyer noise produced by these fans is subjectively more pleasing". Sound professionals may feel differently about this as it may make the fan noise more difficult to tame in a recording since it will be more broadband rather than notched.

Another negative on this laptop is that the memory is soldered in like on the Air and flash drive is proprietary (for now). Meaning this may be the most expensive non-user-upgrade-able laptop ever made. And we all know that if only Apple can do the upgrades then they will NOT come cheap.

A final negative (at least for now) is that the GUI is scaled and can not be run at full resolution. This scaling has a known performance penalty which is yet to be quantified.

Regardless, it is beautiful to behold and pixelation free viewing is a treat!

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Neil2112
By Neil2112 (Jun 12, 2012)

Seriously nice update.
Good work chaps, it's a beaut.

I know that a lot of the professional Apple haters will never get this, but as somebody that agonizes over every shot I really do have a deep appreciation for guys like Jony Ive at Apple that go to the trouble of making their gear as near-perfect as possible.

Did anyone watch the keynote? Do you really think Dull, HP or Sony would redesign the fans inside their stinking helicopter-loud laptops so that the sounds the blades emit cover a broader range of frequencies (and so make them quieter)? No of course not. They buy them off the shelf from Dung Shag Generic Parts Co. and have done with it.

If you as a photographer don't give a flying f about stuff like that too, I **guarantee** your photograpy will reflect it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Jun 12, 2012)

Too bad the cheapest MacBooks come with a lousy GPU that propably can't keep up with the rendering of all those pixels.

Seriously there's no benefit for using too high monitor resolution for post processing. If anything, it makes retouching spots etc. harder. Not easier.

1 upvote
hunk
By hunk (Jun 12, 2012)

Ah, so retouching on the iPad3 is harder than on the normal resolution iPad2? No it isn't. Anyway, think of FCP. You can edit full HD 1920p on the macbook and still have 3MP left for tools and timeline. Seeing all pixels does really benefit there.

0 upvotes
Jink
By Jink (Jun 12, 2012)

DarkShift, the cheapest MacBook Pros do not get the Retina display. In fact only 1 of the 4 models gets it.

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Jun 12, 2012)

The cheapest MacBooks don't come "with all those pixels".
The cheapest MacBook Pro is 1280x800 pixels, i.e. unchanged. And the GPU in mine which is 2 generations old is sufficient for my purposes.

0 upvotes
Diggadonkey
By Diggadonkey (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm sure it's a wonderful laptop. I'm sure Apple designed it specifically for superior photographers such as yourself, Neil. Someday I hope to own a laptop like this so you'll consider me worthy of association in your circle of talent and expertise.

1 upvote
peacefrog33756
By peacefrog33756 (Jun 12, 2012)

Neil, if you value your self-worth as a photographer on owning the "latest and greatest," you are exactly the target market Apple wants..."the need-to-have-it-at-all-costs disciple and faithful follower." I'm sure it's a really neato-keen computer and all that, but it probably isn't compatible with my old Kowa Six, Nikon F4, and a few others because they are old, useless cameras and junk by today's standards, so forgive me if I pass on the new MBP.

1 upvote
LukeDuciel
By LukeDuciel (Jun 12, 2012)

I have to admit Apple is real supply chain master.

With this screen/spec/design/quality and brand it with Thinkpad, Lenovo will probably charge people $4k for that. Just look at their ridiculously big&ugly&over-priced W series.

Like it or not, apple is pushing forward every industry it touches.

0 upvotes
Mike4679
By Mike4679 (Jun 12, 2012)

I guess justifying a buy of D800 starts to make sense now :)

0 upvotes
MIKE GG
By MIKE GG (Jun 12, 2012)

finally no more 1200x500 !!!

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Jun 12, 2012)

Awesome, but it's not fast enough for use as a photog's main computer, and it's too expensive for use as a second computer. My 3.6 GHz iMac is just barely fast enough for processing 22mp RAWs.

Guess I know what my next iMac will look like.

0 upvotes
Gionni Dorelli
By Gionni Dorelli (Jun 12, 2012)

This new laptop is plenty fast for Photoshop work.
I have the previous one, with 16gb of ram and it work fine with PS CS 6, LR4 using 50mp hasselblad files, which sometime becomes 2 gb of size once they are full of PS layers.
With Sony a900 24mb files, it just flies.

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Jun 12, 2012)

Man my 3 year old HP laptop has cs6 and processes 22mp files just fine.
Dual core 2.0ghz with nvidia 9600mgt 512 ded. 4gb ram.

Sounds like your not doing something right! Lol

1 upvote
Jink
By Jink (Jun 12, 2012)

Plus, the 400Mb/s flash drive should make a BIG diff.

0 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (Jun 12, 2012)

I can't go to bed yet.

Somebody's wrong on the internet.

2 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Jun 12, 2012)

I guess DPP is slower than PS/LR, but I like it too much to stop using it!

0 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (Jun 12, 2012)

My 13" MacBook Air displays at 1440x900. That is one reason I chose it over the 13" MacBook Pro. It would be nice to see a 15" MacBook Air with that new retina display. I really don't need a built-in Super Drive. I haven't used my Super Drive in months! (I got one with the MacBook Air, because I figured I would need it. I have needed it a couple of times, but it is not something that needs to be integrated. The MacBook Air is much more handy than a heavier computer, and I love the screen!) It would be cool to see the 13" MacBook Air get an upgrade to a retina display too! I guess that is coming. Now for the hard drive! (256 GB just isn't enough. Mine is almost full already, and there was no option to get a bigger hard drive in this computer!)

0 upvotes
Arlo2000
By Arlo2000 (Jun 12, 2012)

The Retina Pro doesn't have an optical drive, and it can be expanded up to 768GB if you go with the high-end

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (Jun 12, 2012)

It weighs 50% more, but it has a quad-core processor, twice the RAM, and a hard drive twice the size of my computer. NICE! Hmmm, now I need $3,000! lol

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Jun 12, 2012)

Retina display on a macbook air would be lovely, but the battery life would be very short, the only reason why this computer is not tapered like a mb air is all the extra battery.....

0 upvotes
Tom_N
By Tom_N (Jun 12, 2012)

> It would be nice to see a 15" MacBook Air with that new retina display.

If you look at the specifications, this thing essentially IS a 15" MacBook Air (no hard disk, no optical drive, no Gigabit Ethernet port, no Firewire port, uses a SSD), with a Retina Display, and with the quad-core CPU / discrete GPU arrangement characteristic of the previous 15" MacBook Pro.

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Jun 12, 2012)

Yes, it really is closer to 15" macbook air than to the previous MBP. If they don't put the retina, they won't need the 2x bigger battery and all would be as thin as the air is... which makes me wonder if the original idea was for air with retina, but then due to size renamed to MBP.
Also don't forget the things in the new MDP are also soldered in and non replaceable as was the air, but unlike the previous MDP.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Jun 12, 2012)

About 8 years ago 1200 line 15.4 inch screens were common. Back when they were used more for work than play. Then the market decided that everyone on the planet only used their laptop for watching movies and gaming so a couple years ago 1080 was about the most you could find besides the macbook pro. Last year I was looking desperatly for a higher res laptop PC and was told that the big three screen makers had stopping making screens for laptops over 1080. There is no laptop PC on the market with a 2nd gen quad core i7 and 1200 line screen other than the Mac book pro.
It is really nice to see this shift to higher res again. I use other programs with lots of tool pallets and I don't want to lug a second screen around.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Jink
By Jink (Jun 12, 2012)

Not sure what your talking about. The Macbook Pro line has had much higher than 1200 line screens available for many years now. My 5 year old 17" MacBook Pro is 1920x1200.

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Jun 12, 2012)

Sony still makes 1200 lines, but what I see a bad move is that everybody stopped at 15" screens now.The MBP 17" was the last serious screen estate laptop and now it is gone.
Everybody keeps pointing at the 2,560 x 1,600 pixels, but on 15" to have GUI elements usable, they would need to be scaled up (like fonts, icons and all other GUI elements) or you won't be able to read the text or click on tiny little icons.
In fact the scale and proportion of fonts and icons on current MDP 15" is just bout right, you don't want it smaller.

0 upvotes
DeFinitive
By DeFinitive (Jun 13, 2012)

Do you think the 17" MBP is a good buy if you can find one? What is the best res of 17" MBP and is it a worthwhile photo editing tool?

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Jun 18, 2012)

Jink - I know the Macbook Pros have had higher res screens. I said that there is no laptop PC with 1200 line display and 2nd gen i7. What are you talking about? There are a couple "work station replacement portable PC computers" out there but they are + 16 lbs and are not considered "lap tops".

0 upvotes
Twebain
By Twebain (Jun 11, 2012)

okay fine i won't have problems with tiny buttons and unreadable UI text but browsing the web will be permanently upscaled and any other fixed pixelsize based content (like photos) will be extremely tiny, will it not?

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Jun 12, 2012)

I would assume that you can lower the video card output resolution to make everything bigger. The resolution of the actual screen is fixed so it should display the lower res output very very clear.

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (Jun 12, 2012)

It is exactly 4 times the resolution of the standard 15" MBP. Theoretically dumping down to that resolution will make 4 pixels one pixel, I doubt you would notice any artifacting doing this. This isn't like running lower resolution on standard monitors.

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (Jun 12, 2012)

Ugh! Just read that there is no scaling option to 1440 x 900!!! That is just silly.

0 upvotes
taamberg
By taamberg (Jun 12, 2012)

abortabort - apparently there is indeed scaling. Just check out the screenshot of the new Display preference pane on the "hands-on" article at MacWorld:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1167229/hands_on_with_the_retina_macbook_pro.html

0 upvotes
Stephen123
By Stephen123 (Jun 12, 2012)

Pixel doubling is automatic, unless the app maker turns it off. So most web graphics will be 110ppi unless you zoom in.

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Jun 11, 2012)

220 pixels per inch is the new apple "retinal" thing? Well, for at least a year Sony has an 11" diag laptop (the Z series) with 1080x1920 pixels, which translates to 216 pixels per inch.
Yet, Apple has better marketing and wakes dpr up, albeit a year late. Further, dpr is lame to comment that in addition to resolution there is the importance of the color repro gamut, which is a function of technology and at this time IPS (In-Plane Switching) displays are the king -- and Apple isn't there.

Color fidelity is important to photography, I'd say.

5 upvotes
Tom_N
By Tom_N (Jun 11, 2012)

If you took a moment to look at the technical specs for the MacBook Pros with Retina Display, you would see that the display is a "LED-backlit display with IPS technology". And if Apple is "a year late", where is a Sony laptop with a screen that has this many pixels? Hmm? Considering that Apple is the first to market with this, you have an odd definition of "too late".

8 upvotes
Alphoid
By Alphoid (Jun 12, 2012)

"First to market?" The 15" ThinkPad R50 went up to 2048x1536 a decade ago. Apple doesn't invent very much -- almost no one does -- it's all been done before. What's important is who executes it.

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (Jun 12, 2012)

While the ppi of both of those displays is impressive, we are talking about a difference of 3 million pixels here... or 2.5x the total resolution.

IBM had a 22.1" Quad HD display out years ago with 9 million pixels, but it cost more than a car. In fact Viewsonic had a rebadged one and now they were showing off a display of similar size and resolution... It still cost as much as a car (supposedly).

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 12, 2012)

Sony still makes laptops?

1 upvote
Arenas
By Arenas (Jun 12, 2012)

The Sony Z series, mid 2012 model, has 1920x1080 on a 13" screen which translates to 168PPI. http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3077659/retina-display-macbook-pro-comparison-statistics It's the 11" Xperia S an UX Micro PC which have a high PPI, then again, they're not laptops.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jack
By Jack (Jun 12, 2012)

The VAIO S15 is the most directly comparable photographer's laptop, IMHO.

It's got a FUllHD IPS, but only 72% sRGB, though, and you have to remember that orange is actually red. Color gamut is not specified for the Macbook Pro. It costs $1000 vs MBP's $2200. That's a lot of money for 2.5X more pixels, but some would find it worthwhile (esp. people with academic grants).

Both weigh the same, 1.96kg vs 2.0+kg, but the MBP is probably more durable. You can fit two 2.5" hard drives + an mSATA SSD inside the VAIO, by ripping out the optical drive. 96WH of batteries inside the MBP probably take a long time and a bulky power adapter to charge.

Sour grapes or pragmatism, some might win clients over with the 5 million pixel display, while I think I can work with 2 million pixels onscreen, and spend that $1200 difference on better lenses.

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Jun 13, 2012)

Tom, you are right. Apple is using IPS technology on some of its displays. This is difficult (but not impossible) to find this out because marketing inherently abhors making a brand into a commodity.

As for the rest of it, I agree that the color gamut should be published by the screen/display manufacturers.

Oh, the high pixel density makes the size of the text awfully small but that does not mean that this cannot be fixed. The OS has to treat the text and the image separately and resize automatically. (It could be that Jobs' OS is ahead of Gates' OS on this.) Google manages the separate resizing in the Chrome browser just fine but it is still manual (CTR_+).

Finally, I am not pushing Sony, but it just happened I got their S15 laptop at a discount while they are closing their SonyStyle store in Boston this month. I am so impressed with IPS I stopped looking at laptops that do not have it, and their S13 model (called SA) does not (and is still available).

0 upvotes
jj74e
By jj74e (Jun 11, 2012)

Honestly, get the price down first, then I'll consider Apple. Yes, the trackapds are unparalleled, the OS is clean and efficient, the battery life is great, etc. But they are so cheap with how much hard drive, RAM and graphics memory they offer...the cheapest Macbook with an i7 and dedicated graphics card is over $1600 i believe. And Windows 7 can trade punches while offering better hardware at cheaper prices.

Windows PCs have the main components- processor, graphics card, RAM, battery life, etc. at good prices, like the HP Envy or Samsung Series 7 (around $1200) while Mac is cheaper on those options and offers better frills hardware like trackpad, now screen res, unibody construction. Don't get me wrong, it's all very nice, but I'd rather not have to pay ~$400 extra just to get those less important improvements.

6 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Jun 12, 2012)

...but apple products have a much greater resale value, thus closing the gap considerably. Not talking of generally more though out product....

0 upvotes
Gionni Dorelli
By Gionni Dorelli (Jun 12, 2012)

I agree.
Yet for 400 bucks difference I would rather be shown in public carrying an Apple laptop than a Samsung or HP. ;)
Beside, all the pros that you mentioned at the begin of your post are well worth 400 bucks, even 800. IMO

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm a longtime PC user who switched to Macs last year. Now I never want to run Windows ever again. I'm so sick of Microsoft and their kludgy OS, running on kludgy PC hardware. Never thought I'd be an Apple user, but they have definitely won me over. I still have a Windows 7 laptop, which only shows how outdated and poor Windows is compared to Mac's very clean and very efficient software and hardware.

1 upvote
Jink
By Jink (Jun 12, 2012)

Windows 7 is great in the hands of a power user. I can get around a little bit faster than in OS X. But I agree OS X is just getting better and better and doesn't require a power user to enjoy years of problem free running (unlike Windows). Apple's hardware ain't perfect either but it's definitely the best out there. Those who think it is too expensive are simply wrong. Most people go through 2 windows laptops for every 1 Apple laptop, lose countless hours in frustration (viruses etc.) and down time, get almost no money for their Windows laptop where as Apple machines fetch a decent price years later, pay a fortune for lackluster OS upgrades, get usually terrible to non-existent support and on top of this suffer a very typically less satisfying experience the whole while long. Enough of these Apples to Oranges comparisons already.

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Jun 12, 2012)

I've found that when I compare Apple hardware against similar quality PC hardware, the Apple hardware is usually comprable and at times has been way better priced. Key word: comparable quality. E.g. Lenovo or HP business (as opposed to home) oriented lines.

I haven't done a comparison with these new models yet, but Apple has pretty much been consistently in the same ballpark as other Tier 1 laptop pricing for the last few years.

0 upvotes
Bimmerphile
By Bimmerphile (Jun 11, 2012)

I recently got my new D800 and find my almost 5 years old Macbook Pro drag it when I working on the big file from D800. This is just come in time to save me. I can see more detail D800 would provide on this new Retina display!

I don't want to be "fanboy" of any brand. But when I look the things I have been use, almost all labeled APPLE. That is bad. Someone please make something better the APPLE. They took too much money from me!! :-)

4 upvotes
BRJR
By BRJR (Jun 12, 2012)

I like Apple too, and Apple is the greatest as we are always continuing to see with their new products.

2 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (Jun 12, 2012)

Every time I use a Sindows product, I am disappointed. Whether it was the 17" Toshiba laptop my friend had, with Vista on it, or my other friend's 15" Sony, with 7 Ultimate on it, or some other newer computer. My new MacBook Air kicks all their asses, and it only weighs 3 lbs! As far as I'm concerned, Apple kicks ass. Years ago, when I tried a Mac Mini, I had my reservations about Apple computers. That little thing convinced me what an Apple product could do. Then I bought a 17" MacBook Pro, and I LOVED that thing. When it was stolen I went without for a while, borrowing other computers. Now that I am back on an Apple portable computer, I feel like I am NEVER going to go back. Microsoft just plain sucks. I can't figure it out. They've had years and years to fix the stupidity, but just like NASA, they can't seem to get stuff right . . . no matter how much money they have to do it with.

2 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Jun 12, 2012)

Whenever my iMac sees a PC, it breaks out into song... "Everything you can do, I can do better! I can do anything better than you!"
(and I use a PC for my day job)

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jun 12, 2012)

You pay a bit of a premium for Macs, but in my experience they seem to last considerably longer than your typical Dell Desktop or Laptop. And OS X is really a nice hacker system as it's UNIX based, giving you full access to an extremely powerful Bash shell which is absolutely awesome for shell scripting, automating repetitive tasks, etc. And if you must run Windows for any reason, VMWare is fantastic.

But I hear you on the Graphics Card front as no laptop at the $1299 price point like my wife's MacBook unibody should still be using integrated Intel Graphics instead of a dedicated card.

0 upvotes
Paul Janders
By Paul Janders (Jun 11, 2012)

No mention anywhere on DPR about the Aperture update released this afternoon. Went to 3.3. Read all about it here:

http://www.apple.com/aperture/whats-new.html

0 upvotes
whyamihere
By whyamihere (Jun 11, 2012)

I may not have been doing digital photography for long, but I have been doing digital art and video editing since the early 90's, so I'm aware of the implications of pixel density and perceived resolution clarity. Keep that in mind as I say the following:

Anyone who thinks this Retina Display will help them with their digital photography work is either ignorant - as in, "You don't know how the human eye works," - or doing something wrong - as in, "You're face is way too close to your screen."

The ignorant will think the screen is awesome because they think it'll somehow translate into clarity. I'll bet the differences won't be noticeable until you're too close to the screen, at which point you're doing something wrong because nobody holds their laptop that close to their face while working.

The "Retina" trick only works for devices that need to be that close to your eye, such as a phone or a tablet. That sort of pixel density is wasted on a laptop.

7 upvotes
mjbauer
By mjbauer (Jun 11, 2012)

May I think the screen is awesome because of how it looks?

2 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jun 11, 2012)

I wonder why camera's ever got more than 2mp.

2 upvotes
zorgon
By zorgon (Jun 11, 2012)

This has got to be one of the most arrogant posts I've ever read.

9 upvotes
DigitalOxygenca
By DigitalOxygenca (Jun 11, 2012)

I sort of see your point but having recently upgrade from the iPad 2 to the "new" iPad I can say without a doubt that photos are clearer and much more enjoyable even without holding it inches from my face. I typically hold it or rest it at the same distance I would a laptop display. That being said I'd rather be able to hook up my exiting Macbook Pro to a larger (say 24" or 27") external "retina" display than work on the laptop screen.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Sabatia
By Sabatia (Jun 11, 2012)

I have a beautiful high res monitor that I paid $900 for three years ago. I also have a two year old MacBook Pro. The MB screen is much smaller, but so much sharper that I do all my semi-pro digital imaging on it. If the new display is even sharper, it will be a delight for digital image processing. If you think that the brighness and sharpness of a screen is a "trick" of little use in real world imaging, you just simply don't know what you are talking about.

4 upvotes
persiyan
By persiyan (Jun 11, 2012)

He wasn't arrogant. He is right. I've got a 27" iMac with 2560x1440 res and the screen is about 24" from me, I cannot see any pixels; I have to stand at about 12" to distinguish the pixels. On laptops you usually stand closer, but then again the DPI on MacBooks is higher than that of iMacs so you'd have get closer than 12" to see the pixels. And you usually hold an iPhone about 5-6" from your face and that's why a high DPI makes sense.

Such a high resolution on a small 15" screen can give lots of estate. But I'm not sure how they are dealing with the extra estate since the UI elements are the same size. The only pluses seem to be that if you happen to stick your face into the screen you won't notice the pixels. And that's totally fine, it's what all screens should be going for, but not for this price. The Air is still just as capable a machine as this new Retina Pro at half the price, and chances are that you won't notice that much difference between the screens during regular usage.

2 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Jun 12, 2012)

It isn't just about seeing pixels. When I have 3DS Max, REVIT, or AutoCAD open with all the pallets I need to work screen real estate is valuable. When the res is higher all the little icons are much clearer. That is not ignorant. That is a fact. Oh ya, and obviously you don't know how the human eye works either. Ever think about why higher res screens have less moire? It isn't just about whether you can see the pixels.

2 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jun 12, 2012)

You should try putting alternating black and white lines of 1 pixel width on your display to see how far you need to be before you cant see pixel size detail anymore. You will probably need to go about 40 inches from your 27inch display for it to become solid grey. Thats the definition of retina, its not about not seeing the fine pixel wireframe on a solid white screen or something like that.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jun 12, 2012)

Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The retina display for both the iPad and the new MBP set new standards for images displayed. You can see the differences easily when viewing images on either the 10" or 15" retina display compared to any other laptop that currently exists.

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (Jun 12, 2012)

not to mention the impact to clients, when you show on the fly a picture from your laptop. A picture from a rebel on this screen will look better than a pic from an Hasselblad on my older macbook pro....

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Jun 12, 2012)

The retina dislay will be good for the same reasons a 1024x768 monitor is better than a 640x480. More screen real estate.

You can get more pallettes on screen with less window/pallette stacking - assuming your vision is reasonable.

E.g. you'd be able to have an entire window of 1080 video on screen, with plenty of room for pallets around it.

0 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (Jun 12, 2012)

Notice the "I'll bet," as in "I don't really know, but here's my unsubstantiated guess."

0 upvotes
photo_rb
By photo_rb (Jun 13, 2012)

Why would this not be the same as looking at a photo printed at 72ppi vs. one printed at 220ppi?

0 upvotes
zorgon
By zorgon (Jun 13, 2012)

@persiyan, I too own a 27" imac and an ipad 3. I might not be able to see the pixels on the imac at 24" but it's still noticeably less sharp when compared to the ipad at that distance for both text and graphics. I have to move about 48" away before I can't tell the difference.

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (Jun 11, 2012)

I don't like laptops. Too big to carry around all the time too small for getting your work done. Make retina desktop displays. I like apple even less. I will just assume this is not an advertorial for one of the most evil companies on earth.

2 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Jun 12, 2012)

it will come, in the meanwhile I can get work done on the field like a king....

0 upvotes
instamatic
By instamatic (Jun 11, 2012)

It's only getting better, which is great, even though the price is a premium. I've been working on a Mac for the last 6 years, and processing photos on it for the last 3. The value of a Mac is not in the verbatim specifications, but in the overall experience and efficiency of working with it - once you learn how to use it "the Mac way", as it works quite differently when you get down to the operational details.

In my opinion Aperture 3 on a MacBook Pro is one of the most productive and useful tools in a photographer's toolbox. This new high resolution screen is bound to help see detail in photos that previously needed to be zoomed-in closer. All in all I can only see this saving time during postprocessing. Yeah, there you have it, call me an Apple fanboy ;-)

2 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Jun 12, 2012)

The price is a premium? This costs less than my previous 15" macbook pro with an i5 in it...

0 upvotes
tabloid
By tabloid (Jun 11, 2012)

Correct me if I'm wrong.
New range of SLRs are coming out.....doing 4K videos, would this be running in parallel with the new high definition screens .
Is HD dead.

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Jun 11, 2012)

?
HD is evolving....this would be...SHD...maybe super hi def....lol
There is no reason to have such high def tv's anything under 40 inches at normal viewing you can't tell the difference between 1080 and 720.
Only 55 plus would you tell the difference between 1080 and 4k.

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Jun 12, 2012)

it is all relative to the distance at which you stand. It will make a difference on any screen, or not at all is you are far enough...

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jun 12, 2012)

"it is all relative to the distance at which you stand. It will make a difference on any screen, or not at all is you are far enough..."

Exactly. For example, the 720p vs. 1080p difference is highly visible on an iPad 3 when watched from 30cm (12"). There's even an article with a lot of shots on this: http://www.iphonelife.com/blog/87/new-ipad-3-whats-real-difference-between-720p-and-1080p-two-major-high-resolution-video-form

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jun 11, 2012)

I am already looking forward to the next step of 288ppi rather than 192ppi. It wont be too long for 3840x2400 or 4096x2560 laptops and tablets to be released since they will be based on the new tv resolution standard which will replace full hd, either 3840x2160 or possibly 4096x2304.

For phones 288ppi will come very soon:
http://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-developed-5-full-hd-lcd-panel-440-ppi
At 288ppi setting that gives the same text size as a 15inch full hd laptop screen at 96ppi so its unlikely to be using smaller text, so basically these will be the first 1.5x 'retina' displays.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jun 12, 2012)

"I am already looking forward to the next step of 288ppi rather than 192ppi. It wont be too long for 3840x2400 or 4096x2560 laptops and tablets to be released since they will be based on the new tv resolution standard which will replace full hd, either 3840x2160 or possibly 4096x2304."

Frankly, I don't think Apple would release a notebook with a 4k (3840x2160) screen, let alone even bigger ones. After all, the 17" model (it was the only one to have a WUXGA, that is, 1920*1200, screen) seems to be discontinued. It would be only the 17" model that could have received a 4k(+) screen, not smaller (13/15") ones.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jun 12, 2012)

You mean for double ppi like the current 'retina' generation. For next generation triple ppi displays 3840x2400 will only give the same desktop space of regular 1280x800 laptops so its suitable even for ultra portables.

For 1920x1200 desktop space like for the 17 inch laptop triple ppi will give 5760x3600 or 20.7mp. Finally monitors will be capable of showing high quality images.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
oscarvdvelde
By oscarvdvelde (Jun 11, 2012)

I had a great Toshiba laptop with 17" screen of 1440·900 pixels. Now I have a laptop with 15.6" screen with 1600·900 pixels, it is more dense but frankly, I prefer the former. Images should be displayed larger, not smaller. I'd rather have 2880·1800 pixels in a 34" screen. On the other hand I suppose one could enlarge images 200% and get the same quality and size as before.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jun 11, 2012)

Same size, much higher quality :)

Compare pdf text at 100% to 200% and to 300%... And of course for pictures the benefit is even more clear i think?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
PaoloBosetti
By PaoloBosetti (Jun 11, 2012)

hey guys, but do you actually read the details before starting complain about vapor?
UNLIKE Windows or Linux OSs, where increasing the resolution means making things smaller (because the graphics manager of these OSs has a FIXED RESOLUTION), OS X scales the apparent size of controls and text in order to keep the same APPARENT SIZE, but increasing the RESOLUTION (i.e. DPI).

Stop blaming about the wrong things, please.

8 upvotes
_sem_
By _sem_ (Jun 11, 2012)

On Windows the problem is the implementation of scalability of software. Windows themselves are pretty scalable, but GUI of most applications used to fall apart even upon change of font size. This and capable graphic cards were causing practical problems with dense displays, especially to people with imperfect eyesight.
For viewing photos, increasing the resolution is welcome. My current 2 or 3 MP displays are pretty limiting and I see pixelation. I think 5MP is welcome for a laptop, and twice that much would be fine for a 30" screen.

1 upvote
ayt
By ayt (Jun 11, 2012)

this new display should be great for you then. things will be the same size as on a 1440x900 display, but a pixel on the former will be represented by four pixels on the new 2880x1800 display. if there is enough information (like a multi-MP image that has more pixels than either and has to be scaled down), and given proper software support, things will appear sharper on your screen.

1 upvote
oscarvdvelde
By oscarvdvelde (Jun 12, 2012)

coming back to my own comment, I think the advantage is exactly because of the doubling of pixel density, which makes it easy to scale web size pictures to 200% without the interpolation losses (softness) you would get at intermediate resolutions (e.g. resampling 133%).

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jun 12, 2012)

I think it wont be long before images on the internet automatically load at the right ppi for your monitor.

0 upvotes
zorgon
By zorgon (Jun 11, 2012)

I made the mistake of watching the video on the apple website.

Now I want one.

9 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Jun 12, 2012)

I made the same mistake and I was weaker.... I ordered it...

6 upvotes
nravindra
By nravindra (Jun 15, 2012)

Weakest here... Ordered first and then watched the video! Hope I stay sane when it arrives home in 3 weeks!!!

0 upvotes
Octane
By Octane (Jun 11, 2012)

yes!!

2 upvotes
Total comments: 233
12