Very specific question re: Retina Macbook Pro

[Rick Lang]

I’ve thought about the link you provided to AnandTech. He does clearly state the native resolution is 2880×1800 but you can’t set the screen size to that. The Retina setting is 1440×900 where each virtual pixel represents four physical pixels. Larger and smaller virtual screens scale screens so that the 2880×1800 physical pixels represent virtual screens up to 1920×1080. Looking at the actual sample screenshots in the various scales offered, I see the left size doesn’t even tell you the virtual resolution. I think the label “looks like virtual 1920×1080 was annotated test from Anand. This is dumb beyond belief.

Back on topic, now. I would think the MBPR is designed to be programmed in a manner similar to the iPhone 4’s screen. If an application does not supply any additional graphic elements, such as a button, that are defined specifically for the retina screen (double the resolution), then the iPhone will scale everything in the application by doubling the resolution in each dimension. So the graphic would look a bit blocky. If the graphic is defined to support the retina resolution, then the button for example will be very smooth in all the full retina resolution.

But this pixel-doubling applies to graphic elements, like a designed button, not a photo or a video. I’m hopeful that will display in all its glorious retina resolution within the physical limits of the screen. So if you have a 1920×1080 video running in the preview window of FCP X 10.0.5, you are seeing every pixel in a fraction of the application’s screen even though the application screen looks like a virtual 1440×900. The same in Aperture on a virtual 1440×900 screen when looking at an 18 MP photo in actual size—you’re going to see about one-quarter of the actual photo at a time and be able to easily pan around to review the image.

Now we don’t have images posted that show what would happen if you ran FCP X in a 1920×1080 virtual screen, but I suspect you’ll still see every physical pixel of your 1920×1080 video in the preview window and that preview window will look to be the identical physical size because it’s displaying the real physical pixels regardless of the virtual size of the screen selected. If it can’t be programmed like this, the promotional materials on Apple’s web pages wouldn’t claim you can see these pixel-for-pixel accurate details.

If you haven’t fallen asleep reading this, in conclusion, you should be able to generate and window-capture and insert your HD special effects images/video. Go back to sleep and rest easy.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Bill, I think I understand your comments about the relativistic aspects of “pro” as it applies to users. If I AM understanding you, I would agree. My point I think is a corollary to your larger view.

Simply put, my contention is that “pro” as used in marketing, has in the past been weighted toward a kind of warning to the amateur: “Beware. This product is designed for professional users and may be too complex, involved, obscure, obtuse or otherwise difficult to use without large investment of time and learning curve.” Like that.

Whereas Apple as much as any company in recent memory has flogged the opposite meaning, admittedly not new or unique: “Buy this Pro product and join the pros. Get professional results. We put Pro in your hands, at the push of a button.” i.e. Pro should not be exclusionary.

In some sense they are right; you can pick up a good camera and shoot near-perfect images in Auto mode. You can ingest, assemble and output high-quality movies in either iMovie or FCPX, almost intuitively…

In that sense, the mystique of “pro” is being stripped away. Francis Coppola was big on this topic 20 years ago, noting that it was only technology that kept young kids from demonstrating innate and innovative storytelling skills. He was celebrating the advent of easy to use handycams and predicting a whole generation of filmmakers about to be unleashed. This has indeed happened. I have no problem with that. In the arts the “enlightened amateur” has always been an appealing alternative to the slick and cynical “pro.”

Fine.

But product-wise, the erosion or perhaps you would say the “redefining” of the term comes in insisting that products are “pro” while removing all the formerly “pro” options, like manual controls. The poster’s point about a Display preference panel that does not even list pixel counts, instead using thumbnail buttons for “Larger Text” is really all I am talking about.

The meaning of “pro” has changed from “has the capacity to be manipulated by advanced users” to “has the ability to deliver a professional-looking result, at the touch of a button.”

That’s all I am saying.

🙂

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Sorry for the derailing of your question, Jason. I believe Rick Lang has provided a highly specific answer to your technical query.

However, don’t insult Bill Davis and me for our “arbitrary” exchange on Pro.

This forum was not established as a technical how-to for FCP users; those threads are elsewhere on COW.

This forum started when the new FCPX came out, and has been concerned with both the technical implications of FCPX versus legacy and other NLEs… AND the entire question of how “pro” exactly IS the new Final Cut Pro X?

So our exchange was not arbitrary. Just off-topic for your tech query.

🙂

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Rick, if I understand your explanation, a real-world example of this effect would be:

I called up a Vimeo clip, and clicked the “full screen” icon. As usual, Vimeo then scales the clip to the full size of your screen, and displays an icon “Scaling is On.” So I am watching my 1280×720 clip scaled up to 2880×1800 pixels on the MBPR.

When I clicked the icon to toggle it to “Scaling is Off” I did not see my clip at 1280×720, as I would on a standard MBP. Instead, the clip was clearly scaled for the MBPR, to a size that looked to me as approximately the same amount of screen real estate I would see if I was watching an unscaled 1280×720 clip on a standard MBP.

I didn’t see any option by which I could display my streaming clip at actual size of 1280×720 pixels on the MBPR.

Of course, I spent only a few minutes on the MBPR at an Apple store.

Doug D

[Rick Lang]

Douglas:
“the clip was clearly scaled for the MBPR, to a size that looked to me as approximately the same amount of screen real estate I would see if I was watching an unscaled 1280×720 clip on a standard MBP.”

That’s very interesting but it’s actually what I would expect of an application that wasn’t ‘retina ready’ or controlling the display of the video window. I don’t know what you were using as the viewer. Was it within Safari?

Ir may be additional work needs to be done in Safari or some other program like Preview to treat the video as it would be handled in FCPX or Aperture where clearly the video or photo is not being scaled up. I know what I’m thinking us being done but obviously it takes some additional code that in sure will be forthcoming if it’s not already part of Mountain Lion.

Forget about the requirements of professionals for a moment. Even plebeians will like the ability to see works unscaled when it suits their purposes. Do I have to send a note to Tim Cook and sign it Franz to get some respect?

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Rick Lang]

Douglas or anyone with access to the MacBook Pro Retina:
Can you run a HD video through QuickTime set on ‘actual size’ and see if you think it’s being scaled up to fill the screen or if it really looks like it’s using 1080 lines of vertical resolution (60% of the physical screen height when the display preferences are set to no scaling)?

If it doesn’t then QuickTime in Lion just isn’t ‘retina aware’ either. Maybe if you know a developer with the Mountain Lion beta, ask them to test it. I can’t imagine this not working on the final release if Mountain Lion. I’m going to start a thread in the Apple Discussions forum and get to the bottom of this if possible. I’d hold off purchasing the retina machine until we have this question answered. Cross your toes that the display preferences only look dumb and behind the scene AV Foundation will handle it properly, i.e. pixel-for-pixel as advertised on Apple’s web page.

You know some techno-savvy lawyer has likely launched a class-action suit on this very topic as we speak. Or right after we can an answer that isn’t what we were promised.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Sorry, yes this was in Safari. BTW I also opened FCPX on the store MBPR but noted that they had not installed the newly released FCPX 10.0.5 (in fact they were running 10.0.2)

Anyway, the full screen Vimeo looked great on the MBPR, and the “Scaled” version looked terrific.

I doubt anyone would WANT to see the Vimeo player displayed at actual size, resulting a very-small-but-sharp window on the MBPR.

But Jason’s question brings up a real issue. I would hope that any “captured” images are real pixels based on the native object, not scaled or doubled interpolations.

Shouldn’t Retina display simply behave a fullscreen “magnifying glass” without any effect on native pixels of an “object?”

Doug D

[Rick Lang]

[Douglas K. Dempsey] “Jason’s question brings up a real issue. I would hope that any “captured” images are real pixels based on the native object, not scaled or doubled interpolations.”

Here’s the link in the Apple Discussions forum to hopefully find an answer even it it takes Mountain lion to implement:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4028344

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Rick Lang]

[Douglas K. Dempsey] “Jason’s question brings up a real issue. I would hope that any “captured” images are real pixels based on the native object, not scaled or doubled interpolations.”

Here’s the link in the Apple Discussions forum to hopefully find an answer even it it takes Mountain lion to implement:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4028344

[Douglas K. Dempsey] “I also opened FCPX on the store MBPR but noted that they had not installed the newly released FCPX 10.0.5 (in fact they were running 10.0.2)”

So that tells you when these machines were actually ready! Several months ago! Too much to expect the vendors to be able to update old software on their demo machines I suppose. Someone visiting an Apple Store soon? Ask for the software (Aperture and FCPX) to be updated and try it out? Thanks.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Jason Bernagozzi]

Thank you Rick for your reply. I think that you are right, but in the end I think i’ll wait it out and test it with someone else’s computer just to be safe. I appreciate the time and thought!