Consumer Advice - Bad Apple

bloodiedathame

bloodiedathame

bloodiedathame

Soldato
Joined
11 May 2007
Posts
8,919
Location
Surrey
Don't get me wrong, I like Apple's machines. I'm writing this from my own MBP and working on a Mac Pro at work. I personally think for the most part the extra you 'may' spend on an Apple laptop is worth it. My beef is with the retina display. I'm an animator, I use AE, PS, C4D, AI, PR to name a few programs on a daily basis. Everyone I know in the industry who has used the rMBP feels the same, that is has no real world uses (yet?). PS retouching maybe, but for video work, looking at your video full res in a small window is just not the same as seeing it full res in a larger window, you still need to zoom in to see the detail from more than 2ft away. I don't know many people who want to be 2inches from their laptop monitor in order to see if their alpha matte works.

As for Boox and WS laptops, it's not really comparing like for like, but they are more pricey than I thought.
 

v0n

v0n

v0n

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,130
Location
The Great Lines Of Defence
Retina display is definitely a gimmick. I also wish people would stop quoting stuff like "it has 2880x1800 display", it doesn't not. It's not a real world resolution, as you can't have two 720p videos open side by side in native size. Retina works wonders on small devices, where sharpness of text can't be achieved otherwise. But on MBP at 1440x900 retina, although you do might see improvement over regular 1440x900 in text or apps that support it but so you would if the screen was actually 1050. But with 1680x1050 people complained about text size, and couldn't find settings to tweak it so apple dumbofied the range. Trouble of course is - video editing at 1050 was much better than on 900 with retina, simply because of real estate space. As a trade off, unlike at 1050, retina display will also be much laggier in anything using full screen.

The biggest sale surge for retina MBPs was not the Apple's blatantly confusing their customers by using word resolution where it didn't belong, but the fact that over the last year panels used in sub $1000 PC range became so cheap, horrible, uneven and with poor viewing angles that anything on display next to MBP will look great by default. But then again, they would still would look great if 15" had new, modern 1050 and 17" 1200 panel.
 

LordSplodge

LordSplodge

LordSplodge

Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2004
Posts
16,024
Location
9th Inner Circle
v0n said:
Retina display is definitely a gimmick. I also wish people would stop quoting stuff like "it has 2880x1800 display", it doesn't not. It's not a real world resolution, as you can't have two 720p videos open side by side in native size. Trouble of course is - video editing at 1050 was much better than on 900 with retina, simply because of real estate space.
Click to expand...

You do know that in System Prefernces you can increase to useable space? Whilst it doesn't let you use the native resolution (everything becomes too small to see) it does give you plenty more screen estate. Retina doesn't just mean pixel double on OS X it uses a scale and because of the actual native res you don't get the usual blurry text associated with running a traditional tft screen at the wrong resolution. Bigger text at one end, more screen space at the other. Optimal 'retina' setting in the middle.

It does have a 2880x1800 display. That's correct as that is the native resolution of the display.



arknor said:
People on a pc forum cant afford those prices.
Click to expand...

Pah, people on here can spend £500 on a video card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom