Retina MacBook

Anyone see this article on Retina for Web Designers?

Any web pros have one that can weigh in?

^ Had a chance to see this at the Apple store recently and the websites I viewed all looked fine. In fact I don’t quite understand why it’s an issue. On the iPad, for example, you might be getting a gazillion pixels for video, but in the browser websites are still rendering at 1024×768. So doesn’t that technically mean that there’s really no difference at all?

CodingJack said
^ Had a chance to see this at the Apple store recently and the websites I viewed all looked fine. In fact I don’t quite understand why it’s an issue. On the iPad, for example, you might be getting a gazillion pixels for video, but in the browser websites are still rendering at 1024×768. So doesn’t that technically mean that there’s really no difference at all?

Still 1024×768 but the level of detail in typography, @2x images and CSS3 effects is twice as sharp and clear.

BuchmannDesign said
I don’t really see the big deal over “retina”... I have to really look super close and concentrate to see any kind of difference between retina and normal. Anyway, I’m wondering something about Retina and image size. Since the resolution is super high in a smallish form factor, won’t everything look super small on it? Like a 960px site would look very narrow on this screen. And any image in general will look way smaller on it vs a regular screen with fatter pixels. Am I right, or don’t I understand the retina technology?

No, actually the proportions and the sizes remain the same. The only difference is that non-retina images will look less aesthetic in comparison to the retina images because retina images have more detail due to the higher resolution. While the non-retina image wil look blurry the retina image will look clear and crisp.

PixelBin said
Still 1024×768 but the level of detail in typography, @2x images and CSS3 effects is twice as sharp and clear.

I still don’t get it. I understand the screen might be sharper, but how is it “2x” if the same number of pixels per square inch are being used? I honestly couldn’t see any difference in the sites I viewed. But maybe I just didn’t view enough sites.

CodingJack said

PixelBin said
Still 1024×768 but the level of detail in typography, @2x images and CSS3 effects is twice as sharp and clear.

I still don’t get it. I understand the screen might be sharper, but how is it “2x” if the same number of pixels per square inch are being used? I honestly couldn’t see any difference in the sites I viewed. But maybe I just didn’t view enough sites.

It’s not the same number of pixels per square inch. Maybe this will help you understand (http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg620/scaled.php?tn=0&server=620&filename=36dqn.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640). The same thing happens with fonts, etc. More pixels packed into the same space therefore relatively, everything is the same size, but it has less blur because more pixels form the graphics.

CodingJack said

PixelBin said
Still 1024×768 but the level of detail in typography, @2x images and CSS3 effects is twice as sharp and clear.

I still don’t get it. I understand the screen might be sharper, but how is it “2x” if the same number of pixels per square inch are being used? I honestly couldn’t see any difference in the sites I viewed. But maybe I just didn’t view enough sites.

I’ve never seen a retina display before, but I guess that in theory typography, detailed UI elements will look a lot better while keeping the same “physical space” (x2 per inch).

edumicro said

CodingJack said

PixelBin said
Still 1024×768 but the level of detail in typography, @2x images and CSS3 effects is twice as sharp and clear.

I still don’t get it. I understand the screen might be sharper, but how is it “2x” if the same number of pixels per square inch are being used? I honestly couldn’t see any difference in the sites I viewed. But maybe I just didn’t view enough sites.

I guess that in the end it doesn’t matter as most people don’t have the “eye” to distinguish those small details. I’ve never seen a retina display before, but I guess that in theory typography, detailed UI elements will look a lot better while keeping the same “physical space” (x2 per inch).

It’s for people with 20/20 vision. If you have poor eyesight, they might as well have 640×480 on there, you won’t be able to tell the difference—just one big blur.

CodingJack said
I honestly couldn’t see any difference in the sites I viewed. But maybe I just didn’t view enough sites.

Or maybe you are not believer enough.

pezflash said

CodingJack said
I honestly couldn’t see any difference in the sites I viewed. But maybe I just didn’t view enough sites.

Or maybe you are not believer enough.

touche’ I’ll tell you one thing. I asked one of the “geniuses” about this very question and he had no idea what I was talking about.