6 ms·

How is that more awesome than any other LCD monitor that is able to up-scale?

by cheatercheater 14y ago

fredsted 14y ago
It's not going to be blurry, because it's still 2800x1800, only scaled to match 1920x1200.
- lloeki 14y ago
  Apparently it's actually rendered at 3840x2400 before being downscaled to 2880x1800.
chrisbroadfoot 14y ago
Because it doesn't upscale, it downscales.
- sigkill 14y ago
  Everytime someone makes such a comment, my mind is blown at how we already live in the future. Just a few weeks ago if someone would've told me that they're planning to _downscale_ to 1920x1200 on a _15"_ screen, on a portable computer I would've thought they were crazy.
  - FireBeyond 14y ago
    It's not that impressive, when you consider that Sony has let you select a 1920 resolution on some of their 13" laptops for over a year. Lest I be considered a nay-sayer, I'm going to be getting an MBP largely for the resolution boost.
  - eschutte2 14y ago
    I agree about downscaling being impressive, but I was using 1920x1200 on a 15" notebook in 2004.
- cheatercheater 14y ago
  Er no, it upscales. When you put a 640x480 image through an old lcd that supports only 1024x768, then it needs to scale the original image up, hence it upscales. Same if you put a 1080p image into a retina display which has a much higher resolution: it needs to upscale.
  - mquinn 14y ago
    As others have pointed out, apparently the screen is actually being rendered at 3840 x 2400, then is downscaled to 1920 x 1200.
    - cheatercheater 14y ago
      OK, I see the downvote brigade is in. Let's analyze this for a second. The resolution by the OS is ostensibly 1920x1200. This is what apps see and what they render bitmaps for. This is then upscaled twice in each direction to 3840x2400. Then, this finally somehow gets put on 2880x1800. As I understand it, it gets downscaled from 3840x2400 directly to 2880x1800. LOL, it just dawned on me. You guys have been taken for such a fucking ride. I've just checked the numbers, I hadn't noticed it before. The physical resolution of the monitor is 2880x1800. This is exactly 1.5x more in each direction than 1920x1200, which is the original input format. Now you must understand two things: 1. scaling is a DSP process. 2. You never use floating point operations in digital signal processing if you can get away with integers, because integer operations are so much cheaper and because the result is always more precise. (The only reason to use floats is to get more headroom, but that's a detail you don't need to worry with because it is in no way applicable to resolution scaling. You could use floats for pixel colour, and many systems do that already) So what does this mean? How do you multiply by 1.5 if you can only use integers? --> YOU MULTIPLY BY THREE AND DIVIDE BY TWO. <-- The intermediate resolution of 3840x2400 exists solely as a tiny step in the rescaling algorithm, a step which in itself does not add any information that wasn't there in the original 1920x1200 image. Similarly, some of you audio people may realize that most of your VST or AU plugins have 64x oversampling. Does this mean that your project is working at 12 MHz sampling rate? NO!!! Your recorded material is still at 192k, and your project still does not contain any useful information above 96 kHz. Don't be silly. There's being tricked when not knowing, but given that a majority of the people commenting on mac hardware here seem to have some idea of audio processing, that's just fundamentalist hypocrisy. You've fallen prey to sensationalist marketing and measurement of e-penis. Except your e-penis is completely made up and never actually happened. Wow, some people in this thread are so, extremely, gullible. I had really come to expect more from HN, and am truly disappointed and dismayed.

How is that more awesome than any other LCD monitor that is able to up-scale?

fredsted 14y ago

It's not going to be blurry, because it's still 2800x1800, only scaled to match 1920x1200.

lloeki 14y ago
Apparently it's actually rendered at 3840x2400 before being downscaled to 2880x1800.

chrisbroadfoot 14y ago

Because it doesn't upscale, it downscales.

sigkill 14y ago
Everytime someone makes such a comment, my mind is blown at how we already live in the future. Just a few weeks ago if someone would've told me that they're planning to _downscale_ to 1920x1200 on a _15"_ screen, on a portable computer I would've thought they were crazy.
- FireBeyond 14y ago
  It's not that impressive, when you consider that Sony has let you select a 1920 resolution on some of their 13" laptops for over a year. Lest I be considered a nay-sayer, I'm going to be getting an MBP largely for the resolution boost.
- eschutte2 14y ago
  I agree about downscaling being impressive, but I was using 1920x1200 on a 15" notebook in 2004.
cheatercheater 14y ago
Er no, it upscales. When you put a 640x480 image through an old lcd that supports only 1024x768, then it needs to scale the original image up, hence it upscales. Same if you put a 1080p image into a retina display which has a much higher resolution: it needs to upscale.
- mquinn 14y ago
  As others have pointed out, apparently the screen is actually being rendered at 3840 x 2400, then is downscaled to 1920 x 1200.
  - cheatercheater 14y ago
    OK, I see the downvote brigade is in. Let's analyze this for a second. The resolution by the OS is ostensibly 1920x1200. This is what apps see and what they render bitmaps for. This is then upscaled twice in each direction to 3840x2400. Then, this finally somehow gets put on 2880x1800. As I understand it, it gets downscaled from 3840x2400 directly to 2880x1800. LOL, it just dawned on me. You guys have been taken for such a fucking ride. I've just checked the numbers, I hadn't noticed it before. The physical resolution of the monitor is 2880x1800. This is exactly 1.5x more in each direction than 1920x1200, which is the original input format. Now you must understand two things: 1. scaling is a DSP process. 2. You never use floating point operations in digital signal processing if you can get away with integers, because integer operations are so much cheaper and because the result is always more precise. (The only reason to use floats is to get more headroom, but that's a detail you don't need to worry with because it is in no way applicable to resolution scaling. You could use floats for pixel colour, and many systems do that already) So what does this mean? How do you multiply by 1.5 if you can only use integers? --> YOU MULTIPLY BY THREE AND DIVIDE BY TWO. <-- The intermediate resolution of 3840x2400 exists solely as a tiny step in the rescaling algorithm, a step which in itself does not add any information that wasn't there in the original 1920x1200 image. Similarly, some of you audio people may realize that most of your VST or AU plugins have 64x oversampling. Does this mean that your project is working at 12 MHz sampling rate? NO!!! Your recorded material is still at 192k, and your project still does not contain any useful information above 96 kHz. Don't be silly. There's being tricked when not knowing, but given that a majority of the people commenting on mac hardware here seem to have some idea of audio processing, that's just fundamentalist hypocrisy. You've fallen prey to sensationalist marketing and measurement of e-penis. Except your e-penis is completely made up and never actually happened. Wow, some people in this thread are so, extremely, gullible. I had really come to expect more from HN, and am truly disappointed and dismayed.