philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃı&
I am looking into buying a laptop and am curious about the new retina MBP 13". I shoot film only so I am wondering if the retina screen is a good or a bad thing for me? Any advice is much appreciated.
cheers
Philip
cheers
Philip
kennylovrin
Well-known
As a product, the retina macbook is a very very nice thing. It's just really solid, for lack of a better description, even more so than apple products before it.
I'm not sure how there would be any specific positives or negatives with the screen relating to film. Essentially the only difference is that the pixels are smaller.
I don't know if you've used retina devices before, like the iPhone or the iPad, but I really enjoy looking at photos on my retina mbp, even though my main computer for editing is an iMac. If it existed, I'd love to have a retina screen on my iMac as well, it's hard to get unused to retina once you get used to it.
The biggest difference in practice as I see it are the following:
1. When I use aperture, 100% zoom level is of course physically smaller on the retina display than on a non-retina display as the pixels are smaller. The upside is that shots from my M9 looks ridiculously sharp at 100% on the mbp.
2. All websites that are not supporting retina looks a bit worse. For example, many photos I view in threads etc on RFF looks worse than they do on a non-retina display as they are upscaled. More and more sites are supporting retina now though, but it is still a bit of a problem in certain places. This is exactly the same problem as when the iPhone 4 was released an many apps didn't support retina yet and everything looked like crap. But it's not as bad on the laptop as most things on web sites scales up gracefully, like text etc. It's usually just a problem with pure graphics, like photos and icons.
But apart from those specifics, there is something with the retina mbp, in the same sense as there is something with a Leica camera (in my opinion). It's more or less completely silent (I am very sensitive, it's not silent in my opinion, but as close as you can get while still having a fan). It doesn't run nearly as hot as the previous mbp revisions and it just feels very solid yet fairly light.
EDIT:
I know for sure someone will tell you that you can get better or the same performance for less money, which is probably true. But you cannot get the equivalent overall package of solid build, noise levels, 'feeling' etc cheaper, just like you can't get a Leica equivalent cheaper than a Leica. If you know what I mean, of course it depends on what your priorities are, but that is my personal opinion.
I'm not sure how there would be any specific positives or negatives with the screen relating to film. Essentially the only difference is that the pixels are smaller.
I don't know if you've used retina devices before, like the iPhone or the iPad, but I really enjoy looking at photos on my retina mbp, even though my main computer for editing is an iMac. If it existed, I'd love to have a retina screen on my iMac as well, it's hard to get unused to retina once you get used to it.
The biggest difference in practice as I see it are the following:
1. When I use aperture, 100% zoom level is of course physically smaller on the retina display than on a non-retina display as the pixels are smaller. The upside is that shots from my M9 looks ridiculously sharp at 100% on the mbp.
2. All websites that are not supporting retina looks a bit worse. For example, many photos I view in threads etc on RFF looks worse than they do on a non-retina display as they are upscaled. More and more sites are supporting retina now though, but it is still a bit of a problem in certain places. This is exactly the same problem as when the iPhone 4 was released an many apps didn't support retina yet and everything looked like crap. But it's not as bad on the laptop as most things on web sites scales up gracefully, like text etc. It's usually just a problem with pure graphics, like photos and icons.
But apart from those specifics, there is something with the retina mbp, in the same sense as there is something with a Leica camera (in my opinion). It's more or less completely silent (I am very sensitive, it's not silent in my opinion, but as close as you can get while still having a fan). It doesn't run nearly as hot as the previous mbp revisions and it just feels very solid yet fairly light.
EDIT:
I know for sure someone will tell you that you can get better or the same performance for less money, which is probably true. But you cannot get the equivalent overall package of solid build, noise levels, 'feeling' etc cheaper, just like you can't get a Leica equivalent cheaper than a Leica. If you know what I mean, of course it depends on what your priorities are, but that is my personal opinion.