View Single Post
  #24 (permalink)  
Old June 12, 2012, 01:07 PM
Mars Mars is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AkG View Post
Um yeah....no. Thats not how it works. Step away from the Apple reality distortion field.

If you have a 800x600 image (very common on the net) and view it on a higher DPI screen it will either be a lot smaller than it would be on a 800x600 monitor OR be unevenly "upsized" and look like crap (ie interpolation == piss poor images). Very...VERY few images upconvert and still look like anything other than shite as very...very few images will go perfectly into a given screens native res.

For example 640xN, 800xN, 1024xN, 1200xN images will ALL look like crap. ONLY ones that could potential be alright are 360, 720 and 1440 x N....and even then it will still look a crap ton less sharp than it would otherwise look. Why is that? Simply..just because you can perfect scale it at say 4 to 1...does make it have 4x the details....rather you have just INCREASED the virtual dot SIZE of the image!
What I described is exactly how it works.

The size of the original image has no impact on the quality, unless you're trying to view every image fullscreen or something.

If you use 1440x900 scaling every single image you view will be exactly the same size as on a 1440x900 display, except with 4x the pixels. An 800x600 image will show onscreen as 1600x1200 pixels, and will look the same as (no better or worse) as the same image on a 1440x900 screen.

Anandtech has a blurb that explains the scaling options, with some screenshots: AnandTech - How the Retina Display MacBook Pro Handles Scaling
Reply With Quote