is a retina screen worth the extra?

Merluza

Merluza

Suspended / Banned
Messages
437
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking about getting a retina display so I'm looking for hands-on experience of them. Anybody who has updated to one of these, do you find it makes a real difference to the way you see and process images, does it make things worse or does it make little difference? I assume that letting you see more info is beneficial but I've seen some people struggling to set them up properly and am wondering about any pros and cons. Also has anybody tried the 21" retina?
 
I have, next to each other on my desk a 27" non retina and a late 2015 27" retina iMac.

There was never anything wrong with the non-retina and to be fair it is the same resolution as most other companies hi-res screens but next to it the retina is nicer. The main difference is now I have to zoom in to 1:3 rather than 1:1 on Lightroom to get a proper close look, colours seem a little better on the new one too.

But otherwise, unless you are looking side by side the older screen is plenty good enough.
 
Thanks, that's very useful. I've only been able to compare them in a store where I nip between the two and what you describe has been my observation.
 
Merluza said:
Thanks, that's very useful. I've only been able to compare them in a store where I nip between the two and what you describe has been my observation.
Click to expand...

You will only see the difference side by side.

I did the same for the Macbook Pro vs Macbook Air.

All this talk of the Air having a low res non-retina screen yet I thought mine was alright and when having a play with the Pro in the Apple store I couldn't really see too much difference. Then I was in Costco and they were side-by-side, then the difference becomes obvious but really it isn't the be-all-and-end-all. Still, I thought all of the iMacs now have retina screens?
 
I also have two next to each other. Both 27". One Retina and the other normal. The normal runs in some or other mode that basically makes it a second screen of the first.

Both are set at the same resolution, but the difference is night and day.
 
Last edited:
Agree totally that retina display is like night & day compared to non retina, to add my two pennorth, I find the retina display is easier on the eyes, after a few hours of image editing on a non retina screen , I found I needed to take breaks often as it would cause eye strain, With a retina screen (27inch Imac), I can comfortably work for long periods.
 
also the retinas I think also have the flash hard drive so faster and lighter.
 
Thanks, good point about the apps. I have, mostly, reasonably up to date apps, within the last 3 years, so hopefully that should be ok for the moment, although a few of the older ones might cause trouble. I'll chase all that down if I decide to commit myself. My main interest is to see better what I've got.
 
I would say it depends on your needs/uses. I run Adobe CC programs in low res mode so that things look the same as they do when put on the web. Otherwise they are "half sized" in CC.
 
This is where I start to get confused. I'm using Photoshop CS6 and Dreamweaver CS3 and 5.5. As i said my main interest is in seeing more information, better image quality, in Photoshop or whatever but it seems to be more complicated than just seeing better quality images. Obviously I need stuff for the web and from what you say I need to view this in a different resolution to get a proper idea of how it will display. Oherwise it's mainly photos to print or some DTP stuff that I do from time to time. I hadn't magined there would be problems from getting an improved display.
 
We run several Macs. My wife's MBP 13 inch is Retina and my 15 inch is not. I can't see the difference but she can.

In other words, try and check that your eyes can take advantage of the technology first, if this is a deal breaker for you.
 
Retina is a great improvement in my opinion - the difference is very noticeable between my old 2011 MBP and my current 2013 rMBP.
 
I have retina iPhone, iPad, MacBook Pro but my desktop is 27" non retina. I hate using it as it looks so pixelated especially reading text.

As soon as I get the opportunity I'll be upgrading to 27" retina.

If you're asking this question now, you'll be looking for the difference every time you use it in the future.

Let's be honest, there is only one choice here that may end up with regret.
 
I've got a non retina 27"iMac and a 27" retina iMac. If you are simply using the apps you mention I'm not sure you are going to see a significant difference . The late 2015 27" has the new P3 display which has a much wider gamut than the old machine. The latest 21.5" iMac also has the P3 display. As more and more displays are heading for the 4K arena It wont be long ( I hope) that developers will start optimising their video output to take advantage of higher display resolutions.
This becomes more noticeable when you have side by side images in applications such as Final Cut. Here you can see the improved definition. But then Final Cut was designed to work with higher res displays .

So as the moment probably you wont see a great deal of difference, But maybe in a year or so we may get there. Going for the retina option does help future proof the machine. The difference is £150 for retina iMac against the non retina version, plus it has a faster processor.

As far as set up is concerned, I run FCPX , DaVinci Resolve, Lightroom and Photoshop as my main apps. I've had no problem setting these up on either my retina MacBook Pro or the iMac. They just loaded . Screen calibration was just as simple as it was with the non retina machine
 
theurbanclown said:
Retina makes Photomechanic very difficult to use.
Click to expand...
Interesting. In what ways?

I've been using PM for >15 years and switched to a rMBP late last year. I haven't noticed any difference, but I'm keen to know what problems may occur and avoid them.
 
theurbanclown said:
I find the previews incredibly blurry. Very difficult to tell if anything is in focus.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a symptom of your camera's RAW file format containing only a small preview JPG, rather than a problem of PM in combination with a retina screen?
(I have no idea what camera you use so obviously I could be very wrong!)

I mainly use a 5Dmk3 (which embeds a full-size preview JPG in its RAW file) and don't have any such problem zooming to 100% in PM's preview, or whizzing through a folder of RAW images previewing at 100% or fullscreen.

My 1Dmk3 RAW files contain a smaller preview JPG; but it's still bigger than my screen size so it's still sharp. If I wish to view a full-size preview (to examine critical focus) I simply hit 'Q' so that PM allows the MacOS to render the RAW file for preview (it slows things a little, but it's very usable).

Have you tried setting PM preferences to let MacOS render your RAW files' previews? It may slow things down unacceptably, but it may be worth experimenting with to see if it's workable.

Other possible solutions could be:
- Convert RAWs to DNGs, which contain full-size previews.
- Shoot RAW+JPG and set PM to use just the JPGs for previewing purposes (it will still hand-off the RAWs for editing).
- Don't use PM!

Apologies if I'm stating mind-boggingly obvious stuff that you've already considered and rejected.

Have you contacted Camerabits concerning this problem? They're extremely helpful.

(If you don't use a Mac then all that guff about getting the OS to render the RAWs for previews is irrelevant.)

Huge apologies for dragging this a wee bit off topic.
 
Last edited:
TonyHall said:
Isn't that a symptom of your camera's RAW file format containing only a small preview JPG, rather than a problem of PM in combination with a retina screen?
(I have no idea what camera you use so obviously I could be very wrong!)

I mainly use a 5Dmk3 (which embeds a full-size preview JPG in its RAW file) and don't have any such problem zooming to 100% in PM's preview, or whizzing through a folder of RAW images previewing at 100% or fullscreen.

My 1Dmk3 RAW files contain a smaller preview JPG; but it's still bigger than my screen size so it's still sharp. If I wish to view a full-size preview (to examine critical focus) I simply hit 'Q' so that PM allows the MacOS to render the RAW file for preview (it slows things a little, but it's very usable).

Have you tried setting PM preferences to let MacOS render your RAW files' previews? It may slow things down unacceptably, but it may be worth experimenting with to see if it's workable.

Other possible solutions could be:
- Convert RAWs to DNGs, which contain full-size previews.
- Shoot RAW+JPG and set PM to use just the JPGs for previewing purposes (it will still hand-off the RAWs for editing).
- Don't use PM!

Apologies if I'm stating mind-boggingly obvious stuff that you've already considered and rejected.

Have you contacted Camerabits concerning this problem? They're extremely helpful.

(If you don't use a Mac then all that guff about getting the OS to render the RAWs for previews is irrelevant.)

Huge apologies for dragging this a wee bit off topic.
Click to expand...


I use a 5D MKIII too and viewing the preview at 100% is fine, it's just poor quality viewing at regular size. This is a problem with the retina screen as the issues aren't replicated on my PC screen.

OS rendering previews doesn't work either, but cheers for the pointers.

Might e-mail Camerabits.
 
theurbanclown said:
I use a 5D MKIII too and viewing the preview at 100% is fine, it's just poor quality viewing at regular size.
Click to expand...
Hmm, that's weird. Fortunately I don't notice any such problems...which obviously doesn't help you in any way - sorry.

theurbanclown said:
Might e-mail Camerabits.
Click to expand...
I'd recommend their support forum, Camerabits' programers actively take part and are very quick to help out, along with experienced users.

Hope you can get things sorted soon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top