Well, for those of you with a Retina MacBook Pro or a Retina iOS device, here’s a test page showing the same graphic at multiple resolutions (1x, 2x, 4x) and with different amounts of compression:
Right-click on each of the high-rez graphics and open it in a new tab to see it at 100% magnification, so you can more clearly see the JPG artifacts.
Also be sure to view them on a non-Retina screen and then on a Retina screen to get the big picture. Clearly, what you ultimately choose should look great on both types of screens.
Mark, thank you for the link. I skimmed through it. But honestly, none of those sources of information are a substitute for an actual visual test with your own eyes.
I’m here at home now on my iPad 3 with retina display. I examined the test page I made:
Wow. Just wow. The 72dpi graphic sucks, big time. The 144dpi (2x) graphic just blows it away. And although there’s not as big a “night and day” difference between the 2x graphic and 4x (288dpi) graphic, my eyes can clearly see the difference between the 2x and 4x, and the 4x graphic is noticeably sharper.
But running counter to what that article says about how high levels of compression are not noticeable on retina display, the second pair of 2x and 4x graphics at the bottom of my test page, which are heavily compressed, are noticeably filled with artifacts in the gradient area in the middle.
So I would encourage those of you who own an iPad 3 or iPad 4, and especially those of you who have a Retina MacBook, to please view my test page and offer us some feedback on how your eyes view all of the images.
David, thank you for being precise, but honestly “the rest of us” (i.e., the common layman) knows full well what us meant by 72dpi. My first computer was a Mac 128k in 1984 where the tem “dpi” was used all the time and no one even heard about ppi. You continue to use what you’ve grown accustomed too through decades of use, even when it isn’t completely accurate from a technical standpoint.
Now fire up your retina computer or mobile device, David, and please offer me your visual feedback on my test page!
I’m still between release cycles here. I have a bunch of iOS devices (among family members) but none of them are Retina. My MBP is a non-glossy 2-core i7 17" with SSD, so it’s not going to be obsolete any time soon (although my back may go out from carrying it around). So my main reason for getting a new MBP would be to reduce my shoulder load, but I’m also holding out for a less mirror-like screen, and a lower risk of ghost artifacts.
Walter
On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:19 AM, JDW wrote:
I can’t believe I’m the lone soul in this entire forum who has a retina display device!
Now, Dave, if you honestly can’t see the difference on a Retina iPhone, then I wonder what meaning a Retina display has on an phone in the first place. Because on my iPad3, the difference between the 72 “ppi” (sheesh) graphic and the 144 & 288 graphics are a night-and-day stark difference. However, I will admit that I don’t use glasses or contacts, and my eyes are good enough to even see individual pixels on my iPad 3’s Retina display when my eyes are a foot or so anyway from the screen.
So let me rephrase…
Those of you with Good Eyes and a Retina display (especially you Retina MacBook Pro owners who haven’t yet commented here), please offer us feedback on how the graphics on the following test page look to you:
Now, Dave, if you honestly can’t see the difference on a Retina iPhone
I didn’t say that I couldn’t see any difference - just that I do not consider the screen large enough to be able to give a subjective evaluation of your images.
Hey all
Hi all I used the FW retina replacement action for a logo that was pretty degraded. It looks good in Safari, Firefox, Chrome etc but is electric in IE. I do not have IE but I look on my IE net render which I use at times
Should I care?
thx
aw forget it… I went back to a new svg from a HR file
I made yesterday so thanks
I think there is a conflict with retina action with a background image
it works fine without a back image
thought I would report
thx
The 144dpi (2x) graphic just blows it away. And although there’s not as big a “night and day” difference between the 2x graphic and 4x (288dpi) graphic, my eyes can clearly see the difference between the 2x and 4x, and the 4x graphic is noticeably sharper.