Very confused about Mini resolutions/quality

[Deschodt]

I bought a 2014 Mini 2.6ghz, fusion drive, capable in theory or driving a 4K display. Well not in theory, I've seen it drive a thunderbolt monitor at a Best Buy (2560x1440)

I couldn't swing the $900 for that, so I got a Samsung 28" 4K monitor during cyber monday. Now I'm very confused about my choices. My Samsung is natively 3840x2160 (note that is exactly twice 1920x1080, possibly a hint of why I'm seeing what I'm seeing).

If I connect the mini via the Display Port, the "best setting for monitor" defaults to 2560x1440.
If I choose scaled, I can get :
2560x1440 at 60hhz - which is a *perfect* size of desktop, but *slightly* fuzzy, not Thunderbolt crisp
2048x1152 - even fuzzier
and less res we don't care about

If I connect via HDMI, surprise (for me anyway), the "best setting for monitor" is now *only* "1920x1080" at 30 hz !! WTF ? smaller, and less refresh speed ?? But, and I mean *but*, it is the sweetest 1920 I've ever seen. It looks totally "Retina"! Is it because that's exactly 1/2 the native res of my monitor so the image is actually a squished 3840x2160 amount of pixels made to look like 1920?

HDMi gives me more choices...
3840x2160 - fairly crisp but way too big so everything is too small
3008x something...etc...

By far the "default" that the mac chooses in HDMI mode is the sweetest. What I don't get is why display port can display 2560 at 60 hz and the hdmi only 1920 at 30hz (despite it looking sweeter)? Shouldn't I get 1920 @ 60hz too ? What am I missing. Also how come the 1920@30hz looks SOOO much nicer than even bigger resolutions, did I guess right (1/2 the native res) ?

What is the thunderbolt monitor doing on a mini then ? 2550 at how many Hz ??? I guess not all 4K monitor are created equal? The expensive TB monitor looks like it can do retina 2550 and my samsung retina 1920 only... Not complaining, it was 1/2 the price too. Just trying to understand this resolution stuff...

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Well the TB monitor is not 4K. Check your monitor's manual for HDMI modes supported. Default of 1080 might make sense if it is intended as input for game console or other "TV" type input. Maybe it has settings you can tweak.

I don't know how OS X supports non-Apple "Retina" monitors, if at all. Hopefully someone who has experience with that can help. I'm afraid you may want to rethink your decision to purchase a high resolution display at a relatively small size if it's causing eye strain. I seem to recall similar complaints over in the Mac Pro forum. I'm interested in the answer myself as I see a similar combo in my future. I'm not sure the new iMac is for me.

 

[Slitted]

This link may help.

I got a Samsung display too over the weekend (U28D590D) to use with a rMBP and potentially, a 2014 Mac Mini.

I've only got the rMBP to test with at the moment, and it runs all the 'Scaled' resolutions at 60Hz over DisplayPort. Since the rMBP supports DisplayPort 1.2, this is expected.
The non-4K resolutions are scaled up, Retina style.

I've got a question for you: Do the HD and QHD resolutions appear 'Retina'/scaled up for you on your Mini? Does 2560x1440 on the UHD Samsung look nicer/crisper/clearer than a 2560x1440 display? You mention that 1920x1080 does, so I'm hoping the other resolutions might also.

Because if it does, then running a nicer looking 2560x1440 on a 4K display with the Mini is a nicer stopgap than buying a 2560x1440 display for me.

 

[paulrbeers]

I bought a 2014 Mini 2.6ghz, fusion drive, capable in theory or driving a 4K display. Well not in theory, I've seen it drive a thunderbolt monitor at a Best Buy (2560x1440)

I couldn't swing the $900 for that, so I got a Samsung 28" 4K monitor during cyber monday. Now I'm very confused about my choices. My Samsung is natively 3840x2160 (note that is exactly twice 1920x1080, possibly a hint of why I'm seeing what I'm seeing).

If I connect the mini via the Display Port, the "best setting for monitor" defaults to 2560x1440.
If I choose scaled, I can get :
2560x1440 at 60hhz - which is a *perfect* size of desktop, but *slightly* fuzzy, not Thunderbolt crisp
2048x1152 - even fuzzier
and less res we don't care about

If I connect via HDMI, surprise (for me anyway), the "best setting for monitor" is now *only* "1920x1080" at 30 hz !! WTF ? smaller, and less refresh speed ?? But, and I mean *but*, it is the sweetest 1920 I've ever seen. It looks totally "Retina"! Is it because that's exactly 1/2 the native res of my monitor so the image is actually a squished 3840x2160 amount of pixels made to look like 1920?

HDMi gives me more choices...
3840x2160 - fairly crisp but way too big so everything is too small
3008x something...etc...

By far the "default" that the mac chooses in HDMI mode is the sweetest. What I don't get is why display port can display 2560 at 60 hz and the hdmi only 1920 at 30hz (despite it looking sweeter)? Shouldn't I get 1920 @ 60hz too ? What am I missing. Also how come the 1920@30hz looks SOOO much nicer than even bigger resolutions, did I guess right (1/2 the native res) ?

What is the thunderbolt monitor doing on a mini then ? 2550 at how many Hz ??? I guess not all 4K monitor are created equal? The expensive TB monitor looks like it can do retina 2550 and my samsung retina 1920 only... Not complaining, it was 1/2 the price too. Just trying to understand this resolution stuff...

It definitely sounds like what the Mini is doing is sending 3840x2160 worth of pixels, but is doing what it should and that is scaling the image down to 1920x1080 since that is exactly 1/4 the resolution. Remember, what all the retina displays work that way. For example, my wife's rMBP's screen is 2880x1800 but it naturally wants to actually display the desktop as if it were 1440x900. We actually set it so it "appears" as 1680x1050 (which is really rendering the desktop at 3360x2100). Now because the HDMI port on the Mini can only do 3840x2160 @ 30hz then of course if it is sending 3840x2160 worth of pixels (even if it only appears as 1080P) then it will only send it at 30hz.

I don't think there is anything wrong with what you are seeing form the HDMI port.

As far as the MDP port, it's really too bad they didn't go Iris Pro for those. Would have been sweet to have a true 4K display @ 60hz. This limitation is probably why I will skip this generation and wait for the next...... Although I only have 1440P monitors at this time, so it would be nice to drive both with just one Mini. Decisions, decisions, decisions....

 

[Gdeschodt]

I've got a question for you: Do the HD and QHD resolutions appear 'Retina'/scaled up for you on your Mini? Does 2560x1440 on the UHD Samsung look nicer/crisper/clearer than a 2560x1440 display? You mention that 1920x1080 does, so I'm hoping the other resolutions might also.

No, and that's the point of me asking. The ONLY res that looks retina is the one that is exactly 1/2 (well 1/4 technically) that of the monitor. The monitor's native res is 3840x2160 - and it displays 1920x1080 perfectly crisp. I can't judge the quality of 3840 as it makes everything tiny anyway.

2560x1440 is a good resolution size wise. But it looks imperfect to the naked eye on that specific monitor because it's not a native ratio I guess. And it looks like crap next to the 1920 retina. Since I bought this monitor (same as you) for retina specifically, I'm using 1920 now.

----------

It definitely sounds like what the Mini is doing is sending 3840x2160 worth of pixels, but is doing what it should and that is scaling the image down to 1920x1080 since that is exactly 1/4 the resolution. Remember, what all the retina displays work that way. For example, my wife's rMBP's screen is 2880x1800 but it naturally wants to actually display the desktop as if it were 1440x900. We actually set it so it "appears" as 1680x1050 (which is really rendering the desktop at 3360x2100).

Thanks, makes sense. So I'm wondering in your case why your screen would look good when you don't follow the 1/4 of native res rule ! your 1680x1050 should look like less crisp than your 1440x900, which is like 2560 for me, that is "OK looking" but not "retina"... Correct ?

I mean it's no contest for me. I bought the 28" monitor to see retina quality, I expected to get apple's 2560x1440 but it didn't work out that way, that resolution is not a direct "native divided by 4" size so it looks blurry. I'm therefore running at 1920x1080 which in a way is embarrassingly low on a 28" monitor, but I have to admit it is sufficient and it looks splendid !!! So does it mean Apple's TB monitor is 5120x2880 natively so it can do retina at 2560x1440 ? The specs don't confirm that. Confusing...

 

[crsh1976]

I have a TB display a foot away from my eyes right now: it's a quality 2560x1440 display, but it's definitely not Retina.

However, ever since I upgraded my 2011 non-Retina MBP to Mavericks last year, we started getting weird screen resolution options - it scales up my MBP's 1280x800 screen to 1920x1080 when I connect it to a TV for instance - it really looks like crap, too.

Your 4k display in Retina-quality mode is effectively a 1920x1080 resolution; to get 2560x1440 at Retina quality, it would require a 5k-capable display - which doesn't exist as a stand-alone display from Apple yet (current Macs don't have the bandwidth and hardware for 5k yet, except of course the latest iMac).

 

[Gdeschodt]

I have a TB display a foot away from my eyes right now: it's a quality 2560x1440 display, but it's definitely not Retina.
Your 4k display in Retina-quality mode is effectively a 1920x1080 resolution; to get 2560x1440 at Retina quality, it would require a 5k-capable display - which doesn't exist as a stand-alone display from Apple yet (current Macs don't have the bandwidth and hardware for 5k yet, except of course the latest iMac).

Thank you, that clarifies it for me, and possibly future readers...
Seems that to get 2560x1440 at retina, as you say, you need the 27" imac retina which does indeed put out 5120x2880 - that's 5K not 4K - now I get it... I'm so glad I didn't buy a TB monitor then, I still would not have gotten the desired result. I guess I didn't look close enough when I saw that mini hooked to one.

All in all, $400+ for the 4K asus 28 is not bad to get retina @1920, (and a bit of zoom in your face since it's 28" and 1920 is typically a 24" monitor res) assuming you are buying a new monitor. If you're already running a 24" @1920, it's a lot of $ for a retina look. But I find the retina res very relaxing on the eye.

PS: Funny note... Until switching to retina mode, I had never noticed that the folder icon is actually 3 folders ;-)

 

[snorkelman]

I'd have thought you could do a full screen capture - if its been retina'd the image that gets captured should be 3840 pixels wide, and if it hasn't the image will be 1920?

 

[Gdeschodt]

I'd have thought you could do a full screen capture - if its been retina'd the image that gets captured should be 3840 pixels wide, and if it hasn't the image will be 1920?

Not a bad thought. But I promise you I can tell it's retina... can't see a pixel unless I stick my nose to the screen ;-) I might try that test though !

 

[paulrbeers]

Thanks, makes sense. So I'm wondering in your case why your screen would look good when you don't follow the 1/4 of native res rule ! your 1680x1050 should look like less crisp than your 1440x900, which is like 2560 for me, that is "OK looking" but not "retina"... Correct ?
.

You are correct. I am willing to forgo a little clarity for additional "desktop" space. It isn't terrible, but it isn't quite as crisp as 1440x900. Probably much like if you try to use 2560x1440 instead of 1920x1080. However, there is also the difference in panel quality since you are using a TN panel and the rMBP's have an IPS display. My guess is quality of display also masks some of the clarity issues....

 

[redheeler]

You are correct. I am willing to forgo a little clarity for additional "desktop" space. It isn't terrible, but it isn't quite as crisp as 1440x900. Probably much like if you try to use 2560x1440 instead of 1920x1080. However, there is also the difference in panel quality since you are using a TN panel and the rMBP's have an IPS display. My guess is quality of display also masks some of the clarity issues....

I hate using those scaled resolutions. On a 15'' rMBP 2560x1440 is rendered pixel for pixel, but 3360x2100 must be scaled down to fit. That means quality loss at the pixel level and it's noticeable on whatever you're doing.

 

[Gdeschodt]

I hate using those scaled resolutions. On a 15'' rMBP 2560x1440 is rendered pixel for pixel, but 3360x2100 must be scaled down to fit. That means quality loss at the pixel level and it's noticeable on whatever you're doing.

Not much you can do but carefully read the specs for native resolution of a screen and factoring in whether you want retina or not... Lesson learned ! ;-)