Retina Display MBPs have 20% lower brightness than non-retinas?

Question

I've been waiting until going off to graduate school to make a new computer purchase, and when I saw the MBP with Retina I thought that this was the computer for me.  I do a ton of photography work, and Aperture is my lifeline, so the retina display really seemed like one of the best things that could happen to a Mac.
I went into the Apple Store yesterday and left extremely disappointed, however.  The new MBPs were stupid fast and truly a work of engineering art, but there was one thing that I just could not shake...
The screen seemed dim at max brightness.
Because the laptops were locked down, I asked a customer who had last year's model of the MBP to place it side-by-side with the Retina one at max brightness.  While the retina display was clearly sharper and far more vivid, it was significantly dimmer than last year's model.
Sure enough, a google search showed that the retina display uses 4x the battery life of a non-retina display because it has to push 4x the pixels.  To conserve battery, Apple lowered the maximum level of brightness that the display can reach by 20%.
This is a huge bummer (though understandable).  I often work with my screens at maximum brightness.  In the Apple Store, with the powerful fluorescent lighting, light color interior design, and the huge windows letting in a lot of light, it really emphasized how dim the retina monitor appeared.  While some people argue that the retina display's superior black levels make up for this loss in screen backlighting, I would have to respectfully disagree.
I was wondering if there is any way that this limitation on screen brightness is an artificial software limitation imposed by Apple?  If yes, and there is a workaround to force the brightness to 20% higher to match last year's MBP model, I will instantly buy the MBP with Retina (whenever one gets in stock!).  It is truly an incredible machine, but for my purposes it is severely hindered without a screen that "pops".
I am not too familiar with how the technology in a monitor works to create brightness, so perhaps this is a hardware limitation.  In that case, I think I will consider an MBA...  But I'd really rather the superior hardware, especially the dedicated graphics card for when I'm pushing the computer on a multi-monitor setup.

Answer 1

I think one of the reasons is a hardware limitation. Look at these pictures of various LCD screens and resolutions under a microscope and compare the iPad retina and iPad 2.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5689/the-new-ipad-retina-display-analysis/2
Notice how much of the surface area is actually black compared to the tiny pixels, and how the tiny pixels just can't be as bright as huge pixels. Why is this? While four green Retina pixels are roughly the same size as one non-Retina pixel, the hi-res four pixel combo has to be darker because in the same amount of space, the hi-res combo must have black grid lines occupying a significant part of its surface area.
It has been said that because the amount of black grid also goes up as the number of pixels goes up, the Retina display requires more power to push the backlight through the black grid and brighten up those tiny pixels to the same level as the older bigger pixels. It looks like part of the problem is inherent in LCD technology itself, and if there was another practical mass-production technology that could be used that could eliminate the black grid altogether, brightness could go up by quite a lot.
In one sense I won't mind a dimmer display, because when working with images, modern LCDs are often too bright if you're trying to calibrate to paper brightness levels and so I often run my MBP below maximum brightness. But when working next to sunny windows, trying to overcome gloss reflections and glare, or general use, it's nice to have a bright screen.