The Apple iPad 2 Review
by Brian Klug, Anand Lal Shimpi & Vivek Gowri on March 19, 2011 8:01 PM ESTVideo Quality
The rear facing camera is native 1280x720 and unsurprisngly captures 720P video. It's essentially the same quality as the iPod Touch, which doesn't come as a surprise at all. There's been considerable discussion about whether this back sensor is optimized (or intended) for video. Given that 1280x720 size, it seems obvious this is likely the case. As we'll show, video on the iPad 2 is actually very good, it's still capture that suffers.
In all honesty, 720P video capture on the iPad 2 is almost as good as the iPhone 4. In addition, there's no apparent change in magnification when switching into video mode on the iPad 2 like there is on the iPhone 4. This is again because 160 pixels are tossed away on the left and right sides in still mode. Unfortunately there's no way to capture a 1280x720 still from the iPad 2 unless you shoot video and manually grab frames. Video on the rear facing camera is captured at 1280x720 at 29.970 fps H.264 Baseline (1 reference frame) at 10.6 Mbps. Audio is 1 channel AAC at 64 Kbps.
Like other iDevices, you can view the actual aspect correct capture frame by double tapping on the preview.
I took two video samples with the iPad 2, one at our usual bench location in afternoon lighting, another outside the local cafe at night to show low light performance. As usual we've uploaded both to YouTube as well as hosted originals in a big 7-zip (186 MB).
The iPad 2's 720P rear facing video capture sample in daylight is actually pretty impressive and on par with all the other iDevices. Apple still has class leading quality at 720P even when competitors are doing encodes at 1080P, and at this point it looks like their ISP and encoder is roughly the same as the A4's.
I also took one more video at another location at night. I start outdoors and then go indoors into a cafe to give a feel for low-light performance.
Front facing video isn't super impressive on its own, but again on par with other iDevices. It's 640x480 (VGA) at 29.970 fps H.264 Baseline (1 reference frame) at 3.5 Mbps. Audio is 1 channel AAC at 64 Kbps.
In spite of being just VGA the front facing video quality is quite decent. No doubt Apple is making a concious effort to go with lower resolution sensors (but with bigger pixels) instead of pushing for more megapixels on the front camera. It's a tradeoff that makes the front facing cameras on iDevices better in low light. Until FaceTime gets HD on mobile devices (and we get more mobile upstream bandwidth), VGA seems good enough.
Still Quality
It's still quality on the rear facing camera that's really disappointing. Still images are again cropped to 960x720 (4:3). The images are simply noisy and underwhelming all around. The competition is shipping higher resolution front facing cameras than what's in the iPad 2's rear facing camera, and the result is that the thing feels like it's saddled with two sub-par cameras.
We've done the usual thing and taken photos with the front and rear facing cameras in our smartphone lightbox and at the bench locations. In addition I shot photos with the iPad around town and everywhere I carried it with me.
The front facing camera seems to have some odd white balance issues, as it shows a reddish cast in our lightbox. Out in the wild, I never ran into any serious performance issues with the front facing camera, and honestly VGA seems fine for the time being until mobile devices get the bandwidth to juggle 720P videoconferencing.
I guess the issue I have with the iPad 2's cameras is that the back one already seems woefully insufficient. Apple has already demonstrated that it's possible to both have a thin device and awesome cameras with the iPhone 4. Coupled with onboard HDR, the iPhone 4 still delivers images that rival all but Nokia's best. It's just puzzling why a device that costs substantially more out the door than the iPhone 4 delivers such subpar still capture quality. In reality, thickness is probably the most important constraint here, as the iPhone 4 is thicker than the iPad 2 and thus Apple couldn't simply toss the iPhone 4 cameras inside the iPad 2. I won't speculate about Apple's motivations for going with these cameras, but the end result is a rear camera that honestly doesn't impress.
Compared to the Xoom
The Motorola Xoom's 5MP Rear Facing Camera
The Motorola Xoom's rear camera captures at 2592 x 1944 (5MP) and is assisted by an LED flash. This gives the Xoom's rear camera a 7.29x higher pixel count than what Apple offers with the iPad 2. But do more pixels mean a better looking picture? Well in this case, yes.
Mouse over to see the Motorola Xoom's camera quality
Mouse over to see the Motorola Xoom's camera quality
The iPad 2's rear camera predictably produces very saturated colors like the iPhone 4. The rear sensor is very noisy in low light situations and it's not very sharp on top of that. You'll also notice that Apple's funny white balance algorithm acts up in the shot with two external lights vs. one external light.
The Xoom by comparison is pretty consistent in terms of white balance. Motorola also produces a sharper image, although the colors are far too hazy. If Apple over compensates for color saturation, Motorola tones it down a little too much. The LED flash keeps the shot with no external lights from becoming too noisy but it also royally screws up the white balance, making the image a bit too green.
As we mentioned in our review, the Xoom is surprisingly potent when it comes to taking pictures. It's by no means great, but it's way better than the iPad 2.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
189 Comments
View All Comments
TareX - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Irrelevant, but is Anandtech gonna do an Atrix review?name99 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
"The Digital AV adapter is a bit clunky and I believe the future of this is clearly in some form of wireless transmission, but for now it plugs directly into the dock connector. "You mean the wireless transmission that ALREADY EXISTS called AirPlay?
Apple HAVE a solution to your hatred of wires. You seem to be upset that they don't have a solution that somehow magically transports video from iPad to your (HDMI and nothing else) TV using some non-existent wireless standard that isn't actually built into your TV.
It's fine to be frustrated at some of the idiocies in tech, but it's truly silly to complain about this one. Apple provides this cable for one, and only one, group of users --- people who actually NEED that physical wire.
BlendMe - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
AirPlay doesn't mirror tha iPads screen, it only allows you to stream content. For now. And for AirPlay you need an Apple TV or another AirPlay enabled device. The HDMI adapter allows you to hook it up to almost any recent TV, monitor or beamer.ananduser - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
In fact there is a standard already built in in most modern(emphasis on modern) TVs. It is called DLNA. Unfortunately Apple decided that coercing you into using their ecosystem ONLY is the way to go. Personally I find Apple's modus operandi of not giving 2 sh*ts about other 3rd party solutions one of the "idiocies in tech" as you well put it.Regardless, the iPad2(or 1) is a cool gadget(emphasis on gadget) nonetheless. Combined with leading parental controls as:no flash(as a porn enabler), no porn(appstore policy), no bloody/gory games(appstore policy) and a damn spartan simple and fast GUI makes it a great basic computing device for the naive crowd(parents, grandparents etc.). IMO it really shines for children as their 1st computing platform.
That it is also a frequent choice for the tech literate few, good on them... it still is best suited, IMO, for those of the above.
name99 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Can both of you not read?I was referring to, as I quoted, "The Digital AV adapter is a bit clunky and I believe the future of this is clearly in some form of wireless transmission, but for now it plugs directly into the dock connector. "
How do either of your comments have any relevance to that?
If you want Wifi, you need something that accepts a Wifi signal. Your TV doesn't have Wifi built in, so, yeah, you need some other box.
And DLNA? Really? You want to go there? Go explore the DLNA web pages (http://www.dlna.org/products is a good start) and tell me this pile of turds is EVER going to be relevant to the real world. For god's sake, man, get in touch with the real world. Compare that web page and everything it implies about compatibility nightmares and technobabble with the Apple TV web page.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, March 21, 2011 - link
AirPlay is really for specific content at this point. I'm referring to the future of video out on tablets in general. And I didn't mention it as a knock against the iPad today, just a heads up that in some future version of the iPad you won't need a physical adapter (at least not on your tablet). When you have full wireless display mirroring then you can start introducing more interesting usage models - e.g. tablet as a desktop replacement, tablet as a game console, etc... You can do these things without wireless display but they are definitely enhanced by it being there.Take care,
Anand
Ushio01 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
When ifixit did there teardown of the first ipad it was shown that apart from the battery and the antennas all the other components were kept up the top so why can't a tablet simply be a dock you slot a smartphone in that supplies a larger screen and additional battery's?That to me is a far more appealing device than current tablets.
kmmatney - Monday, March 21, 2011 - link
makes sense to me. I can't see Apple doing this, but maybe on of the Android makers can come up with something along these lines. I'd love to be able to pop my phone into the back of a tablet and use the bigger screen. I'd just keep it near the couch.zmatt - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
I still hold that the entire market segment (not just the iPad) is a solution looking for a problem. The idea seems cool but in reality nobody was asking for the tablet. And after using them I still can't see what the attractiveness is other than people buying them cause they are "cool". I take calls and get mobile updates on my Galaxy S, which is more than competent enough for light work such as taking down notes or answering emails on the go. Any real work I do with a computer. I'm sorry but you can't make up for the lack of performance and a real keyboard if you are talking about getting work done. The iPad may be nice for mobile entertainment, but if i already have an mp3 player and a laptop what can it do that they can't? For tablets to be viable productivity devices and not just toys i think they would basically have to evolve into laptops. So again i ask, what's the point?cucurigu - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Thanks a lot for your review, Anand, Brian and Vivek - I was waiting for your opinion on the iPad 2 as it was a gadget most appealing but, as you said, very polarizing for the reviewers.There is something I didn't really understand, even after rereading the Xoom review - both you (Anand and Brian) said the first iPad wasn't your cup of tea in the long run and chances are the new one won't change this (but you're giving it another go). The general impression (one which I also got while looking at the tablet segment) is characterized by their unclear niche - where do they really fit ?
If I understand correctly the first tablet (ipad) didn't integrate with your workflow and the reasons seem to apply to all tablets, however, this sentiment doesn't come off so clearly from the Xoom article - so I wondered : did you have the impression the Android OS was more adequate to your usage patterns ? Meaning, if the Xoom and iPad 2 where left on your desk, which one would you choose to take with you, and for which purpose ?
Once again, thanks and best regards !