The Apple iPad Pro Review
by Ryan Smith, Joshua Ho & Brandon Chester on January 22, 2016 8:10 AM ESTDisplay
With the iPad Pro, one of the main points of interest is its display. Although there are other elements to the iPad Pro like the stylus and the keyboard, the display is really the centerpiece of this tablet, especially when neither the Apple Pencil nor the Smart Keyboard come included with the iPad Pro itself. I think it goes without saying that everyone wants to have a great display on a tablet, but what determines a great display is often in question.
While it’s obvious that less reflectance is better, as is higher contrast and maximum brightness, things like gamma and color reproduction are often subjective as the same color will often look different to different people. In order to try and deal with this issue, we focus on testing all mobile displays to the same color accuracy standards. For now, the industry standard gamut is the sRGB gamut, along with power 2.2 gamma. Although the sRGB gamut is relatively limited compared to something like DCI-P3 or Rec. 2020, it remains an industry standard when compared to what exists on the market today. In order to test how well a display meets these standards in addition to other criteria, we use an i1Pro2 spectrophotometer for accurate color measurements along with an i1Display Pro for accurate contrast measurements. In order to organize this data into a readable format we use SpectraCal’s CalMAN 5 with a custom workflow.
In the case of the iPad Pro, it’s obvious that the architecture of the display is different from what we’ve seen in mobile devices before. Due to the sheer resolution, it seems that Apple is electing to use embedded Display Port (eDP) instead of the more traditional MIPI DSI interface used in smartphones. We’ve seen a number of smartphones and tablets this year ship with an 8 lane MIPI DSI configuration which allows for a theoretical maximum of 2715x1697 for about 4.6MP, but the 2732x2048 resolution of the iPad Pro means about 20% more pixels than what a 2 port MIPI DSI configuration can handle.
Source: design-reuse.com
By comparison, eDP has been able to support 4K at 60 Hz or higher for quite some time. This is self-evident by looking at the number of laptops launched with a 4K display. With the iPad Pro, Apple claims that they’ve implemented their own custom timing controller or TCON. Some digging through the system files seems to corroborate these claims as there are numerous references to an Apple Agile DP Display SAC Controller. That’s a mouthful, but Agile seems to be the internal name for this controller, and DP seems to be a reference to DisplayPort, while SAC is likely a reference to Slow Adaptive Clocking.
Slow Adaptive Clocking is something that there's very limited public information on at this time. My best guess here is that this is actually related to the variable refresh rate technology that Apple is implementing in their custom TCON. On the surface this technology seems to bear a lot of resemblance to G-Sync or FreeSync, but rather than varying refresh rate to fit the GPU’s rendering rate the refresh rate only has two distinct settings at 60 Hz and 30 Hz depending upon whether the content on the display would benefit from the higher refresh rate. It’s likely that at least part of the reason why this is possible is the use of indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO) TFTs which don’t leak current in the off state. This means that when there is a longer period of time between display refreshes, the liquid crystal retains its state rather than fading towards its original state of either completely open or closed to the backlight.
Source: semiconportal.com
In addition to this adaptive refresh rate, the TCON supports panel self-refresh which is hardly news, but given that we’ve seen phones and tablets in this year ship without panel self-refresh it’s worth mentioning.
The panel itself also appears to have dual domain pixels and a conventional RGB stripe. Viewing angles as a result are quite good. The cover glass also contains the AR coating first introduced with the iPad Air 2, which cuts reflectance roughly in half relative to a display that doesn’t have such a coating. This effectively doubles outdoor contrast, so it’s great for outdoor use.
In our standard test of brightness and contrast, it’s evident that Apple has moved to a new generation of display for the iPad Pro as the maximum brightness is mildly improved relative to the iPad Air 2. The real change here though is that contrast is dramatically improved over the iPad Air 2.
This is likely due to the use of photoalignment for the liquid crystals, which helps the liquid crystal to have a more consistent orientation. For those that aren’t really familiar with the particulars of how light polarization and polarizers work, part of the problem is that when a voltage is applied to change the structure of the liquid crystals parts of the liquid crystals won’t necessarily change in structure appropriately. In order to assist with this process a film is applied which gains a particular orientation when exposed to UV light in a specific way. This helps to get the liquid crystals to all align in the same direction, which improves contrast as a result. Of course, contrast isn’t the dark, inky blacks that you'll get with AMOLED but it'll still be quite impressive for normal use.
Source: eetimes.com
Moving on to our grayscale test, the iPad Pro does impressively well overall with well-controlled gamma but tending slightly towards a colder color balance. I’m not sure whether this is because of backlight efficiency concerns due to the use of blue LED with yellow phosphor in the backlight or because people seem to prefer colder white balances in general, but it’s there nonetheless. The cold color balance might affect some particularly color critical work but even for medical use I suspect it shouldn’t be a serious problem.
In saturations, the iPad Pro is basically perfect. There is some mild undersaturation of red, but I basically see no reason to try and find some method of personally calibrating the display.
In the Gretag MacBeth ColorChecker test, color error is once again basically nonexistent. Anything with red appears to be mildly undersaturated but the error is going to be almost impossible to notice.
Overall, the iPad Pro display is probably one of the best available on the market today. The Galaxy Tab S2 display is comparable in overall accuracy and has superior contrast, but the iPad Pro has noticeably higher brightness for all content above 50% APL and in any scenario with a lot of ambient background light the AR coating will help a lot with improving effective contrast and general readability. Although pixel density is equivalent to the iPad Air 2, the sheer size of the display means that the viewing distance is increased and therefore the perceived resolution. The display looks great in person, and unless your single point of consideration for display performance is contrast I think it’ll be hard to be disappointed with the iPad Pro display.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
408 Comments
View All Comments
HammerStrike - Friday, January 22, 2016 - link
"I beg your pardon, Miss Taggart," he had said, offended. "I don't know what you mean when you say that I haven't made use of the metal. This design is an adaptation of the best bridges on record.What else did you expect?”
"A new method of construction."
"What do you mean, a new method?"
"I mean that when men got structural steel, they did not use it to build steel copies of wooden bridges."
Ann Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
The question around the iPad Pro is not is it a close enough copy of a workstation to do workstation work, but does it enable new work streams that were previously unexplored. As has been previously noted, the Surface Pro 4 is an extremely capable piece of hardware that checks all the same boxes as the iPad Pro, but no software had been designed to take advantage of it's unique form factor - it's still using a wooden design on a steel bridge.
The real differentiation for the iPad Pro is iOS, and the touch first / mobility first design mentality it brings to the table - software has to be written specifically for that environment and usage case. There are some notable hardware and input difference between the iPad Pro and previous iOS devices - time will tell if they can be combined to provide real productivity improvements vs previous designs or if they are merely novelties that will be quickly forgotten. Jury is still out on that, but if anyone can build the "critical mass" to jump start that exploration it's Apple. Hopefully some apps come out and wow us - to channel Asimov, there is a single light usage case advancement, and to progress it anywhere is to progress it everywhere.
name99 - Friday, January 22, 2016 - link
I simply cannot figure your complaint: "It is a computer, REDUCED to an accessory, which COULD be THAT MUCH MORE USEFUL."So what do you want? You want the iPad Pro form factor running OSX? You want the ability to plug in a second screen? You want to be able to install Windows?
Your complaint seems to be "this is not a Surface Pro 4". It isn't MEANT to be.
It's meant to be a larger screen version of an iPad, for those for whom an iPad is an appropriate device. If you're not one of those people, WTF does it matter to you? Do you hang around bicycle tracks telling everyone there they should be using a motorbike or a car or a truck because those are more powerful?
You are stuck in a certain vision of what a computer is "supposed" to be, every bit as much as IBM confronted by DEC couldn't imagine a computer that wasn't a mainframe, then DEC confronted by Apple, Atari, etc couldn't imagine a computer that wasn't a mini, then in 2007 people couldn't imagine a pocket computer.
If you want to think of this as an "accessory" to a Mac, go ahead. I don't see what the value of that analogy, or why it's supposed to be an insult (Apple grew to the company it is today on the back of that accessory, the iPod...). People loved their iPods, they love their iPhones (especially the way they work together seamlessly with their Macs), and I expect they will love their iPad Pros.
Jumangi - Saturday, January 23, 2016 - link
Actually it is being touted as surface competition. Apple PR pushes this as a laptop replacement and its pricing is right with the Surface. Totally valid to compare the two.Constructor - Saturday, January 23, 2016 - link
You can do that. And Apple does indeed propose it as such – among very many other things, quite a few of which are actually better served by an iPad than by a conventional notebook.Just one example among many: The ability to simply use it in portrait mode already makes a huge difference for anything document-related, for which the narrow widescreens on computers are woefully inadequate.
MaxIT - Saturday, February 13, 2016 - link
Indeed it is. And it's way better than a Surface Pro, because it runs an OS that is actually designed to be used with a touch interface, while the Surface doesn't....Relic74 - Saturday, February 27, 2016 - link
Windows 10 was designed to be used with touch as well, it's silly to even think otherwise. People who such things have never used one before, simple as that.The Hardcard - Friday, January 22, 2016 - link
It's not about now. Yes now I have a laptop for things my device can't do, and a desktop for things my laptop can't do timely.But I am excited that soon devices that can be carried and pocketed will soon be powerful enough and have the software to do every thing I want to do in a timely fashion.
The iPad Pro marks the beginning of the final stage of the mobile transition, being THE computer for all mainstream activities.
There will still be larger form factors, just as there will still be mainframes. But most homes and many business won't have them.
In fact, that is what IBMs new angle is. The occasional or particular high-power computation you need done elsewhere, results served to your device. Most people won't even need that
RafaelHerschel - Saturday, January 23, 2016 - link
Conditioning I guess. Some people can't imagine that using the right tool for the job is more important than using a form factor that was originally designed for media consumption.Ananke - Friday, January 22, 2016 - link
Pros use Oracle, SAP, Cytrix for 98% of hardware, and some other exotic stuff amounts for the 2% left...Hence, nobody will approve capital expense of $1000+ on software unsupported device, when a $329 workstation can just do it. Software companies don't bother to bring the huge databases to exotic silicon either, when there are already CHEAPER well developed alternatives.Tablets are great for POS terminals, some apps that require mobile high quality visual content, and that's it pretty much. There is just no functionality need for something else, especially an expensive one.
mrcaffeinex - Friday, January 22, 2016 - link
In the office where I work, the iPad Pro may be the device people have been looking for. All of our remote application access goes through Citrix, with the most-used applications being Outlook for e-mail, Word for document review/minor editing, and Adobe Reader for PDF viewing. The experience on the iPad currently is not great, because the desktop versions of these applications do not translate well to the touch-first environment. The stylus and keyboard cover, coupled with the enhanced resolution, could make a difference.It is not a solution for everyone, but I have been fielding calls from our users already about wanting these, so there is potentially some kind of market to cater to here. I realize that from a technology standpoint there are more powerful alternatives and that there are other ways to approach the software situation, but at the end of the day, this is the kind of device that our users want: an iPad with a slightly bigger screen, responsive stylus input, and a keyboard cover in a convenient package, not to mention the implied prestige of Apple product ownership (in some circles the image is considered very important).
Time will tell if this is a fad or a long-term product line strategy. If Apple can turn a profit with these (and they do have a history of turning a profit on their devices), even in spite of a limited market appeal, they will probably keep marketing them.