Display

While the display is important on a smartphone, by virtue of its sheer size tablets seem to have a more critical need for a good display. With a tablet there’s a great deal more potential for usage models such as drawing/sketching and photo/video editing. In addition, reading books or watching videos is far more common on a tablet, which means that poor resolution, response time, and/or contrast can be quite visible and painful to live with. In order to test this, we use our standard suite of tools, which include SpectraCal’s CalMAN 5 and X-Rite’s i1Pro2 spectrophotometer to make sure that our color readings are as accurate as possible. Colorimeters in practice have varying levels of color accuracy due to their design, and as a result these are only used to verify contrast and gamma curves. As previously mentioned, we test against sRGB gamut as it’s the de facto standard for displays and web content. It’s definitely not a perfect standard by any means, but until a wider gamut becomes standard it’s the one to test against.

Before we get into the objective tests though, there’s a lot of talk about that isn’t easily measured. On the simpler side, the display resolution where I can see a noticeable difference when compared to the iPhone 6 Plus and similarly high resolution devices. The 2048x1536 resolution is nothing to be ashamed of, but when stretched to a 9.7 inch display this means that it’s relatively easy to notice pixelated areas on various curves. At a normal viewing distance though it’s not an obvious issue and I didn’t have any issues with eye strain. There could be some value to going to higher resolutions for the iPad Air 3, but barring some major breakthrough in TFTs or backlight technology such a move would incur a significant cost in power due to losses in backlight efficiency as the LEDs approach maximum power draw.

Speaking of LEDs at maximum power draw, outdoor visibility is often a critical use case. While we focus on maximum brightness, in truth this is really just one part of the equation as high reflectance can effectively erase all of the gains that one can have from higher brightness. Unfortunately, I don’t have the proper equipment to objectively test this, although the test will be ready for next year. In practice, I can definitely see a difference in mirror/specular reflections on the tablet when comparing the Galaxy Note 4, although it’s harder to tell when comparing against the iPhone 6. I can definitely see a difference in what is reflected though, as there’s a noticeable purple hue to white reflections in certain angles which could be a magnesium fluoride coating similar to what one might find on glasses or camera lenses. There’s no obvious flaring issues though, and in practice I don’t see any real degradation of clarity. The improvement from the iPad Air is dramatic, especially as the addition of lamination makes the display noticeably closer to the glass and reduces the reflections that result from the air gap. This change also helps with the viewing angles on the iPad Air 2, which were already quite good with the iPad Air due to the chevron-shaped subpixels. As I said with the iPhone 6 review, this helps to ensure that there's much less color shifting when changing viewing angle, although there is a noticeable shift towards purple in some viewing angles which is mostly noticed on pure black but hard to see in any other case.

Display - Max Brightness

Display - Black Levels

Display - Contrast Ratio

On the actual display characteristics though, we don’t see too much of a difference. Brightness and contrast are quite close to the original iPad Air, which suggests that we’re looking at the same exact display, although production variances may have an effect on things.

Display - White Point

Display - Grayscale Accuracy

In grayscale, we see some level of improvement to the calibration, although it’s hard to tell whether this is the product of production variance or some level of improvement. In practice grayscale tones are definitely well-rendered, and the blue tint isn’t really significant here. There’s really nothing else to be said, as the visible difference from a reference monitor would be difficult, if not impossible to spot.

Display - Saturation Accuracy

For the saturation sweep, which is the next aspect under test we see a similar pattern. While there’s some oversaturation on the blues, there aren’t any other significant issues. The display on the iPad Air 2 is probably similar, if not the same type as the one we’ve seen in the iPad Air as both have the same gamut.

Display - GMB Accuracy

On the GMB ColorChecker, we can generally pick out any issues with display calibration that the saturation sweep won’t show as this test emphasizes hue comparisons along with some grayscale testing. In practice, the iPad Air 2 doesn’t have any issues here as evidenced by the low average error. While there’s noticeable blue shift on some of the hues this shouldn’t be a major problem.

Overall, the quality of the display calibration in the iPad Air 2 is pretty much as good as it gets. While I can name some problems, they’re all minor at best and effectively nit-picking. The fact that I can say this about a tablet display is definitely good news for the state of the industry, as things haven’t quite devolved into a race to the bottom with corners cut in every possible area.

There are some issues with the display overall in terms of peak luminance, but these are likely to be due to the larger display size. These differences when compared to smaller smartphone displays are likely to be due to issues with scaling of the thin film transistor technologies common in smartphone-size displays to tablet-size displays as LTPS backplanes become increasingly expensive to make due to the higher variability involved in the process when compared to IGZO and amorphous silicon processes. Unfortunately, an IGZO backplane seems to gate performance in some key areas as we don’t quite see the levels of brightness and contrast that we do on the iPhone 6 despite lower pixel density.

Software: iOS 8 Camera
Comments Locked

226 Comments

View All Comments

  • Sushisamurai - Friday, November 7, 2014 - link

    I know right? It's actually really annoying, it's practically forced me to prop it up when using it for TV/movies because holding a vibrating tablet for 40 minutes was a huge pain the in the ass. I'd rather they keep the same size as the iPad Air 1, and just give me 2-4 more hours of use time (by keeping the battery size the same, increased efficiency of A8X) and NO VIBRATING tablet.
  • Sushisamurai - Friday, November 7, 2014 - link

    No, my iPad Air 2 does not reproduce this issue, even with full strength one finger push (erred on the side of not bending my iPad). However, I do have a hard plastic back case (thin) on it - applying pressure to the screen also does not produce any issues.
  • Georges003 - Saturday, November 8, 2014 - link

    I am apparently not the only one who has noticed this effect on the Air 2. See:
    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/10/ha...
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=18089...
  • hammer256 - Friday, November 7, 2014 - link

    I recall it was said that Nvidia was not going to use the TSMC 20nm because it's only really ready for SoC production, perhaps because the yield is not good enough for large dies yet? But if the 20nm process can already produce chips with 3 billion transistors at presumably acceptable yield, that is well into the GPU transistor count territory.
    I just wonder if this holds any indication/promise that Nvidia and AMD could move to 20nm in a relatively quick time frame, say within the next year. 28nm is really getting long in the tooth. Well, at least I imagine Nvidia's next SoC should be on 20nm...
  • rUmX - Friday, November 7, 2014 - link

    It's about volume and Apple bought most if not all of it.
  • kron123456789 - Friday, November 7, 2014 - link

    We'll see in 2 months, at CES 2015))It should be the beast)
  • mabellon - Friday, November 7, 2014 - link

    Great article Joshua,

    I was a little disappointed that there was no comparison against the Surface Pro 3. I am not interested in any OS/fanboy wars by any means - purely a hardware comparison. The Geekbench scores for the iPad Air 2 are (1798/4468) as shown in your article. The Geekbench scores for the entry level 1.5Ghz Core i3 Surface Pro 3 are (1569/3137) on a $280 CPU! But that's only one benchmark of course. GPU is certainly a very different beast all together as well.

    I would love to see some comprehensive testing to compare ARM (especially the A8X, and 64bit K1) against Intel's offerings. The slower clocked Celerons and Core i3s are the most comparable as those laptops are closer to tablet pricing. The Core M series is coming and its clocked even slower (but has turbo) -it's fanless performance remains to be seen. Ultimately the question is... how close is ARM to truly competing with Intel in the laptop space?

    And some food for thought... If a 1.5Ghz A8X is already in striking distance of Intel's low end 1.5Ghz... what would happen if Apple added turbo/higher clocks and a fan?
  • Impulses - Friday, November 7, 2014 - link

    It's all very interesting from a technical curiosity standpoint, but until mobile OS evolve a lot more there aren't gonna be very many people cross shopping anything running iOS (or Android) vs a Surface Pro... And no one wants a Windows system running ARM hardware cause it defeats the point of running Windows.

    I guess the one exception to all that would be if Apple were working on OS X ARM edition...
  • mabellon - Friday, November 7, 2014 - link

    Agreed. Very much an intellectual curiosity. Windows on ARM defeats the purpose of running Windows. Mobile OSes are not capable of fully replacing a desktop environment for productivity.

    Apple *could* push out an OSX ARM edition. It would be very interesting to see if they have the clout to get devs on board such a port. Maybe? Maybe it just pushes Intel to improve.

    The only ARM product likely to matter in the short term for laptop compete is the Chromebook. Still not feature competitive, but if performance really is encroaching on Intel and price is cheaper, it will at least force Intel to compete on price/perf on the low end.

    Aside: I also remembered AT's Surface Pro 3 review with the Core i3. Google Octane 11,600 vs 9,400 gives Intel the edge but the gap is closing fast.
  • kron123456789 - Friday, November 7, 2014 - link

    iOS is OS X ARM ediition, lol.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now