
Understanding the 9.7" iPad Pro's Display: How DCI-P3 and True Tone Work - techenthusiast
http://anandtech.com/show/10265/understanding-the-97-ipad-pros-true-tone-display
======
MBCook
I upgraded from an iPad Air 2 to the new 9.7" Pro for Pencil support. I like
having great image quality, but the truth is the Air 2 already looks
fantastic. I only cared about doodling, I really wasn't expecting much extra
out of the screen.

WOW.

Apple hit it out of the park with this one. There are times using my iPad
(which I'm doing right now) where the screen starts to remind me of a Kindle
reader. Thanks to retina resolution pictures look fantastic and I can't see
any pixels on text. The display is so close to the face of the device (since
the gaps and thick screens have been eliminated over the years) that it seems
like the pictures on the surface of the device. Now with TrueTone the white
point on the display seems to match what's actually in the room.

The end result of all this is that, much like a Kindle, the display seems to
"disappear". It times you get this interesting little fact were you feel a bit
like you're reading a piece of printed plastic. The giveaways that it's a
computer screen of been minimized to such a degree that you can almost trick
yourself at times.

I don't know where I'd find some images that use more than the standard sRGB
to see what they really look like on this iPad, but just from what I've seen
with normal content I'm quite impressed. I really hope Apple includes this
technology in the iPhone 7.

~~~
eveningcoffee
_There are times using my iPad (which I 'm doing right now) where the screen
starts to remind me of a Kindle reader._

This looks very interesting.

How are the reflections? If there is an overhead lamp, can you recognize your
face on the screen and see the lamp reflection clearly?

Disclaimer: I am in the crowd who despises reflective screens but all the
advertisements arrange the devices such that there is no visible reflections
when in fact you are staring your own face or reflection of the lamp all the
time. I find that most of the companies should be slapped with hefty fine for
deeply misleading advertisements.

~~~
wlesieutre
A thorough look at the screen from DisplayMate:
[http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_Pro9_ShootOut_1.htm](http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_Pro9_ShootOut_1.htm)

It's _very_ good.

> The iPad Pro 9.7 has a very innovative low Reflectance screen that reflects
> just 1.7 percent of the ambient light by using a new Anti-Reflection AR
> coating. _It has by far the lowest screen Reflectance of any mobile display_
> , so its image colors and contrast in high ambient light will appear
> considerably better than on any other mobile display. It’s a major
> enhancement that reduces the reflected light glare from the screen by a very
> impressive factor of 3 to 1 compared to most Tablets and Smartphones.

> Our Contrast Rating for High Ambient Light quantitatively measures screen
> visibility under bright Ambient Light – the higher the better. As a result
> of its high Brightness and very low Reflectance, _the iPad Pro 9.7 has a
> Contrast Rating for High Ambient Light of 301, by far the highest that we
> have ever measured_. See the Screen Reflections and Brightness and Contrast
> sections for measurements and details.

(emphasis mine)

~~~
eveningcoffee
This is very serious review. Thanks for this link.

It looks like they are admitting that the problem of reflections is a serious
one and needs addressing. I think that this is very positive.

But just a number does not make any sense, so I looked up some videos. Here is
the first one where he turns the tablet around quite in the beginning -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RGbn2oAri8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RGbn2oAri8)

It looks like that 1.7 percent of reflectance will still cause serious
reflections. This is not good enough.

So the rating _Outstanding_ should in fact read _still far from barely
satisfactory_. :(

I hope that people will wise up and start demanding _reflection free_ devices.

~~~
chrisseaton
I don't understand - why do you care so much about seeing reflections? Why is
that an issue? Why should I demand reflection free devices? I like the shiny
surface - it's easy to clean and looks smart.

~~~
eveningcoffee
I limit the discussion to the tablets.

First of, reflections distract. If I see a movement, my instinct is to focus
on the movement. I do not want that. I want to focus on what is on the screen.

When laying on the table, a reflective surface shines an overhead light source
into my eyes. This forces me to carefully position the tablet when not in use.
I do not want that.

Reflective surface will mirror my face, I do not want to be constantly
conscious about my presence.

~~~
wlesieutre
You could try a matte screen protector. Overall reflectance will me much
higher than the stock screen, and IMO they tend to look a bit fuzzy, but it at
least cuts out the mirror reflections.

~~~
eveningcoffee
Yep, I tried them. The problem is that they introduce either noise around
edges or rainbow colored noise on light areas. Or both.

Unfortunately it is not comparable to the good matte ISP screen experience.

------
mattparcher
Also see Craig Hockenberry piece, for more on the implications of all this for
developers and designers: [http://blog.iconfactory.com/2016/04/looking-at-the-
future/](http://blog.iconfactory.com/2016/04/looking-at-the-future/)

One of his key points: _As a developer, you’ll quickly realize that the scope
of these changes will make your update to Retina graphics look like a walk in
the park._

Craig is also currently working on a book “that helps you understand color in
laymen’s terms, use color management with step-by-step instructions for
popular apps like Photoshop, and guides you with the work necessary to create
great looking web and native apps.”

~~~
j_s
Sign up for newsletter here on the bottom of the page to know when the book is
finished:

[https://abookapart.com/](https://abookapart.com/)

------
colanderman
Why DCI-P3 and not Adobe RGB? While they're roughly the same gamut size, with
P3 having more crimsons and Adobe more aquas, Adobe actually covers most of
the CMYK color space, while P3 does not (it is lacking in the aquas, like
sRGB), and Adobe has a larger gamut in the highlights (due to its less
saturated, and therefore brighter, red primary).

Not to mention the fact that Adobe RGB has long been established (albeit not
terribly widely used) in the graphics/photo industry. As another poster
mentioned, even Apple couldn't find any P3 images to use as wallpapers, so
settled on Adobe RGB ones instead.

What's their goal? Are they aiming for better compatibility with digital
cinema?

~~~
sliverstorm
It always seems to me, Apple loves dodging the established choice. Firewire,
Thunderbolt, I swear the list is long but I can't remember everything right
now.

~~~
xenadu02
When Steve Jobs came back to Apple he did a Q&A session at WWDC. Someone asked
him why Apple was moving away from unique (proprietary standards) and Steve
said it was pointless to do your own interfaces/standards if the existing ones
were good enough and that Apple would only do its own thing when no existing
solution would work.

Apple created lightning before USB-C existed. In fact I'd wager USB-C wouldn't
exist if Apple hadn't created lightning (it costs money to introduce a new
standard after all, and the USB-IF is made up mostly of cheap-ass PC makers
who will do anything to save a penny... also why USB-C isn't a solid lug like
Lightning).

Apple created Firewire 400 when USB was stuck at 12.

Thunderbolt wasn't Apple's creation, it was Intel's extension of the PCI bus
to an external interface. Intel is the one who pushed it as the next great
thing and promised to roll it out, then pushed onerous licensing terms and
took their sweet time rolling it out to all their chipsets.

Even FaceTime couldn't be open-sourced due to patent trolls winning a lawsuit
against Apple over the peer-to-peer protocol it used, resulting in Apple
having to redesign it to use a server-based scheme (in other words the reason
we don't have cross-OS, cross-device video calling right now is due to patent
trolls. Think about that for a minute).

Why hasn't Apple updated the Thunderbolt Display for Retina? Because the
DisplayPort spec can't handle the resolution and hasn't been updated for it
yet (at least that was the cast last time I looked). I'll also note Apple
contributed the mini-DisplayPort spec back which is why anyone can use it now.

~~~
jkestner
Good list.

    
    
      In fact I'd wager USB-C wouldn't exist if Apple hadn't created lightning
    

There are rumors that Apple led the design effort for USB-C.
[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/03/14/apple-
usbc](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/03/14/apple-usbc)

~~~
techenthusiast
I discovered through relevant contacts that that's not actually true.

------
manfrominternet
It's nice to have a wider gamut (I'm using NEC/DELL wide-gamut displays
professionally since a decade and I calibrate them regularly), but very few
will notice the difference given the incredibly poor contrast in outdoor
conditions.

I've recently switched to a newer laptop (lenovo x1 carbon), which is not
matte (at least, the version I was given - with the touchscreen). While the
resolution and color depth is _much_ better than my previous hp elitebook, the
screen is just too glossy. The added contrast is quickly lost due to the extra
glare even in normal office conditions.

Nobody seems to care nowdays, but the anti-glare coating makes a _huge_
difference in 90% of the scenarios. The claim of reduced brightness is
_bullshit_ unless you're working on a monitor in fixed light conditions.

On a tablet with a pen, which I'd really love to use outside to take notes,
the added color depth is going to be useless.

~~~
djrogers
>On a tablet with a pen, which I'd really love to use outside to take notes,
the added color depth is going to be useless.

This technology doesn't improve a specific use case for me, so it's useless...
Let's ignore the other people, and other use cases.

------
Aelinsaar
It sounds like True Tone, especially if you're not concerned with pure color
accuracy, is a pretty neat trick that actually works.

~~~
simonh
I'm very happy with it. Like Retina before it, you only really notice it when
you don't have it. Very quickly it becomes the 'new normal' and going into
settings and switching it off can be a real surprise in many common lighting
conditions.

Night Shift is a much bigger effect, and isn't calibrated to your environment,
but I like it. I know some people think it's too extreme, and it is
noticeable. I'm using it on my 6+ right now and it obvious it's on, but again
if I switch it off temporarily the blue-whiteness of the un-shifted display
looks horribly sickly. But then the warmer colours work particularly well with
the HN colour scheme.

~~~
joshschreuder
I agree, the effect of turning it off is extremely jarring. It's kind of like
using f.lux late at night and then turning it off. The blue light becomes
blinding.

------
wmf
Is this a 30-bit display or 24-bit?

~~~
techenthusiast
The latter (8-bit per channel). Sadly we don't have the memory bandwidth yet
in mobile. Hopefully we will for the iPhone 7.

~~~
markonen
If the frame buffer is 8-bit and in P3 color space, doesn't that mean that
there are (way) less than 8 effective bits per channel for sRGB content? That
seems like a pretty big compromise if true.

The P3 iMacs are 10-bit, and there the color space looks more like a clear
win.

~~~
techenthusiast
That's correct. There is unfortunately banding since it's only 8-bit. It is
definitely an unfortunate short term compromise, though the P3 gamut is still
worth the tradeoff.

Also, both the 5K iMacs are 10-bit, while the 4K iMac is actually 8-bit. It's
down to the bandwidth of the GPUs.

Reference documentation for anyone interested:
[https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/releasenotes/MacOSX/...](https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/releasenotes/MacOSX/WhatsNewInOSX/Articles/MacOSX10_11_2.html).

~~~
4ad
The 5k iMacs use a 10-bit interface, but the panel is still 8-bit and
dithered.

Personally, I am extremely happy with the 5k iMac panel, color-wise (contrast
is not great though), dithering seems to work well and it's imperceptible in
normal conditions.

~~~
techenthusiast
Nah, it's both 10-bit and dithered, promise. See the Apple reference
documentation I just posted above.

You can tell by comparing a test image across the 4K and 5K iMacs. I first
discovered this by doing that comparison at an Apple Store. There's obvious
banding on the 4K model that isn't there on the 5K model.

------
satysin
This reminds me of a Dell laptop I had a number of years ago that had a WRGB
display that was _gorgeous_. I still think it looked better (albeit lower res)
than current high-end laptop displays.

Why did WRGB never catch on? It seemed so good.

~~~
techenthusiast
Without diving into the details, RGBW is actually worse than RGB on technical
merit. For TVs, the panels are so large that yields are terrible, so they
often have to use a white subpixel as a quality compromise.

