If the color temperature of the white point is too high or too low, the colors will look too blue or too yellow respectively. In this case they are saying the color temperature of the iPad Pro is slightly too high at 7,164 Kelvin whereas the Surface Pro is better at 6,886 K (with the ideal being 6,500K). As someone who works in color imaging, having the correct white point for your screen is extremely important to being able to accurately judge color.
When I got my iPad 3 several years ago, the color temperature of the screen was very low and the color skewed very yellow on it. I actually couldn't stand it and ended up letting a coworker use the iPad 3 and I went back to my iPad 2 which was much better balanced. The iPad Air that I am typing this also has good color balance. However, I would love to have some professional level controls over calibrating the display like I do on my Mac, where I can generate a custom ICC profile using an X-Rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter.
Some of you guys are way too sensitive about this stuff. Microsoft's display is slightly better? Well done Microsoft.
It does seperate those who are way too emotionally involved and can't take any perceived slight and have to come out to defend. It's a so what two products have very good displays. Well done to both companies. I can't see many here rushing out to buy a surface and I'm sure it's not going to affect Apple's ability to sell them by the boatload.
What DisplayMate didn't mention is that the Surface beat the iPad only when both tablets are turned off. Once turned on, with the horrible Windows OS spread all over the Surface screen, it's game over. Hahaha. Next!
Really? There is no way the average person whom they are selling these devices to can tell the difference to any degree. Focus on the important points please.
You're absolutely correct. When I examined the other phones at the store, I found them all like mine. It was extremely hard to see it in the full wash of light in the store, even for me. It's more noticeable in lower lighting situations and with the brightness lower in dark environments. I figured any replacement they gave me would be the same or worse so I walked out. And here I am feeling regretful as I look at my phone typing this in a room that's naturally lit and not flooded with light. I'm actually pretty annoye at this situation. I feel helpless to get any satisfaction. Their environment is NOTHING like mine.
I am planning to buy an iPad Pro. Can I expect uniformity on THAT device?? It's aimed at graphics people and professionals, right?? What happens if there's a warm half and a cool half like my brand new iPhone 6s??
Total and utter bullshit. I've seen both and the Pro totally destroys the Surface screen. I don't need some nerd in a lab to tell me what my eyes are seeing.
So when it comes to screens other than televisions, a lab test is no longer valid and your eyeballs are enough to judge?
Reminds me of a similar thread from a month ago:
Begin quote from a month ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechLover
In my opinion the 4K sets I have seen simply look better at any distance, regardless of the content being displayed.
Then your eyes are fooling you. At normal distances there is no difference in perceived resolution.
Where you able to compare a 1080p TV vs a 4k TV that had the EXACT same internals except for resolution?
To see the difference in 4k TV you would have to be 4 feet away from a 50 inch TV.
To see the difference in 4k TV you would have to be 6 feet away from a 70 inch TV.
You can post all of the charts, graphs, and statements of FACT That you want to.
You can certainly tell me that my eyes are fooling me.
You can also try your hardest to convince me that a 4K screen does not look better than a 1080 screen.
All I can say is that in my opinion a 4K set simply looks better to me at any distance. My opinion is based on what I have actually seen with my own two eyeballs. That just is my opinion. My opinion does not show up on any chart or graph. Nor does my opinion fit your narrative of FACT's.
If my eyes are fooling me, so be it. But I have pretty good vision that could spot a flea on a dogs ass from a yard away.
I understand if you don't want to believe it, or can't see it for yourself. That is perfectly fair. After all these are my eyeballs (not anyone else's) telling my brain (not someone else's brain) which screen is better.
It does seperate those who are way too emotionally involved and can't take any perceived slight and have to come out to defend. It's a so what two products have very good displays. Well done to both companies. I can't see many here rushing out to buy a surface and I'm sure it's not going to affect Apple's ability to sell them by the boatload.
The weight displaymate gives to each test component is a bit weird, which deserves a question about their methods. Seemingly there is little regard to actual use!
Not sure how not kissing their ass and saying they are gods is being a "fanboy".
What is most important to the actual users is how a display's result should be weighted.
You can post all of the charts, graphs, and statements of FACT That you want to.
You can certainly tell me that my eyes are fooling me.
You can also try your hardest to convince me that a 4K screen does not look better than a 1080 screen.
All I can say is that in my opinion a 4K set simply looks better to me at any distance. My opinion is based on what I have actually seen with my own two eyeballs. That just is my opinion. My opinion does not show up on any chart or graph. Nor does my opinion fit your narrative of FACT's.
If my eyes are fooling me, so be it. But I have pretty good vision that could spot a flea on a dogs ass from a yard away.
One cell of your retina can not perceive two pixels, no matter how much you may think otherwise.
It may well be that 4K TVs look better than 1080 TVs, but it won't be from the extra pixels unless you are sitting very close or have a very large screen.
So why might a set look better? They may have better refresh rates. They often have better support for deep color. Better backlighting. The interpolation of lower resolution signals may use a more pleasing algorithm. All kinds of new technologies that manufacturers aren't bothering to put in the 1080 sets because they want to promote 4K. But the mere presence of lots of extra pixels isn't going to be one of them.
There's no way you're going to be able to read 12pt type from across a room without mechanical assistance no matter how good your eyes are, simply because your retinas are physically incapable of discerning that much detail. This is no different.
As was already written several times (and which you dismiss without comment) is that you can not have a fair comparison unless you have two TVs that are completely identical (dithering/upscaling algorithms, backlighting, color depth, brightness, contrast, gamma curves, calibration, etc.) in all aspects other than resolution. Otherwise there is no possible way to demonstrate that the differences you perceive are due to resolution and not to other factors. I'm certain that you have never participated in any such test.
One cell of your retina can not perceive two pixels, no matter how much you may think otherwise.
It may well be that 4K TVs look better than 1080 TVs, but it won't be from the extra pixels unless you are sitting very close or have a very large screen.
One cell of your retina can not perceive two pixels, no matter how much you may think otherwise.
It may well be that 4K TVs look better than 1080 TVs, but it won't be from the extra pixels unless you are sitting very close or have a very large screen.
So they deliberately set up non-scientific testing conditions and did not make any attempt to normalize all of the factors unrelated to the number of pixels on-screen. So they got results that mean nothing.
So they deliberately set up non-scientific testing conditions and did not make any attempt to normalize all of the factors unrelated to the number of pixels on-screen. So they got results that mean nothing.
You also didn't answer the question I asked. Isn't perception more important than what the specs might "scientifically" say they should see? If a viewer perceives it to be better, then it IS better IMO. Do you disagree with that?
EDIT: It's an all-too-common mistake to comment on something before actually reading/watching the pertinent link. In this case the point being made is probably not what you assume it was. Watch the video.
So they deliberately set up non-scientific testing conditions and did not make any attempt to normalize all of the factors unrelated to the number of pixels on-screen. So they got results that mean nothing.
You also didn't answer the question I asked. Isn't perception more important than what the specs might "scientifically" say they should see? If a viewer perceives it to be better, then it IS better IMO. Do you disagree with that?
EDIT: It's an all-too-common mistake to comment on something before actually reading/watching the pertinent link. In this case the point being made is probably not what you assume it was. Watch the video.
I don't know what kind of crazy plugin this web site is using but the video can't be played.
That being said, they are not performing any thing resembling a fair comparison. They compare and LCD screen against a plasma screen. They are using compressed Netflix video - which is undoubtedly serving up a different stream to the two devices. There is no way to determine whether the perceived difference is due to more pixels (which shouldn't be possible) or due to differences in:
The quality of the video source
Differences in imaging technology (glowing plasma vs. backlit LCD)
Differences in contrast
Differences in brightness
Different dithering algorithms
Different frame rates
Color gamut
Different gamma curves
Sure, they picked some random HD display and placed it up against some random 4K display and thought the 4K one looked better, but that's not useful information. How is that going to help anyone decide if it's worth spending an extra $1000 for a 4K screen or if they'd be better off spending an extra $200 on a higher quality 1080-line screen? The answer is that it doesn't do any good at all.
There are people who claim they can hear a difference between a CD and a 192KHz recording, even though every controlled test shows that they can't. And when you look closely at the tests that show a difference, you find that they are using different source recordings, or volume levels don't match, or room accoustics are different, or other factors. But people will still insist that the controlled tests are BS because their own subjective (and flawed) tests say otherwise.
There are also people who claim that expensive optical fibers produce better quality sound even though the data is all digital and the amplifier doesn't care how "accurate" the 1s and 0s are, as long as they don't get confused with each other.
You're doing the same thing. You're comparing a huge basket of differences between two products and you're trying to claim that your perceived differences are all due to one single factor, even though there is no possible way to prove that claim.
Update: OK. I got the video to play. It pretty much said the same thing I said. The differences are entirely due to the different screen technologies unless you press your face up against the screen. Conclusions that were not mentioned at all on the text of their report.
Of course perception is what's most important, but if you don't know why one seems better than the other, you're going to throw your money away chasing the wrong technology.
There are people who claim they can hear a difference between a CD and a 192KHz recording, even though every controlled test shows that they can't. And when you look closely at the tests that show a difference, you find that they are using different source recordings, or volume levels don't match, or room accoustics are different, or other factors. But people will still insist that the controlled tests are BS because their own subjective (and flawed) tests say otherwise.
There are also people who claim that expensive optical fibers produce better quality sound even though the data is all digital and the amplifier doesn't care how "accurate" the 1s and 0s are, as long as they don't get confused with each other.
You're doing the same thing.You're comparing a huge basket of differences between two products and you're trying to claim that your perceived differences are all due to one single factor, even though there is no possible way to prove that claim.
Update: OK. I got the video to play. It pretty much said the same thing I said. The differences are entirely due to the different screen technologies unless you press your face up against the screen. Conclusions that were not mentioned at all on the text of their report.
Of course perception is what's most important, but if you don't know why one seems better than the other, you're going to throw your money away chasing the wrong technology.
As you finally discovered and noted in your "Update" I was not at all saying what you thought I was. Perception is the key, not specs.
I agree. I was at the Apple Store yesterday checking out the iPad Pro. There is no way the Surface screen is better. The iPad Pro's display looks amazing. The Surface Pro display isn't bad by any means, but it doesn't come close to the iPad Pro display in my opinion.
What Surface Pro, though. MS claims that SP4 display is improved over SP3... which should have been better that SP2 and original SP, if memory serves.
These guys are talking about measurements, though. That does not guarantee that more accurate display will also be more pleasing to an eye. As in, more people prefer images with punchy colors, compared to more natural but also more flat images which are accurate.
Doesn't matter that my retinas cannot perceive individual pixels at some distance. The end result is whether or not the shapes are blurred by my eyes AND inferior resolution. I have become majorly accustomed to retina screens because of iPhones. Sitting at my non-retina MacBook Pro is uncomfortable because, even with my near-sighted eyes blurring things, the screen is low enough resolution that the blur is compounded. Eye-blurry retina-screen text is superior and more comfortable than non-retina blurry text being blurred again by my inferior eyes.
Even with light correction eyewear (for close up computer work, less strain on eyes), the Retina display is best. Without Retina display clarity, my brain interprets computer text as blurry, because it is. But the problem isn't in my eyes. It's in the screen. Decades of computer use have been a strain to my eyes and I bet they'd be less crappy if I hadn't grown up staring at fuzzy pixels approximating lines.
I can only assume the same is true for televisions. My glasses and contact lenses only do so much. Starting off with greater definition is an assist to my eyes.
Comments
When I got my iPad 3 several years ago, the color temperature of the screen was very low and the color skewed very yellow on it. I actually couldn't stand it and ended up letting a coworker use the iPad 3 and I went back to my iPad 2 which was much better balanced. The iPad Air that I am typing this also has good color balance. However, I would love to have some professional level controls over calibrating the display like I do on my Mac, where I can generate a custom ICC profile using an X-Rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter.
You're absolutely correct. When I examined the other phones at the store, I found them all like mine. It was extremely hard to see it in the full wash of light in the store, even for me. It's more noticeable in lower lighting situations and with the brightness lower in dark environments. I figured any replacement they gave me would be the same or worse so I walked out. And here I am feeling regretful as I look at my phone typing this in a room that's naturally lit and not flooded with light. I'm actually pretty annoye at this situation. I feel helpless to get any satisfaction. Their environment is NOTHING like mine.
I am planning to buy an iPad Pro. Can I expect uniformity on THAT device?? It's aimed at graphics people and professionals, right?? What happens if there's a warm half and a cool half like my brand new iPhone 6s??
Nice job.
Microsoft's check is in the mail.
Total and utter bullshit. I've seen both and the Pro totally destroys the Surface screen. I don't need some nerd in a lab to tell me what my eyes are seeing.
So when it comes to screens other than televisions, a lab test is no longer valid and your eyeballs are enough to judge?
Reminds me of a similar thread from a month ago:
Begin quote from a month ago:
In my opinion the 4K sets I have seen simply look better at any distance, regardless of the content being displayed.
Then your eyes are fooling you. At normal distances there is no difference in perceived resolution.
Where you able to compare a 1080p TV vs a 4k TV that had the EXACT same internals except for resolution?
To see the difference in 4k TV you would have to be 4 feet away from a 50 inch TV.
To see the difference in 4k TV you would have to be 6 feet away from a 70 inch TV.
You can post all of the charts, graphs, and statements of FACT That you want to.
You can certainly tell me that my eyes are fooling me.
You can also try your hardest to convince me that a 4K screen does not look better than a 1080 screen.
All I can say is that in my opinion a 4K set simply looks better to me at any distance. My opinion is based on what I have actually seen with my own two eyeballs. That just is my opinion. My opinion does not show up on any chart or graph. Nor does my opinion fit your narrative of FACT's.
If my eyes are fooling me, so be it. But I have pretty good vision that could spot a flea on a dogs ass from a yard away.
I understand if you don't want to believe it, or can't see it for yourself. That is perfectly fair. After all these are my eyeballs (not anyone else's) telling my brain (not someone else's brain) which screen is better.
/end quote from a month ago.
It does seperate those who are way too emotionally involved and can't take any perceived slight and have to come out to defend. It's a so what two products have very good displays. Well done to both companies. I can't see many here rushing out to buy a surface and I'm sure it's not going to affect Apple's ability to sell them by the boatload.
The weight displaymate gives to each test component is a bit weird, which deserves a question about their methods. Seemingly there is little regard to actual use!
Not sure how not kissing their ass and saying they are gods is being a "fanboy".
What is most important to the actual users is how a display's result should be weighted.
I've seen those things side by side btw.
My iPad Mini 4 is the best iPad I've ever owned. Easy to carry, razor sharp display, and fast enough. And did I mention excellent battery life.
Some of you guys are way too sensitive about this stuff. Microsoft's display is slightly better? Well done Microsoft.
I am personally fine if something is better than Apple's products...I guess I am not a fanboy.
It is when another product claims (is said) to be better, while numbers don't support that claim - that is when I have a problem.
You haven't seen shit.
Originally Posted by TechLover
You can post all of the charts, graphs, and statements of FACT That you want to.
You can certainly tell me that my eyes are fooling me.
You can also try your hardest to convince me that a 4K screen does not look better than a 1080 screen.
All I can say is that in my opinion a 4K set simply looks better to me at any distance. My opinion is based on what I have actually seen with my own two eyeballs. That just is my opinion. My opinion does not show up on any chart or graph. Nor does my opinion fit your narrative of FACT's.
If my eyes are fooling me, so be it. But I have pretty good vision that could spot a flea on a dogs ass from a yard away.
One cell of your retina can not perceive two pixels, no matter how much you may think otherwise.
It may well be that 4K TVs look better than 1080 TVs, but it won't be from the extra pixels unless you are sitting very close or have a very large screen.
So why might a set look better? They may have better refresh rates. They often have better support for deep color. Better backlighting. The interpolation of lower resolution signals may use a more pleasing algorithm. All kinds of new technologies that manufacturers aren't bothering to put in the 1080 sets because they want to promote 4K. But the mere presence of lots of extra pixels isn't going to be one of them.
There's no way you're going to be able to read 12pt type from across a room without mechanical assistance no matter how good your eyes are, simply because your retinas are physically incapable of discerning that much detail. This is no different.
As was already written several times (and which you dismiss without comment) is that you can not have a fair comparison unless you have two TVs that are completely identical (dithering/upscaling algorithms, backlighting, color depth, brightness, contrast, gamma curves, calibration, etc.) in all aspects other than resolution. Otherwise there is no possible way to demonstrate that the differences you perceive are due to resolution and not to other factors. I'm certain that you have never participated in any such test.
Perception is more important than specs isn't it?
One cell of your retina can not perceive two pixels, no matter how much you may think otherwise.
It may well be that 4K TVs look better than 1080 TVs, but it won't be from the extra pixels unless you are sitting very close or have a very large screen.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/1080p-hd-vs-ultra-hd-4k-eyes-video/
Perception is more important than specs isn't it?
So they deliberately set up non-scientific testing conditions and did not make any attempt to normalize all of the factors unrelated to the number of pixels on-screen. So they got results that mean nothing.
http://content.jwplatform.com/previews/0PP3Is1R-ERPbx32c
You also didn't answer the question I asked. Isn't perception more important than what the specs might "scientifically" say they should see? If a viewer perceives it to be better, then it IS better IMO. Do you disagree with that?
EDIT: It's an all-too-common mistake to comment on something before actually reading/watching the pertinent link. In this case the point being made is probably not what you assume it was. Watch the video.
So they deliberately set up non-scientific testing conditions and did not make any attempt to normalize all of the factors unrelated to the number of pixels on-screen. So they got results that mean nothing.
You didn't actually watch the video did you.
http://content.jwplatform.com/previews/0PP3Is1R-ERPbx32c
You also didn't answer the question I asked. Isn't perception more important than what the specs might "scientifically" say they should see? If a viewer perceives it to be better, then it IS better IMO. Do you disagree with that?
EDIT: It's an all-too-common mistake to comment on something before actually reading/watching the pertinent link. In this case the point being made is probably not what you assume it was. Watch the video.
I don't know what kind of crazy plugin this web site is using but the video can't be played.
That being said, they are not performing any thing resembling a fair comparison. They compare and LCD screen against a plasma screen. They are using compressed Netflix video - which is undoubtedly serving up a different stream to the two devices. There is no way to determine whether the perceived difference is due to more pixels (which shouldn't be possible) or due to differences in:
Sure, they picked some random HD display and placed it up against some random 4K display and thought the 4K one looked better, but that's not useful information. How is that going to help anyone decide if it's worth spending an extra $1000 for a 4K screen or if they'd be better off spending an extra $200 on a higher quality 1080-line screen? The answer is that it doesn't do any good at all.
There are people who claim they can hear a difference between a CD and a 192KHz recording, even though every controlled test shows that they can't. And when you look closely at the tests that show a difference, you find that they are using different source recordings, or volume levels don't match, or room accoustics are different, or other factors. But people will still insist that the controlled tests are BS because their own subjective (and flawed) tests say otherwise.
There are also people who claim that expensive optical fibers produce better quality sound even though the data is all digital and the amplifier doesn't care how "accurate" the 1s and 0s are, as long as they don't get confused with each other.
You're doing the same thing. You're comparing a huge basket of differences between two products and you're trying to claim that your perceived differences are all due to one single factor, even though there is no possible way to prove that claim.
Update: OK. I got the video to play. It pretty much said the same thing I said. The differences are entirely due to the different screen technologies unless you press your face up against the screen. Conclusions that were not mentioned at all on the text of their report.
Of course perception is what's most important, but if you don't know why one seems better than the other, you're going to throw your money away chasing the wrong technology.
What Surface Pro, though. MS claims that SP4 display is improved over SP3... which should have been better that SP2 and original SP, if memory serves.
These guys are talking about measurements, though. That does not guarantee that more accurate display will also be more pleasing to an eye. As in, more people prefer images with punchy colors, compared to more natural but also more flat images which are accurate.
Even with light correction eyewear (for close up computer work, less strain on eyes), the Retina display is best. Without Retina display clarity, my brain interprets computer text as blurry, because it is. But the problem isn't in my eyes. It's in the screen. Decades of computer use have been a strain to my eyes and I bet they'd be less crappy if I hadn't grown up staring at fuzzy pixels approximating lines.
I can only assume the same is true for televisions. My glasses and contact lenses only do so much. Starting off with greater definition is an assist to my eyes.