Six Gifts That Will Take a Music Fan to Their Happy Place

Is there a hardcore music fan you need to unload some holiday cheer at? Don’t buy them music! Mistake! Buy them gear to help them enjoy the music they already have.

---

Sonos Play:1

If you want to know true happiness, get yourself set up with a wireless music system in your house. Our favorite right now is Sonos because it’s so simple to set up and sounds totally fantastic. The Play:1 is the starter package—don’t be surprised if the single speaker leads you to purchase one for every room in your house.

http://ift.tt/1Yf5Z13...

---

Sol Republic Relays Headphones

There are buds of all kinds in the world, but I love the Relays for the simple reason that they’ve got a little rib that keeps ‘um firmly in your ear when you’re running around—or actually running for exercise.

http://ift.tt/1Yf60Cg...

---

Parrot Zik 2.0 Headphones

Parrot’s smart Bluetooth headphones look cool and come with a clever app that allow you to tune the sound exactly to your liking. Did I mention they look cool?

http://ift.tt/1Yf5Z15...

---

Bose QC-25 Headphones

Bose’s omnipresent noise-canceling headphones are used by constant travelers mostly because they’re totally awesome and fold up into a tiny package while still delivering big sound. Don’t fly without ‘em!

http://ift.tt/1Yf5Z19...

---

Aiaiai TMA-2 Modular

Fashion-forward headphone brand Aiaiai came out with a pioneering new concept this year: Modular headphones. You can choose the sound of the drivers, type of earpads, the style of headband, and even the type of cable you want. (Amazon only has one configuration, so head to Aiaiai to see what else they offer.)

http://ift.tt/1lsY5Ty...

---

Teenage Engineering Pocket Operators

Teenage Engineering makes some of the coolest instruments around. Its latest effort is a line of tiny little beat machines that are surprisingly powerful, considering they’re about the size of a cheap-o calculator (and way more fun). Choose between a bass line, drum, and lead versions, depending on what you’re looking for.

http://ift.tt/1Yf5Zht...

http://ift.tt/1Yf5Zht...

http://ift.tt/1Yf5Zht...

V247

This $99 Cup Packed With Sensors Wants To Keep You Hydrated With an Algorithm

Last summer, Stephen Colbert turned his laser eyes on a new product called Vessyl, a $199 cup that tracks how much liquid you consume. “Is there any aspect of being a cup this cup can’t do?,” Stephen asked during the brutally funny segment.

Mark One–the San Francisco company behind Vessyl–was undeterred, and ended up raising more than $3.5 million to develop the idea through its pre-order campaign. And while the company is “continuing to work on perfecting Vessyl’s sensor technology,” today it launched a simpler version of its smart cup–a $99 cup that will be sold in Apple stores and online.

The so-called Pryme Vessyl is cheaper and has fewer bells and whistles than the Vessyl proper, though. Rather than using molecular chemistry to analyze what you’re drinking, this cup does something much simpler: Track how much you’re drinking, and remind you to drink more.

At half the price, the cup eschews the original Vessyl’s fluffier features–like identifying beverage types and nutritional information–for functionality that focuses just on keeping you hydrated. The 16-ounce cup does this using a cadre of sensors, including an accelerometer, that need to be charged roughly every five days via a wireless charging coaster.

Using these sensors, it gauges a metric that the company’s designers have termed “Pryme:” a magical hydration standard that their algorithm determines using data like your age, weight, and gender, along with activity recorded by Apple’s iOS Health App or Jawbone UP. Every time you take a sip, you get closer to reaching your “pryme.” (The company told me the exact sensors it uses to gauge consumption are proprietary, so it’s unclear exactly how it does this beyond tracking motion via accelerometer.)

On the site of the cup, blue light pings you to communicate whether you need to drink more, or if you’ve reached your “pryme,” based on a “proprietary hydration algorithm” determined with help from Dr. Hanson Lenyoun, an MD on the Mark One team.

It’s an easy product to skewer, as Colbert proved–proprietary hydration algorithm–but it has plenty of peers. It has a compatriot in Soylent, the company that aims to free your mind of the annoyance of having to think about eating. It’s also spiritually related Spire, a piece of hardware that tracks your mindfulness and trains you to be calm. All of these devices aim to do use hardware and software to reach an algorithm-determined best self. Here’s how Vessyl puts it: At your Pryme, you are mentally sharp and physically strong. We want you to Pryme for your moments of greatness.

By offloading the vagaries of being a human–drinking, eating, breathing–to smart hardware, these products aim to make you a more productive person. Whether or not you believe that technology can help you attain that best self? Well, that’ll depend on you (and your proximity to the Bay Area, probably). If your interest is piqued, you can find Pryme at the Apple store.

---

Contact the author at kelsey@Gizmodo.com.

V247

Physicists Prove That Spooky Action At a Distance Is Real

Entanglement is one of the strangest aspects of quantum mechanics, whereby two subatomic particles can be so closely connected that one can seem to influence the other even across long distances. Albert Einstein dubbed it “spooky action at a distance,” and two new experiments have now definitively shown that the phenomenon is real.

Okay, I’ll say it: yes, Einstein was wrong — at least when it comes to his proposed alternative explanation for spooky action.

Along with Boris Podolsky and Ned Rosen, Einstein suggested in 1935 that it might be the result of what are now called hidden variables. It’s possible that there is no spookiness involved, he argued; the hidden variables predetermined the outcome. And since these variables could only influence things in their vicinity (locality), this view has become known as local realism.

Thirty years later, John Bell proposed a means of testing that hypothesis — an experimental set-up that would rule out any possible hidden variables, thereby proving that spooky action is real after all. You take an entangled pair of photons, separate them, and have each choose randomly between two possible “questions” at either location. The “choice” in this case involves one of two possible measurements of different properties being made, selected at random. Those answers should be connected in specific ways if spooky action is true: for instance, if a measurement is made and we find that one photon of an entangled pair is red, we will know that the other must automatically be blue, even if they are miles apart.

Physicists have been conducting variations of the Bell test ever since, with greater and greater precision, but could never quite claim to have produced definitive proof of spooky action, because there were still critical loopholes in the experimental design. Until quite recently, physicists simply didn’t have sufficiently advanced technology to close those loopholes.

Krister Shalm, a physicist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colorado, draws an analogy with the recent VW emissions scandal. The car manufacturer figured out the assumptions made by the EPA in its emissions tests, and modified its performance accordingly to exploit that loophole. The Bell tests conducted over the past 50+ years also make certain assumptions.

So like others before them, Shalm and his colleagues at NIST had to close those loopholes. By doing so with greater precision than ever before, they hammered the final nail in local realism’s coffin. “That idea is now out the window,” Shalm told Gizmodo.

The NIST version of the Bell test involved placing a photon source and two detectors far apart, in three different rooms in the laboratory building. The source pumped out entangled pairs of photons, which were then separated and sent via fiber optic cables to the detectors. While the photons were still en route, the scientists used a random number generator to make a “choice” — the equivalent of calling heads or tails for the flip of a coin. That outcome determined the analyzer setting, and if the photon matched that setting, it was considered a detection.

The first loophole involves fair sampling. Let’s say you wanted to test whether a coin was biased. You would flip it 100 times, then count how many times you got heads, and how many times you got tails. If you got, say, 70 heads and only 30 tails, there’s a good chance the coin is biased. But what if for half of those 100 flips, the coin bounced away and fell down the drain? You’d only be counting the remaining 50 flips, in which the coin landed equally on heads and tails. You can assume that the other unrecorded flips were fair, but the coin could still be biased and you wouldn’t know it, because half the results are hidden from you. “If every time I got heads, I threw it away and didn’t show it to you, you’d be fooled into thinking it was fair,” said Shalm.

That’s what happened in prior incarnations of the Bell test: until quite recently, the photon detectors weren’t recording a sufficiently high sampling of photons — above 72% is the critical threshold, according to Shalm. The NIST experiment detected 75% of the photons, thanks to the team’s development of much-improved sources of entangled photons and the use of superconducting materials in its detectors.

It’s incredibly difficult to achieve those numbers, given the intricate process involved. Shalm calls it “quantum archery”: the entangled photon pairs must be coupled to optical fibers — a target about 10 microns in size — and then sent to separate locations hundreds of meters away with minimal losses, weaving in and out of the optical fibers along the way before they finally reach the detectors. Any kind of outside interference will break the entanglement between the photon pair.

This brings us to the second loophole: there can be no faster-than-light communication of information. That means the photon detectors must be at least several hundred meters apart so that any signal traveling at the speed of light can’t reach either photon in its respective location before a “choice,” or measurement, is made. It would take 617 nanoseconds for any signal to travel between the two NIST detectors, and the measurements were completed a good 40 nanoseconds faster than that, so they successfully ruled out the possibility of some kind of mysterious communication between the photons.

The third and final loophole involves freedom of choice, and Shalm admits that it can never truly be closed, because at some point you find yourself in the untestable realm of metaphysics. When that happens, “You’re firmly out of the realm of physics, in my opinion,” he said. But he and his colleagues did address the issue by combining two different processes to generate truly random numbers, thereby closing as much of that loophole as it is possible to close.

They also added a third random bit to ensure there could be no outside manipulation, mashing together data from films and TV shows, such as Back to the Future or Saved by the Bell, with the digits of pi. In order to cling to the super-determinism implied by local realism, “You’d have to believe that sometime before the experiment started, the photons (or whatever was creating the photons) have to be able to influence what two quantum random number generators were doing, and would also have to know what Marty Mcfly was doing in Back to the Future, along with other correlations and the digits of pi,” said Shalm. Any such model would be absurd.

And what about implicit bias? The NIST team thought about that, too, bringing in another physicist who firmly believed in local realism to help design the experiment, lest their own bias against local realism sneak in. When the results came in, that physicist had to adjust his thinking. “He’s a good scientist,” said Shalm. “He saw the evidence and changed his opinion.” But he still needed a period of mourning: “He had a few days where he moped around the halls. You could almost see the five stages of grief.”

Even other physicists might not appreciate the difficulty of firmly closing all those loopholes. If prior Bell tests were akin to climbing Mount Kilmanjaro or Mount Fuji, Shalm said, the NIST experiment is “like climbing Everest or K2 without oxygen.” It took many, many scientists working 20 hours a day, seven days a week, to get the experiment up and running, because every component had to be precise to within one part in a million or billion — like crossing millions of T’s and dotting billions of i’s.

“I’ve poured my blood and tears into this,” Shalm admitted. “I got married in the middle of the experiment and I was analyzing data the day of the wedding. I’m glad my bride didn’t run away.”

Science usually progresses in incremental improvements. The NIST results come on the heels of a similar successful Bell test announced earlier this year by physicists at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. The Dutch scientists sent two entangled electrons to separate corners of the campus and also found that spooky action was real, although they didn’t quite reach the 75% detection threshold Shalm et al. achieved.

And a second team of physicists at the University Vienna just conducted yet another version of the Bell test using one of NIST’s single photon detectors. They reported similar results, submitting their own paper to the journal Physical Review Letters at the same time as Shalm and his co-authors.

Taken together with the Delft results and those from the University of Vienna experiment, NIST’s loophole-free Bell test should settle the question once and for all. As Shalm said. “You would have to have a very bizarre model of the universe to explain these three independent tests [without spooky action].”

References:

Bell, John S. (1964) “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox,” Physics 1: 195–200.

Einstein, A; Podolsky, B; Rosen, N. (1935) “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47 (10): 777–780

Giustina, Marissa et al. (2015) “A significant loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons,” Physical Review Letters (submitted).

Hensen, B. et al. (2015) “Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometers,” Nature 526: 682-686.

Shalm, L.K. et al. (2015) “A strong loophole-free test of local realism,” Physical Review Letters (submitted).

Top image: Krister Shalm adjusts the photon source in his Bell test experimental set-up. Credit: Burrus/NIST. Bottom image: Site A set-up of Delft University’s Bell test earlier this year. Credit:. Frank Auperle.

V247

Seiko Is Re-issuing the Futuristic Watch Ripley Wore In Aliens

Sometimes a unique design isn’t enough to make a product a hit, but then it makes an appearance in a major motion picture and suddenly everyone wants one. Let’s call it the DeLorean BTTF effect, and that’s exactly what happened with the Seiko Giugiaro 7A28-7000 once Ripley wore it in Aliens.

That’s not to say the chronograph was a failure before James Cameron chose it (and a handful of other Seikos) for his characters to wear in his 1986 fantasy sci-fi classic Aliens. The watchmaker had actually brought on Italian car designer Giorgetto Giugiaroto to design the timepiece, which features a unique panel sticking out on one side where you’ll find a pair of generously-sized chronograph buttons.

A collectible is always more interesting with a story behind it, and once moviegoers saw what a badass character Sigourney Weaver’s Ellen Ripley was, of course they’d want to own the same watch she wore in the film. It also didn’t hurt that the Seiko 7A28-7000 looked like it was a film prop specifically designed for a gritty future that hadn’t quite arrived yet.

The original version of the Seiko 7A28-7000, released back in 1983, isn’t terribly hard to find these days. They pop up on eBay for around a grand, but rarely in perfect condition. So if you’re happy to settle with a remarkably close facsimile, Seiko has just announced two re-issue versions of the watch: the Seiko X Giugiaro Design Spirit Smart SCED035 and SCED037, available in gray or black housings.

The most notable difference between the original 7A28-7000 and the new SCED035 (the gray model) is that it’s missing the crown and extra button on the left side of its case. It gives the watch a slightly sleeker look, and helps Seiko differentiate the re-issue from the original. Collectors who want the exact same watch Ripley wore probably won’t be satisfied with that change, but the re-issues will sell for around just $260 and $290.

So if you’re willing to compromise, you’ll save yourself a few bucks on a classic timepiece and a classic piece of sci-fi tech.

[Seiko via aBlogtoWatch]

V247

The iPad Pro's Display Is Great--But Not the Greatest

When people think of tablets, they think of iPads. To some people, the word “tablet” basically means “iPad.” So it’s a big deal when Apple creates a new one. With the new iPad Pro, Apple’s finally created a tablet that’s supposed to be professional grade, but does that self-imposed accolade stand up under extensive testing?

The key element for a great tablet has always been a truly innovative and top performing display, and the best leading edge tablets have always flaunted these beautiful high tech screens.

For 2015, there is a new broad product line of iPads – from the small mini 4 up to the new large Pro model, with display sizes that span almost 3 to 1 in screen area. The displays have different applications and performance criteria that we will measure and analyze below. The differences and similarities in performance between the 3 iPad displays are really interesting and surprising.

The tablet revolution began with the launch of the first iPad in 2010, and over the years the iPad displays have taken the lead with several major innovations, but they have also periodically lagged behind the displays on competing tablets. Looking back, the iPad displays have gotten major performance enhancements every two years (just like the iPhones but without the S designations). To understand the various performance aspects of the latest iPad displays we’ll first take a look at how they have evolved.

Early 9.7-Inch iPads (2010 - 2013)

For 2010, the original iPad had a leading edge 1024x768 display with 132 pixels-per-inch (ppi) and a small-ish 62 percent color gamut that had noticeably lower color saturation. The next cutting edge development for tablet displays arrived in 2012 on the iPad 3, which not only doubled the resolution and ppi up to what Apple classifies as a “Retina Display,” but also provided a much larger 99 percent color gamut, which delivered full color saturation images.

Up through 2013 all of the iPads had relatively high screen reflections, primarily from an air gap between the outer cover glass and the display, resulting in a high reflectance of 8.7 percent of the ambient light falling on the screen, which was reduced with each succeeding generation down to 6.5 percent for the iPad Air 1 in 2013. That may seem like a small percentage difference, but it is their ratio that matters. So 6.5 percent reflects 25 percent less ambient light than 8.7 percent.

iPad Air 2 (2014)

The next cutting edge development for tablet displays arrived in 2014 on the iPad Air 2, which received a very innovative low reflectance screen that reflects just 2.5 percent of the ambient light by using a new anti-reflection AR coating (together with eliminating the air gap). While this was overlooked by most consumers, reviewers, and (even) manufacturers, it was a major enhancement that reduced the reflected light glare from the screen by a very impressive 62 percent compared to the iPad Air 1 (and even more for the earlier iPads).

Reflected ambient light washes out the on-screen images, reducing both their contrast and color saturation. Since (almost) no one looks at the screen in absolute darkness, that 62 percent decrease in reflectance significantly increases the actual on-screen image contrast that you see in typical ambient light by an incredible factor of 2.6 times, and that also improves on-screen color saturation. Stated another way, the earlier iPads had less than 38 percent of the visual display contrast compared to the iPad Air 2 in typical ambient light. The difference is very easy to see in side-by-side visual comparisons, particularly when the displays are turned off so you just see the light reflected by the screens.

A lower screen reflectance also allows you to reduce the display brightness setting in ambient light, which saves power and increases running time on battery. Lowering screen reflectance is a major display performance improvement for real world viewing conditions.

Early 7.9-Inch iPad minis (2012-2014)

The much anticipated smaller 7.9 inch iPad mini 1 launched in 2012, but the mini’s display performance has always lagged behind the full-size, 9.7-inch iPads by one to two generations. In 2013, the mini 2 was upgraded to a Retina Display but still only received the lower 62 percent color gamut, which also continued for the mini 3 in 2014. The mini screen reflectance was even higher than the full size iPads. The iPad mini was treated like the runt of the litter, but it has now found favor and been transformed into a beautiful leading edge display on the new iPad mini 4.

The New iPads (2015)

For 2015, all of the current iPad displays have all of the enhancements mentioned above. The iPad Air 2 continues on as the current 9.7-inch model, the new 7.9 inch iPad mini 4 has received a slew of major display performance improvements, and there is the brand new iPad Pro with a much larger 12.9 inch display that is intended primarily for professional and advanced imaging applications (and promoted as a laptop replacement).

The differences and similarities in performance between these 3 current iPad displays are really interesting and surprising. We’ll cover these issues and much more, with in-depth comprehensive display tests, measurements and analysis.

The Display Shoot-Out

To examine the performance of the iPad mini 4, the iPad Air 2, and iPad Pro displays we ran our in-depth series of Mobile Display Technology Shoot-Out lab tests and measurements in order to determine how these latest LCD tablet displays have improved. We take display quality very seriously and provide in-depth objective analysis based on detailed laboratory tests and measurements and extensive viewing tests with both test patterns, test images, and test photos. To see how far mobile displays have progressed in just five years see our 2010 Smartphone Display Shoot-Out, and for a real history lesson see our original 2006 Smartphone Display Shoot-Out.

Results Highlights

In this results section we provide highlights of the comprehensive DisplayMate Lab tests and measurements and extensive visual comparisons using test photos, test images, and test patterns that are covered in the advanced sections. The main Display Shoot-Out Comparison Table summarizes the iPad mini 4, the iPad Air 2, and iPad Pro Lab measurements in the following categories: Screen Reflections, Brightness and Contrast, Colors and Intensities, Viewing Angles, LCD Spectra, Display Power.

You can also skip these highlights and go directly to the iPad Conclusions.

iPad Overview

All of the iPads have similar high performance IPS LCDs, but with different performance enhancements. The iPad Air 2 and iPad Pro both have photo aligned LCDs, which provides higher contrast ratios than the traditional and more common mechanical alignment on the iPad mini 4. On top of that, the iPad Pro has a metal oxide TFT backplane that increases the light throughput for the panel and therefore increases its power efficiency, which is particularly important for such a large mobile LCD panel with a backlight that needs lots of battery power to keep all of its LEDs shinning.

All of the iPads have Retina Displays, which means that their pixels are not resolved with normal 20/20 vision at their typical viewing distances. The smaller iPad mini 4 has a higher 326 pixels-per-inch (ppi) because it is typically viewed closer than the larger iPad Air 2 and iPad Pro, which have 264 ppi. All the iPads appear perfectly sharp at their typical viewing distances.

Because the iPad Pro has a much larger screen size, its ppi results in a significantly higher resolution of 2732 x 2048 pixels, versus 2048x1536 pixels for the iPad mini 4 and iPad Air 2. All of the iPads have a horizontal to vertical screen aspect ratio of 4:3, which is the same as standard 8.5 x 11-inch paper documents (with 0.5 inch borders). Their most important and significant difference is the almost 3 to 1 range in screen area.

Display Brightness and Contrast Ratio

All of the iPads have fairly high maximum brightness, from 415 cd/m² (nits) for the iPad Air 2, to 424 nits for the iPad Pro, and 450 nits for the iPad mini 4. High screen brightness is only needed when in high ambient light, so most of the time the brightness should be set lower than the maximum.

The display’s maximum contrast is the ratio between its peak white brightness (luminance) and its darkest black luminance, one of the more important measures of LCD performance quality. All of the iPads have fairly high true contrast ratios, from 967 for the iPad mini 4, to 1,064 for the iPad Air 2, up to a very impressive 1,631 for the iPad Pro, the highest we have ever measured for an LCD tablet display. Note that some manufacturers list a much higher (dynamic) contrast ratio for their LCDs, but that is just meaningless marketing puffery. See the Brightness and Contrast section for measurements and details.

Color Gamut and Absolute Color Accuracy

Good color accuracy is particularly important for tablets because they provide much larger images than smartphones. Their accuracy has been steadily improving as the result of providing close to 100 percent color gamuts and more manufacturers are now using fully automated color calibration with instruments at the factory instead of having assembly workers visually tweaking the colors.

Producing high absolute color accuracy is incredibly difficult because everything on the display has to be done just right. In order to deliver accurate image colors, a display needs a 100 percent sRGB / Rec.709 Standard color gamut that is used for producing virtually all current consumer content for digital cameras, HDTVs, the internet, and computers, including photos, videos, and movies. The iPad mini 4 has a very accurate 101 percent color gamut, while the iPad Air 2 and iPad Pro have slightly too large 105 to 107 percent color gamuts, primarily from over saturated Blue primaries, which reduces their color accuracy. See this Figure for the measured Color Gamuts.

In order to produce high absolute color accuracy a display also needs an accurate (pure logarithmic power-law) intensity scale, and an accurate white point. The new iPads have fairly accurate intensity scales with gammas fairly close to the 2.2 standard, however, they all have slightly bluish white points, with color temperatures of 7,109K to 7,355K, which is still (marginally) very good but reduces their overall color accuracy somewhat because the white point also affects all of the low saturation colors in the color gamut. See this Figure for a plot of the measured intensity scales and the Colors and Intensities section for measurements and details.

The iPad mini 4 has a very impressive absolute color accuracy with average/maximum color errors of 1.9 and 4.2 JNCD – tied for first place in absolute color accuracy with the Microsoft Surface Pro 4. The iPad Pro is somewhat less accurate but still (just barely) very good with average/maximum color errors of 2.6 and 6.6 JNCD. The iPad Air 2 has noticeably lower absolute color accuracy with average/maximum color errors of 3.9 and 8.8 JNCD, which are visually noticeable and could be unacceptable for some color critical applications (like medical imaging, high-end digital photography, product sales demonstrations, and advertising proofs, for example).

See this Figure for an explanation and visual definition of JNCD and the Color Accuracy Plots showing the measured display color errors. See the Color Accuracy section and the Color Accuracy Plots for measurements and details.

Screen Reflectance and Performance in Ambient Lighting

The screens on all displays are mirrors that reflect light from everything that is illuminated anywhere in front of the screen (especially anything behind the viewers), including lamps, ceiling lights, windows, direct and indirect indoor and outdoor sunlight, which washes out the on-screen colors, degrades image contrast, and interferes with seeing the on-screen images. The lower the screen reflectance the better. In fact, decreasing the screen reflectance by 50 percent doubles the effective contrast ratio in ambient light, so it is very important.

To visually compare the differences in screen reflectance for yourself, hold any tablets or smartphones side-by-side and turn off the displays so you just see the reflections. Those reflections are still there when you turn them on, and the brighter the ambient light the brighter the reflections.

A major innovation for all of the current iPads is an anti-reflection AR coating on the cover glass that reduces ambient light reflections by about 3:1 over most other tablets and smartphones (including the previous iPads), and about 2:1 over all of the very best competing tablets and smartphones.

Right now all 3 current iPads are the unrivaled record holders for display performance in ambient light as a result of their record low screen reflectance of 2.0 to 2.6 percent, significantly lower than the 4.5 to 6.5 percent reflectance found in all other current competing tablets. The iPad mini 4 is the best at 2.0 percent, with the iPad Air 2 at 2.5 percent and the iPad Pro at 2.6 percent.

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 mini 4 has a contrast rating for high ambient light of 225, by far the highest that we have ever measured. The iPad Air 2 has 166 and the iPad Pro has 163. See the Screen Reflections and Brightness and Contrast sections for measurements and details.

Viewing Angle Performance

While tablets are primarily single viewer devices, the variation in display performance with viewing angle is still very important because single viewers frequently hold the display at a variety of viewing angles, plus they are large enough for sharing the screen with others. The angle is often up to 30 degrees, more if it is resting on a table or desk.

The iPads all have IPS LCD displays, so we expected them to show very small color shifts with viewing angle, and our lab measurements confirmed their excellent viewing angle performance, with no visually noticeable color shifts.

The display’s contrast ratio also changes with viewing angle, and at 30 degrees the iPad Pro maintained its high contrast ratio with 1,015 in portrait mode and 974 in landscape mode, the highest we have ever measured for an LCD tablet. The iPad Air 2 and iPad mini 4 contrast ratios at 30 degrees were both in the 400 to 650 range, which are much lower but still very good for mobile displays.

However, all LCDs do have a strong decrease in brightness (luminance) with viewing angle, and all of the iPads showed (as expected) a 55 to 60 percent decrease in brightness at a modest 30-degree viewing angle. See the Viewing Angles section for measurements and details.

Viewing Tests

The iPads all provide very nice, pleasing and accurate colors and picture quality. The very challenging set of DisplayMate Test and calibration photos that we use to evaluate picture quality looked Beautiful, even to my experienced hyper-critical eyes.

But in side-by-side visual comparisons of all 3 iPads, it was clear that the iPad mini 4 provided the best and most accurate colors and image contrast over a very wide range of photo and image content – the result of its high color accuracy and very accurate intensity scale. See Figure 2 and Figure 3 and the Colors and Intensities section for quantitative details.

Display Power Efficiency

There are many factors that affect a display’s power efficiency, including the type of the white LEDs that are used, the optics and optical films in the backlight, the circuit technology in the LCD backplane, and the pixels per inch.

After measuring the power used by each display, we scaled them all to the same screen brightness (luminance) and the same screen area in order to compare their relative power efficiencies. The display power efficiencies for the iPad mini 4 and iPad Pro are 22% to 33% higher than the iPad Air 2.

The iPad Pro is the most power efficient of the iPads for two reasons: it has a metal oxide backplane, which increases the light throughput for the panel, and the display uses a lower refresh rate when the images remain static (like during our power measurements). See the Display Power section for measurements and details.

Conclusions for the 2015 iPads: All Very Good to Excellent Top-Tier Displays

The primary goal of this Display Technology Shoot-Out article series has always been to publicize and promote display excellence so that consumers, journalists, and even manufacturers are aware of and appreciate the very best in displays and display technology. We point out which manufactures and display technologies are leading and advancing the state-of-the-art for displays by performing comprehensive and objective scientific lab tests and measurements together with in-depth analysis. We point out who is leading, who is behind, who is improving, and sometimes (unfortunately) who is back pedaling—all based solely on the extensive objective careful lab measurements that we also publish, so that everyone can judge the data for themselves as well.

The conclusions below summarize all of the major results. See the main Display Shoot-Out Comparison Table for all the DisplayMate Lab measurements and test details, and see the Results Highlights section above for a more detailed introduction and overview with expanded discussions and explanations.

The 2015 iPad Displays

The new product line of iPads now includes small, medium, and large displays, with sizes that span almost 3 to 1 in screen area. The displays have different applications and performance criteria. The differences and similarities in performance between the 3 iPad displays are really interesting and surprising.

The nicest surprise this year is the tremendous improvement in the display quality and performance of the iPad mini 4 after the poor showings of previous minis – the mini 4 is now very impressive and breaks many tablet display performance records. The iPad Pro has also made a strong entrance and first appearance.

As we analyze in detail below, the iPad mini 4 and iPad Pro both deliver uniformly consistent all around top-tier display performance: two of a small number of displays to ever to get all green (very good to excellent). Ratings in all test and measurement categories (except for brightness variation with viewing angle, which is the case for all LCDs) since we started the Display Technology Shoot-Out article Series in 2006, an impressive achievement for a display. The iPad Air 2 missed the all green performance cut as the result of its lower yellow absolute color accuracy (discussed below).

Right now, all the iPads are the unrivaled record holders for display performance in ambient light as a result of their record low screen reflectance of 2.0 to 2.6 percent, significantly lower than the 4.5 to 6.5 percent reflectance found in all other current competing tablets. As a result, the iPads provide by far the highest on-screen image contrast in ambient light and the highest contrast rating for high ambient light of all current tablet displays. In theNext Generation of Displays section below we’ll explain how the display performance in ambient light can be further significantly improved.

Below we individually cover and analyze the display performance of iPad mini 4, iPad Air 2, and iPad Pro displays.

iPad mini 4

The iPad mini 4 is close to being a textbook perfect LCD display in all of the lab measurements and viewing tests. Among the iPads it takes first place and is marked “Best” in every single test category except contrast ratio – where it has a “very good” but not the highest contrast ratio of 957 in 0 lux (because Apple didn’t provide a Photo Aligned LCD like on the Air 2 and Pro).

Among all existing Tablets of any size, the iPad mini 4 takes first place and breaks performance records in many of the most important test categories including: lowest screen Reflectance (2.0 percent), highest contrast rating in high ambient light (225), a near perfect log-straight intensity scale and gamma of 2.22, and the highest absolute color accuracy (average/maximum color errors of 1.9 and 4.2 JNCD – tied for first place with the Microsoft Surface Pro 4). If Apple hadn’t intentionally made the display’s white point so bluish (7,109K instead of 6,500K) then the color errors would have been even smaller.

There is just one qualification. if you will be viewing dark content or need perfectly dark black levels, then an OLED display like the Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 will perform much better than an LCD display.

The iPad mini is small but has a gorgeous display – unquestionably the best and most accurate LCD tablet display that we have ever tested. If a 7.9 inch display is big enough, the iPad mini 4 is the best. See the Display Shoot-Out Comparison Table for all of the measurements and details.

iPad Air 2

The iPad Air 2 has a “very good” display overall, but for almost all of the tests and measurements it came in somewhat behind both the iPad mini 4 and Pro – both are new for 2015 while the Air 2 was introduced in 2014, and the unit we tested was our original from 2014. It is certainly possible that the 2015 iPad Air 2 production units have been improved, but we have not seen that on previous iPad and iPhone models carried over from year to year.

While the iPad Air 2 performed very well overall, it did not take first place in any of the tests, which is actually a nice demonstration of the steady improvements in displays and display technology from year-to-year. It came in a solid second place only once, with a contrast ratio of 1,064, 11 percent higher than the mini 4 (which lacks a photo aligned LCD) but 35 percent behind the record high 1,631 for the iPad Pro. In all other tests it was either tied for second or a close behind third.

The one category where the iPad Air 2 received a disappointing yellow grade, was in absolute color accuracy, where it had average/maximum color errors of 3.9 and 8.8 JNCD, which are visually noticeable and could be unacceptable for some color critical applications (like medical imaging, high-end digital photography, product sales demonstrations, and advertising proofs, for example). If better absolute color accuracy is important then for this screen size consider the Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5 with average/maximum color errors of 2.1 and 4.0 JNCD or the Microsoft Surface 3 with 2.2 and 4.5 JNCD.

If absolute color accuracy is not critical then the iPad Air 2 has a “very good” all around medium size tablet display. See the Display Shoot-Out Comparison Table for all of the measurements and details.

iPad Pro

The iPad Pro is a large tablet, with almost double the screen area of the iPad Air 2, and almost triple the area of the iPad mini 4. Many professional and imaging applications need or can benefit from a large display that you can easily carry around, lay flat on a table, just hold, or rest on your lap. But to qualify as a professional grade display it needs to provide top image quality and accuracy.

The iPad Pro display performed very well in all of our tests and measurements, earning “very good” to “excellent” in all test categories, performing not quite as well as the iPad mini 4. But it came in or tied for second place in every test except true contrast Ratio in 0 lux, where it is the definitive winner and marked “best” with a record 1,631.

But in two test categories the Pro display was not quite stellar. First, since 2012 all of the iPad and iPhone displays have had near perfect log-straight intensity scales (something that no other manufacturer has yet been able to match), but on the iPad Pro there is a significant intensity scale bump and irregularity at and below 45 percent signal as shown in this Figure, a surprising calibration issue for an Apple display (but still better than most competing tablets).

Second, in absolute color accuracy the iPad Pro just barely qualified for a “very good” green rating, just 6 percent from the cutoff, where it has average/maximum color errors of 2.6 and 6.6 JNCD, much better than the iPad Air 2, but no where near as good as the iPad mini 4, as shown in this Figure. If better absolute color accuracy is important, then for this screen size consider the Microsoft Surface Pro 4 with average/maximum color errors of 1.9 and 4.1 JNCD – tied with the iPad mini 4 for the most color accurate tablet that we have ever tested.

The displays on the competing iPad Pro and Surface Pro 4 are both “very good” to “excellent” in all test categories. The most significant performance differences are the iPad Pro’s much lower screen reflectance (2.6 versus 5.6 percent) and the Surface Pro 4’s much better absolute color accuracy (listed above).

If you need a large professional-grade tablet with “very good” to “excellent” image quality and accuracy, the iPad Pro delivers a top-tier professional display. See the Display Shoot-Out Comparison Table for all of the measurements and details.

The Next Generation of Displays – Better Performance in Ambient Light

Right now the iPads are the unrivaled record holders for display performance in ambient light as a result of their record low screen reflectance of 2.0 to 2.6 percent, significantly lower than the 4.5 to 6.5 percent reflectance currently found in all other current competing tablets.

Apple has taken an important first step towards improving display performance in ambient light. But essentially all displays are still designed to work best in absolute darkness, but they all significantly degrade in even modest levels of ambient light. However, Microsoft has also taken an important initial step with the Surface 3 providing its best color accuracy in typical indoor 300 lux ambient light rather than in absolute darkness like everybody else.

The best performing LCD and OLED displays are now delivering impressive sharpness, brightness, low reflectance, high color accuracy, accurate image contrast, and great viewing angles. So what comes next? Essentially all published display specifications and factory calibrations are based on performance in absolute darkness 0 lux, but mobile displays (and even TVs) are seldom viewed in the dark. Even low levels of ambient light significantly affect the image and picture quality. For example, the 100 percent sRGB color gamut specified by many manufacturers only applies at 0 lux. At 500 lux, which corresponds to typical indoor office lighting, the on-screen colors are washed out by the reflected ambient light, typically reducing the on-screen Color gamut from 100 percent down to 80 percent, plus the image contrast is also significantly affected. And it gets worse as the ambient light levels increase.

So here is what needs to come next

The most important improvements for both LCD and OLED displays will come from improving their image and picture quality and screen readability in real world ambient light, which washes out the screen images, resulting in reduced image contrast, color saturation, and color accuracy. The key will be in lowering screen reflectance and then implementing dynamic color management with automatic real-time modification of a larger color gamut and intensity scale based the measured ambient light level in order to have them compensate for the reflected light glare and image wash out from ambient light as discussed in our 2014 Innovative Displays and Display Technology and SID Display Technology Shoot-Out articles.

The higher the ambient light level, the larger the color gamut that the display needs in order to compensate for the loss of color saturation from the reflected ambient light. All LCDs will need Quantum Dots in order to implement the necessary large color gamuts.

The displays, technologies, and manufacturers that succeed in implementing this new real world high ambient light performance strategy will take the lead in the next generations of mobile displays.

Display Shoot-Out Comparison Table

Below we examine in-depth the LCD displays on the Apple iPad mini 4, the iPad Air 2, and iPad Pro based on objective lab measurement data and criteria. For comparisons and additional background information refer to these comparable Tablet displays: Microsoft Surface Pro 4 Display Technology Shoot-Out, the Microsoft Surface 3 Display Technology Shoot-Out, and the Samsung OLED Tab S Display Technology Shoot-Out.

For comparisons with the other leading tablet, smartphone, and smartwatch displays see our Mobile Display Technology Shoot-Out series.

Click this link to see the complete Data Comparison Table.

---

About the Author

Dr. Raymond Soneira is President of DisplayMate Technologies Corporation of Amherst, New Hampshire, which produces display calibration, evaluation, and diagnostic products for consumers, technicians, and manufacturers. See www.displaymate.com. He is a research scientist with a career that spans physics, computer science, and television system design. Dr. Soneira obtained his Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from Princeton University, spent 5 years as a Long-Term Member of the world famous Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, another 5 years as a Principal Investigator in the Computer Systems Research Laboratory at AT&T Bell Laboratories, and has also designed, tested, and installed color television broadcast equipment for the CBS Television Network Engineering and Development Department. He has authored over 35 research articles in scientific journals in physics and computer science, including Scientific American. If you have any comments or questions about the article, you can contact him at dtso.info@displaymate.com.

About DisplayMate Technologies

DisplayMate Technologies specializes in proprietary advanced scientific display calibration and mathematical display optimization to deliver unsurpassed objective performance, picture quality and accuracy for all types of displays including video and computer monitors, projectors, HDTVs, mobile displays such as Tablets and Smartphones, and all display technologies including LCD, LCD, 3D, LED, LCoS, Plasma, DLP and CRT. This article is a lite version of our intensive scientific analysis of Tablet and Smartphone mobile displays – before the benefits of our advanced mathematical DisplayMate Display Optimization Technology, which can correct or improve many of the display deficiencies. We offer DisplayMate display calibration software for consumers and advanced DisplayMate display diagnostic and calibration software for technicians and test labs.

For manufacturers we offer Consulting Services that include advanced Lab testing and evaluations, confidential Shoot-Outs with competing products, calibration and optimization for displays, cameras and their User Interface, plus on-site and factory visits. We help manufacturers with expert display procurement, prototype development, and production quality control so they don’t make mistakes similar to those that are exposed in our Display Technology Shoot-Out series. See our world renown Display Technology Shoot-Out public article series for an introduction and preview. DisplayMate’s advanced scientific optimizations can make lower cost panels look as good or better than more expensive higher performance displays. If you are a display or product manufacturer and want to turn your display into a spectacular one to surpass your competition then Contact DisplayMate Technologies to learn more.

---

This article has been republished with permission from DisplayMate.com, where it can be read in its entirety. Follow DisplayMate on Twitter to learn about these developments and our upcoming display technology coverage.

Top image by Michael Hession

V247

Binge-Watching Periscope Sounds Like a Crushing Experience

Periscope, a live video streaming app for the more narcissistic Twitter users among us, is a dismal place. This fact is less obvious if you stumble across a video or two in your Twitter feed, but binge-watching it on Apple TV like some post-apocalyptic punishment. Wired’s Jason Tanz did just that.

While testing new Periscope app for Apple TV, Tanz spent hours gazing into the semi-private lives of total strangers. It sounds traumatic. Here’s one brief run-in out of many bizarre stories:

Newly energized, I hit the “Next” button, ready to receive another feed. Up popped a hefty gentleman in a track suit, looking a little like Big Pussy Bonpensiero crossed with Rodney Dangerfield. I apparently joined his broadcast at the end of an anecdote, the conclusion of which was: “Like I always say, you wanna buy a gun you gotta go to animal court.” He waggled an enormous hash pipe in front of the camera.

So maybe don’t binge-watch Periscope. Do read the rest of Tanz’s harrowing experience at Wired. Evidently researching this story almost killed him.

[Wired]

Image via Getty

V247

Behold the Most Extensive Face Transplant in Medical History

A firefighter from Mississippi whose face became disfigured during a rescue attempt is the recipient of the world’s most extensive face transplant. The 41-year-old now bears the face of a 26-year-old man who recently died in an extreme cycling accident.

As reported in Reuters, the 26-hour surgery was performed by a 150-person medical team (!) from New York University Langone Medical Center. Volunteer firefighter Patrick Hardison received a full scalp and face, including ears, nose, lips, and upper and lower eyelids. Importantly, Hardison can now blink and sleep with his eyes closed, thus staving off the blindness that threatened him.

Patrick Hardison after the surgery. (Credit: NYU Langone Medical Center/YouTube)

The face itself belonged to 26-year-old BMX enthusiast David Rodebaugh, who was pronounced brain dead following a tragic cycling accident.

More from Reuters:

Simultaneous surgeries took place, [Dr. Eduardo] Rodriguez said, with Hardison on one operating table while Rodebaugh was on the other. The NYU medical team had practiced for a full year to get it right.

“You only have one chance to land the Rover. The same goes with the face,” Rodriguez told Reuters following a news conference in New York earlier on Monday.

The team slit the skin at the back of the donor’s head, peeling each side forward with key pieces of bone attached at the chin, nose and cheekbone and then precisely draped it, like Batman’s cowl, onto Hardison’s head.

“Everything has to be perfectly positioned,” Rodriguez told Reuters, including the bones, muscles, ear canals, lips and nerves.

The $1 million surgery, which NYU will graciously pay for, was deemed a success after Hardison was taken shopping at Macy’s and no one in the store paused to give him a second look.

Graphical representation of the physical scaffolding. (NYU Langone Medical Center/YouTube)

Rodebaugh’s mother, who gave permission for the transplant, was shown photos of Haridson after the surgery, telling the medical team that “Patrick is beautiful.”

I can only imagine how she felt after seeing the visage of her dead son brought back to the life in the form of this remarkable and ground-breaking surgery.

[Reuters]

---

Email the author at george@gizmodo.com and follow him at @dvorsky. Top image by NYU Langone Medical Center/Reuters

V247