DisplayMate
Latest
Debunkatron: No, the iPad is not destroying its own battery (Updated)
Dr. Raymond Soneira of DisplayMate Technologies analyzed the performance of the new iPad's battery when it says it's 100 percent charged versus when it's actually 100 percent charged. Unsurprisingly, he found a discrepancy; it's already been widely reported that the new iPad's charging indicator is bugged somehow and doesn't correctly report when the iPad is fully charged. Though the new iPad may report 100 percent charge capacity, it's in fact only around 90 percent charged at that point. It's a simple bug to fix, and it'll likely be one focus of a 5.1.1 update to iOS. Where Dr. Soneira's analysis and CNBC's reporting on the issue both go off the rails is when they both say that the iPad is actually overcharging its own battery and thereby causing damage to it. CNBC's analogy is that a battery is like a glass of fruit juice: it's meant to be filled to below the "rim," and if you overfill the glass the juice can spill out. This is an insipid analogy that demonstrates ignorance of how lithium battery technology has worked since... oh, the mid-1990s or so. Like all modern computers, the iPad's charging circuitry automatically stops charging the battery and puts it on a trickle charge once it reaches 100 percent of its capacity. This maximum capacity decreases over time as the battery accumulates charge cycles, but it's quite gradual; iPads and most other modern Apple gear contain lithium batteries designed to retain 80 percent of their initial capacity after 1000 full charge/discharge cycles. That's 1000 times taking the iPad from 100 percent charged down to zero, or the equivalent. It's worth restating that the iPad's charging circuitry automatically stops charging the battery when it senses the battery reached its maximum capacity. This is why you can leave your iPad plugged in overnight without worrying about the battery getting overcharged and exploding in a gooey, hot mess of chemicals and fire. The same is true of iPhones, iPods, and Macs -- once the battery is fully charged, the device throttles the charging circuits down to maintain a slow trickle charge that keeps the battery at or near 100 percent. Or, if you want to go with CNBC's dumb analogy, the glass is actually designed to be filled to the rim, but the juice dispenser is smart enough to stop filling it automatically when it gets to that point. However, Dr. Soneira and CNBC both seem to think that the bug pertaining to the iPad's charging indicator means the iPad is getting overcharged. They both argue that the iPad's battery is actually at 100 percent of its charge capacity when it says so, and leaving the iPad plugged in after that 100 percent overcharges the battery and causes damage. As evidence, Dr. Soneira notes that allowing the iPad to charge for additional time after it reads 100 percent charged gives the iPad an additional 1.2 hours of running time. His analysis correctly shows that the 11.6 hour runtime he got by "overcharging" the iPad's battery is likely in line with Apple's officially-stated 10-hour battery life. Apple has a history of being optimistic with its battery estimates for Macs and conservative with estimates for iOS devices, so the 10.4 hour runtime Dr. Soneira achieved when he stopped charging the iPad's battery when it said it was at 100 percent is right in line with what we already know: the iPad isn't actually fully charged when it says it is. When Dr. Soneira and CNBC both leap to the conclusion that the iPad is overcharging and therefore damaging its own battery, however, they both get it wrong. "Apple has put forth a rather shocking reverse perspective that the on-screen battery indicator is instead the correct one," Soneira claims, and CNBC says "Apple is saying... if you charge it more than [when the battery indicator reads 100%], you could actually harm the longevity of the battery." The problem with those claims? The problem with those claims? Apple didn't say either of those things. CNBC said Apple said them. Apple's page on the iPad's battery says nothing of the kind. It's common knowledge that if you leave a device with a lithium battery plugged in literally all the time without ever discharging it that you can do some harm to the maximum capacity, but that's not a symptom of overcharging the battery. Instead, it's a consequence of never discharging a battery that's designed to be discharged from time to time. "According to Apple the new iPad is configured to damage the longevity of its own battery if it isn't manually disconnected from the AC charger when the 100% indicator appears," Dr. Soneira says, without providing a link to a page proving that Apple actually made this claim. "Anyone that recharges their iPad unattended, especially overnight, will be doing this." In a word: no. This statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern lithium battery technology works. We reached out to Apple for comment, but we haven't heard back. We don't expect to, because this is a non-issue. The iPad may be telling us tall tales about its charge state in the status bar, but it's not destroying its own battery. Update: In a statement to AllThingsD, Apple confirmed the iPad's battery behaves exactly the same way as all previous iOS devices. Battery charging circuitry "is designed so you can keep your device plugged in as long as you would like. It's a great feature that's always been in iOS," Apple VP Michael Tchao stated. It turns out that displaying 100 percent charge in the status bar before the battery actually reaches full capacity is also "normal" behavior. The device actually does continue charging for awhile after displaying 100% charge, discharges slightly when put on "trickle" charge, then charges back up to 100 percent. Rather than confuse users and have them see the battery charge oscillate between 90 and 100 percent while the device is plugged in, the iPad will simply display 100 percent charge status. So, not only is the iPad not damaging its own battery, the "bug" in its charging status isn't a bug at all.
New iPad continues to charge after the meter says 100%
As pointed out by Ars Technica, a report on the iPad by Dr. Raymond M. Soneira of DisplayMate suggests the tablet device is not fully charged even when the on-screen meter says 100 percent. Dr. Soneira told Ars that he "measured the power actually drawn by the AC Adapter and found that the new iPad continues to charge for up to 1 hour after it claims to reach 100 percent." He added that "other tablets and smartphones also lie about their charging status," too. For folks who want to get the maximum juice out of their battery, Dr. Soneira suggests letting your iPad sit in its charging station for longer than the screen recommends. The new iPad takes over five hours to charge from a zero percent state, so you may want to plan your charging sessions appropriately.
DisplayMate compares Apple Retina displays
DisplayMate, known for its professional monitor and television calibrating tools, took a close look at the retina display of the new iPad and compared it with the iPhone 4 and the iPad 2. In a rather lengthy article, the company runs the three devices through its battery of laboratory and visual tests. DisplayMate points out that the high resolution is almost overkill and likens it to the overinflated megapixels in digital cameras. What makes the iPad display so wonderful is its improved color saturation, better color accuracy, and the fact that Apple made a variety of improvements without raising the price of the tablet. Though its a leap forward, the new display needs some work. Tablet manufacturers should try to lower reflectance, improve the ambient light sensor and work on the automatic brightness level which is "functionally useless," says DisplayMate. You can check out the rest of the detailed analysis at DisplayMate's website.
iPad 2, Motorola Xoom, Asus Transformer displays compared, iPad stands out
If you have an iPad, an iPhone or any other handheld device with a screen on it, you'll know how important its screen quality is. We spend hundreds of hours staring at (and touching) those displays; they are the primary means of interaction with our devices. Therefore, it's no wonder that frustrations arise (a poor viewing angle, limited brightness, ambient light reflection, to name a few) when displays don't perform the way we want them to. Dr. Raymond M. Soneira, President of DisplayMate Technologies, has compiled a very interesting "Tablet Display Technology Shoot-Out" between the iPad 2, Motorola Xoom and Asus Transformer. We've previously covered Dr. Soneria's thoughts on the iPad 2's display, but now he compares it to the competition. Dr. Soneria's objective test uses the following criteria: screen reflection, color and intensity, brightness and contrast, viewing angle, the display backlight, power consumption and, finally, the running time on the battery. Each display's performance was summarized and put into a comparison chart. The report concludes that the iPad 2's display is the clear winner in all categories. The Asus Transformer comes in at a solid second (which is impressive, as it costs US$100 less than the iPad 2), and finally, the Motorola Xoom arrives as a "distant third." Interestingly, the report also looks head-on at some of the rumors surrounding next generation displays in tablets. Most notably, the report dismisses the likelihood of a quadrupled resolution of 2048x1536 in the next generation iPad as well as detailing what an iPad Retina Display, similar to that found in the iPhone 4, would likely look like. Dr. Soneira says, "...to make the iPad 3 a Retina Display does not require the same pixels per inch (ppi) as the iPhone 4 Retina Display because it is typically held much further away from the eye, whose visual sharpness is based on angular rather than linear resolution. The iPad is typically held 15-18 inches away as opposed to the iPhone 4's 12-15 inches. As a result, to meet the 300 ppi Retina Display specification made by Steve Jobs at WWDC for the iPhone 4, an iPad Retina Display would need only 240 ppi. So an iPad Retina Display could start anywhere above 1862x1397 pixels. That is still a major overkill that carries a significant performance and cost penalty – so it would be primarily a marketing ploy." The full article can be found here, and it's definitely worth a read. [Via ZDNet]
Latest smartphone displays pitted in no-holds-barred deathmatch
If you're a numbers geek, you're trying to be scientific about your next smartphone purchase, or you just like pretty colors, you might appreciate DisplayMate's latest report rounding up examples of all (well, most) of the latest and greatest display technologies out there: IPS LCD, Super AMOLED, AMOLED, and TFT, represented by the iPhone 4 and Droid, the Galaxy S, the Nexus One, and the iPhone 3GS, respectively. Noticeably missing is SLCD, the technology HTC has been using to make up for lost ground on its AMOLED shortage from component supplier Samsung, but we've got a hunch DisplayMate's hard at work at adding that into the mix. Anyhow, considering the sheer number of variables the firm takes into consideration -- everything from color depth, to brightness, to reflectance, to color gamut -- there's no clear-cut winner, but the Droid and iPhone 4 are obviously a cut above the rest with generally higher scores and better performance across the board. The Galaxy S' Super AMOLED turns in a decent performance, too, but takes a little hit for its 16-bit color depth and blown-out colors. Of course, if you consider any of these -- even the crappy TFT on the 3GS -- to a phone from five years ago, it still looks like science fiction... so you really can't go wrong, can you?
iPhone 4's retina display claim put under the math microscope
Samsung might have entertained us with some trash talk about the iPhone 4's IPS LCD yesterday, but this stuff is of a rather more somber variety. Raymond Soneira, president of monitor diagnostics firm DisplayMate, has said that Apple's retina display marketing is inaccurate, because he believes a display that truly makes pixels indistinguishable to the human eye would require a density in the vicinity of 477dpi. The iPhone 4 has 326dpi, and by now you might be surmising that Steve Jobs flat out lied when he said that the iPhone 4's pixels are too small for the human retina to discern from 12 inches away. But not so fast, says Phil Plait from Discover, whose résumé includes calibrating a camera on board the Hubble space telescope. He's done the math too and finds that the 477 number applies only to people with perfect vision. For the vast majority of us, Steve's claim stands up to scrutiny; even folks with 20/20 eyesight wouldn't be able to tell where one pixel ends and another begins. So it turns out Apple can do its math, even if its marketing isn't true for every single humanoid on the planet.
HDTV tests pit fantasy land specs against real world performance -- guess what happens
Good luck keeping up with the ever changing specs on the latest HDTVs, but as the numbers get more impressive, are the displays actually improving in any noticeable way? Dr. Raymond Soneira , president of DisplayMate, goes about breaking down many of the more often misused and misleading technical buzzwords in an article on MaximumPC. If you're wondering how manufacturers have advanced contrast ratios from thousands, to millions, to unlimited over the space of just a few years, there's a breakdown of what "dynamic contrast ratio" actually measures and why it's worth ignoring -- unless you watch your TV when it's only displaying one color at a time. When it comes to colors, some of the most scathing words were pointed towards Sharp's Quattron quad-pixel technology, which "can only decrease picture quality and accuracy!" Whether you believe the good Dr., a glistening review or Cmdr. Sulu, the factual heat burned hottest during a test of motion blur compared on LCDs, LED LCDs, plasmas and even a pro CRT. While additional motion processing and upgraded internals on newer HDTVs can help in many other ways, viewers couldn't detect any blur caused by a display even on an old 60Hz set, despite newer and faster 120Hz, 240Hz and 600Hz (plasma) sets claiming their technology helped them eliminate it. You'll need a minute to read through for the full details but it's a good, and unfortunately necessary, reminder to keep your eyes on the display and not just the spec sheet (just make sure you're getting a proper look that represents the way you watch TV at home first).
Numbers be damned, plasma eats LCD's cake in DisplayMate's tests
Even as the past year has been cruel to plasma, we've stood by the "old" gas capsule technology. The results of DisplayMate's controlled tests clearly show some of the reasons why we love us some plasma. The lineup of 2008-vintage, top of the line LCDs from Samsung, Sharp and Sony were calibrated and pitted against a top-end Pansonic plasma. You'll have to hit the link to get the full blow-by-blow results, but suffice it to say that the plasma set trumped the LCDs in the areas of contrast, color accuracy (to be fair, the Sony came close) and black level -- both on and off axis. Even for LCD fans, these results show that the side of the box with its inflated specs is no place to look for indications of picture quality. For those already in the know about plasma, though, there's a lot of reason to hope that even if the technology is in its autumn years, there's an Indian summer up ahead.[Via TVSnob]
DisplayMate USB makes calibration easy
Sure, the DisplayMate USB won't do your standalone display much good so long as it remains disconnected from a PC, but for HTPC owners the world over, calibrating your display just got a whole lot simpler. The aforementioned USB stick simply plugs into one's PC, launches automatically (and without storing any data on the host computer) and provides users with a smorgasbord of "test patterns and expert advice" for setting up your projector, monitor or HDTV. More specifically, you can expect a whole slew of test patterns and tips, and considering that it runs at the true native resolution of your display, there's no worrying over compatibility. Intrigued? It's available now in a trio of flavors, and can secured for $79, $99 or $495, depending on model.
DS versus PSP: the battle for the best LCD
PC Magazine got a "display expert" from DisplayMate Technology to evaluate the screen performance of the DS Lite and the PSP. To a casual observer, both have stunning displays. But how do they fare when they're analyzed by the same methods used on high-end HDTVs? The report is incredibly thorough, so I'll just give you some key highlights:
