Wie Wirkt Arthri Verlan Gewindeschneidfutter Apparate

Search the history of over 345 billion web pages on the Internet. Search the history of over 336 billion web pages on the Internet.

• Arthri Verlan

Citation: Budd A, Dinkel H, Corpas M, Fuller JC, Rubinat L, Devos DP, et al. (2015) Ten Simple Rules for Organizing an Unconference.

PLoS Comput Biol 11(1): e1003905. Editor: Philip E. Bourne, National Institutes of Health, United States of America Published: January 29, 2015 Copyright: © 2015 Budd et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this article. Competing interests: All authors are, or have been, involved in organising unconference or unconference-like sessions.

Some of these events require participants to pay a registration fee. Introduction An academic conference is a traditional platform for researchers and professionals to network and learn about recent developments and trends in a particular academic field –. Typically, the organizing committees and sponsors decide the main theme and sub-topics of the conference and select the presenters based on peer-reviewed papers. The selected speakers usually share their research with a large audience by means of presentations and posters. However, the most stimulating discussions generally take place over coffee breaks when attendees can interact with each other and discuss various topics, including their own research interests, in a more informal manner , , while expanding their own professional networks. An emphasis on facilitating such informal/networking interactions is a central focus of “unconventional conferences”—or “unconferences.” While many people may not yet have taken part in an unconference, the concept has been around for more than two decades.

Events with unconference formats, beginning as early as 1985, include Open Space Technology, Foo Camp, BarCamp, Birds of a Feather, EdCamp, ScienceOnline, and many others. The success of these events has made the unconference format increasingly popular and widely known –. Unlike traditional conferences, an unconference is a participant-oriented meeting where the attendees decide on the agenda, discussion topics, workshops, and, often, even the time and venues. The informal and flexible program allows participants to suggest topics of their own interest and choose sessions accordingly. The format provides an excellent opportunity for researchers from diverse disciplines to work collaboratively on topics of common interest. The overarching goal for most unconferences is to prioritize conversation over presentation. In other words, the content for a session does not come from a select number of individuals at the front of the room, but is generated by all the attendees within the room, and, as such, every participant has an important role.

Advantages of the unconference format include: a focus on topics that are relevant to the attendees (because they suggested them), an opportunity for teamwork development, flexibility of schedule, and an emphasis on contributions from every participant. The relationships built during an unconference often continue well past the event.

The interactions can lead to productive collaborations, professional development opportunities, and a network of resources and are very effective at building a community amongst participants. The unconference format, therefore, gives participants experience in working together, and this can change how they think about their day-to-day work. A range of articles offer tips and advice for organizing and delivering aspects of scientific conferences and meetings or observations on features of successful meetings , , including several from the PLOS Computational Biology “Ten Simple Rules” collection –. While the rules presented in this article are of particular relevance to the organization of unconferences, several of these points are also useful and complementary guidelines for organizing other kinds of events. Rule 1: How to Decide Whether to Run an Event As an Unconference or As a Traditional Conference While there is no magic formula, reflecting on aspects such as participant numbers, venue size, expectations of attendees, and your overall objectives can be invaluable in deciding whether to run an event as an unconference or traditional conference. Unconferences are well suited to promoting interactions and networking between attendees as they allow a more flexible agenda.

Discussion topics are shaped and influenced by participants, with exchanges of knowledge from many to many. This works particularly well when discussion groups are relatively small, creating a flexible, creative, and conducive environment for exchanges. A traditional conference, on the other hand, can be better suited to larger audiences, and when the focus of the meeting is more towards formal learning and knowledge sharing rather than involvement and interactions amongst participants. However, our experiences show that including unconference sessions in such events can be another valuable way of getting people involved, making connections, getting creative, achieving goals together, and developing a valuable platform for interactive knowledge exchange.

It should also be noted that some successful unconferences are relatively large (e.g., ScienceOnline Together has 500 participants). Rule 3: Have a Clear Mission for the Meeting Having a clear and visible mission statement can be a very effective way of focusing ideas for the content and structure of the event. It can turn collective minds to the development of a shared common goal that reduces emphasis on the individual and instead creates an event reflective of what the group needs and wants. From our experience, there are two major reasons why people attend unconferences: (1) to interact with many people of shared interests and (2) to learn useful information or skills related to their activities (often focused on their own career progression).

A clear mission is a useful way of focusing the expectations of participants to the goals of the meeting. It can help to create an environment conducive to valuable and appropriate learning, and can guide discussions beyond a mere brainstorming session. Decisions about the focus and content of specific sessions become less subjective and remain transparent when the decision criteria align with the overarching goal of the meeting. Rule 4: Minimize the Lecture-Style Presentations One of the defining features of an unconference is its inversion of the common features of more traditional meetings, in particular academic conferences.

A common aspect of traditional meetings is the formal presentation (i.e., lecture style) with communication directed from one, typically a senior and powerful member of the community, to many others who listen passively and do not have much opportunity to actively interact with the presenter’s ideas. In contrast, unconferences typically minimize the use (and duration) of conventional presentations and prioritize cooperative knowledge. This means that the session content comes from the shared experiences and expertise of all participants in the room and not just from the front of the room.

The idea that no individual person has all the answers promotes a spirit of generosity, interaction, and respect amongst all participants. Every voice is valued. Rule 5: Involve Participants in Planning and Structuring of the Event Participant-centric thinking is perhaps the key feature that differentiates unconferences from more traditional meetings. Empowered participants, who know that they can directly influence and contribute to the structure and content of a meeting, tend to be much more invested in its success and outcome. However, the events still involve a certain amount of planning and infrastructure and paying attention to details such as required equipment, venue, network connectivity, power outlets, and catering can have a large impact on the success of the event. Managing the flexibility of an unconference with appropriate logistical organization can avoid wasting time and, thus, avoid frustration for both the participants and organizers.

Participation is also where much of the enthusiasm and excitement of such meetings comes from, and there are many ways in which contributions can be facilitated. If a core group of organizers takes the lead in planning the event—including the program—then participants can focus on taking part in the discussion of ideas for sessions, content, or form of the unconference (see for a variety of discussion formats and styles) instead of dealing with frustrating details. To ensure that the logistical arrangements are carried out prior to the event, the role of each organizer should be clearly communicated.

As such, it may be beneficial to appoint one individual who coordinates the activities and is responsible for following-up on important preparations. Furthermore, the agenda should be visible to all participants before the unconference takes place and should include essential information such as the theme, sub-topics, time allowance, and contact information. These standard preparations allow the participants to arrive well informed and also create an opportunity for each participant to decide on how they may want to contribute to the unconference.

During the wrap-up of the event, any suggestions and feedback regarding the overall unconference events can be discussed and the theme of the next unconference can be decided. The goals of the next event will guide the planning and participants will be able to volunteer to be part of the new group of organizers. Finally, encouraging facilitators to include people who they know have interesting contributions to make ensures a core of contributors and promotes a lively discussion. Rule 6: Provide an Open, Relaxed Atmosphere In order to make an unconference a success, the atmosphere of the event should be relaxed, open, friendly, and fun. This will ensure that all participants, especially those joining for the first time, feel welcome and respected.

Creating and encouraging a casual and relaxed environment is favourable for everyone involved because it facilitates interaction and communication. To promote a relaxed atmosphere, think carefully about the layout of the venue. This includes the size of the room and the placement of tables and chairs; for example, arranging tables for small group discussions or placing chairs in a semi-circle or U-shape for group discussions.

A good set-up not only fosters discussion but also has a positive impact on the overall quality of the unconference by strengthening the personal experience. The organizers, as well as participants who have attended previous unconferences, should reach out and welcome newcomers to the format. By modelling conduct and values through their interactions with other participants both before and during the event (particularly at the start), they can strongly influence the way in which people interact with each other. An effective way to encourage communication and participation is through ice-breaker activities during the early stages of the event. Small group activities are especially helpful since many participants may initially find it easier to interact actively in smaller, more intimate groups. This also helps new attendees meet new people and start to build relationships in a casual manner. Fear of public speaking, questioning, and debating are common in all academic fields and communities.

Unconferences aim to overcome these fears by creating an environment of respect that helps all participants gain self-confidence. Nominating capable, guiding facilitators who are able to ensure respectful communication throughout the meeting can achieve this goal. The facilitators should encourage all participants to share their own thoughts, listen to others’ comments, and—most importantly—consider all contributions. Repeating the name of a participant linked to a developed idea gives this participant a boost in self-confidence. However, in some cases, it may also mean that over-confident participants need to be “moderated” to provide enough time and space for the least confident participants to contribute voluntarily. Therefore, while diverse opinions are welcomed (and often result in stimulating discussions), the focus at an unconference is on how these different opinions are communicated. Good facilitators will create a natural atmosphere of mutual respect and trust.

Rule 7: Trust Your Community Unconferences prioritize focusing on, and engaging with, everyone who chooses to get involved in the event. This is in contrast to more traditional meetings, where the focus is much more on what the organizers have planned and the scheduled session presenters. Thus, in an unconference format, responsibility for the success of the event is more equally distributed across all participants. This shift of responsibility away from the organizers can initially seem intimidating, as it might seem like there are fewer ways to influence the success of the event. The lack of control can be difficult to accept, particularly for those who tend to micromanage. In an unconference format, the organizers will be successful if they trust the community to work with them to make the event a success. This power shift is worth embracing, rather than resisting, as it brings many exciting and energizing opportunities.

Sharing leadership with the participants will create an atmosphere of personal empowerment, individual responsibility, and group ownership of the events. This is perhaps not surprising; almost everyone choosing to participate in an unconference does so to personally benefit from the event. When given the chance to influence the success of the event, the attendees count this as a benefit in addition to the content of the unconference itself.

Another benefit is that the workload of an organizer may be reduced if it can be shared amongst a group of volunteers. Finally, trusting in the community makes it easier and less risky to experiment with novel formats and topics. Even when these experiments do not work out as planned, the very act of trying new ideas by involving, engaging, and trusting in participants brings the community closer together and delivers its own kind of success in terms of networking and community building. Learning to trust the community is key to embracing and enjoying the special character of these events.

Rule 8: Communication Is Key to Your Event; Make it As Easy, Unambiguous, and Transparent As Possible Engaging in communication is one of the reasons why people choose to come together for any meeting. One main characteristic of unconferences is the emphasis on interactive communication that gives all participants a chance to have their contributions heard by others. To this end, make use of multiple existing collaborative tools that assist in the communication before, during, and after an event. For example, a wiki can be very helpful in giving participants the chance to get involved in the organization of the event in advance—including idea and topic collections, scheduling sessions, taking care of the infrastructure of an event, as well as finding accommodation and ride shares for low-cost events. Several tools exist to help with jotting down notes or minutes during a session: classic white boards and colored pens can be useful to collect suggestions and develop ideas together; even getting participants to scribble their thoughts down on paper tablecloths (which is a low-cost and low-tech collaborative tool with great haptic feedback) has proven to be handy and fun.

The final work can be photographed and the pictures made available online later. Web-based collaborative real-time editors like Etherpad can be helpful to conceptualize thoughts and to track discussions, as they can be edited by multiple people in parallel and can be used afterwards as an equivalent to conference proceedings. However, these Web-based editors require a working Internet connection throughout the event, which may not be practical at each event. Social media such as Twitter can also be utilized to share topics, progress, statements, or questions with people who are not present at the session. Here it is important to agree on a short, but distinctive, hashtag as soon as possible to enable people to follow and keep track of the tweets. A Tweetwall—a large screen or a projector displaying the most current tweets associated with the event’s hashtag—can also be entertaining and informative.

Rule 9: The Journey Is As Important As Its Destination A great way to extract the collective expertise, knowledge, and experience of attendees during unconference sessions is to encourage participants to identify and work together towards a common goal, and to document how they attempted to get there. Any given event will rarely provide the time needed to take a goal or project from beginning to end; however, we have seen unconferences serve as excellent ways of brainstorming, developing initial plans, creating the outline for a project, and gathering together a group of enthusiastic collaborators. It is important to have tools that allow attendees to share the resources, ideas, and challenges of the session conversations. Documenting content can be an effective way to engage people and also to further the legacy of the unconference session beyond the confines of the room. Such an approach provides a way for participants to reflect on the collective learning and thinking that took place, as well as providing the means to evaluate the success of the discussion. It is unlikely within the time constraints of a session or single event that participants will come up with “the one final answer” to a particular problem or challenge. Therefore, providing a collaborative tool to record the development of ideas during the unconference session is important.

The documentation of the session is a resource for reflecting on the work done, enabling participants to think about the issue in different ways, allowing others to see the progress of the discussion, establishing ideas for future events, and building a network of collaborators. In other words, the recording of the journey yields many benefits, even if you do not reach your final destination. Rule 10: No Idea Is Too Trivial When a diverse group works together, some individuals will be good at big picture suggestions and others will emphasize details. Both are needed and both should be encouraged. While discussions of new ideas often begin at the conceptual level, contributions that may seem trivial or detail-oriented in the moment can also be important to a project’s ultimate success. Thus, to avoid missing out on important contributions, it is essential to include even the seemingly trivial remarks or ideas.

A good way to do this is to write down all ideas and suggestions, so that later they can be sorted and considered. Do not rule out anything when it is first suggested because brainstorming becomes the most productive when any idea that comes to mind is communicated without prior judgment of its value. One person’s unusual idea may spark the way forward. Crowdsourcing the Writing of This Article The authors wanted to base the opinions and advice provided in this article on experience of diverse unconferences. By doing this, rather than relying on the opinions of a small group of authors, we hoped that the content would be useful to a wider range of people. Thus, we crowdsourced the content by contacting organizers of a range of unconferences and similar events and inviting them to join us as authors.

We also invited as authors all participants of a Birds of a Feather session focused unconference at the ISMB/ECCB 2013 meeting in Berlin, including also those who contributed to this session remotely via Twitter. Finally, we also invited all organizers of the Heidelberg Unseminars in Bioinformatics series of events to join as authors, as several of the initiators of this article are members of that group. We began the crowdsourcing by collecting a list of possible rules for the article via a git-controlled repository. This list was then trimmed to reduce redundancy and overlap, and all authors voted to identify the initial set of ten rules to be included in the article. Small teams of authors collaborated to write content for each rule using a Piratenpad , an online collaborative writing tool similar to an Etherpad. Native English speakers amongst the authors then processed this first draft to provide a common tone and language to the article. The resulting draft was then discussed by all authors, distributed as a Word document, and edits were implemented on the basis of this discussion by one of the authors until a consensus version of the text was agreed upon and submitted to the journal.

Authors are listed in the byline in the order in which they made edits to the manuscript. References.

1. Cutting WA (1995) How to do it. Participate in an international conference. BMJ 310: 249–251. Petsko GA (2006) The highs and lows of scientific conferences.

Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7: 231–234. Pmid:16421519. 3. Ramdayal K, Stobbe MD, Mishra T, Michaut M (2014) Building the future of bioinformatics through student-facilitated conferencing. PLoS Comput Biol 10: e1003458. Pmid:24499938. 4.

Alberts B (2013) Designing scientific meetings. Science 339: 737. Pmid:23413322. 5. Potvin JH (1983) Planning and organizing an annual conference. IEEE Trans Prof Comm PC-26: 123–152.

McIntyre E, Millar S, Thomas F (2007) Convening a conference—facilitating networking among delegates. Aust Fam Physician 36: 659–660. Pmid:17676193. 7. Pierce G (2014) The dilemma of attending (or not) scientific conferences.

Can J Physiol Pharmacol 92: v. Boule M (2011) Mob Rule Learning: Camps, Unconferences, and Trashing the Talking Head. Medford, New Jersey: Information Today Inc. Owen H (1998) Expanding Our Now: The Story of Open Space Technology. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Owen H (2008) Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide (Third Edition). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

(2006) Foo’s paradise. Nature 442: 848. Pmid:16929260. 12. Wyatt J (1999) Organising a medical conference. J Accid Emerg Med 16: 223–226.

Pmid:10353055. 13. (2012) A day off in Denmark. Nat Rev Microbiol 10: 667. Pmid:23136691.

14. Corpas M, Gehlenborg N, Janga SC, Bourne PE (2008) Ten simple rules for organizing a scientific meeting. PLoS Comput Biol 4: e1000080. Pmid:18584020.

15. Gichora NN, Fatumo SA, Ngara MV, Chelbat N, Ramdayal K, et al. (2010) Ten simple rules for organizing a virtual conference —anywhere. PLoS Comput Biol 6: e1000650. Pmid:20195548.

16. Pavelin K, Pundir S, Cham JA (2014) Ten simple rules for running interactive workshops. PLoS Comput Biol 10: e1003485. Pmid:24586135. 17.

Fuller JC, Khoueiry P, Dinkel H, Forslund K, Stamatakis A, et al. (2013) Biggest challenges in bioinformatics. EMBO Rep 14: 302–304.

Pmid:23492829. 18.

Ram K (2013) Git can facilitate greater reproducibility and increased transparency in science. Source Code Biol Med 8: 7. Pmid:23448176.

IPad mini 4 iPad Air 2 iPad Pro Introduction 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 their beautiful high tech displays. For 2015 there is a new broad product line of iPads – from the small mini 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 in 2010 – 2013 For 2010, the original iPad had a 1.0 leading edge 1024x768 display with 132 Pixels Per Inch (ppi) and a smallish 62 percent Color Gamut that had noticeably lower color saturation. The next 2.0 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 in 2014 The next 3.0 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 2.6X, 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 in 2012 – 2014 The much anticipated smaller 7.9 inch iPad mini 1 launched in 2012, but the mini’s display performance has always lagged the full size 9.7 inch iPads by 1 to 2 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 iPads for 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 that you will find nowhere else. 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 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, and for a real history lesson see our original.

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 summarizes the iPad mini 4, the iPad Air 2, and iPad Pro Lab measurements in the following categories:,. You can also skip these Highlights and go directly to the. Overview of the iPads 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/m 2 (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 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 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 for a plot of the measured Intensity Scales and the 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 for an explanation and visual definition of JNCD and the showing the measured display Color Errors. See the section and the 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.

Arthri Verlan

See the and 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 min 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 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 and and the 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 section for measurements and details. Conclusions for the 2015 iPads: All Very Good to Excellent Top Tier Displays The primary goal of this 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 for all the DisplayMate Lab measurements and test details, and see the 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 the 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 ).

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 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 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 with Average/Maximum Color Errors of 2.1 and 4.0 JNCD or the 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 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, 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. If better Absolute Color Accuracy is important, then for this screen size consider the 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 for all of the measurements and details. Comparing Tablet Displays You can directly compare all of the display performance measurements and results for many other Tablets by referring to our Mobile Display Technology Shoot-Out by using a Tabbed web browser on the Comparison Table for each article. The entries for all the articles are mostly identical with only minor formatting differences, so it is easy to make detailed side-by-side comparisons by simply clicking through the Tabs for each Tablet. Below are links for the Comparison Tables for the Tablets mentioned in the article: 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 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 and 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 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 Follow to learn about these developments and our upcoming display technology coverage. DisplayMate Display Optimization Technology All Tablet and Smartphone displays can be significantly improved using DisplayMate’s proprietary very advanced scientific analysis and mathematical display modeling and optimization of the display hardware, factory calibration, and driver parameters. We help manufacturers with expert display procurement, prototype development, testing displays to meet contract specifications, and production quality control so that they don’t make mistakes similar to those that are exposed in our public Display Technology Shoot-Out series for consumers.

This article is a lite version of our advanced scientific analysis – before the benefits of our, which can correct or improve all of these issues. If you are a display or product manufacturer and want to significantly improve display performance for a competitive advantage then. IPad mini 4 iPad Air 2 iPad Pro 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:, the, and the. For comparisons with the other leading Tablet, Smartphone, and Smart Watch displays see our series. Categories iPad mini 4 iPad Air 2 iPad Pro Comments Display Technology 7.9 inch Diagonal IPS LCD 9.7 inch Diagonal IPS LCD Photo Aligned LCD 12.9 inch Diagonal IPS LCD Photo Aligned LCD Metal Oxide TFT The diagonal screen size. L iquid C rystal D isplay I n P lane S witching Screen Shape 4:3 = 1.33 Aspect Ratio 4:3 = 1.33 Aspect Ratio 4:3 = 1.33 Aspect Ratio The iPads have the same shape as 8.5x11 paper.

Screen Size 6.3 x 4.7 inches 7.8 x 5.8 inches 10.3 x 7.7 inches Display Width and Height in inches. Screen Area 29.6 Square Inches 45.1 Square Inches 80.3 Square Inches A better measure of size than the diagonal length. Relative Screen Area for mini 4 100 percent 153 percent 271 percent Relative screen areas compared to the iPad mini 4. Relative Screen Area for Air 2 66 percent 100 percent 178 percent Relative screen areas compared to the iPad Air 2. Relative Screen Area for Pro 37 percent 56 percent 100 percent Relative screen areas compared to the iPad Pro.

Display Resolution 2048 x 1536 pixels Full High Definition+ Very Good 2048 x 1536 pixels Full High Definition+ Very Good 2732 x 2048 pixels Full High Definition+ Very Good Screen Pixel Resolution. Total Number of Pixels 3.1 Mega Pixels Very Good 3.1 Mega Pixels Very Good 5.6 Mega Pixels Very Good Total Number of Pixels. Pixels Per Inch 326 PPI Very Good 264 PPI Very Good 264 PPI Very Good Sharpness depends on the viewing distance and PPI. 20/20 Vision Distance where Pixels or Sub-Pixels are Not Resolved 10.5 inches or more with 20/20 Vision 13.0 inches or more with 20/20 Vision 13.0 inches or more with 20/20 Vision For 20/20 Vision the minimum Viewing Distance where the screen appears perfectly sharp to the eye. Display Sharpness at Typical Viewing Distances Display normally appears Perfectly Sharp Typical 12 inches or more Pixels are not Resolved with 20/20 Vision Display normally appears Perfectly Sharp Typical 14 inches or more Pixels are not Resolved with 20/20 Vision Display normally appears Perfectly Sharp Typical 16 inches or more Pixels are not Resolved with 20/20 Vision The Typical Viewing Distances are: 12 inches or more for the iPad mini 4.

14 inches or more for the iPad Air 2. 16 inches or more for the iPad Pro. Appears Perfectly Sharp at Typical Viewing Distances Yes Yes Yes Typical Viewing Distances are listed above. Photo Viewer Color Depth Full 24-bit Color No Dithering Visible 256 Intensity Levels Full 24-bit Color No Dithering Visible 256 Intensity Levels Full 24-bit Color No Dithering Visible 256 Intensity Levels Many Android Tablets still have some form. The iPads do not have this issue. Overall Assessments This section summarizes the results for all of the extensive Lab Measurements and Viewing Tests performed on the display See,.

Categories iPad mini 4 iPad Air 2 iPad Pro Comments Viewing Tests in Subdued Ambient Lighting Excellent Images Photos and Videos have Excellent Color and Accurate Contrast Very Good Images Photos and Videos have Very Good Color and Accurate Contrast Very Good Images Photos and Videos have Very Good Color and Accurate Contrast The Viewing Tests examine the accuracy of photographic images by comparing the displays to an calibrated studio monitor and HDTV. Variation with Viewing Angle Colors and Brightness See Small Color Shifts with Viewing Angle Very Good Large Brightness Shift with Viewing Angle Typical for all LCDs Small Color Shifts with Viewing Angle Very Good Large Brightness Shift with Viewing Angle Typical for all LCDs Small Color Shifts with Viewing Angle Very Good Large Brightness Shift with Viewing Angle Typical for all LCDs The iPad displays all have a relatively large decrease in Brightness with Viewing Angle and relatively small Color Shifts with Viewing Angle. See the section for details. Overall Display Assessment Lab Tests and Measurements Excellent LCD Display Very Good LCD Display Excellent LCD Display The iPad displays all performed very well in the Lab Tests and Measurements. Color Gamut 101 percent sRGB / Rec.709 Best 107 percent sRGB / Rec.709 105 percent sRGB / Rec.709 sRGB / Rec.709 is the color standard for most content and needed for accurate color reproduction. Absolute Color Accuracy Measured over Entire Gamut See and Excellent Color Accuracy Small Color Errors Average 1.9 JNCD Maximum 4.2 JNCD Best Good Color Accuracy Medium Color Errors Average 3.9 JNCD Maximum 8.8 JNCD.