The iPhone 6 Review
by Joshua Ho, Brandon Chester, Chris Heinonen & Ryan Smith on September 30, 2014 8:01 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Apple
- Mobile
- iPhone 6
Display
As the primary mode of interaction with the phone, the display is one of the most important areas of evaluation. Of course, the methods of evaluation can be hotly debated. There is a great deal of subjectivity in this area in terms of what someone prefers. However, for the sake of color calibration our tests follow world-wide standards instead of personal preference one way or another. This means that we use the sRGB gamut and 2.2 gamma, which most content is adapted to. While AdobeRGB and other gamuts exist, these are for limited use cases and only applicable to operating systems that are aware of multiple gamuts and can dynamically switch between them depending upon the metadata of the content. In order to accurately test for how well a display conforms to these standards, we use SpectraCal’s CalMAN 5 along with a spectrophotometer for accurate color readings.
For those that are unfamiliar with the display of the iPhone 6 and Apple’s key marketing points on this new model, the improvements are mostly centered on higher resolution, contrast, and better viewing angles. In terms of higher resolution the iPhone 6 moves from the 1136x640 pixels of the iPhone 5/5s generation to 1334x750 pixels. However, this doesn’t improve the pixel density, which remains at 326 pixels per inch.
In practice, I definitely continue to notice the difference in resolution when using the iPhone 6 as opposed to the higher pixel density iPhone 6 Plus and the various Android smartphones with 450+ PPI displays. I definitely don’t find the resolution to be a problem though, as these issues only become significant to me below 300 PPI. I do think that around 450 to 500 PPI is the right place to be when balancing pixel density and power, but Apple’s choice should pay off in the form of better power consumption especially because LED backlights rapidly lose efficiency near the highest current region.
The other issue at hand is that of viewing angles. While Apple is one of the first to really talk about dual domain pixels, this technique is rather commonly used to improve viewing angles. The result is that a pair of pixels will appear to be a chevron, and overall the pixels appear to be squiggly in nature. While this doesn’t really change the readability of the display at extreme angles, colors like white no longer have noticeable red/yellow/blue shifts depending upon the angle that the display is shifted at.
This is definitely noticeable in everyday use, as the iPhone 5s could only avoid color shifting at certain angles instead of every angle. As I predicted in the launch article though, the one caveat seems to be that black has a noticeable shift towards purple in certain angles. There's also a noticeable hatching on close examination, but this doesn't affect image quality. This is definitely better than what I see on AMOLED though, as while AMOLED has much better brightness stability the color shifting is far more obvious and significant.
Now that we’ve covered the other two, we can talk about contrast. For this test, we measure brightness of 100% white and black at maximum display brightness, and look at the ratio. While we’re looking into getting patterns that can’t be defeated by dynamic contrast/backlight this should give an idea of best case contrast. In this case, peak brightness is on the high side at 560 nits, with relatively low black brightness at about a third of a nit. The result is one of the best contrast ratios I’ve ever seen. While the HTC One (M7) has a 1743:1 contrast ratio in our tests, some testing I’ve done indicates that the true contrast ratio is realistically around that of the One (M8). I’m not quite sure how this was done, but Apple stated that a new deposition process was used for the liquid crystals. This, along with changes to the liquid crystals themselves, could be responsible for the improved contrast.
The next part to talk about is grayscale, which is an area where Apple seemed to prefer bluer color balances. I don’t really have much to pick at here, because the level of calibration here is incredible. While there is a noticeable trend of overshooting red at the low end and undershooting red at the high end, this is nitpicking at best. At any rate, this is essentially perfect.
Our next test is the saturation sweep, which tests each primary and secondary color for accuracy in hue and luminance. While it’s true that humans can be relatively insensitive to differences in saturation, it is all too common to see OEMs artificially compress saturations to have vivid colors and be able to claim that they have an accurate display because it matches the sRGB gamut. In this test, the iPhone 6 sets a new record. I really don’t have any objections here because a dE2000 value of 1.19 is a deviation that is almost impossible to notice.
The final test is the Gretag MacBeth ColorChecker, which tests various hues and is usually one of the hardest tests to perform well in. In this regard, the iPhone 6 once again sets a new record for accuracy. This display is effectively calibrated to sRGB, and one would be hard pressed to find a significant deviation when compared to a reference monitor.
Overall, it’s hard to find any criticism for this display. I would normally be incredibly suspicious to see these numbers on a smartphone, but the fact that there’s a hot pixel in the center of the display suggests to me that this was not a cherry-picked unit. The fact that I find this level of calibration to be suspicious speaks volumes about how good this display is. While contrast isn't AMOLED levels of black, there are no purple smearing effects, noticeable uneven luminance near black, or any other idiosyncrasies.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
531 Comments
View All Comments
elajt_1 - Friday, October 3, 2014 - link
(@melgross) And to call you one would be an insult to an idiot.Apart from the rage, I think it was he made some valid points.
Jimrod - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link
You mad bro?rational_wannabe - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link
You have serious issues. So it's OK for Samsung to sell their plastic crap for the same amount of money? Nice way of rationalizing things...danbob999 - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link
Yeah it's OK since there is nothing wrong with plastic. It absorbs shock, is light and do not block wireless signal. Perfect material for a phone. It is also durable enough. How many people replace their phone because the plastic is cracked? Not much. People replace their phone either because the screen is broken, it was damaged by liquid or simply because it is too slow/old.Apple has been selling phones which are cheaper to produce for years at the same price (or higher) than the competition. Smaller phones tend to be cheaper, because the display is cheaper, the battery is cheaper, and the rest cost the same. So even by using plastic, Samsung phones cost more to produce so I fail to see how they can be labeled as "cheap".
blackcrayon - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link
Apple is spending far more in developing the phone in other areas though. Writing the OS, designing custom SoCs, etc.danbob999 - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link
Designing custom SoCs is an investment. It isn't supposed to raise the cost of the phone.Samsung also design some of its own SoCs and even manufacture them.
The OS is debatable. But from a hardware perspective Samsung phones (at least the high end ones) are definitely not cheap, even if they use plastic.
Parhel - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link
R&D should affect the cost of the product? That's not how it works . . .Parhel - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link
Ugh.. meant to say R&D "shouldn't". To state it plainly, R&D may be an investment, but it's still an expense. The cost needs to be recouped, and they make money by selling phones, so . . . you do the math.danbob999 - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link
Of course they have to make money. But spending more in software development, R&D or marketing doesn't make their phone any less "cheap". I was replying to someone saying that Samsung phones were "cheap" because they were in plastic. The fact is that Samsung phones tend to be more expensive than iPhones to make, because the cost of the components is higher, despite any savings made by using a plastic shell.akdj - Friday, October 3, 2014 - link
Only BECAUSE it takes my Note3 twice the cores, at twice the clock speed with three times the amount RAM to FINALLY close the gap on performance. Almost. My 5s is still quicker playing Asphalt8, manipulating photos, even rendering VIDEO! Most likely the latter because of the extreme lack of interet in the development community (other than game ports) to 'build out' apps and software. And that sucks! I love my Note 3--- coming from the original its a massive upgrade. That said, Samsung is using stock, off the shelf SoCs ....indeed 'produced' by them as they've got the capabilities to cook bake and roll out silicon BUT they've chosen to increase horsepower, drop the gearing ratios and add a stage III nirrous kit 'built' and low level programmed with basic ARM instructions and a radical slather of Peanut Butter JavaScript to wade through just for TouchWiz. By the time you open an app, you're at 85-90% RAM usage. I've got a N3. I like it and I'm not getting rid of it. It serves it's purpose for our business perfectly. But AS a business owner and one that relies on creative talent to make it 'work' I find your comment very VERY ill informed and 'ignorant' ...no to be a dick. But yes, R&D is definitely a percentage figured into the equation with BOM. As well, the software development, A8 & the second generation 64bit processor with a faster GPU, more efficient memory managment with the SoC 4mb buffer and iOS 8 itself are expenses. Paid to a LOT of talent! For crying out loud, they developed a new CODE! And a spectacular one at that! Free lessons are everywhere and if you're experienced, have a macbook laying around, download the latest XCode and you'll have Swift down in a weekend. Not to mentioned the low level 'Metal' instruction set to eliminate the OpGL ES overhead ...allowing developers 'direct' (hence, 'Metal') access to the GPU ...if you're at all curious on how incredible this development most consumers will NEVER know about ...check out Unreal 4's site, the UR4 engine and what they've done with Metal. You can download their patio presentation frim WWDC in the app store. It's absolutley amazing. Samsung's phones are spendy because they're licensing Wacom, using active digitizers few are able use (until this evolution, three's a charm I guess), massive batteries, a horrid looking bezel that's rigid for sure, but then again, this is the first I've seen people, on purposes bending phones, and that's not a real life issue or even concern. I shared earlier, somehow my nine year old son has managed to keep his iPod touch fifth gen in perfect non bent and scratch free condition. Two years. Lotsa boogers and bumps but no dents, no dings, scratches or 'display marks' without screen protection. Guesses can be made in physical pieces. Even how long (labor pricing) to produce a single unit. But development of actual silicon, low level optimization to your non fragmented operating system, 64bit technology 24 months ahead of the industry and obvious benefits from the 20nm A8. iOS 8 (and its counterpart more than ever, OS X 10.10) and its ability to aggregate our information across devices, handoff calls, emails, texts or whatever the hell you're doing on your iPad ....get distracted, fall out and when you turn your iMac or MBP on, there's the email you were working on. Ready for you to finish. The web page you were reading or the movie your were watching ...vice versa too. Start on your computer a doc, and open your iPhone, there'll be a small 'doc' icon signifying you're working on something and you're able to finish it here! Forget the phone downstairs, your in bed reading before sleep, phone rings...no worries. Answer it on your iPad. AirDrop between laptop, tablet and phone, MacPro and ipad....iPhone to your iMac, slick n quick.Of course, then there's the whole 'build quality' argument. Where designers, reviewers, and the public ALL Seem to agree. The iPhone SNOKES Samsung's BQ. Period. They're like jewelry, true and real 'art'. Each phone has been an engineering marvel. Samsung? Are you kidding me? Other than their goofy, curvy, earthy S3 baby blue tangent, their 'rectangle' phone lacks ANY design fundamentals much less achievements.
When you sell as MANY pieces as Apple does, costs come down. For the 'pieces'. But the machining process (2 year cycle) is entirely changed. Fusion welding and sapphire 'plants', robotics and laser/chamfered edging with incredible attention to detail are just a couple of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of re-tooling the facilities for the latest 'build'. And after a couple of hours today with the 6 & 6+ as we anxiously await ours, with an open mind (& as an ambidextrous user of Android and iOS Windows and OS X) --- NOTHING on the Internet does justice to the phone itself. It's. Absolutely. AMAZING!