A8Js screen

Hi,
I have read A8Js has bad screen angles. Can anyone compare its screen with that of Lenovo T61 (or T60) or Dell D620?

 

The A8 series is known to have subpar screen, I would assume the T61/D620 have slightly better. For some odd reason, all 14" screens are pretty bad unlike the larger 15"+ or even 13.3" and lower screens.

 

To clarify, the "problem" screens are all 1440x900 14.1" screens. The 4 manufacturers are AUO, CMO, LG, and Samsung. Most people prefer them in that order (from worst to best), but they are all very similar and are found in other manufacturer's laptops including dell.

My guess is that the small size and high density make things like viewing angle a problem. They are fairly easy to purchase and swap if you want to try a different model.

However, I would not describe any of the screens as "pretty bad". In general, the image quality is excellent. But the viewing angle is narrow and there is some light leakage when viewing dark scenes. This is true for any laptop screen but is more pronounced on these hi-density 14.1" screens.

 

Compared to 15.4" and 13.3" notebook screens, I find them pretty horrible in comparison. If I were to use just that 14" screen, then it'd be fine(since I have nothing to compare it to). I may be a tad extreme, bnut hey, I'm just playing the part as an anal consumer

 

Check out this review over at Anandtech. Says it all:
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2994&p=1

 

Yeah, that article was an eye-opener, and not in a good sense

 

Well, I wasn't too suprized. It just confirmed my impressions of the screen.

 

I dont have the link but theres some data from the dell forum on this site that listed all 4 as bad but the cmo one as the best. So it ranked them lg samsung auo cmo from worst to best.

 

Don't be too worried, those are three of the best screens in the industry. The A8 is probably about average. Certainly Asus offers better (the G1 screen is better than the G2 screen =P). Seeing as the A8 is a budget laptop, I think average is something to hope for.

 

IPS FTW!

 

My dream computer wouldn't allow anyone to run that movie.

 

lol, chill it's just a movie playing on a piece of equipment...at least it did not give my computer cancer

 

it gave me eye cancer.

(btw, I'm just playing, but that movie did suck. Cool racing scenes though)

 

Would you guys pay extra cash for an IPS LCD on your A8Js?

 

Wow...didnt know Anandtech had a head to head test with the G2, A8JS and the M1710.
NIce article!

It may even deserve a spot on my siggy

 

It's a great review, but misses the point of the 14" laptop. It's not amazing that a 17" looks a lot better than the 20% smaller 14" when they are both at the same resolution. A 17" at 1440x900 is likely the least density of any 17" ever made.

The Dell D620 owners who had a 14" 1440x900 screen reported better viewing angles and overall quality when they downgraded to a 14" 1280x800 screen.

http://www.dellcommunity.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=insp_video&message.id=156762&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

While interesting, a review of several 14" laptop LCDs would have been more meaningful.

 

it doesn't matter the size. They whether 11 14 or 17 inch, they are all basically the same LCD (not between computers, but on each computer). The size is just a cut. They measured the contrast ratio, and the more important color accuracy of these laptop screens. They represent a sampling from all of the markets. Like I said, if the G2S screen was 14 inches, it would look the same as the G2S just 14 inches large. If the A8 screen was larger (thank god it isn't) its flaws would be MORE pronounced. The only thing that was unfair was the viewing angles, those get better as the screen gets larger. Refresh times and those other things, those were quantitative measurements. All LCDs are comparable in that sense. (As they were able to group all desktop LCDs [mostly] above the laptop LCDs. If this were a comparison of the computers themselves, and they were saying buy the G2S over the A8 for whatever, that would be unfair. But it is only the LCD screens that they are talking about, and in that way it is very true.

 

The size matters for a few reasons. One reason is that when things are made smaller, it takes greater care and expense to retain the same quality. A 14" is not just cut from a 17".

The other reason size matters is that 1440x900 has much less DPI in a 17" than a 14". Putting the same resolution in a smaller package may also make manufacturing more difficult. It may also make things like light and viewing angle more difficult. I assume this to be true since of the 4 manufacturers (the a8js uses 2 of them) who make 14" 1440x900 LCDs, all have these problems to some extent.

Otherwise, we should evaluate the same 1440x900 resolution in times square and on a cell phone. " You know, the cell phone's angles aren't as easy to see..."

 

I said that viewing angles get better as the screen gets larger. Geez.

Also, I know that one isn't cut out of the other, but they are produced exactly the same way so that we can assume performance is consistent over the range of sizes. And 1440x900 should look a whole lot better on 14inchs since the DPI must be much larger. So the A8 should look BETTER than the G2 at that resolution. I don't get your point there?

 

The DPI is greater, so the resolution should and probably does look higher on the 14". But apparently this higher resolution and smaller package comes at a price (viewing angle, light output, manufacturing costs, etc). Maybe getting the same quality at the higher DPI and smaller size puts the cost too high.

I am not nor claim to be an LCD expert, I'm just making a best guess based on data. Like if a 17" 640x480 LCD were produced, I assume that it would be the best quality, highest light output, best viewing angle ever. It still may not be my first choice.

 

First of all "DPI" (dots per square inch) is a term used for printing. Its PPI (pixels per square inch) that is the correct term for measuring a LCD monitor.
Now that i got that over with.....


1440 x 900 = 99.9 PPI on a 17" screen
1440 x 900 = 121.2 PPI on a 14" screen

In theory, like in print a higher DPI/PPI should result in a better overall picture. And in theory the 14" of the A8JS should ultimately produce less visable digital flare or artifacts because of its finer PPI. And that may be the case with the A8JS.
But the reason why the G2 is far superior is the dual backlights in that screen. The article proves that theres more to a screen than resolution and PPI.


Let me also make note of the Dell XPS M1710
1920 x 1200 = 133.2 PPI on its 17" screen
Thou the Dell has 35% more PPI is still doesnt match the picture quality of the G2

 

That's the fallacy of ppi, dpi, or whatever you want to call it. A 1080 display may have more pixels but look worse than a 720. A 1200 dpi printer can look worse than a 600 dpi printer.

Resolution does not necessarily equal quality. You can have higher resolution at the cost of quality, or you can have both at a higher price.

If you think the G2 screen could be manufactured at 1920x1200 for the same price and still retain the same quality, then I guess we just disagree.