X220 display has: light bleeding, burn-in and low brightness

Yeah the brightness scale is really weird and different drivers change it.

Honestly, I'm running at 0 most of the time since I'm indoors.

Has anyone had this fixed yet? I'm wondering if they have new panels for the repair.

 

I chose not to "examine" my new x220 in fear of going Monk. It's obviously not a great screen, but for a relatively cheap (on sale) notebook, I'm quite happy. 1080p looks very good, and blacks are black enough not to be a bother. As for brightness, I keep it at 5 indoors.

 

The screen brightness between two vendors( Intel and Lenovo) is quite significant.

With the help of spectrometer ( Colormunki Photo) , my conclusion is as follows:

Most Lenovo certified drivers have the lowest brightness level ( 0 level-> 3cdm²).

Intel Driver on the other hand will offer you the balanced brightness level from 0 level of 30cdm² to 15 level of 300cdm².

 

how did you get 1080p?

 

Found this thread after I did a dismayed Google search upon noticing a burn-in of my desktop when I restarted my X220. I've only had it for a few weeks now, and I'm guessing this happened during one of the times I had it left open and plugged in. I forgot about putting a screensaver on and honestly did not think that a burn in would even be a possibility. This is really disappointing, though at least it's only noticeable when booting at the moment.

I guess it's not really worth sending in for a replacement at the moment, though I do still have time as classes don't start until October.

 

What is the brightness at 15 with the Lenovo driver? Thanks.

I don't know if others have experienced this, but image retention has improved a lot since I started using this machine (4 months). It's barely noticeable now.

 

I'm currently deciding between the x220 and t420s. Which screen is brighter?
i've read the t420s has a very bad screen. but then 1368x768 isn't exactly my favorite resolution...argh can't decide

 

X220 is brighter. 300 nit vs. 230 nit.

 

From a historical perspective, it's not that bad, it's just that the IPS option on the X220 is exceptional. Few laptop screens over the years warranted the label of good. Most laptop screens aren't that great.

To some degree it will on the usage. If you're just doing office and internet, it may work well for you. Any kind of photo work or watching movies, it will be inferior. Personally, I find the 1366x768 to be perfectly fine. It's just the cost of getting a very mobile notebook.

 

300 nits. Actually I would not recommend Lenovo certified drivers due to its uneven brightness level.

 

Ok thanks. Trying to comapre it to what I have available. I have a eee pc t91 and tried to google for its screen brightness but only found 1 review mentioning it (133 nits) but for the MT version. (more or less unusable outdoors)
A HP Desktop screen L1950 rated at 300 nits. If I look at the screen, a window is at my back. It's sunny outside but there is no direct sunlight. Still I have to pull the shades else I feel the screen is not bright enough.
So i guess 230 nits won't be enough.

 

80-120 nits is the maxium brightness level most human could stand for long hours. I would recommend a few good (RA99)5000K lights surrounding your laptop as the external ambient light sources. The Reason why this 12.5 IPS screen is impressive mainly due to its better color reproduction.

 

That couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

maybe a 80nit+++ contrast from the wall/window behind the panel would be a long term issue, but definately not as a max overall

 

sure? My screen @work as mentioned above is rated at 300 nits and brightness is at 100% in the monitors setup. I stare into it more or less the whole work day without any issues.
But maybe drivers are limiting brightness?

 

My current X220 brightness level is 3 out of 15

100% Brightness will cause your eye strain.

Here is the calibration curve of my 12.5 IPS panel at 80 nits. ( 3 out of 15)



Amazing Gamma Curve !

 

I get eye-strain if I constantly have to "concentrate" to see anything.

 

Should read...

And honestly, it is the starring that is far worse for the eye than 100% brightness on pretty much any screen.

 

The T420 screen is actually pretty darn good as far as ThinkPad screens have been over the years. I've owned a *lot* of ThinkPads too, so I have a pretty good basis for comparison. It's a lot better than most similarly-sized ones in terms of brightness and resolution, and comparable in most other regards.

It doesn't hold a candle to any MVA, PVA, AFFS, or IPS panel, but it's certainly not "very bad". If you want "very bad", look at some of the SXGA+ panels on the 14.1" T60s. About the only thing those had going for them was resolution...

 

I didn't think my SXGA+ R60 was all that bad for Office and Internet type stuff, but any photo work or watching movies, it was terrible. 14" SXGA+ is the perfect form factor. If anyone ever made one of those with a IPS, PVA, AFFS, etc., LCD, I'd never buy anything else.

 

For most laptop user, the external ambient light as well as brightness level of the screen is equally important. Additionally, W-LED screen may require further calibration and profiling to get Delta-E 76/94 Maximum< 3

 

That is great and I agree lighting is important. But staring and locking your gaze without blinking will cause far more strain than any brightness level will.

 

Source

Looks like no one has mentioned it in this thread? I'm not sure if I would ask for a replacement when it's available. I'm not really very keen on the ghosting problem or the loose front bezel.

 

Yeah, those panels were fine for their intended purpose, but boy did they suck at color reproduction and black levels...

There was also a pretty substantial variation between the three models of panel that they used. I think the TMD one was the best of them, but it certainly wasn't the brightest...

 

Not to mention that the delta-E 76/94/2000 increase by two times between April 2011 and July 2011. The color accuracy is ridiculous. Some quality assurance has been compromised.


what I found during my 8 weeks usage:

1. levels of fan speed is related to color accuracy of the panel.

2. Power configurations also affects color accuracy of panel as well.

 

Are you serious?

 

Nah, he's just making a couple of assumptions.

He's right that the color accuracy could be affected by whether running on AC or battery. Intel GMA GPUs use a number of tricks to improve battery life, and things such as framebuffer compression, contrast changes, etc. can all have an impact on visual quality.

The fan speed bit is wrong. The fan itself has no impact on any of the things that I listed above. Instead, it is likely that the fan speed changes that he's noticed are related to the machine's power state.

Not really. Color accuracy just wasn't one of the design criteria.

Talking about Q/A only really makes sense when assesing the fitness of a product for its intended purposes. The panels discussed above were never intended for photo/pre-press work; they were designed for use in business computers, and for that purpose they were certainly fine.

 

Here are my test results with Spectrometer ( Colorimunki Photo) :

Delta-E = 2.5( Compared to Daylight 6500), 6 Cell Battery, with TPFanControl ( Modified Fan Speed Default Setting Value as 64)

Delta-E = 3.5( Compared to Daylight 6500), ThinkPad Mini Dock Plus Series 3 with 90W Adapter, with TPFanControl ( Modified Fan Speed Default Setting Value as 64)

Delta-E = 4.5 ( Compared to Daylight 6500), 6 Cell Battery, with TPFanControl ( Modified Manual Mode Setting Value as 7)