Approved: Z11's 1920x1080 screen is inferior compared to 1600x900 one

Hi.

Today, I had the chance to review two configurations side by side in Saturn Vienna.
I assure you, the one with the 1600x900 is noticeably brighter and more saturated than the 1920x1080 one. Both are TN panels, but the colors in FHD panel have a tendency to distort sooner relative to the viewing angles. I can't say that the FHD isn't crisper than the other one because resolution does have its obvious advantage in terms of crispiness. But an uneducated eye won't be able to distinguish crispness difference between the panels when the fonts are scaled to be equal on both screens. Although both panels are LED back-lit, the FHD one looks like a fluorescent back-lit panel when compared to the 1600x900 one side-by-side.

I was both disappointed and relieved to have seen the difference. I was about to order the FHD panel, however because of some problems with the supplier, it kept on delaying. I guess there is always good in bad. Now I canceled my order entirely. I will opt for 1600x900, no matter how much I crave for the highest resolution.

In summary, the US guys who were muttering about the lack of FHD option in Sonystyle.com, don't have to anymore I would go for the 1600x900 panel every time. But this doesn't mean that the FHD is a bad panel. It just isn't AS good as the 1600x900. I wouldn't regret to have chosen it. But now that I have the choice not to, I won't. So long for the Sony Euroasia envy

I didn't take any photos today, but I can go back anytime and take some if requested.

 

Are you sure it's not just the difference between a gloss and matte screen?

The matte screen is one of the reasons I am waiting till my trip to buy a Z instead of the US one.

 

By the same token, I bought one with the FHD screen.

I had a chance to play with the 1600x900 screen at a SonyStyle recently. After playing with it, I was even happier with my choice.

Then again, my purchase is more about real estate and not about brightness.

One question I have for you...was the auto-adjust brightness toggle on or off on the FHD? Because once I turned that off...my screen was ridiculously bright. Not as bright as my RGBLED screen, but it is still incredible.

 

Interesting. Your review is opposite to all the Japanese reviews.

 

Hmmm...whose review? The OP or my small mini-review?

 

Sorry for misleading, I mean the OP's review.

 

1600x900 isn't glossy either. When you say glossy, I see it as MBP's gloss. So, no.

I'm a software engineer. I also need the extra resolution. But I spend a lot of time in front of the screen. My eyes need to feel comfortable.

I really REALLY hoped that the auto-adjust was what made the difference. Unfortunately, it wasn't. Neither was the gamut and color schemes of Windows 7. I reset every setting. Tried everything.

Sure it is. This shows that Sony might really be using different panels in different continents. For example, I looked carefully to see the grill lines on the FHD screen, like some forum members stated. They weren't there! Neither were the bleeding edges of 1600x900!

 

What I said isn't a reason not to be happy with your choice tbh. It still is the only 13.1" FHD screen in the industry. So it would be wrong to compare it directly to a less dense panel. Even I might have missed the difference if they weren't side by side.

Note that you got the US version of the FHD panel. It is likely that Sony wouldn't have the heart to put an inferior panel on the flagship model.

Then again, it isn't impossible. As the FHD version in Austria costs 2500 euro. And that is far from cheap.

 

Understandable.

 

Thanks for clearing it up Jimmy. There is so little real info on how all the screens compare (and what screen is used where) that it's quite confusing to me.

From what i've read it seems the US 1920 is a glossy screen while the Eur / Asia ones are Matte. Also that the Eur / Asia one might have a different driver to have little better color.

I hope that is the case as I decided on the 1920 but am going to buy it during my trip to asia based on the fact it was reported to be the better screen. As for the 1920 vs 1600 i chose 1920 as i do a lot of picture editing so extra real estate can help some.. Though I hope I didn't make the wrong choice. They don't put the 1920 on display in the sony style store here so I can't see myself how small the text is.

 

I personally can't cope with a glossy screen. Moreover, If the laptop were standard 1080 matte in n. america i would take it but I wouldn't go out of my way to buy one as 1920x1080 is really small, 1600x900 is on the edge of being too small imho. Albeit Bluray videos i will look nicer.

 

Not really sure why you guys mean by "glossy". I certainly don't see it as such.

 

I've had three Z's.

VGN-Z591U/B - 1600x900
VPC-Z112GX/S - 1600x900
VPC-Z11FHX/XQ - 1920x1080

I'll agree that the FHD screen is less bright than its 1600x900 brethren. I normally explain the difference by saying the 1600x900 models can go to 10 on the brightness scale while the FHD only goes to 9.

This is due to the pixel density of the FHD screen. There was an interview with the lead designer at Sony who explained the specifics, but I can't find that article.

Long story short, the FHD requires more light to reach the same brightness level as the lower rez screens.

This said, I didn't see that much of a difference between the screens since I rarely run at max brightness. I also didn't notice much difference in color, but I fall squarely in the uneducated user category.

I'm mostly pleased with the FHD. My main gripe is that the fonts are small, but that's kind of the point of the screen anyway. I've flipped back and forth between 100% and 125% text size but have decided to stay at 100%. The fonts are larger at 125%, but not in all apps. The larger fonts also cause some web sites to display incorrectly.

I've compensated for the smaller views by moving closer to the laptop and always wearing my glasses.

I've said this before in other threads, but the FHD screen makes the laptop feel larger than it is. This is great for me, so I'm happy with my purchase.

I don't think you can go wrong with either screen. Heck, the 1600x900 is more dense than many other laptops at the same size.

 

I believe the Sony designer stated that the full HD screen actually has 30% stronger backlighting due to the increased inefficiency. So one hit is the battery life - at least it should be shorter at max brightness for both.

UL

 

I thought the same thing about extra estate. But you really should see the FHD screen in real and how much 1600x900 enough is.

Then again, if you "need" the higher res, buy it without doubt. It is a stellar panel as is. You won't regret it.

 

After checking both screens side by side both in Sonystyle Hong Kong and the Sony Building Japan. I found the full hd screen way better than the 1600x900 screen.

 

I've had the previous gen Z 1600x900 and now the FHD VPC-Z11.
I am mostly happy with the current HFD screen, I think it is about as bright as the previous one. I never run it at full brightness either, mostly around 85% when connected to power.

One major gripe with the old screen was that it was terribly oversaturated and impossible to calibrate. If you happen to be in the category where you like visual extra bass and listen to music via a U-shaped equalizer then you'd probably like it.

If you are remotely interested in color fidelity (i.e. viewing your photos on the screen) then the new version is waay better.

So, vivid colors = not always good colors. That's why I hate Bravia TVs - they tend to look good in the showroom and if you make the mistake of actually buying one it will make your eyes bleed in a couple of months..

 

Now that's interesting.

 

ota-con, did you get the chance to adjust settings? I wouldn't be surprised if Sony tried to make the more expensive HD model 'pop-out' more in comparison..

 

Does the 1600x900 vaio screen have a 96% Adobe RGB colour coverageProcessor? (liken on FHD one).

 

I didn't play with settings...both were on default.

 

No it doesn't.

 

I'm noticing some moire patterns during HD video playback from Vimeo on my 1600x900 screen, do owners that have the 1920x1080 screen have any of the same issues?

 

Does anyone actually care about brightness? I never use full brightness, it's way too glaring and fatiguing.

 

*I* care about brightness....

*shrug*

 

I'm usually anywhere between 0% and 50% brightness level. I only go past 50% if I'm showing something to another person for a few minutes, or if there's too much sun/glare, etc.

 

Did you do the registry brightness fix?

 

I have Z11 1600x900 screen and I do like to run google chrome for instance for web browsing and turn the font down to 83% for that FHD feeling

 

Not sure what you're talking about..... I only got my Z a week ago, and it's already running Linux only.

 

yeah linux runs at max that's how people realized windows was halfstepping the brightness

I dunno though my 1600x900 z12 is plenty bright for me at medium brightness out of the box on win7. But i have yet to even use it outside, so it's nice to know there's room to breath. it was one of the reasons I opted for it over FHD