Sony FW490 - Eco vs. Hi Color Display and Gaming

This is the customization I am thinking of getting:

No additional Photo Editing Software
16.4" widescreen with XBRITE-ECO™ LCD technology (1600x900)
No additional Finance Software
320GB SATA Hard Disk Drive [5400 rpm]
Fresh Start
None
Standard Capacity Battery
No additional Anti-Virus and Security Software
WLAN (802.11a/b/g/n) with integrated Bluetooth® technology
ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD4650 graphics card with 512MB vRAM-good for games and movies
No Engraving
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor P8700 (2.53GHz)
No additional Video Editing Software
CD/DVD playback/burning
Black
Microsoft® Windows Vista® Home Premium 64-bit
4GB DDR2-SDRAM (DDR2-800, 2GBx2)


I've read a few posts about the eco bright screen being faulty (uneven lighting)...can anyone confirm this? If this is the case, I suppose I would get the hicolor HD screen - which unfortunately costs a whole lot more.

And isn't the laptop card not powerful enough to run games on the HD screen? By turning the resolution down, wouldn't just looked stretched and ugly?

I have no need for a blu-ray player and i'd prefer the screen not to be HD (Heard that font and whatnot is small - though I know you can fix it, i'd just not bother).

I currently have a Vaio FZ190 with a 1280x800 screen (I love this size and i'd rather not have the font be super tiny on the HD) and a 8400m GT - the ride was great, but it's time for me to upgrade.

The FW is gorgeous and eye catching - and I know the the Sony screen will not disappoint. I just really want to make sure I purchase the best thing to suit my needs..and a crappy screen would not be plesant.

Sparknotes: Please let me know if the FW490 with the Eco bright 1600x900 screen has poor quality (lighting and colors). I'd rather hope it didn't so that I can get it and play games on the max resolution. Would my set up be good for me? College user, light - medium photoshopping, light - medium gaming (sims 3, empire total war, etc), and internet / documents use.

Thanks a lot.

 

I saw a screen at sony style shop. It is excellent for gaming with bright and clear quality imo. Why don u pay like 50 dollars more for 1gb hd4650? I think it worth it. I haven't play empire total war and the sim 3 yet but i think it will performs nicely.

 

Here's the light distribution of the ECO 1600*900 screen, it's not bad.

The downside of the ECO screen is that the contrast is low and it's not that bright. Working outside will be very difficult.

 

The notebookjournal.de site gives you an idea of the comparison of the FW4's Eco screen (average 181 cd/m2) to that of other notebooks: http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/sony-vaio-vgn-fw41-e-h-933/4

These are the notebookjournal.de results for the FullHD with higher resolution on the FW31zj model: http://www.notebookjournal.de/storage/show/image/image49edb33acacb7 -- average 274 cd/m2 as compared to the Eco's 181 cd/m2 (cf. above)

(For the entire review of that FW3 with FullHD http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/notebook-review-sony-vaio-fw31zj-860/2)

Both the Eco and the FullHD screens are way below what the HiColor was on the FW11zu (FW190) series, with its 357 cd/m2 HiColor 1600 x 900, no longer offered by Sony: http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/sony-vaio-vgn-fw11zu-619/3 .

 

Talk about a downgrade in brightness.

 

Hehe with cheaper price u must leave something for it. And y don u go to sony style store and check if with ur own eyes. In my opinion it's good.

 

Will the 1600x900 Eco have better color and lighting than the VGN FZ190 - XBrite-Eco Display (2 years old i'd say)?

If the answer is yes, I will definitely grab the FW with the Eco rather than with the HD ($150 more dollars).

Thanks.

 

This is how Sony talks about all of its screen types: http://backstage101.learningcenter.sony.us/tutorials/transcript.jsp?courseId=91114

Seriously, the Eco screen will only disappoint if you have seen the HiColor (which you likely haven't since it's no longer available on this model -- but seems to still be available in Europe on the VGN-FZ series, Btw).

The Eco screen leaves almost every other manufacturer's non-RGB LED screen in the dust. Its whites are still whiter than anyone else's (go to a retail store and look at the bluish-cast of Dells, for example -- I'm not talking about the high-end business lines but the home/retail lines).

I don't think you'll be disappointed. Play around with your superior ATI HD4650 video card settings and set the colors to your liking.

I think you won't be disappointed in the FW.....

The FZ190CTO came with either Eco or HiColor. So, if you have the Eco on that model you probably know what Eco will look like. Although the HiColor on the FZ has usually been measured as slightly brighter (maybe +20 cd/m2) than the HiColor on the FW in the reviews I've read at notebookjournal.de.

Check your model number exactly; the FZ190E/1 was a HiColor: http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665235245

Here are the FZ190 CTO specs:
http://news.sel.sony.com/documents/consumer/computer_peripheral/notebooks/VGN-FZ190CTO_SpecSheet.pdf

And here are some links to reviews of the FZ180 which comes only with the HiColor screen: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Sony-Vaio-VGN-FZ.5984.0.html (and its official specs: http://www.sonystyle.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/pdf/VGN-FZ180E_SpecSheet.pdf)

Go ahead and get the Eco. Why else have a better graphics card if you aren't going to trust it to make a difference? And you'll be happier with that lower resolution for gaming as well. The notebookjournal.de review (linked in my earlier posting) of the FW41 in Europe gives good results for the gaming with that much better graphics card despite the Eco screen. You can see World in Conflict results for it and a few other manufacturer's machines here: http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/sony-vaio-vgn-fw41-e-h-933/6

Sorry to post so much, but I assume the info is helpful. See my posting #4176 at the FW forum: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=278446&page=418 which calls into question whether we can in any way rely on U.S. comparisons involving measurements of Sony's European screens.

The FW41 in Europe is either E for Eco or M for multiple lamp -- no longer called double lamp or dual lamp in Europe. This may be an entirely new beast over there, different from the FW490 in the U.S.

I do know, however, from a personal side-by-side comparison, that the FW390's FullHD at its brightest was only comparable to the FW190 HiColor at one level down. The FW190 HiColor was crisper, brighter than the FullHD on the FW390 even set at its equivalent brightness and with the FW190's inferior ATI HD3470 graphics (the FW390 has ATI HD3650).

While I have not seen a FW390 Eco side by side with a FullHD, my impression from a pre-configured model at Best Buy was of equivalent brightness but lesser color saturation -- but that was with the much lesser graphics card (the Intel integrated one, I believe). With the FW4 series' ATI HD4650 you should be able to saturate colors better and make the Eco -- with its more convenient resolution, too -- meet your needs.

Okay.... I'll stop now.... ;-)

 

Consider editing your last post instead of posting a new message.

I'm pretty sure Sony uses the same screens in US and Europe because 16.4 is quite a special size and the one in the Netherlands is still a double lamp display. Also I haven't heard of CCFL displays with 3 backlights, so I think it's safe to assume Sony uses a double lamp display.

Anything above 200 cd/m is unnecessary for working inside. Anything above 250 cd/m is enough for working outside. So the irrelevant for inside. For people who want to work in the sun with sun shining directly at the display it will be a slight downgrade.

Brightness doesn't say that much about display quality. Contrast does.

ECO 1600*900 screen:
durchschnittl. Luminanz cd/m² 181,00
Schwarzwert bei 100 cd/m2 cd/m² 0,72
Schwarzwert bei maximaler Helligkeit cd/m² 1,35
Kontrast bei 100 cd/m2 :1 138,00
Kontrast bei maximaler Helligkeit :1 134,00

Double lamp 1600*900 display:
durchschnittl. Luminanz cd/m² 357,50
Schwarzwert bei 100 cd/m2 cd/m² 0,25
Schwarzwert bei maximaler Helligkeit cd/m² 1,00
Kontrast bei 100 cd/m2 :1 400,00
Kontrast bei maximaler Helligkeit :1 357,50

Double lamp 1920*1080 screen:
durchschnittl. Luminanz cd/m² 274,00
Schwarzwert bei 100 cd/m2 cd/m² 0,22
Schwarzwert bei maximaler Helligkeit cd/m² 0,61
Kontrast bei 100 cd/m2 :1 454,00
Kontrast bei maximaler Helligkeit :1 449,00

For comparison: 17" MBP:
durchschnittl. Luminanz cd/m² 265,00
Schwarzwert bei 100 cd/m2 cd/m² 0,21
Schwarzwert bei maximaler Helligkeit cd/m² 0,45
Kontrast bei 100 cd/m2 :1 476,00
Kontrast bei maximaler Helligkeit :1 588,00

As you can see the double lamp Full HD screen has higher contrast and better black levels than the 1600*900 double lamp while it's bright enough.
(all data from Notebookjournal.de)

Your FZ has better contrast (180:1). Don't expect an upgrade in quality. The contrast levels of the ECO screen are quite low.

 

speaking of XBRITE-ECO, how does someone know it comes with dual ccfl lighting? because my VAIO C XBRITE-ECO somehow doesnt used to bright after almost 3 years usage as when it first come out of box.

i would suggest to opt for led backlight instead of ccfl.. most of my notebook which use ccfl dimmed at full birghtness level after 3 years usage.. i guess that explain the drawback of ccfl lighting..

 

ECO screens never have double back lights as far as I know. It's the High color ones that can have double back lights.

 

Does that mean that Vaio SR has bad contrast ratio also? =[

 

No the ECO screen on the SR is quite good.

durchschnittl. Luminanz cd/m² 244,00
Schwarzwert bei 100 cd/m2 cd/m² 0,25
Schwarzwert bei maximaler Helligkeit cd/m² 0,56
Kontrast bei 100 cd/m2 :1 400,00
Kontrast bei maximaler Helligkeit :1 435,00
http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/inspection/review-test-sony-vgn-sr41m-w-932

I'm not sure though if all SRs come with the same brand display. In the past it seemed Sony used Samsung and Toshiba panels.

 

Do you have further information on who is making the Sony displays?

I seem to recall a Sony tech telling me that SNY and MS screens were made by Sony (the former I have seen on a FW390 FullHD and the latter on an FW190 HiColor). SNY seems intuitively correct; but MS?

And I seem to recall reading in Sony's ads that Sony had trade-marked/patented XBRITE-HiColor. And, until those European "multiple lamp" FullHD screens, Sony has only used the 100% color purity ads for HiColor displays, not FullHD.

However, it seems that AUO is taking credit for having invented HiColor:
http://auo.com/auoDEV/technology.php?sec=HiColor

Anyone know how to definitively sort this all out? (e.g. Phil?)

 

I have limited information but based on what I've read:
FW: Sharp
SZ/TT/TZ/Z: Toshiba
SR: Toshiba and Samsung

I have never seen a Sony display in a laptop.
As far as I know MS is a generic code, used when the manufacturer is unknown to the program reading it.

 

It seems that Sony does, sometimes at least, make its own displays.

Take the VGN-FS model:
Here you can buy an Hitachi dual-lamp display for it: http://www.getpartsonline.com/a1133651a-module.html

And here you can buy one manufactured by Sony: http://www.getpartsonline.com/a1133651a.html

And this reseller lists Sony as well as Philips, etc. as manufacturers of Sony-compatible displays: http://www.priorityelectronics.com/laptop-lcd-screens/sony-lcd-screens.htm

I think this issue is likely far more complex than we know....

 

Well it does seem like they made laptop screens in the past yes.

This looks like it is a Sharp FW panel: http://cgi.ebay.com.sg/SHARP-LQ164D1LA4B-16-4-LCD-Screen_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQitemZ120438528264

 

Browsing around looking for Vaio replacement screens yields some interesting results, with some sites actually offering screens for some series that are labeled as manufactured by Sony, others by Philips, etc.

This site sells a multitude of LCD displays and parts, all searchable either by part manufacturer or by the model of the laptop. Note that the original FW dual lit HiColor 1600x900 specs are available in a screen for which one must "call in" for further information (but it's listed!): http://www.lcds4less.com/sony-laptop-lcd-screens/a1562370a.shtml

However, trying to find the manufacturers in their lists (cf. column to the left on that page) which even make some variant of a 16.4" screen is the old proverbial needle in a haystack!

BUT this just in -- Sony's investment in Sharp with a percentage of output to be owned by Sony: http://www.prad.de/new/news/shownews_alg2430.html

Perhaps that means that Sony gets to label a Sharp product as a Sony....

I suspect this is indeed far more complex than we know.

 

thx guys, great help!O(∩_∩ O哈哈~

 

Here's my update:

After 25 long days of waiting...I finally received my laptop. The design of the laptop is gorgeous and I love the keyboard. After doing some cleaning / uninstalling the laptop runs very smoothly.

The only one issue that has been irking me is the screen - I WAS spoiled by the FZ screen - Remarkable vividness and vibrant colors. I've been trying to tweak the ATI color / gamma / etc settings - I've slightly improved it from the default, but I still feel like the FW screen has washed color.

When I first played guild wars on this machine, I immediately noticed the colors being almost faded - the effect made the game seem sort of dull and dead. The backlight is indeed brighter on the lower part of the screen and it's not too consistent throughout.

I was REALLY hoping that this would not happen...I suppose I can try to force myself to get used to the screen, but if anyone has ANY suggestions as to what I can or might be able to do, please let me know - For example, ATI Control Panel configurations....or some sort of calibration program.

To refresh your memory: I got the 1600 x 900 ECObrite screen. (I chose not to get the FullHD because I do tend to game).

Thanks a lot.

 

Probably not very helpful now but I think you should have gotten the double lamp Full HD display. Contrast levels on the ECO display are quite low and that's what gives the washed out look.

When gaming on the Full HD display it's possible to lower the resolution without bad side effects because the pixels are so small.

To make the EDO screen look better changing the gamma would be the right action, but it seems you already tried that.

 

Phil,

I have not been able to see the Full HD in person (I don't think the one they have in Best Buy is Full HD), but if I can be almost certain that the Full HD beats the living daylights out of the Eco, I would move to returning this one and getting the Full HD version. Well how is the color / contrast / vividness on the Full HD vs the Eco? Would the Full HD be on par if not better than my Vaio FZ190 (Which has an AMAZING screen compared to this eco...my eyes are still adjusting to the washed out colors).

I understand a lot of people complain about small text and whatnot - but I've heard that with font increases (125%), I can get around that. Are there any other issues with small unreadable text that is incorrectable?

Lastly, Are you certain that lowering the resolution on a fullhd in order to compensate for games won't decrease quality? I mean if I got the Full HD and was able to turn it down to 1600x900, but have the same quality (gameplay and color wise), i'd move to get a Full HD Immediately. I've heard that playing games in non-native resolution is a horrible idea.

Please let me know what you think. I appreciate it a lot. The FW is a gorgeous looking laptop and I want my money's worth.

 

Bear in mind that the PS3 and Xbox's games are mostly all native 720p

look fine on an 1080p tv still, eh?

 

It does. The ECO 1600*900 screen has 138:1 contrast. The Full HD screen has 454:1. Below 150 is poor. Anything close to 500 is very good, above that it's diminishing returns.

It does slightly, but since the pixels are so small you won't notice at a normal viewing distance. Several owners of a 16" 1080p screen have confirmed this to me.

 

Thank you very much for the quick reply.

What resolution do those with the 1080p usually use for gaming?

How is gaming performance on these levels?

I'm more of a casual gamer who will be playing Guild Wars, Call of Duty 4, The Witcher, etc.

 

i've seen the full-hd screen right next to the eco screen for the FW400 series side by side in sony store and the differences in contrast are noticeable but not nearly as bad as hicolor vs eco. the brightness levels seemed comparable. i think the eco is a great screen besides u can play games on 1600X900 better on the eco screen than on the fullHD. The 4650 card wont allow u to play many games at 1080p so all in all eco will play games a little bit better than fullHD.

 

Maybe its me, but I just bought the FW480J/T from Best Buy and the screen looks great to me. It seems bright. I was looking at a Toshiba A505-6965 at Best Buy also and it had a LED screen. The Sony screen looked as bright as the Toshiba.

 

138:1 contrast is quite low. For Notebookjournal it was the fourth worst contrast rate they ever measured on a multimedia notebook. And they've reviewed a lot of notebooks. A mediocre Acer laptop will get about 150:1 contrast.

And the FW Full HD screen has higher contrast rates than the FW 'HiColor' screen.

 

Yes, but I've been spoiled by the FZ190 Hicolor xbrite screen - this ECO just doesn't really cut it...it's not colorful / vivid enough.

I understand that you can play games better on the 1600x900, but I wasn't interested in playing games in 1080p - I was wondering if I could play games in 720p or whatever on the FullHD; if I can turn down the resolution and play games just as well as if I did on the Eco. If I need to sacrifice a little performance, i'll do it, so long as the color quality on the FullHD is tons better than on the Eco.

 

See that's the thing - It is completely noticeable to me. The contrast just doesn't cut it in comparison to my old Vaio.

 

Of course, the screens in the American Vaios are not necessarily identical in specs to the screens in the European Vaios (the latter ones are the ones examined by notebookjournal.de).

Thus, it is not at all unusual that one of the members has posted above that the differences between an Eco and a FullHD seen side by side are not as different as one might expect.

It is also possible that the American Eco screen is better than the European Eco screen. The point is: we do not have enough information to be sure that all of the specs from European screens' apply to all American screens.

Remember: I've been told by a Sony Level II tech that the X-BRITE and the X-Black are NOT the same screens. Sony techs aren't perfect, but it stands to reason that the two terms might indeed reflect some differences. Keep in mind that the FWs in Best Buy pass EPEAT but none of the 490s do. The latter fact is what grounds my hesitancy to make "sure comparisons" in this posting.

In short, these machines are definitely different and we cannot rule out that the screens are different, even with the same names. Indeed, different screen manufacturers appear to be involved as well (cf. postings on the FW thread by Chinese FW owners who opened theirs up and posted model numbers).

And remember: the formerly-provided HiColor FW screen was WAY brighter than either of these screens, with a contrast similar to the FullHD. Again -- European models, but anecdotally also the American models.

Going to a retail store in one's own country to see what they look like is the best and safest bet.

Good luck!

 

Fact: All ECO CCFL screens (FW, NW, NR, CR) that Notebookjournal and Notebookcheck have measured have mediocre contrast rates and brightness. If you want to believe the situation is different in the US go ahead but that's just wishful thinking.

The Sony FW41 that's being sold in Europe uses the SNY06FA panel. If some owners of the ECO panel in US can run Everest we can find out if they use the same panels. l iRome l can you do that?

I'll put my money on they're using the same panels. If not, they're about the same quality. The reason that some people think the ECO screen looks good is because people are different. Some people don't care about low contrast. Some people do. Some people can tell the difference, some people can't.

Quoted for truth.

 

My panel is the SNY06FA - the same panel they are using in Europe.

I am going to go ahead and RMA my current machine and purchase one with the FullHD.

I only hope that gaming will not be an issue at all - Does anyone know what the next step down in resolution from the 1980 x 1280 is? Is that what you use to play most if not all of your games?

 

I just downloaded Everest and ran it. I bought a Sony FW480 from Best Buy. The monitor ID was: MS_0000. Is this correct. Sorry for my ignorance on this matter.

 

I can only repeat that if all FWs were born alike on all continents and even within the same country, then there would be no such thing, for example, as a model of FW that varied in its EPEAT compliance. EPEAT compliance is not a subjective rating but rather an objective one, based on materials content.

Materials with the same part numbers might be from different factories and have different materials content (in the paint, in the screen, etc.).

For example, we know from the EPEAT site that if you purchased, for example, an FW190EEH in titanium gray it is EPEAT compliant. BUT IF YOU PURCHASED THE EXACT SAME MODEL, SAME SPECS, ONLY IN A DIFFERENT COLOR, THE FW190EEW, IT IS NOT EPEAT-COMPLIANT.

So, if you purchase an FW from Best Buy and it is compliant in chocolate, and if you want to believe that it simply must be that the chocolate cover is what makes the computer compliant, then why is it that NO COLOR OF THE FW490s IS COMPLIANT? The same three colors of compliant notebooks are on FW495J computers and yet the FW495J's are ALL compliant.

Many colors and screen part numbers from the European FW4 are identical to the FW3 and the FW2 series. YET IN THE U.S. ALL OF THE FW2, FW3, and FW490CTO computers are not EPEAT-compliant while some of the FW4 line IS compliant. So we know it isn't necessarily the covers, but how do we know that it isn't the screens?

Conclusion: As Sony admits in writing, only some of its FWs are EPEAT compliant. Only some of its models have the materials that pass EPEAT. Others of its models OF THE SAME SERIES (i.e., drawn from the same part numbers) have different materials content.

They look alike but they are NOT alike. If you configure an FW490 EXACTLY LIKE THE FW480 OF BEST BUY, THE FW490 WILL STILL NOT BE COMPLIANT. Its materials would look alike, have the same part numbers for its entire inventory, BUT THE MATERIALS CONTENT WOULD NOT BE THE SAME. The FW490 would FAIL the EPEAT standards.

In short: The materials content is different, even if the computers have the same constituent part numbers -- THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

So, believe whatever you want to believe. React to each screen you see in your own individual way. But the facts are that Sony does NOT use the same parts content in all of its models on all continents and even within the same country -- even when configured EXACTLY ALIKE WITH PARTS OF THE SAME "NUMBER".

Those are the FACTS which one is forced to deduce from the EPEAT charts at www.epeat.net.

 

That identical part number is used for the FW190's HiColor screen of the same resolution in the U.S. On notebookjournal.de, no number is posted for the comparable European model (cf. http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/datasheet/sony-vaio-vgn-fw11zu-619). I was told by Sony that the MS_0000 screen is a Sony screen, BTW, when I queried its number.

Thank you for your posting. We now know that the same part number can be generically used for dramatically different screens (Eco vs. HiColor) of the same resolution. I have seen the MS_0000 hardware ID of a 1600x900 HiColor Sony screen with my own eyes....

 

Same monitor ID for me with FW465J from Sony Style

 

Yup. And all of the FW465J model colors, but only the chocolate FW480J (the one sold at Best Buy), are EPEAT-compliant: www.epeat.net.

 

so what monitor IDs on the FullHD are considered "good", "bad", "better" or "worse"?

 

Yes, by about 50:1, but I agree with Phil's earlier posting where he told us that that is not really a perceptible difference. However, the brightness of a FullHD is about 80 cd/m2 less than a HiColor. If you take down the HiColor by about 1 setting on the brightness keys, you have approximately the same screen experience as on a FullHD.

It occurred to me no one had given that suggestion to those who have HiColors. I saw an FW190 with HiColor next to an FW390 with FullHD and that was the difference I saw. Of course, it's always possible that the FW4's FullHD is brighter and may be a different screen from that of the FW390.

P.S. The European FWs presumably all pass the generally stricter mandatory ISO regulations and environmental regulations, to my knowledge. Yet many American FW models do not pass the American voluntary Energy Star and EPEAT standards (cf. http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...goryId=8198552921644540854&XID=F:vaioeco:sony for Sony's own admission). Keep that in mind when "equating" materials content on any Sony FWs.

 

Guys, MS_0000 is not a part number. If you do a search and you'll see it appear in several notebooks of different sizes.

And keep in mind that all Derrida's theories about FWs in Europe having different screens than in US are just speculation. Evidence for such claims is lacking.

90:1 more at full brightness. That IS visible for people who can spot differences in contrast levels. In other words, the HiColor screen has the tendency to wash out at highest brightness.

The FW ECO screens use a single lamp CCFL display which produces common notebook display quality: Contrast of about 150:1 (sometimes less) and brightness of less than 200. Typical values that one can also find in run of the mill Acer, HP or Asus screens.

The FW 1600*900 HiColor and 1920*1080 Full HD screens use a double lamp CCFL display which produces higher brightness, higher contrast, better color accuracy and more saturated colors.

The ECO single lamp display is good enough for most consumers. People who want the highest quality displays are better off with the Hicolor or Full HD double lamp screen.

 

@ Phil - Thanks to clarify a bit. That makes it clearer...

 

More from Phil on the FW's X-Brite HiColor vs. X-Brite FullHD:

Measured at 100 cd/m (normal brightness): 400:1 for the HiColor screen, 454:1 for the Full HD. I don't know if you know Derrida but those differences can not be distinguished with the human eye.

And what the measurements of Notebookjournal actually prove is that it's actually the Full HD screen that deserves the label HiColor. Because the colors at the HiColor screen fade out at higher brightness.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=397678&page=3

Thus, the 80 cd/m2 lesser brightness of the X-Brite FullHD (compared to the X-Brite HiColor) at maximum would be visible to the eye. Lowering the brightness of the HiColor a notch makes it comparable both in brightness and perceptible contrast to the FullHD at full brightness.

http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/inspection/sony-vaio-vgn-fw11zu-619 (for the HiColor screen in X-Brite)

http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/inspection/notebook-review-sony-vaio-fw31zj-860 (for the FullHD screen in X-Brite)

http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/inspection/sony-vaio-vgn-fw41-e-h-933 (for the Eco screen on the FW4 in X-Brite)

According to the above Notebookjournal.de test results, here are average brightness values of X-Brite screens in cd/m2:
Eco: 181
FullHD: 274
HiColor: 357.50

(P.S. There are reports of dual-lamps on non-HiColor screens in the industry.)

 

We don't know how the contrast is at 200 cd/m. But let's say comparable. I'm fine with that.

 

Good to hear. That's why I used the term "perceptible contrast" rather than absolute contrast, taking my cue from your statements about the levels at which the eye is usually no longer easily able to perceive differences.

Thanks....

 

We don't know what the contrast levels are on 200cd/m. So we can only guess if it's perceptible or not.

 

can i upgrade from eco to hicolor?