Truth or myth?

Do Sony Vaio's have all around better screens that their competition? Or is it just a myth that came frome Sony's TV division?

And if they are better, how would you rate them in terms of quality (from best series to worst)? I'm currently searching for a preferably ultraportable with a good screen. Not a mainstream one, but a "good" one. I'm waiting for the Y series (and E) to show up in my local Sony store, to see if it has a better screen.

 

I certainly have seen better on other manufacturers, but you often have to pay large sums of cash for those. An example would be the RGB-LED LCD panels used by Dell in the precision line. They are AWESOME displays, but will cost you dearly. The Sony's for the price are very good. But if you are looking at a model with the RGB-LED and don't mind shelling out a little more money, I'd say go for it. You won't be disappointed.

 

Bought the X for my wife. Cost $1500. Bought an Asus 12.1 inch at the same time for $329. We both agreed that the Asus screen was just as good or better. The X went back. And I'm a Sony fan.

 

I just want an above average LCD display. Recently I bought an ASUS UL30Vt, but I was very disappointed with it's display (mainly because of the very poor horizontal viewing angles) so I gave it back. Now Im looking at the Sony Vaio Y11, and my main concern is the display quality (becase I want to do some graphics work on it). In the laptopmag.com review they said:

"The VAIO Y boasts a gorgeous 13.3-inch LED-backlit display that offers vivid colors and excellent contrast levels. When we streamed an episode of 24 on Hulu at full screen, horizontal viewing angles were generous, and we noticed a high level of detail even in standard definition mode."

From experience I know that people tend to over exaggerate the display quality, or don't care about it. So I'm skeptic about this review...
Does anyone know, what type of display does the Y11 series have? On other forum I saw people refer to a monitorID info from Everest's software.

 

Check the new S series owner thread in the owners' lounge forum. There was a rather long discussion about the display (they assume that the S and the Y have the same display).

 

I find it hype, I have been finding as good or better screens on ASUS, Acer, DELL and Lenovo units.

 

There are those who will defend the screen quality of the CW, S, and Y series and say it's the best screen they've ever used, much better than A notebook or B notebook, etc., or say, " well, it looks as good as you can expect from an LED screen and has good colors, but some of us are too pickey or we must bounce on pogo sticks or jump on trampolines when we use our notebooks...blah blah blah, " and that's why we think the vertical angles are extremely poor. As a long time Sony VAIO owner of various models, including my old VAIO V505 I bought in 2003, I have noticed the quality of a VAIO screen decrease in regards to viewing angles and a lack of clarity. There are VAIO models like the AW, Z, SR, FW, F, and a few others in which the screens are fantastic looking. Is it a quality control issue, is it a cost cutting measure, is it a design characteristic ? So many variables but the bottom line is there's variances are across ALL notebook lines. There are good and bad but I'd pick a VAIO with an average screen because the overall package to me is more desireable than a non-VAIO with a better screen but a less than desireable package. Unfortunately, some of Sony's latest offerings...the first 3 models I mentioned at the top, have poor screens, are below average and therefore I wouldn't recommend them to my friends.

 

Yes but only with certain models with premium screens. My FW190 HiColor screen is better than any other laptops I have ever seen. At least the one I have seen at various brick and mortar stores. I think the FW, F and AW with Full HD screens are very good. The Z model with Duraview Screen is also very good. Some of the models I mentioned offer different lower quality screens so watch out. I don't know about Y and E but my feeling tells me that they don't come with premium screens and hence the display quality is average.

 

The biggest thing about the screen is that it is a bit subjective.

I personally enjoy the screen on my CW. I would recommend it to my friends. If I had friends that were hardcore about having extraordinary screens, I would also ask them to check it out. No harm there.

Overall, it depends on what you will use it for and whether the benefits outweigh the costs, plus the hassle of testing and comparing units.

 

From my experience, I think screen quality doesn't solely depends on which manufacturers but also of which model line in the manufacturer position. Flagship Vaio will use better screen than the entry-level Vaio for obvious reason, cost. (Although it is also possible that the flagship laptop from particular manufacturer use a subpar screen if the company is greedy it is all about how big is the profit these days).

 

I think this is correct.
Typically for the money, Sony's come with a better screen than the competition, but not always. It just depends on the market that model was aimed at.

A mainstream model will have a more mainstream screen, an exotic will possibly have a higher end screen.

 

That depends on what you look for in a screen. I've had my 1600x900 Z with DuraView coating for a year, with mixed feelings.
It has high contrast, is responsive, and is very vivid, but at the same time it's only a 6-bit display, which means it has to dither colours to get 16.2 million colours, and never gets 16.7 million like true 8-bit displays. Does it matter? Yeah, for some colours it can't display natively, the dithering pattern is quite visible. In addition, the vividness means it oversaturates colours, which makes it less than ideal for e.g. Photoshop work. And finally, it is a glossy screen with an antiglare coating, and not a matte one like fanbois claim. This means you will see reflections of any lamps behind you, and even your own blurry face when the screen turns really dark and the room isn't.
So how good it is depends on what your expectations are, and what you're going to use it for.
I give it 5 out of 10 points. YMMV.

 

The X is all about stamina and portability. Anyone expecting a multimedia experience didn't do their research properly beforehand.

 

Is the base Z res1366 x 768 also a duraview coating? Because, I have read that my Vaio TT has the same screen, and I can't really say it is glossy. I would have to say the term hybrid matte and glossy that is being thrown around to be a pretty accurate statement.

 

How were you able to determine that the panel you have is 6bits? I'm interested in finding out whether the panel in the new 1600x900 Vaio Z is 6bits or 8bits.

 

I read the new Z has a 8bit screen. And it's a full HD (1920x1080) matt-coating-over-glossy screen to top everything off. I'm pretty sure the 1600x900 is 8bit as well, but can't confirm.

If this is true, I'd be keen on replacing the new Z's 1080 screen with my old 2nd gen Z... I'm expecting the dimensions and connectors will be the same so fingers crossed~

 

If you're not used to spotting the difference, this page might help. If the gradients aren't smooth, but it looks like the progression between different shades go in irregular "jumps", it's a 6-bit display. Also, on a 6-bit display, most of the colours anywhere near black will appear black. It's at the darker end it loses most of the missing half million colours.

Or look at this grey square. On the old Z, the dithering is quite visible (unless your display has been seriously miscalibrated, and it appears as black). Whether it gets dithered on other 6-bit displays or not depends on the displays -- they may produce this one perfectly, and dither other colours instead.

 

My TT seems to produce that grey square with oth dithering it seems like, and I thought the TT and Z had pretty much the same screen, with the TT being smaller at 11in.

 

As said in other words above, the grey square test is only for a positive, and not a negative.
If it does dither, you do have a 6-bit screen.
If it doesn't dither, you may or may not have a 6-bit screen.

That said, the TT and Z's screens do differ, quite a bit. One of the differences is that the TT has 8-bit colour.

Turn off JavaScript temporarily, and see what Sony says.

 

Really the TT has an 8-bit screen? When I compared them both side by side in store they looked pretty similar on a full color gradient scale test. Not to mention when I did a search here most of the reviews said the TT and the Z were pretty similar minus the size difference. I guess I am not that good at discerning 8-bit vs 6-bit screens. Kind of odd to see the smaller less powerful TT to have a 8-bit screen while the Z with the nvidia gpu has a lower 6-bit screen. No?

 

I have the new CW with i5 and I'm not impressed at all by its screen... I don't really mind since it's meant for audio performances anyway... but meh.

 

Yea, the CW while bright, is a 6-bit screen. I've found it helps alot to turn up the digital vibrance in the nvidia control panel.

 

My old IBM T42 has IPS screen, which is better than screen on my current SZ4 MRN.
It's brighter, white looks white, on my SZ white is a bit yellowish. Also, it's matte, not mirrored like Sony's screen, and is much easier to clean. SZ's screen is pretty hard to clean and it gets dirty faster.