US Z1290X Full HD panel quality

Hi,

On the US sonystyle website, the quality of the Z1290X FHD panel was never spelled out specifically. The only thing I could found on the spec sheet was mentioning of the 100% color saturation, and the 'premium display' term used. However, for the Japanese models, 1080p panels are specifically branded as Adobe RGB 96%. And from the Japanese website, the 1,600 * 900 screen does not have this Adobe RGB 96% specification: indicating that the quality of the two panels are different.

Does anyone know if the same 'quality' differentiation exists between the 1080p panel and the 1,600 * 900 panel in the US? And is the 1080p panel in the states of the same quality as found in the Japanese model?

The price difference as seen on the sonystyle jp website is 4,000 yen, which is on par with the price difference of $100 in the states. And given models from the states are also assembled in Japan, I would speculate them being of the same quality, but could not yet found a definitive answer anywhere.

Thanks,

 

Yes. There is no difference in panel quality. All VAIO Z with FHD have 96% Adobe RGB coverage.

 

Aside from Adobe RGB %, I would urge you to take a look before purchase if possible, as FHD seems to me as an overkill for such a small footprint - 13.1". I have Z590 with 1600x900 and things are pretty small here, had some initial problems adjusting my eyes to it, heck, I even considered (at time given) to return it and opt for lower 1366x768 screen. For some graphic design I can understand the need, but for regular daily use, I fail to see any true value of FHD, except maybe for showing-off.

Don't forget, most manufacturers still use 1366x768 for 13" size, without any desire moving to the "next level".


Cheers,
Miki

 

Full HD movies look great on the FHD screen.

 

"Most analysts say that the difference between 720p and 1080p in movies isn't noticeable on anything under 40" and it gets more noticeable as the size goes up."

And I'm rocking the FHD screen.

But I don't do it for movies (which, to make, make no real difference between my FHD Z12 and my roomate's 1600 Z13, with 1080p source of course), I do it for the screen space when working. Fit more Word pages, more concurrently spaced windows, more debug watches when develloping. In the end I use the Aero Snap feature much more, always displaying 2 windows next to each other. And I really don't have perfect eyesight...

Just my 2c. Cheers

 

Who are "most analysts"? Old farts like Walt Mossberg?

The difference between 720p and 1080p is very noticeable even on our old 32" CRT HDTV - BDs that have 720p content upscaled to 1040 are nowhere as sharp as those with "native" 1040p content. It's most noticeable on scrolling titles, or people wearing striped clothes.
Also, BDs with 1440x1080 content scaled up to 1920x1080 are noticeably more blocky than those with "native" 1920x1080. Unfortunately, the latter are becoming scarce, as it means far less room for putting extras on the disc - almost all new movies are 1440x1080.

 

Hum... you idiot.

You are comparing apples and oranges. What I am talking about is:

1080p Movies (true 1080p) on FHD vs 1080p Movies (true 1080p) on 1600 - Barely any difference

I was just trying to help a guy choose a screen: to me, 1080p FHD screen is better not for 1080p movies, for which there is SCIENTIFICALLY no difference, but for the screen real estate.

Read before you talk, especially if it is to say such ignorant bull: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=ca05a7bb65e82229

 

While rude, you are right IMO.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/son...080p-any-regrets-1600x900p-2.html#post6402767

 

higher dpi will be better until approximately 300dpi, where the human eye cannot tell the difference anymore

the z's dpi with FHD is around 150-160? so it's a long way from being too high

the problem people have with small fonts can be fixed with window's built in dpi scaling, the problem is not with high dpi, it's with windows using a very low dpi scaling (96 dpi) as the default

it is important to note that the value of 96 is an arbitrary number that im guessing someone at microsoft chose many years ago because those huge monitors back then were commonly 96dpi
dpi of screens have increased since then, and i guess nobody ever bothered to change the default, or better yet, implemented some way to detect and implement the correct dpi scaling for any screen that windows is being displayed on, whether it is 1dpi or 1000dpi