Z 1080p vs 900p - once more, with feeling (and DATA!)

I have moved this post from a thread in which it was buried as it was not the lead topic. I have done more research and eye-ball comparisons of these two screens than any sane person but having found some hard data on the two Z screens as well as comparisons to other high end laptop LCDs and thus share it here in the interest of increasing knowledge base:

I have always been interested in this question, and more broadly about comparisons between the Sony Z panels and some of the best laptop displays, both TN and IPS. I did some digging and found a "treasure trove" of information about the two Z screens and the "colour hall of fame" of laptop screens. Pardon the nerdy-ness of it all, but I really got a charge out of finding the answers to these often debated by seldom documented questions. Hope you find it "illuminating" as well - ugh/pun.

I have never seen the colour coverage of the 900p expressed as a % of the Adobe RGB but notebookcheck.net has tested several versions of each screen (3 Z1 reviews, 1 Z2 review, partially pasted below.) The 900p exceeds the sRGB space but falls below both the Adobe and the Z's 1080p, as represented by colour gamut representations below. This source (excellent explanation of color gamut) says sRGB occupies about 70% of the Adobe 1998 RGB, but states that this greatly exaggerates the differences in color representation of the two scales, which they (bottom section of article) are nearly identical except for a portion of the greens and cyans (turquoise) in which Adobe exceeds "s" by a significant margin (personally, I've always been more charged up by reds and blues )

[Hats off to Notebookcheck.net (as always) and my new discovery, Cambridgeincolour.com; together they provided me with a wealth of understanding of the meaning and measurement of color space and of the differences in the two equally superb - but in surprisingly different aspects - TN panels used for Sony Z1 and Z2 displays.]

Note that although the 1080p "beats" the 900p in color space representation, it's doubtful that the difference is detectable by the human eye. What is rather startling to learn about the Z's 900p screen (I started a thread about this once and didn't generate much interest :/) is the high brightness, exceedingly low black level and thus contrast unparalleled in any TN screen I've seen measured and better than quite a few IPS panels. (By comparison, the 1080p screen in this Z13 review had average brightness of 236 c/m2 (vs. 285, 900p) and contrast of 649:1, an excellent spec, but not in the same league as that of the 900p. (Note: in the four tests of Z screens there was a +/- 15% variation in these measured specs - same screen, different review.)

"Our measurements confirm the expected good results: Maximum 307 candela per square meter, 285 cd/m² on average. We measured the black level in the central area of the display with the maximum brightness: 0.26 cd/m² - exceptional. With this the HD+ display can score points with an exceptionally good maximum contrast ratio of 1146:1. No less impressive is the representable color space. sRGB is more than covered, only when filling the large AdobeRGB color space do shortcomings begin to emerge. The color space is no longer completely covered, and also when compared to the elite display Sony Vaio VPC-Z13 with a Full HD display, the VPC-Z21 with HD+ falls behind. A comparison to the alternative Full HD display panel would also be interesting in this case."
<dl class='csc-textpic-image csc-textpic-firstcol' style='width:127px;'><dt> </dt><dd class='csc-textpic-caption'>Z21 vs. sRGB
</dd></dl><dl class='csc-textpic-image' style='width:126px;'><dt> </dt><dd class='csc-textpic-caption'>Z21 vs. AdobeRGB
</dd></dl><dl class='csc-textpic-image csc-textpic-lastcol' style='width:127px;'><dt> </dt><dd class='csc-textpic-caption'>Z21 vs. Z13FHD</dd></dl>

And the hits just keep on coming!! Did some further digging and found more "gold" inside that same Z13 review, in which several great laptop LCDs you have heard of/used are compared to each other and the Z FHD with regard to colour representation. (Pardon my lack of facility to get these graphics to go across the page instead of just vertically. But hey, this space is free, right? ):

"The extensive color space of the Z13 trumps the much-cited MacBook Pro 13 1020-04 display as well as the Radiance Infinity Display of the HP Envy 14-1010eg. The Z13 only has a tough time of it against the enormous color space of the HP pro-workstation EliteBook 8740w (DreamColor).
<dl class='csc-textpic-image csc-textpic-firstcol' style='width:127px;'><dt> </dt><dd class='csc-textpic-caption'>ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs sRGB (t)
</dd></dl><dl class='csc-textpic-image' style='width:126px;'><dt> </dt><dd class='csc-textpic-caption'>ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs AdobeRGB (t)
</dd></dl><dl class='csc-textpic-image csc-textpic-lastcol' style='width:127px;'><dt> </dt><dd class='csc-textpic-caption'>ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs WideGamut (t)
</dd></dl>
<dl class='csc-textpic-image csc-textpic-firstcol' style='width:127px;'><dt> </dt><dd class='csc-textpic-caption'>ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs MBPro13 2010-04 (t)
</dd></dl><dl class='csc-textpic-image' style='width:126px;'><dt> </dt><dd class='csc-textpic-caption'>ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs HP Envy 14-1010eg Radiance Infinity (t)
</dd></dl><dl class='csc-textpic-image csc-textpic-lastcol' style='width:127px;'><dt> </dt><dd class='csc-textpic-caption'>ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs HP EliteB. 8740w Dreamcolor (t)</dd></dl>So, have I settled any bets? Shown you that your perceptions of the differences between the two Z screens (1080p: better colours, resolution, of course. 900p: brighter, phenomenal contrast) were correct? Anyone surprised by these findings? Anyway, thanks for indulging me; I just love this stuff!

 

Not surprised one bit. The 1080p screen has easily noticeable better colors over the 900p screen. The resolution is obviously better, but if you work long hours on the computer and have not used or seen the 1080p screen, the 900p is awesome.

 

I'm surprised you sound in awe of the 1080p screen when you have a maxxed out Z2 but apparently chose the 900p screen yourself. I would say the opposite: if you have not used or seen the 900p screen, the 1080p is awesome! If you click here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm you'll see that there is almost no visible difference between the sRGB and AdobeRGB except for a small bit of green and cyan, nothing else. Having spent cumulatively a couple of hours with the two side by side (yes, I need to get a life!) I can assure you there is no noticeable difference in color. The only noticeable difference in the resolution is when there is a curved image in 1080p and the FHD screen will show it as a perfectly smooth curve and the 900p will have very tiny ridges where it makes the curve - you can't even see those from 4 ft away. But the comparatively much higher brightness, lower black level and ultra-ultra high contrast of the 900p makes it far superior in my experience, particularly on a 13" screen, where the higher resolution is often a disadvantage.

Other than fitting some additional (very tiny) text on a window, I really don't believe there is a tangible benefit to the 1080p screen while there are several to the 900p screen. (if the screen was 15" or more, I would always take the 1080p over 900p.) Believe me, I've owned numerous Zs with FHD screens but returned/traded/sold each one because they always appear dull and dingy by comparison - though still awesome in their own right, and if I was buying for resale, I would definitely always choose the FHD because there is a universal assumption that it is categorically better. Funny thing about the reviews of both screens: I'm quite certain the reviewers don't know of the registry hack that increases the brightness by some 30%, so I imagine all the reported brightness measures are commensurately low; these screens rock even more than the reviews indicate!

 

bumping this because I expected a lot of dissenting opinions...is this just an old beaten horse?

 

Yellows and Blues are not even close under my comparison of the two screens. Its imediately noticeable when looking at the blue headers on this page (Look at the blue on "Private Message") and the yellow of the windows folders.

Its not horribe, just not as evenly accurate as the 1080p screen. I too need to get a life, and just swapped my laptop for a 900p screen and a huge savings from Sony on cost. However, I am in the process of buying a 1080p screen from a member because I want to go back. I thought having the 900p screen would be better for games at native resolution, but I feel like the advantages of the 1080p screen for me was ignorantly overshadowed by my gaming addiction.

And the $700 back in my pocket from Sony.

 

It's a bit of an old beaten horse since the last thread, but it doesn't hurt (us) beating it a bit more.

I, too, have spent some time with a 900p Z2, comparing it to my 1080p - and I have to say I wouldn't swap it for anything in the world.

I adjusted to the high pixel density very quickly (in a matter of hours, really). It's all about the viewing distance. If you like to poke at your laptop keyboard with stretched out arms, the 1080p is not for you. If you can set yourself up just a bit closer while still being perfectly comfortable - full immerson ahead! And whenever I feel like leaning all the way back for a bit of light web browsing while traveling by train, I can magnify everything in my browser at the push of a button. At work, however, I tremendously enjoy having two A4 documents open next to each other and diving deep into Excel. So much space to work with!

Also, despite my fears that my eyes would tire more quickly, the opposite is the case, thanks to the still very high contrast and crisp sharpness of everything. And did I mention photo editing? Boy is that ever fun with the 1080p screen.

Plus, I'm owning the only 13" laptop on the market with a 1080p screen. Feels good to be "special".

TLDR; resolution is trump for photo / video / word / excel / browsing / almost everything. Contrast is still great on the 1080p.

 

Not that I doubt your conviction to all of your other points, but I maintain that a large plurality or majority get the FHD for that reason. Let's face it, who but me and Maven even went to the trouble to do A/B comparisons with both screens side by side?

@maven: as to your color perceptions on the two screens, did you adjust both with the video card's control panel so you had apples-to-apples comparisons? And who do you believe, the science in this article ( http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...obeRGB1998.htm) or your lyin eyes? Or do you have a thing for the color cyan?

I do not mean to dis the FHD screen, it is indeed a unique piece of work at the size (makes you wonder why no one else puts one in their ultraportables) and yes, even 600:1 contrast ratios are in the upper 10% of laptop screens. I just liked the 900p (1146:1 contrast, IPS tablet territory!) better - twice. I wish I was able to get $700 off mine; I wouldn't even need to give $400 back to change the screen!

 

If I may give my 2c on this:

I'm colorblind, so the colors are the last of my worries. Just talking size here:

I'm young, and have good eyes. Even 1m away from the screen at 100%DPI, I can read everything. If you are like that, get the 1080p. If not, don't. Just talking about space here, with that kind of a screen you get a lot of real estate to display anything you need, and that is what makes my Z a true mobile workstation...

Never had a problem where I was sitting in front of my screen thinking "Wow this is really not bright enough"...Then again depends on your uses I guess.

Always good to get the hard data though...
Cheers.

 

I think the contrast story should be taken with a grain of salt, as it's the difference between deepest black and brightest white. Even from those reviews, the blacks are both super low and very prone to measuring error (0.26 cdm2 for 900p and 0.37 cdm2 for 1080p). If any measuring goes wrong there, lets say it should be 0.31 and not 0.37 or 0.31 and not 0.26 (so a bit lower for 1080p but maybe higher for 900p) because of some slight inaccuracy in the measuring device the resulting contrast ratio is screwed over. Measuring brightness is much easier to do, and the 300 and 250 cdm2 are more or less true. The 900p is brighter, visible to the eye. But if you take those and devide by the lowest blacks of 0.26 or 0.37 the resulting contrast ratio differs hugely. And I doubt anybody can see any difference in black values with both screens side by side.

I think it is fair to say that they offer almost equal quality. The 1080p has slightly better colour reproduction, the 900p is a bit brighter (and in figures, that gives slightly better contrast). The huge benefit of the 1080p is of course the multi tasking capability!

As I have owned a range of Z series (VPC-Z12Z with 1080p, Z21 with 900p but switched to Z21 with 1080p and had the side by side) I can say with confidence that both screens are the best you can get in any portable notebook in the market. This has been true for years with the Z and still holds its ground against the likes of the MBA and Asus UX31 (sure, they have 900p in their own aspect ratio) but colours/viewing angle/anti glare are so much better on any Z screen.

 

Very well put - tho I would take some issue with disregarding contrast. When we say colors "pop," it is contrast which makes that happen and on a semi-matte display the difference is especially noticeable, and all this goes the more so for use with glaring light.

One other point is a bit lost on me: "The huge benefit of the 1080p is of course the multi tasking capability!" Why is it said that you can get more columns of text (or more windows) across the FHD screen than the 1600x900? I experimented and found that I could just as easily fit the same two windows side by side and each had the same amount of text per line regardless of screen resolution (though the lower res needed some zooming out, it was just as clear). Now, if we're talking 1366x768 vs FHD on a 15" screen, I'm sure the difference would be far more apparent. Maybe we're splitting hairs: I say the contrast difference is "huge" yet it may well be modest; others say the multitasking benefit [of the FHD] is "huge," while it too may be rather modest.

Someone said it right: these are both magnificent screens and nothing else in this size comes within a country mile of the quality!

 

As more people post I am increasingly finding this topic to be an exercise in perception vs. reality.

To Maven's points, I quote from Cambridgeincolour.com, which describes the minimal difference in color space between sRGB and Adobe RGB as the eye perceives it (bear in mind, the Z's 900p screen more than covers sRGB and the 1080p falls short of Adobe RGB - see diagrams on OP). To the eye there is no difference in yellows or blues and slightly wider but hardly overwhelmingly increased representation of cyan (which is turquoise) and green.

"Adobe RGB 1998 clearly has a larger gamut than sRGB, but by how much? Although Adobe RGB is often depicted has having richer greens, this can be misleading, and results mainly from the use of the CIE xyz reference space. Consider the following comparison (sRGB in white, Adobe in black)"

CIE xy Exaggerates difference in greens	CIE u'v' Closer to the eye's perceived difference

 

Both diagrams show clear lack of greens in sRGB, especially in the corner where yellowish colors start almost immediately. Yes, the scale is different but proportions are still there.

I must say that brilliant green on the 1080p screen is something to behold.

Keep in mind that different people have different color perception. I know some colorblind people (partially, they cannot even see sRGB gamut fully) and they see no difference in various LCDs. They do immediately notice difference in brightness though.

 

I have a Z590 with a 1600x900 and a Z1 with a 1080p. I noticed the difference in brightness immediately, and I recall pulling out the Z590 to confirm. At first, I was a bit disappointed with the lower brightness of the 1080p, and even though I have always favored higher res, the small size of the 1080p text was a bit jarring. I increased the setting to 110%, which I think is somewhere in between the 1600x900 and the native 1080p.

However, over time I became accustomed to the smaller text, and eventually I went to native 100% on the Z1. I still have Firefox set for a higher default size font, because some websites do come out a bit tiny if you keep it at native. But for the rest of my programs, I'm at 1080p. At this point, I'm honestly not sure which one I would get if I had to make my purchase now. I do still like the brightness of the 1600x900, but I would miss the screen real estate of the 1080p screen. You can really do a lot more side-by-side than on the 1600x900.

 

That doesn't make sense to me. Assuming both are set to 100%: If I have 1920 pixels vs 1600 pixels across, I can display more on the 1920 than on the 1600, period. The 1920 characters will be smaller than the 1600 (it is the same number of pixels after all), and that is in fact the whole point of the 1920 (for many of us). I can set up two spreadsheets side by side. On the 1920 (at 100%) the characters will be smaller and there will be more of those characters displayed.

 

Believe what you want, it's a free country. Nonetheless, after having checked out both screens on multiple occasions on at least two different Z2s for each screen option, I found the FHD easier on the eyes.

 

I do believe what I've read on the subject - do you not? - but I also believe preferences are subjective and there is no better screen; they are different and, as several have said, both superb and unrivaled in their size class.

Both are not set to 100%. Using various means of zooming out - and therefore "shrinking" windows and characters (my favorite is "nosquint" on the 900p screen you can put the same two windows side by side in the two different screens and each will show the same vertical text at the same size. The shrunken text on the 900p will be a bit less crisp than the native 1920 text, but you'd need a magifying glass to see appreciable difference and both are equally legible in any event. The zooming out of the characters not only equalizes the horizontal image, but also elongates the vertical so the 900p doesn't require more scrolling in that mode. I did not know this could be done since everyone said the FHD gives more "real estate," and it does in native resolution, but for the productivity benefits of that real estate the 900p will do just the same. You could get even more real estate from the 1080p by zooming out on it, but I truly believe the characters would be too small to read, even at 125%. (Also, if you're dropping down from 1920 to 1366 on a 13" screen, this would not be plausible.)

 

Absolutely. My point exactly. Sure, I would take the 900p screen over the display in any non-Z2 "ultrabook." But I have a preference for the FHD after using both. You have a preference for the 900p.

Whether a 900p or 1080p screen is "better" for a given user depends on personal preference. And no charts and lines and graphs change that basic fact.

The only conclusion that I draw is that it's just as well that Sony offers both screen options.

 

I'll buy that!
(I did say in the OP that I'm a nerd for data, though )

 

Fair enough.

 

Assuming these panels weren't made by the Sony itself. Why no other laptop manufacturer outsourced to those OEM vendors (Samsung, Sharp, LG etc) instead settling upon the inferior 720P panels. No it cant be just cost. HP envy has such a high price tag and inferior display (with the exception of Radiance+ infinity).

 

Possibly not enough current yield at the factory that produces them and expanding production is profitable only if high demand is expected.

 

I'm not an expert in the subject, although I do appreciate a fine display. I have a VAIO SA, never seen a Z except on picture. Per reading this thread looks like the huge price difference between S and Z owes partly to the screen quality. Has anyone seen an SA (1600X900)? In which ways is it different than the Z's 1600x900?

Also, there's a hacked firmware that enables some advanced options where you can (in the BIOS) switch LCD color resolution between 18 bit and 24 bit. Anyone messed with this setting? It's on 18 bit by default in the SA...

Thanks for any input

 

The best thing to do, if you can, is go to a computer retailer and check out both screens in person. No review, opinion, specifications or anything else can substitute for your own eyes.

 

I won't dissagree, except that no retailer sells the Z in my area (or even the S, which I purchased online)

 

The good news is that Sony gives you a pretty long window to buy, try and return for full refund (21 days, 30 days?). If you can lay out the cash, buy one of each and do all kinds of side by side comparisons in your own home.

As Louche says, no data are review are worth your own eyes' appraisal. Still, the vast majority of those I've read about anecdotally prefer the Z screen overwhelmingly to the SA, even with both 900p variations.

As to the earlier comment about others buying these screens from the same vendors, it's starting to happen in big numbers and what the new iPad has revealed is that Sharp Electronics, not Apple, holds the patent for that display and you can expect a flood of ultra hi res IPS and IPs-like technology screens down from the smarphone size through to 18.5" DTRs and everything in between in the next several quarters. Sony's "monopoly" on small, high res, 100% color gamut, high contrast, excellent viewing angles will soon be a laurel it will rest upon at its peril. Though both the Z1 and Z2 are truly revolutionary ultraportable laptops, competition is fixing to roll over them with laptops selling for 25% - 40% less cash.

But let's hope Sony is preparing something new to take our breath (and our money, lol) away.

 

^What he said. Irrespective of resolution, the Z's screen is better than the SA's. While preference betweeen 900p and 1080p is personal, the superiority of the Z panel is pretty much beyond dispute.

 

I'm fan of Z series.
My previously Z was 900p, now I bought 1080p.
And really I don't understand what I like more.

It seems what 900p better, because:
1. Web site look readable without scaling by Ctrl +
2. I think 900p more white than 1080p which more calm white
3. Small images is more readable

But, 1080p gives you:
1. Possibilities to use with external display with 1080p resolution
2. You can overview full site, but small images look very small

What do you think that resolution more comfortable If Z series is web developer mashine and financial control instrument for me!?

 

I had my Z1 for about 1 1/2 years as a 900 line machine. After the display got damaged I ordered a 1080 panel and installed it. For the last couple of months I have been using it as 1080. So I know both worlds.

Both displays are very good and I can't say that either is absolutely hands down the only choice but I must say I really appreciate the 1080 display and given a choice, my next machine will have this display.

One very cool thing, that I have noticed, is that unlike lesser displays, the pixel size is small enough that it doesn't matter if you run it at the wrong resolution. If you run it as a 900 display (or 768 or whatever) it looks great. On most displays the fonts and lines would get blocky and uneven, but on the 1080 it (surprisingly) just looks fine.

 

I was using 1920x1200 24" desktop before and I thought Z1's FHD screen would be too small for me.....but I already get used to it after using Z1 for a while and I still think Z1's FHD screen is really awesome and I don't think the fonts are too small to read.....after 2 years of using

 

Indeed! ..

 

Yeah the extra resolution is sooo nice. I think the only time I had some problem was when i was super tired and had to squint lol. But I think coming from a vaio X i got used to the small text.

 

Time to start a sub-group of hi-rez screen fans.

 

With 1080p I've problem with windows of some program.

For example Skype (see attach.)

Why window is not clear, but blurred!?

 

just to reply to prev post. my skype 5.1 is NOT blurrry. I have the original dpi settings though maybe yours is different.

 

Is it checked?: Control Panel->Appearance and Personalization->Make text and ...->Set Custom text size (DPI->Use Window XP style DPI scaling

 

As the OP of this thread, I wish to issue a brief update: "The iPad's New Clothes"

My wife got the new iPad (I allowed a special exemption to the family No-Apple-Zone rule because she's a teacher and they're going to use them in classrooms!) with 2048X1536 resolution on a 9.7" IPS screen and...

I STILL LIKE MY Z'S 1600x900 BETTER!

Well, not unequivocally better, but the glossiness and relatively narrow color gamut of the iPad's screen diminishes from the awesome resolution. The Z's 900p screen is also a tad brighter with considerably better contrast (though see comment below re: dark room.) I think there may be diminishing returns to resolution much above 1080p unless the image is created at a resolution = or > that of the screen, so for most content the iPad's strong suits are not showcased and its weaker characteristics (reflections, so-so colors) are apparent. Perhaps in a dark room with a video showing caucasian people wearing uncolorful clothing...

One thing that really surprises me is that small text (apprx. 8 pt) is less crisp on the iPad than on my 900p screen, using my eyes to create approximately equally sized text. It just blurs more, doesn't display nice crisp curves the way I was expecting. When text is "native" it looks superb on the iPad but unfortunately for Apple, it does not pre-process text or graphics content except within its proprietary applications, so you really have to live entirely within the Apple "walled garden" to enjoy the benefits of its hardware.

Color me non-plussed! (Though, wow, is it ever fast loading web pages! Why is that?)

 

Ok Lovelaptops..

or should that be LoveVaioZ13 series

Stop comparing what I think is the perfect notebook to other platforms such as the Z2 and any Apple products. Its getting me down lol. I'm waiting for SSD prices to come down so I can replace my DVD with an SSD (512 Mb) and have the perfect notebook.

But then again.. 1080p screen update.. hmmm so tempting.. argghhhh STOP IT!

 

Hahahaha! LMAO

Just be very gentle with those hinges and look for bargains on the extended batteries and you'll be future-proofed for at least another year or two, lol.

All kidding aside, if you really covet the 1080p, keep checking NBR Marketplace and eBay. The last time I, er, rejected the 1080p screen I found a nearly mint condition Z12 for $950 that I planned to "transplant" the screen into my Z12. Instead I sold it for a $250 profit.