Z690 1600x900 screen

Hi, do you guys/girls have any backlight leakage in you Z690 screen?
If I set the (1600x900) screen black on my 2 days old Z (this can be done with the "blank" screen saver under Vista) the upper and bottom parts of the screen are brighter than the central part. I knew that *some* leakage was unavoidable with TFT panels but I don't about LED panels so I can't realize if it is normal or a defect.
I've only tested this on a vaio in a sonystyle store and it seems to be totally black but I can't be sure because there was a lot of ambient light in there.
Unfortunately I can post pics of the screen now because I'm at work but I'll do it tomorrow.
It would be great if you could post some photo of your screen under the "blank" screen saver.

Thanks

 

From what I've seen, it's a common problem in all the Z series models...

 

I have to agree. From all the Vaio Zs that I've seen, almost all of them seem to have this "problem." Maybe I should say that this is the characteristics of the screen that is being used.

The top/bottom light effect cannot "really be seen" on low brightness but it is very obvious at high brightness.

 

Thanks for your replies guys.
I finally managed to get some pics of the screen. The first is with the screen all black (blank screen saver) taken with 1s shutter speed; so it is brighter than from real but it makes more evident the phenomenon. The lower right part is a bit brighter.
The second, white.jpg, is taken with a white screen at 1/80 sec (otherwise the image would have been all white). I can see on the right part of the screen two darker vertical areas.
Honestly during normal use you barely perceive these "defects". Especially if there are colors on the screen (and btw the chromatic return of the display is amazing).
What do you think?

 

What exactly are we looking at? Just to be clear. Can you circle the aforementioned defects

 

Mine is like this as well...

 

Hi, sorry for the delay.
Mark, I uploaded the images with the circles.
I understand that lcd screens can't be perfect so I asked for a comparison. Now it seems that the brigther upper and bottom horizontal lines are normal.

The only thing that annoy me a bit are the two vertical darker areas on the right that show on white background (I have a really sensitive eyes). Italian, did you mean that yours has these too?

Mauro

 

I don't quite see what you're trying to point out between those huge brackets. Those are just viewing angles no?

edit added in some pics, not sure if they have what you're looking at.

 

I want to point out the two darker vertical bars coming up from the lower right part of the screen.
I add a darker pic so they are more clear, inside the blue rectangle.
I want to understand if it's a screen problem or not because I'll bring this laptop outside US and doing so I will lose the warranty (I will not come back). So i'm trying to minimize the chances that an unrecognized defect now could become, after some time, a real problem when I will have no warranty.
I hope to have been clear (sorry but my English is far from good yet).

Thanks

 

Honestly I don't see anything.. but I'll add some more pics. Do I have what you are experiencing? It should give you your answer.

 

Did you take these pics with a black or white background? If black may you please post the same with a white one?

Thanks

 

give me a moment, my digital camera eats up battery charges fast.

 

Hehehe sure .
When you have time, I'm not in a hurry.

 

White background used was Dead Pixel Buddy. I took them as fast as I could before my camera died on me again.

 

I had the same problem (but very very faint) with my Z35X (Z690), plus the weird diagonal pattern lines on the screen when watching videos or moving windows.

I'm also very picky with screens, and the 1600x900 resolution with 100% gamut was the reason why I bought the Z.
But I ended returning it.
Because while on paper it seems great, when you actually see it, it's a total turn-down. The 1600x900 resolution is awesome, but the light leakage/uneven backlight + purple tint + bad viewing angles + terrible black levels + diagonal pattern makes this screen awful, specially for people who do graphic design.

It's very sad too see Sony, who introduced LED backlight on notebooks, not being able to do it right. Their CCFL screens are the best, but when it comes to LED, they are awful. From what I've seen, only Apple seems to do LED in the right way in the MB Pro line.
If you wish to stay on Sony, I think the SR LED screen is better overall despite being "lo-res", but beware because it also suffers from the diagonal pattern problem.

In my case, I just wanted a powerful 13" laptop with a nice higher-than-1280-res screen. Only the Z fitted... until I saw the screen personally. Now I'm waiting for any brand to do something similar.

 

Whoops, here's another one.

 

Maybe you got a bad unit. I don't see any of that.

 

Nope, I've seen that in all 1600x900 Zs. I haven't seen a 1366 unit yet.

For example, even in the promotional Berlin video from Sony (see attached file), you can see while the Z has a higher gamut (100%, vs 60-72% in SZ&SR), the black levels ,color tint and light leakage are awful.

 

Although I have a 1366, it seems odd that a 1600 would be any different. I've compared my laptop to others and the colors look much more vibrant and gorgeous.

 

I can't imagine that. Well, prices of all laptops eventually go down. I don't think there's a correlation with manufacture quality/material and price cuts.

 

That's nonsense. You're making a conspiracy theory here. Prices for all technology will always go down when newer products release, it does not imply cheaper materials. A 50$ video card is not any different than when it was $500 when it released. You have to demonstrate that there is such a difference. In fact, most of the time, the quality goes up because bugs are often fixed over time.

As for the colors, a 1366 looks almost exactly the same as a 1600 side by side. I didn't notice any vertical lines on the 1600, but I did not scrutinize it as much, I only compared both side by side in the stores.

 

The problem is you can't buy a higher end screen, even if you choose (in Europe) the most expensive customizable version.
It would be nice if Sony offered a RGBLED version. Or even a slightly thicker version with a better quality panel, which btw could also make the lid a little less flexible.

On the conspiracy theory... maybe. The screen on my 5.5-year-old VAIO TR is still the best I've ever seen

 

Thanks all for the replies, in particular to mark for the photos.
Well, it seems that your screen doesn't have any darker stripes.
About the defects listed by Endeavour I agree about the viewing angles that, even if not superb, are totally acceptable for me. For what concern the "diagonal pattern" I really don't know what it is about. I tried to play some movies on the screen and I can't see any strange diagonal pattern. In fact they looked awsome and I find the color return of the screen (movies and picture) to be really good (but I'm not a graphic professionist, I will mainly use it to code, so black chars on clear background).
I don't know if return it (and maybe retry ordering). After all everything else seems to work perfectly apart the wifi connection but I verified that it's a router issue.
I'm afraid that the bars could get worse with time and within some months I'll have no warranty anymore.
I'll think on it.

Edited: I read the new post of mark while writing this one. The fact that you have a 1366x768 screen makes it less comparable with mine (because it seems that lower resolution screen are better). It would be intresting to see some pics from other people with thx 1600x900.

 

I hate my sharp vision, I could see the diagonal lines all the time in the Z

 

Heh yeah. The only variable you have to ignore to make that work is all the newer screens with better qualities than older ones. And you also have to ignore the possibilities of defects, differentiation in actual identical hardware and product wear. Confirmation bias ftw.

So apparently my 1366 is different than a 1600. To you, if someone with a 1600 could post identical pictures (and a non-crappy camera eating battery like the one I have) then you can make a more accurate comparison.

 

Your claims don't sound controversial, they sound like hogwash, something that you just made up on the spot with a quick glance at two different products while ignoring any and all variables. Also ignoring all the newer units that look better than the older ones.

I'm just taking this with a grain of salt really, the only reason I'm responding is you posted the same thing 3++ times. You have all the internet to demonstrate this, no need to spend any money. If what you say is true, it should be very well documented.

Oh, and you're also ignoring the fact that most of the price cuts apply to inventory that is already made.

 

A few months ago, I compared my three notebooks side by side:
-TR (2003)
-SZ (2005-2006)
-FW (2009)
...and the Z (2009) I returned.

My (obviously subjective in some values) results were:

- Color gamut. Z >> FW = TR >> SZ
- Brightness. FW = Z >> TR > SZ
- Light leakage. TR >>> SZ > FW >> Z
- Black levels. TR >>> SZ > FW > Z
- Color Tint. TR = FW >>>> SZ (very yellow on light colors) = Z (very purple on dark colors)

 

I just have to respond to this because it's cute. Those manufacturers would actually love your type because you're the one claiming the only products "with quality" are the ones sold at the highest possible profit margins, and as soon as they cut the prices, all the inventory magically deteriorate in quality.

Me: Wait for price cuts then buy.
Manufacturers: Booo!

You: Buy when prices are high, when prices are low you're getting an inferior product. So if you want high quality products, buy the newest products on the market.
Manufacturers: $$$$!!

That's a fundamental perversion of supply and demand.

 

Yes that is highly subjective. But regardless, those are also different products. We're talking about the differences in the same product lines.

 

You said as prices get cut, quality of the item deliberately goes down too to compensate. Therefore, when prices aren't high, quality is -- as you have stated yourself -- "worse." All your posts said the same thing, and that's not how economics works. Here's a direct quote from you:

"Although I don't know how Sony does its business, I get this feeling from experiencing both the screens that it seems like it isn't really a coincidence that the Vaio Z (with higher res screens) prices are getting lower but on the other hand, the quality of those screens are getting "worse." "

Saying that companies are making temporal quality machines is a completely different statement (which incidentally I don't believe is true either. You make bad products, you lose brand loyalty. All because of competition. It only takes 1 company to make a lasting, great product for your company to sustain losses if you really do follow the "make products that break soon" route.)

 

I'm sure they did incur a loss at the amount of recalls and unsold laptops due to this "fiasco." Business are only interested in long term profits, not short term profits.

But this is irrelevant because that wasn't your initial statement and is actually the opposite of you originally argued for, which was that there was an inconsistency in the quality throughout time of a product line, what you're stating now is that there is a consistency (and that it's always poor.)

Here's what you were arguing for

This is completely untrue. The whole reason they lower prices is to sell more products. As prices go down, demand goes up and they sell more units, making more money, thus in a perfectly competitive environment in the long run, profits should be normal. Of course, many factors should influence the market such as price and demand elasticity. In addition, just because initial prices are high to reflect demand doesn't mean there is any change in costs. Nor does a severe loss in units predict a loss in profits, if anything they could run even.

 

I guess I am totally wrong all along then.

I guess I've to agree that in this world every company are ethical & they'll always create better and better products while reducing the prices along the way. The same goes to Nvidia too, all this GPU fiasco are just stories made up by stupid people like me. All the stories about defective 8000 series GPUs are all BSs. It is the users who broke them recklessly & not the fault of the company. Please ignore all my previous comments everyone. I guess idiots like me just cannot come up with the correct opinions/views.

I apologize to everyone & every companies if I offend anyone.

 

Yes businesses are forced to do this in this competitive market. It's not a matter of ethics, it's all in their self-interest of garnering the biggest cut of market shares. To do this, you need the best products at the cheapest prices.

non-sequitur? The GPU "fiasco" is real, but it wasn't deliberate. Nor does it have anything to do with later, identical products using cheaper materials than their earlier counterparts.

Anyway, enough with the derailing. You didn't have to delete all your posts though lol. I was having a friendly conversation with you. Free bump for the OP anyway.

 

Come to think of it, I definitely have a right to speak my mind but what I have said are still controversial. I deleted all my previous posts to try to reduce the chances of lawsuits against me. Who knows, if my dad's old boss read about me spilling some beans about his business practices (although I did not name his company), I'm sure he'll definitely be suing me. Man, I cannot afford to fight against anyone in court. It is better for me to admit that all the way I'm the ONE WHO IS WRONG about the whole thing than have them coming up my neck!

Once again, to everyone & every company:
I'm the stupid idiot, who is wrong & please ignore all my previous postings in this thread.

 

Yes you do have a right to speak your mind lol. Who else is denying that?

Are you kidding about the rest though? You're an anonymous poster on some forum. There are probably billions of dads with jobs like yours. Just make a good argument for what you're saying. You're taking this too seriously though.

By the way, I have to point out that we can't compare apples with oranges. If your dad's firm has a monopoly in his respective market, then the lack of competition is enough for him to do what he wants (relatively speaking almost inelastic). However, with big companies who do have monopolies, the government often has to intervene with regulations. For small businesses though, which I'm assuming your dad is apart of, often it does not escalate to this.

Fortunately, Sony or any other laptop manufacturer do NOT have monopolies, and it is a highly.. highly competitive market with many industries.

I should also point out that you mentioned your dad was in Asia. Is that the communistic parts of Asia with a command economy? Or is it a free market? If it isn't the same market economy, we can't compare his with those in America.

 

Back on topic... Anyone with a 1600x900 who wants to comment?
For what concern the purple shifting... yes it is present. Basically the effect that you get with images/movies is:

1) blues are "reddish", I think that the technical term is that they are "warmer" than normal;
2) if there is purple in the scene, it will dominate; I don't know how to describe it well, it's like if the screen "exalts" purple colors above others.

Obviously this is what *I* see and maybe it's only the case of my unit but I would like to hear from other people with the 1600x900 screen.

 

I don't see anything wrong with my Vaio Z590. It doesn't have that leakage as shown in the pictures.

 

When did you buy your Z590? What manufactured month did it say on the sticker on the bottom of your notebook?

 

It was bought online from SonyStyle.com in the US. It was manufactured in October.

 

Nero, what about the "purple shifting"?

 

Hm, my returned Z35X (Z690) made in Japan in Mar 09 suffered all the problems described in this thread

 

I finally decided to return the Z. Unfortunately I can't get used to the different white brightness I experience everytime the screen is white.
I read on the return page on sonystyle.com that the refund can take up to 90 days after the delivery of the unit to sony. Any experience on the refund time (in the US)?

 

I do not have that problem. Everything looks the way it should be.

 

Got my refund from Sony Style in 1 day after they got the notebook back.

 

Hi
There a problem with a screen.I got a same problem call Sony they sent a techniction ( from qualX service )came to my house replaced the screen,the prolem gone.Hope it help