Philips' Latest 4K Monitor Is Huge At 40 Inches

Status
Not open for further replies.

stan4r

Reputable
Oct 22, 2014
3
0
4,510
0
Been sitting in front of a 32" 1920 by 1080, a couple feet in front of me... I think ~40" is the perfect size for 4k
 

d_kuhn

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2002
704
0
18,990
2
Might actually be the first monitor that I think is 'too big'... though I'll have to try it out for a year or two to make an informed decision. I wonder how well it would work for shooters, if you can tweak the field of view of the game to be wide then you could use the huge size of the display to show peripheral data.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
This is awesome! I sit a little further from my monitor than a traditional setup and have found that a 27" display is a bit too small, and with my current resolution at 1200p the pixel density is far too low (especially now that I have been spoiled with my phone). When I heard about 4K coming out a few years ago I did the math and figured out that with my setup a monitor in the 36-42" range at 4K should be the perfect size and pixel density for my setup. Lo and behold just over 2 years later not only will the perfect display be available, but it will be well under $1,000! It is like they tapped into my dreams and made a monitor just for me!

Now all I need to do is finish school (again), get a job (again), pay a few debts (again), and then I can pick this up! ... I guess it might still be a while. :,(
 

B4vB5

Honorable
Oct 24, 2013
39
0
10,540
1
It's a nice monitor, but since it is not gamer-specced wrt response times and so on, I will that the 50 inch Samsung UE50HU6900 is still the better choice at the same price. You just gotta have a 970/980 to drive the Samsung though(HDMI 2.0 out)
 

none12345

Honorable
Apr 27, 2013
431
2
10,785
0
No thanks. I want a 4k 23" monitor. I dont need a huge screen, i need more pixel density. This is just 4 2k screens stuck together. No better pixel density.

We need 200 dpi @120hz, not this 100 dpi @60hz crap we've been stuck with for more then a decade now. (110 in the case of this monitor).

And yes i know there are 120hz monitors, i have a 144hz one. But i want 200 dpi, not 100.
 

ATL_Tech_Guy

Reputable
Feb 20, 2014
14
0
4,510
0
If we're maxing the screensize for 4K monitors, I think 96dpi is correct for Windows 8 and 10 at 100% zoom right? So that would be 45-50". I think Quad HD is 32" size.
 

qlum

Honorable
Aug 13, 2013
196
0
10,690
1
If it where not for the support of programs on desktops I feel like 23inch would be the perfect size for a 4k display. But since it is not I think for now 30 inch would do.
 

SBMfromLA

Distinguished
I've been using a 27" monitor for the past 2-3 years now and can't imagine using anything smaller. However, I would love to have something that's larger. I tried an experiment a few months ago.... connecting my 32" TV to my computer to see how that would feel and work out. I became instantly attached and loved the extra space but soon came across one very serious problem.. being that it WAS a TV, it wouldn't go into "sleep/stand-by" mode from my computer.. so instead of the TV turning off.. there would be this huge blue box moving around saying, "No Signal". The only ways around that issue was to either set my screen screen saver to blank so the screen would sort of darken, or to simply turn off my screen saver entirely and allow the display to never go off unless I manually turn off the TV from the power button. After a while I decided to to reconnect my original monitor back and not use my TV. I can imagine other people having the same issues with using TV's as PC Monitors that won't sleep.
 

ragenalien

Distinguished
May 6, 2011
232
0
18,710
6
I'm much more interested that this monitor comes with a 60Hz VA panel instead of a TN one like all the other inexpensive 4k monitors. This could be the leap forward that 4k pricing needs.
 

p05esto

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2001
876
0
18,980
0
A bit too big. 27" is a good size, 30" is pushing it... the head shouldn't have to swivel to use it, the mouse needs to move around with both speed and precision, and not require your hands to travel too far. At some point it's too large to be usable. I'm glad the choice is out there and some folks will love this, gamers, video editors perhaps... it really depends. But for me and my work it's a bit too large.
 

Shneiky

Distinguished
Using 2k 27' at work and a 1280x1024 at the side, I am currently drooling over this 4K monitor. I also use Autodesk Maya as a primary software and 1x2K is not enough. Either 2x 2K or 1x4K. Too bad I don't have the cash. To all the people that complain it is not for "gamers" well yeah, high technology does not resonate only around gamers. This is perfect for content creation. 3D packages, Adobe and just imagine how big NUKE scripts you can fit there.
 

Antias

Reputable
Oct 26, 2014
9
2
4,515
0
This has my interest :)
I was looking at the 34" 21:9 monitors as my next upgrade (I watch a lot of movies and play mainly RPG's like Skyrim and lately ESO on a triple 22" monitor setup, so fast frame rates are not really necessary for me)
 

aberkae

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2009
49
0
18,530
0
I would love to know the input lag latency, and is this ancient display port 1.2 or upcoming display port standard 1.3 or 12.a?
 

markdm53

Reputable
Aug 24, 2014
5
0
4,520
1
I have been using a Seiki 39" 4k TV for over a year as a monitor and to be honest, I could never go back to a "regular" monitor again. You get so use to all the real-estate, especially when you can split the screen in windows 8. This is far from the perfect setup but at the time the TV was under $500 and nothing else came close. The refresh rate is only 30 HZ and can only use HDMI. So the idea of a "real" 39" 4K monitor definitely has it's appeal, to me at least.
 
I don't mind big as long as ppi never get less than 96 or and I get 144 Hz. If PPI gets much less than 96, I fell like I am looking at a "pen and ink" drawing .... don't like seeing spaces between the pixels.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
$800 for a 40" 4K monitor? Yikes, 4K pricing is dropping surprisingly fast. That 5000:1 static contrast ratio sounds too good to be true; it would be really something if it was - a much welcome change from the typical 800-1200:1.

Personally though, I would much prefer a 23-25" 4K display. Higher contrast is of course always welcome.
 

zambutu

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2009
81
0
18,630
0
I've been using a 40" tv as a home monitor for a long time now. Even though its a lame 1080p, it's so much more immersive for gaming and multimedia, that I could not go back to a regular sized screen regardless of the specs.

The screen size is perfect for shooters because everything on screen looks life sized. your gun arm looks like a lifelike extension of yourself. You can't get his realism with a small monitor.

I applaud the announcement of proper larger monitors, but also look forward to perhaps a 46" 21:9 5k curved oled beast for the perfect monitor solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS