Philips' Latest 4K Monitor Is Huge At 40 Inches

[Samer1970]

Wait till the monitor has Display Port 1.3 and HDMI 2.0.

you mean to say the CARDS .. most 4K TV have HDMI 2.0 starting from $800 ...

It is the VGA cards who are still missing the HDMI2.0

 

[Samer1970]

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.

TVs have very bad input LAG ... they are not suitable for shooters.

 

[Samer1970]

$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.

VA Panels are known for good contrast. the lowest VA panel gives 3000:1 native contrast , been like that for years .. but very few buy them.

it is the ips that is stuck at native 1000 :1

as for the low price , well dont expect good input LAG and accurate colors with such price range. VA panels are good at contrast but are not good at colors and the ones that give you accurate colors are expensive.

 

[InvalidError]

as for the low price , well dont expect good input LAG and accurate colors with such price range. VA panels are good at contrast but are not good at colors and the ones that give you accurate colors are expensive.

Aside from enthusiasts and graphics professionals, not many people care about the lowest possible lag and the highest possible color accuracy as long as it at least meets their definition of reasonable. I am mostly interested in having more desktop space to dump windows on, sharper text when reading and finer lines when doing CAD stuff.

 

[Like Father Like Son]

It has come out now in South Korean, price tag is 790.000 won (it around $750)..this is 3x cheaper than ASUS 32 inch 4K IGZO panel
http://prod.danawa.com/info/?pcode=2850978&cate1=0&cate2=0&cate3=0&cate4=0#bookmark_cm_opinion

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Aside from enthusiasts and graphics professionals, not many people care about the lowest possible lag and the highest possible color accuracy as long as it at least meets their definition of reasonable. I am mostly interested in having more desktop space to dump windows on, sharper text when reading and finer lines when doing CAD stuff.

Gamers generally care more than those ..... on big screens CAD can be real annoying .... see straight lines looking like this because if the larger spacing between pixels

.|
.|
. |
. |

 

[The3monitors]

Omg omg omg. I can only imagine 3 of these sobs for a true panarama. I will love this thing. Baby it to nothing else. Since I am an artist I dont need a gaming monitor(or one that all gamers specify is a good refresh rate Yaddah Yaddah blah blah.) I will finally have a replacement for my 27" BenQ.

 

[giovanni86]

40 sounds respectable. I literally just got my 27, and am in love with the high res of 2560x1440.. But am totally digging how companies are releasing these 4k monitors and damn 40 inches at 800USD if thats right, i see no reason why not to upgrade. If it had G-sync that would seal the deal.. Maybe a follow up review of how it performs will better justify it when it comes out.

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

*drool*

 

[none12345]

"Do you sit at least 5' from the TV ? My desk isn't that deep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance "

Exactly this. Larger the monitor the fruther back it needs to be. All things being relativly equal, there is no difference visually between a tiny monitor right in front of your eye, and a huge monitor at a far distance.

Big monitor is good if you want to for instance hang it on the wall behind your desk. If you need lots of desk space for instance. Or if you want to sit on a couch accross the room or something.

Ploping it on your desk tho. Buy a 40" and put it 4 feet away, or buy a 24" and put it 2.5 feet away and it will look identical.

Cases can be made for multimonitor, ive been using 2 side by side myself for a decade. For a few years i was using 3 side by side, but dont anymore.

I would love the equivalent of 3x 4k 24" 5:4 monitors. A 15:4 11520x3200 @120hz curved screen with rough dimensions of 60x17inch, right around 200 dpi. Would be perfect. But id settle for the equivalent of 2x 4k 24" 5:4 monitor. A 10:4 7680x3200@120hz curved screen, roughly 40x17inch.

 

[huilun02]

Actually you would still need to use Windows DPI scaling for this behemoth, because you would have to sit far enough to avoid breaking your neck.

If you have a 20"-23" 1080p monitor, imagine taking away the bezel and hot gluing four of them together and that's about the right size.

Attach a set top box to it and it'll put any TV to shame.

 

[zambutu]

Do you sit at least 5' from the TV ? My desk isn't that deep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

I sit around 2.5 - 3' from the screen...thats optimal to me for normal "sit back and relax use". If youre just watching a movie then you can sit wherever you want

 

[zambutu]

Do you sit at least 5' from the TV ? My desk isn't that deep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

I sit about 2.5' back for normal use and gaming. if I wanted to watch a movie or long vid, then I'd lean back further and put my feet up.

 

[mapesdhs]

600 UKP is actually more like $970 US, but in reality the markup usually
works the other way round, so if it does go on sale in the US for $800 then
it'll be around 650 UKP in the UK (convert then add a third).

Ian.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

I'm a little tempted by these 4k 40" screens (monitor or TV). It's a little more than the dpi on my 30" ACD and I could probably happily replace my 20-30-20 monitor setup. I think I'll hold off for a 5k 40" screen though. I'd rather feel like I'm getting a real upgrade rather than a 'sidegrade' from my 8 year old screen.

 

[beetlejuicegr]

can someone explain to me how tech can squeeze high end res resolution on smartphones with a fraction of wattage and no company makes high end resolutions on 24 inch displays the max?

How can i have 1280x800 on a 2 year old 4.6 inch smarthphone and laptops at 15inch have about the same resolution except some minority that costs extremely more? I don't get it, do they think we are that dumb?

 

[huilun02]

can someone explain to me how tech can squeeze high end res resolution on smartphones with a fraction of wattage and no company makes high end resolutions on 24 inch displays the max?

How can i have 1280x800 on a 2 year old 4.6 inch smarthphone and laptops at 15inch have about the same resolution except some minority that costs extremely more? I don't get it, do they think we are that dumb?

Smartphones jump up the resolution ladder quickly because those resolutions and the media for it have already been paved by computer monitor standards. Also because of fierce competition in the phone market pushing manufacturers to use unnecessarily high resolutions, that are seriously not needed.

Also phone displays use less power because they don't need to light up nearly as large an area of a monitor or TV. Some also use AMOLED displays that take comparatively less power to operate compared to a monitor's panel.

Yes super high resolutions like 4K are very expensive because they are luxury items that not many have the equipment to fully utilize. Capitalism. The best of the lot always comes with a premium price tag.

You don't have to worry about having 4K resolution more widespread on phones than on monitors and TVs.

 

[Like Father Like Son]

This is cheaper because use of VA panel. VA panel has lower response time than IPS also if your finger touch on screen, it will take affect but use IPS is not

 

[InvalidError]

Smartphones jump up the resolution ladder quickly because those resolutions and the media for it have already been paved by computer monitor standards. Also because of fierce competition in the phone market pushing manufacturers to use unnecessarily high resolutions, that are seriously not needed.

What media and application? Media tends to follow standard TV resolutions while applications targeted for touch-screens are quite limited on what they can use the extra resolution for since their interfaces need to be coarse enough for touch-based navigation.

I fully agree with the second part: higher resolution on tiny screens is heavily influenced by marketing. 1200p on a 7" screen is already pretty much the highest useful resolution for most people... it may have 125% more pixels but subjectively, I would say it only looks 25% better than 800p. Pushing 1440p on a 6" screen (or smaller) is just plain silly.

 

[bit_user]

TVs have very bad input LAG ... they are not suitable for shooters.

Most TVs have a GAME MODE, with minimal latency. No reason they should be any worse than flat screen computer monitors.

Of course, if you want to be absolutely sure your monitor is introducing no latency, then get an old analog CRT. Those light up the pixels as the signal arrives. I'd settle for a good GSync flat screen, but I'm just sayin'.

 

[f-14]

they have tiny desks because their room is smaller than a jail cell. my desk fully stretched out would reach both ends of a jail cell. and i am tempted to put a second teir across my whole desk for need of more space. 3x27" monitors just isn't enough, not for CAD and not for Fighter Sims!

 

[BlasterX]

It would be suitable for a PC living room gaming, as it won't have the lags from a TV and the size for a smaller living room.

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

3x27" monitors just isn't enough, not for CAD and not for Fighter Sims!

+1 for fighter sims!

 

[Samer1970]

TVs have very bad input LAG ... they are not suitable for shooters.

Most TVs have a GAME MODE, with minimal latency. No reason they should be any worse than flat screen computer monitors.

Of course, if you want to be absolutely sure your monitor is introducing no latency, then get an old analog CRT. Those light up the pixels as the signal arrives. I'd settle for a good GSync flat screen, but I'm just sayin'.

Game mode does not mean no input lag.

The best tested input lag was the Sony (W705B) TV which recorded 14 ms .. the best so far in TV.

Samsung however and Panasonic are at 28ms ..

Plasma are the worst they start at 60ms input lag. and 4k TV are very bad.

However gaming LCD have almost near zero input Lag .

I am not talking about response time here by the way.

 

[lgkiholmen]

Hi, have been running 4k/60Hz on a Dell 31,5" IPSpanel from my MBP15r for some month now. . Running at 3008x1692 due to lack of enough desktop area. 40" would be perfect for running 3840x2160. I really do agree with stan4r