ritterbutzke
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2014
- Messages
- 47
@flossy_cake
How about you at least read the review before "dropping knowledge".
How about you at least read the review before "dropping knowledge".
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Philips BDM4065UC - 40" 4K 60Hz monitor thread
- Thread starter AgentQ
- Start date
flossy_cake
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 33
Nothing I said contradicts anything in the tftcentral review. When they say the backlight operates at a fixed 240hz, that doesn't mean it is flashing on and off at 240hz at all brightness settings. Otherwise you wouldn't have any change in brightness. What it means is that the backlight has 240 time slices per second with which it can turn the backlight either on or off.
So let's say you start at 100% backlight, all 240 time slices slices are set to on.
Then suppose you lower the backlight to 99%. What happens is that it chooses some of those time slices to turn off the backlight. In this case, it would be 240-(0.99x240)=3. So the backlight is switched off for 3 out of the 240 time slices.
The problem is that this black frame insertion produces a frequency of flicker that isn't perfectly divisible with the pixels which are refreshing at 60hz.
How much of a mismatch will depend on where the backlight is set to.
If you are experiencing flicker you may be able to set the backlight a few clicks higher or lower to mitigate the mismatch.
However I suspect that the backlight is strobing fast enough to not cause any major artefacts for most people. I personally haven't witnessed this PWM effect.
Wally Simmonds
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 99
Hey =)(=, did you have a play around with the LG Ultrawides? If so, how did you find them in comparison?
I ended up picking up the Dell 3415W but it has pretty bad backlight bleed - so I'll likely be returning it. Not 100% whether it will be a refund or swap at this stage.
I ended up picking up the Dell 3415W but it has pretty bad backlight bleed - so I'll likely be returning it. Not 100% whether it will be a refund or swap at this stage.
PWM+glow free Samsung LTM270DL06 PLS panel in a semi-glossy Qnix QX2710, a glossy+PWM free X-Star DP2710, PWM free glossy Crossover 2720MDP and a glossy+PWM free MOTV M2700 which is a re-branded+re-cased Overlord/Yamakasi Catleap.
The intelligence level has definitely dropped below 9000.
There's no excuse for penny pinching when it comes to such an expensive monitor which is priced on par with 40" 4K TV's (some don't offer 60hz SST support but have Smart TV features and/or motion compensation instead since they are not intended to be used as monitors). There are lots of useless features Philips could have cut out like the speakers, VGA port, VGA cord, 3.5mm audio in and out ports to save money.
Last edited:
Please feel free to vote with your wallet and not purchase this monitor. In the meantime I will enjoy mine.
Also not sure where you come from but by my reckoning this monitor is not by any description expensive. Is it expensive compared to 27" or 32" 4K monitors? Of course. But it costs a fraction of what stores in my country are charging for equivalent sized or larger 4K TVs.
I was gonna buy a 21:9 but I went with 4K instead because of more pixels.
Someone on another forum wrote that he created custom resolutions on the Philips, 3840x1600 and 3840x1440 and they both ran fine when he turned off scaling in Nvidia control panel, het got a 1:1 pixelmapped picture with black bars.
He posted a screenshot:
So, I'm not sure if there is a point in buying a 21:9 monitor.
The monitor isn't expensive, the monitor would be expensive if you had other monitors beating it at this price range, which you don't have, this monitor is in the very low end of 4k monitors price wise, also there is no comparison since there is a lack of 40" monitors, and comparing it to TV's is honestly just lolz worthy, a TV is not a monitor, but do feel free to buy one if you think they offer a better value as a monitor.
Yes philips could have cut that, however it might seem shocking to you, but different people want different things from a monitor, and you have different monitors to satisfy different people, for example cutting a vga port would actually make more of a difference to me, than using PWM free, since sometimes I need to use a VGA port (yes I have VGA to DVI adapters), while it not being PWM free makes absolutely zero difference to me, and like this I'm sure you will find people that like to have the speakers for when they need to show someone something or what ever.
There is even a very likely benefit to all those end consumers that absolutely do not care about PWM, since monitors with PWM will likely spend less energy (depending on how it's done), which means even further cost reduction to the end consumer (which once again isn't a monitor for an elite crowd, this is a cheap range monitor).
Also besides philips, and some engineers that are on this field, who knows if those things cost as much as a PWM free in this sort of monitor.
Last edited:
I agree, this monitor is not expensive, and maybe someone thinks that speakers are useless but when I connected my IPTV box to it using HDMI, I used the speakers and they have decent quality, I would not use them to listen to music, bot for general TV watching they are ok. The IPTV sends audio only over HDMI, so how would I get sound from it if the Philips had no speakers? (Maybe there is some splitter to be bought).
So yeah, people need different things and not everybody cares about PWM. If you are bothered by it, you can get another monitor that is flicker free, although there is no 40" alternative yet.
And comparing this monitor to TVs is pointless since most TVs are 30 Hz or can't do 4:4:4.
GNUse_the_force
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 535
true. thats anoying because as monitors get larger they are bascially going to use the same panel as the monitor and your just losing out on features going with the monitor over the TV version.
I think your point isn't only important in this specific case, but in general as well. Something that's a deal killer for one person, may be irrelevant to another.
Every thread here turns into a QA-fest very quickly, and from there it's:
- This display is junk, it has <fatal flaw>
- I don't see anything, you must have mental problems.
- I bought it, I like it, I don't care what you guys say.
You can't just listen to one person or reviewer's advice either, and sometimes you need to see it for yourself. As an example, all the 32" 1440p VA panels are junk to me because they flash in games. I got two from two different batches, and I was done. Others have the same issue and have returned/exchanged more monitors than I. The Samsung still got 5 stars on prad, but to me it's a 0-star monitor due to that flaw. Others use them just for spreadsheets and videos, and love them.
A lot of people have a massive geek boner for the ROG Swift, but I could not possibly care less about it or any other TN panel. The compromise is too great for me.
Some people like to watch movies in a completely dark room, and the 21:9 displays seemed tempting for that, but I can see how BLB/glow would be a deal killer for that application.
In the end, I think the two most important things are being satisfied with what you spent, and not taking shit on the internet too seriously.
InHartWeTrust
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 30
I am pretty much stuck between this 40" and the upcoming Samsung 34" UltraWide VA panel. Regarding the above, I am curious why anyone would throw black bars on versus playing it full screen size? Am I missing something?
i got LG curved and this monitor. i can tell you that now i am using this monitor more often than LG one .
InHartWeTrust
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 30
I'm running a 4790K and 2x SLI 970s, OC'ed, is it reasonable to assume that I can drive BF4 in High/Ultra settings to 60 FPS at this resolution?
InHartWeTrust
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 30
Really? That's awesome news, I might be sold. I've got my CPU OC'ed to 4.5ghz right now, going to try to squeeze to 4.6 or 4.7 soon (just built my new rig), and I will continue to try to squeeze as much as I can out of my 970s.
I think I am on the 40" 4K train instead of the Ultrawide train now, I built a pretty sweet (and expensive) rig, I might as well take it for all it's worth...now it's just a matter of seeing if any other 40" 4Ks are announced at CES and finding out when this one will be available in the US.
Depending on the game engine, running at a 21:9 ratio may actually increase the FOV, allowing for a wider view than playing in 16:9 will offer. Not all games, though. Some game engines will simply cut off the top and bottom portion of the view (vert-) instead of widening the view (hor+). This won't do anything for movies, of course.
This is an interesting and cost effective solution for those considering one of the 34" 21:9 displays, as you can get the same resolution and size on this 40" 16:9.
No, flux simply lowers the color temperature to appear less blue. The monitor is still going to cause eyestrain because the brightness @ 100% is 280 cd/m2, which is a factor flux can't change.
...I don't think you know what PWM is, friend.
I pretty much consider anything over $900 to be expensive, especially given the TV counterpart (Sharp LC-40U20) is the same price, more feature-rich, and probably has a better CPU for scaling being a full-blown TV.
The thing is - every single monitor Philips has released uses PWM. It's not really unexpected to see that this does, but PWM is a dying breed in 2014. Nearly every company with the exception of Philips and Samsung has made the stride to brand and produce flicker-free displays. You can't argue for PWM when direct current is quickly becoming an industry standard, and Philips is being left behind.
And don't give me this "it costs too much" crap when you don't know how much it costs either. Given Philips general M.O on using PWM, I really doubt implementing direct current was even a thought to their engineers. Also, consider that sub $200 monitors, super low-cost Korean monitors, and not to mention literally every single BenQ monitor is PWM-free; it's not an issue of cost, it's a lack care for the consumer.
You can find reviews on Philip's junky PWM monitors here
Last edited:
Since learning about PWM on this forum, I set my (Asus 32") monitor brightness to 100%, and then use Shades to turn the brightness down. (This basically puts a translucent black graphic overlay over the whole screen, whose opacity you can adjust.)
This results in 0 flicker. Granted, it's not the same as physically reducing the light, but it's good enough for me, and allows me to control brightness via hotkeys.
This results in 0 flicker. Granted, it's not the same as physically reducing the light, but it's good enough for me, and allows me to control brightness via hotkeys.
ritterbutzke
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2014
- Messages
- 47
Has anyone ever stuck a custom sized neutral density filter on a screen? That would reduce brightness by a ton while not distorting the colors and allowing the backlight to be at 100%
Good idea, except that those things are so damn shiny. And daytime I like full brightness next to my window.
ritterbutzke
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2014
- Messages
- 47
Only the glass ones are, the foil is pretty matt
You can consider any monitor over 900$ expensive, that is completely fine, but objectively for the market it is in, it just simply isn't expensive, because in that market most monitors are more expensive while offering even less, and in that market this monitor is on the low end range (price wise), and we really need to take into account the market.
As for the sharp while it possibly uses the same panel (unconfirmed I think), it might not be as good of a monitor, there is to the best of my knowledge no reviews of it, and at least on amazon it's a bit more expensive (but granted prices vary based on region and supplier).
I'm not saying that all monitors should have PWM, not having PWM from a quality standpoint is clearly preferable, merely that there are real world reasons to have a monitor that uses PWM, since call me crazy but I doubt manufacturers decided to use PWM when not using PWM would be cheaper/easier.
I haven't given you that, so no idea where that's coming from.
Once again why are we comparing it with completely different monitors, those sub 200$ monitors are completely different monitors than this one, so still no idea why the comparisons between them.
The funny thing about those super low-cost korean monitors, is what is likely the biggest manufacturer of not only electronics but panels is a korean company (talking samsung here), also to the best of my knowledge there is no super low-cost korean monitor that is like this (similar size, resolution and quality), so once again we are comparing things that are not the same.
As for the benqs same thing do they make a 4k 40" monitor with this sort of quality and in this sort of price?
No need to read reviews of it, as I said PWM doesn't affect me, and also as I said for those that are affected there are monitors that are in fact PWM free, much in the same way there are monitors with 120hz, 144hz, gsync, square pixels, lower power consumption, different aspect ratios, different sizes, different resolutions, different stands, different visual designs, different calibration options and so on.
Considering, as you said, this is only the monitor of it's breed at this size, how can say it's relatively cheap for the market it's in? The smaller 32" monitors likely come with more expensive panels than the mass-produced, albeit unconfirmed TV panel this uses, and they have many more ergonomic features while still being priced similarly.
Edit: People need to stop acting like being a "bare-bones" type monitor, if you can really call it that, makes it acceptable to use PWM.
It is, however, an unknown how much implementing PWM will cost; you're the one constantly comparing panel sizes, I'm comparing who does and who doesn't use PWM. Somehow, someway BenQ and numerous other companies have found a way of implementing direct current into all their monitor ranges of various sizes and still sell them rather cheaply for how feature rich a lot of them are (and wow, BenQ monitors come with a lot of cables). What I'm saying is - considering that Philips is known to use PWM in all of their monitors, then the more likely assumption would be that this is an issue with the companies care and treatment of their consumers.
Also, if this monitor was $100-$200 dollars more and PWM free, would you of still bought it? I certainly would've considered it myself. There's an element of market research here and I think Philips potentially missed it, but you tell me.
Here's a random 4k Korean monitor that uses a very high PWM frequency that wouldn't cause eye-strain, albeit it's only 30hz: http://www.playwares.com/xe/index.php?mid=display_review&document_srl=45338187
Last edited:
That's even more bothersome given that TP Vision and Philips announced TVs dated for 2015. I'd assume that this is probably a low cost panel manufactured with the intent of being used in a TV, especially considering the size and PWM frequency. We'll probably see this panel pop up in one of their upcoming TV lines: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130...ps-tvs-for-all-budgets-4k-for-all-starts-here.
GNUse_the_force
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 535
id take a guess at it being in the 40PUS6809
UHD 40" panel TV looks ldentical all the way down to the stand.
But ... Only 30hz on HDMi
Last edited:
Rainbow Beat
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2014
- Messages
- 17
Does anyone know of any windows version of this?
Black Octagon
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2012
- Messages
- 132
Please don't take this the wrong way, but based on your posts it seems to me that you should read more and post less, or at least verify your facts.
You said that this was an 'unconfirmed' TV panel, thereby clearly showing that you hadn't read the TFT Central review...frankly must reading for anyone on these boards.
Secondly, you refer quite liberally in this thread to Philips' actions, as if they truly were Philips'. For a few years now, Philips' consumer display business has been majority owned by TPV Technology, the world's largest computer display manufacturer and, incidentally, the company with majority ownership of TP Vision. Philips still has minority stakes in both TP Vision and TPV Technology, but it's TPV Technology who is calling all the shots, including the decision to continue using PWM in their displays. TPV Technology is the manufacturer and the decision-maker. The Philips brand name is used solelely because consumers recogise it better in Western countries, and because of the stigma about 'Chinese' electronic goods still prevalent in many Western countries. The same applies to Philips' medical displays, though those are not made by TPV Technology.
And by the way 'TP Vision and Philips' did not 'announce TVs dated for 2015'. TP Vision announced Philips-branded TVs. Based on a cursory reading of the news on Google, one can quickly see that these TVs include other panels than the one in this 40-inch 4k computer monitor. For example, they have announced plans to sell OLED TVs in 2015...by definition these will be different panels, probably supplied by LG.
1.) I missed that part; sue me.
2.) Ok? Philips BRANDED monitors still use PWM, why would any of this matter?
3.) They announced them for "They will all be available in the “third quarter” (soon then) in the UK, Europe and Russia." and as far as I can tell the models mentioned are not available yet, so one would assume 2015. Second, why in the hell would it matter whether it's a Philips branded display or a TP vision branded display? If you were actually capable of reading my posts instead of accusing me of being 'clueless', then you'd see I was making a claim that the panels used in this monitor and TP Vision + Philips tvs are potentially the same.
4.) Thank you for wasting my time with superfluous information that in no way actually changes or impacts any of the statements I made. But thank you for notifying me that they are Philips-branded TPV-technology TVs/Displays, me and my autism will be sure to refer to them as such instead of shortening them to 'just Philips'.
Edit for good measure: If phill1978 is right, then this particular panel could already be in the 40PUS6809.
Last edited:
Then you're not looking hard enough. Many of samsung's 4k TVs are less than 500 in Italy, and there was a xmas discount a few weeks ago that brought a 40" one to 399...
You should also vote with your wallet, then companies like Philips will have to make PWM free monitors like Acer, BenQ and LG.
It's pretty telling when the Philips defenders bought it before reviews came out and its defense comes in the form of excuses and ignorance regarding PWM.
Last edited:
BigDisplayAddict
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2014
- Messages
- 12
In the old days with CRT monitors anything above 60hz (70hz, 80hz) was stable to the eyes and did not flicker (60hz did as well as intelaced (30hz)), or do I mis something?
Do agree that Philips should have added $100-$150+ to the price and build a PWM free version plus an adjustable stand for the height. The kind of customer buying these kind of screens isn't out on a bargain budget.
Do agree that Philips should have added $100-$150+ to the price and build a PWM free version plus an adjustable stand for the height. The kind of customer buying these kind of screens isn't out on a bargain budget.
Yeah, sadly TV prices in my country are still pretty high.
I'm not defending Philips, I'm just saying that the PWM issue (I had no idea what PWM was prior to it being mentioned in this thread) does not affect me at all (not sure if its because of my settings or because it does not affect everyone?) so it is not relevant to my interests.
Plenty of companies make products that are substandard, cost too much for what they are worth, etc. But that's how a free market economy works, right? If you do not like a product due to lack of features or some other dealbreaker, don't buy it.
i don't that problem on mine. ( i am using SmartUniformity mode atm too ) its seem that you don't have much luck on monitors you bought.
Happy Christmas btw