Philips BDM4065UC - 40" 4K 60Hz monitor thread

Discussion in 'Displays' started by AgentQ, Oct 25, 2014.

  1. jphughan

    jphughan Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    PWM at 40 or 60 would indeed both use a 240 Hz interval, but that just means that the backlight is told to power on at the same interval. The difference is that in the latter setting, the backlight stays on for a greater percentage of the time between those intervals, so I would imagine that the effects of PWM would (theoretically, at least) be more noticeable at lower settings since the backlight is spending more time powered off in those settings.

    But once again, we have yet to see a complaint from an owner regarding eye fatigue or headaches, fwiw.
     
  2. shadow85

    shadow85 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    489
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Im kind of tempted to get this or a 4K IPS TV. I just fired up Dragon Age: Inquisition on my 1080p 42" TV just to compare it to my 4K LG 31" Monitor. I was immediatly surprised how much easier it is to see everything onscreen on the TV because it is so much bigger.

    Ofcourse the resolution is not as sharp, lower ppi. But I was attracted to how large the image is to the eyes. I love the clarity on the 4K LG screen I have, it's so much sharper and better colors, but I feel that 31" is a bit too small still for 4K. Hence may lean to this Phillips 40" or perhaps a 4K IPS TV.
     
  3. CoolSpy

    CoolSpy n00bie

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Yeah, 4K resolution on anything below 35-37" is such a waste.... a waste of GPU power used to display so many details which our eyes can't really see.

    I definitely don't see what the manufacturers are thinking about when they offer 3840x2160 resolution on 27" monitors.... that puzzles me
     
  4. GNUse_the_force

    GNUse_the_force [H]Lite

    Messages:
    67
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    The manufacturers are saving money because you get the same panel type but at less of a size cut but with the draw of '4k' which isnt actually that hard to do..

    in practical reality outside of editing or those who work on certain types of document production for typical web and gaming the pixels are often wasted imo. 32" is about as small as i would go with 4k at typical viewing distances.. even my now old 32" 1080p TV doesnt exactly show any visible pixels or bluring at 90cm away ! could it be crisper ? no, its 1:1 it has pixel definition. could it be more detailed, yes a lot.
     
  5. jphughan

    jphughan Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    The sharpness of 4K is very apparent on a 24" display when dealing with text. If you haven't seen one, have you ever seen a Retina MBP display? They have similar PPIs to a 4K 24" display and you can absolutely tell the difference compared to a non-Retina MBP. Of course you can argue that text is perfectly readable on regular displays and doesn't NEED to be that sharp, but since when has need been the criteria? Some people just like incredibly sharp text because it looks nice. However, 4K at 27" and 32" I don't really understand unless the nature of your work requires that you have a specifically 4K display, e.g. you're a video editor and want a reference monitor for 4K content. Otherwise, at 27" and 32", the PPI isn't quite high enough to look as amazing as a Retina display, but it's also not low enough that you can use them without enabling scaling, so you end up losing some of the real estate benefits of all of that resolution and dealing with the potential problems of scaling, and still don't get an amazingly crisp image. Worst of both worlds IMHO. But on 24" if you're willing to devote all of the additional pixels to sharpness rather than additional real estate and your apps handle scaling properly, it does make for some very pretty viewing.

    But on the TV side, 4K is basically useless unless your TV is at least 65" because now viewing distance becomes a factor, plus you're generally not reading very tiny text on your TV from far away. Some people still claim to see a better picture on smaller sets, but of course there's a lot more to a great image than resolution, so chances are they're noticing something else.

    Check this out: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2015
  6. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,365
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    I highly disagree, at least in a Windows environment. Text looks much crisper in native resolution and no scaling at say 100ppi than it does when scaled up with Windows scaling at 200ppi to be the same readable size. But more importantly, there is just so much inconsistency and other application issues with significant scaling (say 200%).

    So its not even an issue of diminishing returns, but that a display can honestly be SHIT because of too high of PPI. An extreme example are our Precision laptops, which come in at 3200x1800 on a 15" screen. Its such complete and utter bullshit, and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

    Its like with pistols. If a 40S&W is better than a 9mm which is better than a .22, then lets go ahead and make a 20mm hand cannon as bigger is better! Nope, it becomes a useless piece of shit that only sounds impressive on paper.

    Even when you don't have scaling concerns, just look at the iPad 3 for example, they got spec happy with the resolution, which resulted in too much heat and massive battery drain with no tangible benefit compared to instead focusing on useful features like making it usable outside in bright conditions or making it more efficient.

    In any case, more resolution is always better right now AS LONG as you try to stay under 120ppi IMO. So 4K is great, but you better not put 4K on a 24" screen, or you'll end up with ass.

    That said, I can't wait to trade in my 1080p projector on a 150" screen with a 4K projector.
     
  7. finrep

    finrep [H]Lite

    Messages:
    64
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    That is a strange argument. 4K on 24" requires scaling to be readable and quite significant scaling too.
    But your second argument vs 27" and 32" is "well you have to deal with scaling". Well, newsflash, scaling on 24" is going to be a bigger issue than on 27". And if it isn't, that's because the software does a good job and hence on 27" and 32" it wouldn't be an issue either.

    What Windows are you using, 8.1 or 7? They have different ways of scaling.
    I'm using a 13" Retina MBP. It has 1600p on 13". It works awesome with very, very sharp viewing on everything, not just text. Yes, it doesn't use Windows but hear me out.

    So the issue isn't 1800p on 15" or 1600p on 13". It's the software that is the issue, if it is an issue at all. And to be honest, Windows 8.1 scaling that I've seen does a good job for the vast majority of people now. The only issues tend to be some applications but they are getting their act together, finally, anyway.

    So your argument from a hardware point of view is nullified and even from a software point of view it is increasingly weaker.

    But more generally, I'd say that 4K at 40" makes a lot of sense. The best way to go is to go for around 90-92 PPI, which is 1080p at 24", 1440p at 32" and 4K at 40".
     
  8. jphughan

    jphughan Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    Yes, I understand that 4K @ 24" requires more scaling than 4K @ 27" or 32". You missed my point completely, which is the PPI differences between different sizes of 4K displays. Regardless of the scaling setting you choose, a 24" 4K display will have a higher PPI than a 4K display of a larger size. This in turn means that keeping the physical size of an element such as text consistent (achieved by running different scale factors on the different physical size displays), even if we assume perfect scaling performance, text shown on a 24" 4K display will always be crisper than on 27-32" 4K display simply because more pixels will be used to represent each character -- although the larger displays will be able to display more text using the same display resolution thanks to their lower scaling setting.

    And taking real-world usage into account, 4K is exactly 4x 1080p, as we all know. 1080p is a reasonable amount of real estate for a 24" display, which you can achieve on a 4K display by running it at 200% scaling. But 1080p-equivalent real estate is not so reasonable on a 27-32" display, so with a 4K display of that size, you'll be inclined to run maybe 125-150% scaling. At that point, you give up some real estate to the scaling (compared to trying to use it at 100% scaling), but since your 4K resolution is spread out across a larger panel size than the 24" example, you don't get the sharpness benefits of the higher PPI that you'd enjoy on the physically smaller display. That was my point about 4K @ 27-32" being the worst of both worlds -- the PPI is high enough that you'll have to run some amount of scaling to make it usable (and therefore deal with any issues that the scaling may introduce) but the PPI is NOT high enough that you get a significant increase in sharpness that a 4K 24" display would deliver in exchange for putting up with scaling. A 32" 4K display has a much lower PPI than a 14" 1080p display, and while the latter is definitely crisp on the Latitude E7440 I'm using right now, it's most definitely NOT a Retina experience.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2015
  9. jphughan

    jphughan Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    Sounds like you're using a Precision M3800? I have its sister system the XPS 15 with the same 15" 3200x1800 display, and in applications that support scaling properly, there is absolutely no contest between text sharpness at its native resolution with 200% scaling and driving it at 1600x900 with 100% scaling -- or even another 15" panel with a native 1600x900 resolution. What I'm betting you're seeing is Windows 8.1 multi-display scaling, which kicks in when you're driving an external non-HiDPI display at the same time as the built-in panel, and which absolutely DOES cause scaling problems and subpar results -- but that is also a completely separate issue from PPI or even regular Windows single-factor scaling issues. I wrote an article about it on the XPS 15 Wiki here: http://xps-15.wikia.com/wiki/Multi-monitor_Setup.

    If that's not it, make sure you log off and log in after changing scaling settings or doing something else that would cause the scale factor to change, such as a resolution change or connecting/disconnecting an external display that is designated as primary. Otherwise, if you're referring to scaling issues in general, then I agree that 200% scaling can be very problematic depending on the applications you run, including some Microsoft applications. But that speaks to the current state of software, not the potential of a given display.

    I disagree with your assessment of the iPad 3, though. I definitely appreciate the increased sharpness of its Retina display over the iPad 2, although an older friend of mine with declining eyesight can't tell the difference between the two, so obviously he wouldn't care. Whether or not the improvement was worth the other tradeoffs you called out is subjective and also a completely separate question that is not germane to the topic of display PPI. I for example would argue that Apple sacrificing battery life in exchange for making the iPad ever thinner and lighter is a mistake, but obviously some people really care about shaving those few millimeters or ounces off, and that's perfectly fine.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2015
  10. Micael

    Micael Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    174
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    4k at 40" isn't 90-92PPI, 4k at 40" is 110PPI, which is the same PPI as the 27" 1440p, to get the 90-92ppi you would need to go to 48/49", although you are really only going to find 50" which is a bit less (88).
     
  11. SixFootDuo

    SixFootDuo 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,956
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    You people need to actually sit down and use a 4k display and I am willing to bet not many of you have. And no, standing in front of a 4k HDTV at Best Buy doesn't count.

    I've sat in front of a 27" and a 32", also in front of a LG 49" 4k.

    Unless you're a young Superman with Superman eyes, 27" is extremely ... EXTREMELY tiny text.

    The 32" was a bit better but not much. Personally, a 40 - 42" would be about right which many many people have echo'd this already. The 49" from 4 1/2 feet away was perfect and what I would call information overload. I had 4 websites open and it was pretty damn awesome.

    That chart someone posted is joke.
     
  12. jphughan

    jphughan Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    The chart that I posted shows when the increaed sharpness of higher resolution becomes discernible to the viewer based on display size and viewing distance, not the maximum usable resolution for text on a given display size. Admittedly it pertains more to TV content than desktop monitor usage, but I posted it in the context of people talking about PPI and viewing distance.
     
  13. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,365
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Yup, and really 110PPI is the sweet spot if you're in fact sitting nice and close to your monitor. So I'd say that for 4K screens, you really shouldn't go below 40", but then again when sitting close you also don't want to go too much OVER 40" in size as now to see the screen you're having to move your head up and down which is tiring.

    So our best bet is likely to stay between 40" and 46" @ 4K res IMO.
     
  14. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,365
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    That is one of the other problems in the dock, especially with our MS Surface, since the external displays are daisy chained 24" 1080p screens only.

    We're using M4800s for the engineers and none of them find the resolution usable in windows without scaling. But do this test where you turn your scaling up and then open up Google Chrome and view a website with a lot of text. Now if you do have another lower resolution screen without scaling, compare the same website side by side. Certainly you're not arguing the text is crisper on the higher resolution screen? It should look fuzzier, not a huge amount, but about what you'd expect using a VGA cable instead of displayport to an external monitor.

    Now, we're still using Windows 7 64bit, so if this is different on Windows 8 like your link describes, I couldn't tell you.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2015
  15. jphughan

    jphughan Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    It's widely known and discussed among people with HiDPI displays that Chrome doesn't render text well when scaling is enabled. Try the test you describe using Firefox or IE.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2015
  16. Happy Hopping

    Happy Hopping [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,893
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Survey Question: How many of you use the Calibrated profile from TFT?

    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/philips_bdm4065uc.htm
     
  17. pipould

    pipould n00bie

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    I use the smart uniformity they provide, to me it feels my image is quite warm, but in a way it's maybe less stressful for eyes :)
     
  18. wirk

    wirk Gawd

    Messages:
    812
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2014
    Repeating what was said before: 40"@4K resolution is exactly the same as 27@1440p so if you wish to test resolution you do not need the 40". Furthemore, in many Apple stores there are older 27"@1440 and new 27@5K monitors. Go there if you wish to compare, sometimes you may get arranged them side-by-side. Such comparison shows that 5K offers minor improvement, it is sharper but additional sharpness if easily forgettable.
     
  19. JTB3

    JTB3 n00bie

    Messages:
    33
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    I have a ASUS Z87I-Deluxe mobo with an Intel i7-4771 and I'm using the onboard HD Graphics 4600 with DisplayPort. According to Intel specs, this CPU should support DP 1.2 and 60Hz 4K.

    Does anyone know for sure if the i7-4771 will support this display with SST at 4K?
    Thx!
     
  20. jphughan

    jphughan Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    I have a different CPU, but it also has the HD 4600 and it drives this display at 60 Hz. The 4400, however, does not; it can only do 4K @ 60 Hz with MST displays. So unless that motherboard's design has hamstrung the CPU's display output capabilities somehow (unlikely on a board like yours), you're good to go. Just update your drivers if you haven't recently.
     
  21. JTB3

    JTB3 n00bie

    Messages:
    33
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Thanks so much! :) I should be 'good to go'
     
  22. JTB3

    JTB3 n00bie

    Messages:
    33
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    For those interested, I discovered two new rear-panel photos of the Seiki 40in SM40UNP Monitor on Amazon (still in pre-order status)... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00RVGXZ08/

    Two rendered images of the rear panel (I/O ports).
    I'm happy to see two full-sized DisplayPort ports and side-oriented downstream USB3 + audio ports. Still no formal specs listed yet. Wondering if the DVI port is dual-link as well.
    Really hoping this monitor will support Picture-in-Picture (PIP) mode along with the stated Picture-by-Picture support.
    Also hoping the internal Super MVA panel has square (1:1) pixels!

    Slowly we are getting more insight on the only 40in competitor to the Philips monitor...

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2015
  23. mjoe

    mjoe n00bie

    Messages:
    41
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    My hope is that the seiki would be matte, aimed at professional users.
     
  24. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    11,123
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Overclockers UK finally got some more of these in stock (ETA was earlier this month). There are 4 available for anyone interested.
     
  25. Zerreth

    Zerreth n00bie

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2015
    Ordered mine from Italy @ 665 € including shipping, but saw it was available here in Belgium yesterday for 749 € with free shipping. Man it was hard to resist cancelling my order and just getting it locally.
     
  26. SuperMar1o

    SuperMar1o n00bie

    Messages:
    60
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Damnit, that is cheap, and shipped no less!!! Honestly what is with Phillips taking so long to ship stock to the US? Belgium, Italy, Germany, UK, Korea, China all have theirs.
    Where did you order yours from, do you have a link? I honestly am thinking f**k the warranty and getting a foreign one and a SquareTrade warranty.

    I would of already ordered it from another country, but all the comments regarding them requiring me to ship it to the UK or country or origin if something breaks worries the hell out of me.
    I really don't want to ship it across the world to have warranty work done on it.
     
  27. Zerreth

    Zerreth n00bie

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2015
    So Philips HQ being in the Netherlands, and having a big presence in terms of service centers in the EU makes it no trouble at all in terms of warranty. I've reviewed the warranty stuff on their website and it basically says that they will honor the warranty terms of the country where you bought it in. (Which across Europe is basically the same) And that you can bring it into a local service center for repairs.

    Note that that is the core Euro-Zone. I wouldn't want to have it shipped over to me If I was living in some very remote part of Europe where service is very spotty. Luckily I live in Belgium near the Border to the Netherlands.

    I ordered mine from HW1.it, I do not know if they ship outside of Europe.
    You can also get it from Coolblue.be for a bit more, but still way cheaper than DE/FR/UK.
     
  28. Happy Hopping

    Happy Hopping [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,893
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    and even if it does, isn't true that all these on board HD are share RAM? Surely you won't buy a 40" and use share RAM?

    that's like you bought a Ferrari and park your car on the street because you don't have a garage
     
  29. wirk

    wirk Gawd

    Messages:
    812
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2014
  30. igluk

    igluk Gawd

    Messages:
    617
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2015
  31. Zerreth

    Zerreth n00bie

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2015
    Just been informed, it should be either shipping 27 Feb, or Delivered 27 Feb. (Google Translate was inconclusive)
     
  32. winston67

    winston67 n00bie

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Hi, BDM4065UC's owners,

    i wonder if it's possible to obtain the 4k resolution @ 60Hz using multiview, with two HDMI, as a virtual pair of screens.
    Has somebody tried it, or doesn't multiview allow it ?

    Sorry for my bad english.. I created the account specially to ask this question, since i'm reading this post since the beginning and haven't seen it.

    thanks
     
  33. pipould

    pipould n00bie

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Moi je dis ├ža sent l'incruste de HFR :p
     
  34. croc_

    croc_ Gawd

    Messages:
    552
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    It is matte
     
  35. jphughan

    jphughan Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    Well if you're not gaming, you wouldn't need a ton of RAM even to drive 4K. Some people here just want it to have a ton of space for less intensive tasks like image editing, stock trading, monitoring dashboards, or just conducting normal activities without ever having to minimize anything. None of that requires a ton of video memory, and considering how much system memory comes with modern PCs, an onboard GPU using shared memory would have more than enough available to meet those needs anyway. So I don't think it's nearly as absurd as you suggest to want a 40" 4K display even if you use onboard shared memory graphics.

    I myself have a Dell XPS 15, which also has an NVIDIA GPU (with discrete memory), but it's installed as a render-only device, i.e. there are no display outputs directly wired to it. So basically when a suitable workload is placed on the system, the NVIDIA GPU will take over rendering, but since the Intel GPU is still the unit wired to the actual display outputs, the NVIDIA chip still relies on it to act as a passthrough to the displays, and as a result, the maximum resolution/refresh that the system supports is still limited by whatever the Intel GPU can handle.

    This setup is apparently the next generation of Optimus now that Intel CPUs all seem to come with onboard GPUs anyway, plus I remember that in the earlier generations of Optimus sometimes you had to log off or reboot to switch GPUs, or some systems were configured so that the external display outputs were always driven by the discrete GPU, which meant you incurred a battery life penalty whenever you had one connected.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2015
  36. jphughan

    jphughan Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    I seriously doubt this will work. To make it really work, the display would need two controllers with each one set to expose half of the display area out of a single port (which is basically how MST displays work), and this display won't do that. Picture By Picture isn't the same thing, since that just scales down a larger signal to fit in a smaller space. MAYBE if you configured custom resolutions for each of your PC's HDMI outputs and enabled MultiView, you'd be ok, but I'm betting that this won't work as intended, and even if you ended up with an image that filled the entire display and had everything properly proportioned, the display's scaler would be engaged to deal with Picture By Picture, so you'd probably see some artifacts from that. The bottom line is that you really need a DP 1.2 interface capable of 4K @ 60 Hz via SST to drive this thing at its native resolution; there are no workarounds.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2015
  37. ritterbutzke

    ritterbutzke n00bie

    Messages:
    47
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    If you mean using 2 hdmi from the same computer and displaying the screen with PbP and extended mode, then yes it will work...somewhat.

    There are a couple issues:
    1) there will be screen tearing down the middle when you scroll webpages for example.
    2) Maximizing windows and especially videos to the whole screen is very cumbersome.
    3) Its generally not that stable and you will just see half of the screen for some reason.

    All in all i wouldn't recommend it
     
  38. SuperSubZero

    SuperSubZero 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,264
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2000
    To use a display like that @ 4K with native res would be silly. But I don't think most people even would. The beauty of 4K is that for stuff like games that can scale that high, it can dramatically improve the visuals. For the desktop, adjusting the DPI can get something moderately sized but much better looking.

    For 27" I'm more interested in 5K, because it's 2560x1440 doubled. That means you can get the size of stuff like on a 27" 1440p screen, but double the density, for much better looking, less jagged, smoother stuff all around.

    Windows itself is still kind of a mess with this, but I encourage you to check out a Retina iMac to see 5K done right. It's super crisp and smooth.
     
  39. JTB3

    JTB3 n00bie

    Messages:
    33
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    For those comparing this Philips to the new Seiki SM40UNP,
    I was able to obtain a Seiki "Product Sheet" with some specifications available at this link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/357i9s1gs5tlcs8/Seiki%20Pro%20SM40UNP%20Product%20Sheet.pdf

    Unfortunately it reveals a couple of downers for me and there are still a lot of missing details:
    1. Non-square (horizontally stretched pixels with 1:1.018 aspect ratio) just like the Philips 40in.
    2. Maximum color 1.07 million (a puzzling number, perhaps a typo and should read 1.07 billion)
    3. No PIP (Picture-in-Picture) mode
    4. No speakers (could be a plus from some folks)
    5. Heavier (25.4 lbs. w-o stand) than the Philips (18.74 lbs.)
    6. Slightly wider than the Philips (0.15in) due to larger bezels.

    It does have a more convenient 100x100 VESA bracket (requiring no adapter)

    Here is a link to the most probable 39.5in panel Seiki is using. The Innolux V400DK1
    http://www.panelook.com/V400DK1-KE7_Innolux_40_LCM_parameter_22942.html
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2015
  40. shadow85

    shadow85 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    489
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Well I just ordered this monitor from a local hardware seller. When I recieve it I am going to compare it side by side with my LG 31MU97 and keep which ever one I find more enjoyable for gaming and sell the other.

    Either the sharper 4096x2160 LG 31" AH-IPS panel or the 3840x2160 VA on the massive 40" screen.