Philips BDM4065UC - 40" 4K 60Hz monitor thread

[wirk]

I currently have a 3 monitors setup, one central 28" and two 23" (16/9) in portrait mode at each sides. If I'd buy one, the physical height of the 23" in portrait mode would be equal to the height of this 40" beast !
really, this new 40'' monitor is all what I was waiting for, except a few things :
- it doesn't support hdmi 2.0 !
- it doesn't support DP 1.2a or 1.3
so I think I'll wait until there is at least hdmi 2.0, 40" monitors hitting the market (and also hdmi 2.0 graphics cards) next year before buying anything. I wish freesync and possibly curved screen being part of the specs too. Great time indeed.

So you have multimonitor setup and you-do-not-crave first for a curved 40 incher ???

Requiring HDMI2.0/DP1.3 is reasonable and it will be fulfilled in 2015 but practically the present DP1.2 SST/MST has been so perfected and works fine in this charge to the extent you won't notice any difference.

 

[brutalizer]

really, this new 40'' monitor is all what I was waiting for, except a few things :
- it doesn't support hdmi 2.0 !
- it doesn't support DP 1.2a or 1.3
so I think I'll wait until there is at least hdmi 2.0, 40" monitors hitting the market (and also hdmi 2.0 graphics cards) next year before buying anything

This Phiilips 40" monitor supports 60FPS today, with... Displayport(?). So what more do you want? Can someone explain?
1) What is it in hdmi 2.0?
2) What is it in DP 1.2a or 1.3?
I mean, both 1) and 2) gives you 60FPS, which is already what you get in this Philips monitor? Whats the point of 1) and 2)?



I have done some calculations that might help someone.
4K resolution in 40" gives 110 PPI.
5K resolution in 50" gives 117 PPI.
5K resolution in 40" gives 147 PPI.

(An 40" monitor has ratio 34.88" x 19.62". An 50" monitor has ratio 43.6" x 24.5". So, to calculate 5K (5120 x 2880) PPI for a 50" monitor do like this: divide 5120 / 43.6" = 117 PPI horizontally).

So do you wait for a 5K resolution 50" monitor? It gives roughly the same picture quality as this Philips monitor but gives twice as much screen estate. But maybe 40" is enough screen estate? You dont need larger than 40" monitor? 50" is unnecessary large?

Then you have to instead consider PPI, if 40" is large enough. An 5K resolution in 40" monitor will give 33% more PPI, netting almost 150 PPI. The question is, how much better quality does 150 PPI give, compared to 110 PPI? Do I want a 5K 40" monitor, or can I get away with 4K 40" monitor if we consider PPI? And, is 50" monitor too large? Is 40" the largest you can go for real usage? So the ideal choice is between 4K or 5K in 40"? Or should we consider 50" monitors too?

Subjectively, is 150 PPI much better than 110 PPI or just roughly the same? I would like to compare a 150 PPI monitor to a 110 PPI to figure out if I want 5K resolution in 40" monitor, or if 110 PPI suffices. BTW, the macbook retina have 220 PPI which clearly look very good. So 220 PPI would be very nice to have. But 150 PPI, what about it? Does someone know? Is 150 PPI much better than 110 PPI?

To recap:
A) Are 50" monitors too large for practical use?
B) If yes, we stop at 40" and consider PPI instead. Then the next question is: 110 PPI vs 150 PPI. Is there a large difference between them in pic quality?
C) If the pic quality difference is not big, then we can settle for a 110 PPI display, so the choice is clear: we want a 4K 40" monitor.
D) In that case, do we need hdmi 2.0 and DP 1.3? What do they give?
E) If they dont give much and we are satisfied with 60 FPS, then the choice is clear; we can buy this Philips and be happy. Ever after. We dont need to look for 5K 40" monitors, nor dont need to look for 50" monitors either.

Or what do you say about future monitors? Do you want 5K in 40" monitor, or do you want 5K in 50"? Or are you satisfied with 4K in 40" (because 50" is too large?)

 

[wirk]

This Phiilips 40" monitor supports 60FPS today, with... Displayport(?). So what more do you want? Can someone explain?
1) What is it in hdmi 2.0?
2) What is it in DP 1.2a or 1.3?
I mean, both 1) and 2) gives you 60FPS, which is already what you get in this Philips monitor? Whats the point of 1) and 2)?

No real pratical difference, just technically HDMI 2.0/DP1.3 are more elegant being designed from scratch for 4K@60Hz. Things change with 5K, as the DP1.3 is the only connector supporting it.

I have done some calculations that might help someone.
4K resolution in 40" gives 110 PPI.
5K resolution in 50" gives 117 PPI.
5K resolution in 40" gives 147 PPI.

Note also that 4K@40" PPI is the same as the 27"@2560x1440, this follows from the 3:2 size ratios both in inches and pixels.

The question is, how much better quality does 150 PPI give, compared to 110 PPI? Do I want a 5K 40" monitor, or can I get away with 4K 40" monitor if we consider PPI? And, is 50" monitor too large? Is 40" the largest you can go for real usage? So the ideal choice is between 4K or 5K in 40"? Or should we consider 50" monitors too?
Subjectively, is 150 PPI much better than 110 PPI or just roughly the same? I would like to compare a 150 PPI monitor to a 110 PPI to figure out if I want 5K resolution in 40" monitor, or if 110 PPI suffices. BTW, the macbook retina have 220 PPI which clearly look very good. So 220 PPI would be very nice to have. But 150 PPI, what about it? Does someone know? Is 150 PPI much better than 110 PPI?)

One has to be careful not to fall into a trap here and the trap is viewing scenarios differences.
Viewing scenario for macbook is different from big desktop monitor, roughly speaking macbook resembles more to reading printed pages, the distance wrt to the screen size is closer.Thus a 2x jump from 110 ppi to 220 ppi in mackbook is significant, bringing it close to the 250-300 of the newspaper print. In turn jump from 110 to 150 ppi in big desktop monitor is a minor thing not worth the effort. Here people which have the 27" 5K monitors will say they are amazing. The problem is how these monitors would compare to the identical 27" 4K monitors. Point is that both such monitors would be excellent.

To recap:
A) Are 50" monitors too large for practical use?
B) If yes, we stop at 40" and consider PPI instead. Then the next question is: 110 PPI vs 150 PPI. Is there a large difference between them in pic quality?
C) If the pic quality difference is not big, then we can settle for a 110 PPI display, so the choice is clear: we want a 4K 40" monitor.
D) In that case, do we need hdmi 2.0 and DP 1.3? What do they give?
E) If they dont give much and we are satisfied with 60 FPS, then the choice is clear; we can buy this Philips and be happy. Ever after. We dont need to look for 5K 40" monitors, nor dont need to look for 50" monitors either. Or what do you say about future monitors? Do you want 5K in 40" monitor, or do you want 5K in 50"? Or are you satisfied with 4K in 40" (because 50" is too large?)

A. In my view 50" 16:9 monitors are too big for standard desktop usage scenarios. To justify this precisely one has first to counter argument that any monitor is fine if it is at a proper distance. For example one can take 100" display, hang it on a wall and use as monitor from the 75" distance. But the point here is that this is not desktop scenario anymore in the psychological sense of using something in my-personal-space which means the space considered for solitary use (e.g. people keep in public contacts at certain distance just not to violate this space). So there is limit against increasing the display size and this maximal limit is close to the natural viewing distance of 40" monitor.

The second argument against the 50" 16:9 is concerning the height of the display. From ergonomic considerations the display can not be too high since then the head will have to move upwards which will end up in chronic neck pain. Ergonomics requires that most of the display is seen bit downwards, this means eye level should be over the middle line, 3/5-2/3 of the display height. Now to see what is the maximum display height acceptable for the desktop we have to assume that the display is lowered so that its edge is touching the desk. Standard eye level position is about 16" over the desk and the 40" display height is about 21" which yet fits for ergonomically comfortable viewing. For the 50" the height increases by 25% and goes beyond the range, the head would have to move upward if the display is positioned as monitor and not a TV. There is also a limit on the displays size coming from the width of the flat display. For flat display the viewing angle at edges can not be too big. This problem can be solved with curved displays like seen in multimonitor systems.

B. As said above 150 vs. 110 ppi is minor for desktop

C. Yes but note you are talking about flat 16:9 monitors. 5K would make big sense for curved 21:9 monitors with height similar to a 40" 16:9 4K monitor

D. As said before: not much practically but more elegant inside. DP1.3 absolutely necessary for 5K.

E. Do not think only about 16:9, think about widescreen curved monitors too. They may eventually start replacing multimonitor setups. There is also marketing aspect of 'bigger is better', 4K res is coming even to smart phones so why not pump the pixels up in monitors?. Industry is already working on 8K resolution. This may not be much needed but if it can be done with no price increase it will be done just for the pissing contest.

 

[Michaelius]

Only thing DP 1.3 brings for 4K displays is optional adaptive sync.

 

[brutalizer]

Thanks for your input. Very helpful!

No real pratical difference, just technically HDMI 2.0/DP1.3 are more elegant being designed from scratch for 4K@60Hz. Things change with 5K, as the DP1.3 is the only connector supporting it.

But that is only a matter for the GPU, right? If I buy this 40" Philips, then it doesnt matter if the monitor has DP1.3 or DP1.2 because it is still 4K. Not 5K. You can not upgrade this monitor to 5K. Hence, DP1.3 is only useful for your GPU and if you consider buying 5K monitors in the future.

Note also that 4K@40" PPI is the same as the 27"@2560x1440, this follows from the 3:2 size ratios both in inches and pixels.

Good observation! Thanks! So it is just 1.5x larger than my 27" in both axis. Well, that is huge! Wow. I dont think 50" will be necessary, when I compare to my 27" QNIX monitor.

One has to be careful not to fall into a trap here and the trap is viewing scenarios differences. Viewing scenario for macbook is different from big desktop monitor, roughly speaking macbook resembles more to reading printed pages, the distance wrt to the screen size is closer.Thus a 2x jump from 110 ppi to 220 ppi in mackbook is significant, bringing it close to the 250-300 of the newspaper print. In turn jump from 110 to 150 ppi in big desktop monitor is a minor thing not worth the effort.

This is the thing that I want to know more about. Why do you say this, do you have links or anything so I can learn more? Is 110 vs 150 PPI not worth it? I wonder...

A. In my view 50" 16:9 monitors are too big for standard desktop usage scenarios. To justify this....

Very good answer. Thanx.

B. As said above 150 vs. 110 ppi is minor for desktop

This I want to know more about. Sure, you say so, but ideally I would need more information. Ideally, I would myself compare two of these displays.

C. Yes but note you are talking about flat 16:9 monitors. 5K would make big sense for curved 21:9 monitors with height similar to a 40" 16:9 4K monitor

I suspect 21:9 might be very expensive and you have to wait several years before they arrive. Because, there are not many large 21:9 TVs out there. When such TVs are common, the price will drop and then you can afford 21:9 5K monitors. But that will take years, I guess.

D. As said before: not much practically but more elegant inside. DP1.3 absolutely necessary for 5K.

But not for this monitor.

E. Do not think only about 16:9, think about widescreen curved monitors too. They may eventually start replacing multimonitor setups. There is also marketing aspect of 'bigger is better', 4K res is coming even to smart phones so why not pump the pixels up in monitors?. Industry is already working on 8K resolution. This may not be much needed but if it can be done with no price increase it will be done just for the pissing contest

I can not afford unusual large monitors. I can only afford common large monitors, and for the forseeable future it will be 16:9 monitors. So I have to buy one of them. I can not buy 21:9 or something. Plus, 5K will be very expensive, I guess.

So, now I only need more information regarding 110PPI vs 150PPI. If they are minor difference, then I might as well as buy this monitor. And some years later when they are common, I might go for a 6K or 8K monitor or whatever. But I will only buy common monitors.

Only thing DP 1.3 brings for 4K displays is optional adaptive sync.

And what is that? What do you use it for?

 

[vorpel]

The other consideration for the difference between 4K and 5K monitors (all things being equal) is that if gaming is a moderate to large percent of your computer usage, there really isn't any graphics cards out there that would be able to handle 5K resolution past low quality settings.

I base this on the fact that it takes at least 1 Nvidia GTX 980 overclocked to be able to get close to 60fps on 4K. Currently 2 GTX 980's in SLI are not working as well as they should be so there is only a small difference. Once you nearly double the pixels with 5K vs 4K, the only real usage of 5K is non-gaming.

5K/8K might be the future (several years down the line) but I think wirk is right - beyond a 40" 4K the next real frontier is going to be massive 21:9 monitors at 5K or some weird resolution due to viewing height to create an immersive experience.

 

[wirk]

But that is only a matter for the GPU, right? If I buy this 40" Philips, then it doesnt matter if the monitor has DP1.3 or DP1.2 because it is still 4K. Not 5K. You can not upgrade this monitor to 5K. Hence, DP1.3 is only useful for your GPU and if you consider buying 5K monitors in the future.

Yeah upgrading 4K to 5K is like making gold out of something which has yellow color . Strictly speaking DP1.3 will be useful for high-end 4K monitors which may have 10-bit input. But it will be a must for 5K monitors.

This is the thing that I want to know more about. Why do you say this, do you have links or anything so I can learn more? Is 110 vs 150 PPI not worth it? I wonder...

Start from basics

I suspect 21:9 might be very expensive and you have to wait several years before they arrive. Because, there are not many large 21:9 TVs out there. When such TVs are common, the price will drop and then you can afford 21:9 5K monitors. But that will take years, I guess.

No, there is no direct impact of this. Look at the new ultrawide 34" 21:9 monitors. Similar thing can done with 5K, it only depends on the market competition.

I can not afford unusual large monitors. I can only afford common large monitors, and for the forseeable future it will be 16:9 monitors. So I have to buy one of them. I can not buy 21:9 or something. Plus, 5K will be very expensive, I guess.

It depends on the market, initial price might be high and drop like a stone.

The other consideration for the difference between 4K and 5K monitors (all things being equal) is that if gaming is a moderate to large percent of your computer usage, there really isn't any graphics cards out there that would be able to handle 5K resolution past low quality settings. I base this on the fact that it takes at least 1 Nvidia GTX 980 overclocked to be able to get close to 60fps on 4K. Currently 2 GTX 980's in SLI are not working as well as they should be so there is only a small difference. Once you nearly double the pixels with 5K vs 4K, the only real usage of 5K is non-gaming. 5K/8K might be the future (several years down the line) but I think wirk is right - beyond a 40" 4K the next real frontier is going to be massive 21:9 monitors at 5K or some weird resolution due to viewing height to create an immersive experience.

If you think about 5K, it will require DP1.3 and thus do not take what is now but what will be avaialable in one year. Graphics power will jump 50%-75% if not more. Then in 2016 another jump like this or bigger (16nm tech). Two cards will then be enough to drive 5K.

 

[evlo]

is it matte or glossy or semi gloss/mate?

EDIT: nvm, from the photo on previous page it is clearly semi gloss

 

[brutalizer]

What brand is this? Anyone heard of this 40" 4K monitor?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Brand-New-I...8052?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item3397e41024

 

[jommy999]

What brand is this? Anyone heard of this 40" 4K monitor?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Brand-New-I...8052?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item3397e41024

from the spec its only 4k 30hz as only got hdmi ports. no DP.

 

[elleana]

What brand is this? Anyone heard of this 40" 4K monitor?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Brand-New-I...8052?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item3397e41024

Stay away. 30Hz only.

 

[MrGrumpie]

MrGrumpie, you said you had a BenQ BL3200PT earlier. I have that monitor too at the moment, but I'm considering the Philips 40" as an upgrade. If you had to compare the BenQ and Philips, is the Philips better in every way, or is the BenQ still superior in some aspects? I'm particularly interested in the amount of ghosting. Also, as you may know, some BenQ panels have a problem with darker vertical bands across the screen. Does the Philips suffer from that problem as well?

Just tried mine and I can't see any pronounced vertical banding, but I do have one horizontal band. I can only see this on a test screen and not in normal use.

With a very light grey background and with the lights off, the screen looks a bit "dirty", but this is as much to do with viewing angles as anything else.

 

[MrGrumpie]

MrGrumpie pls!

Haha, didn't know what you signed up for did you. Couple questions


1. Black crush... I know its inherent to VA panels. I currently have the 39" Seiki 4k, and when I play games, specifically Star Citizen, I can get some really gnarly black crush to where I can barely see my ship. I'm glad you have Elite, because it's a decent comparison. You noticing any heavy black crush on that panel?


2. Banding. Any banding that you've noticed? The Seiki had pretty bad banding before I used a customer driver made by a forum member. Could you check out http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/5143/1vs6.png and see if there's any blocky or choppiness? Should be a smooth transition between the colors.

Thanks for your time!

I can't comment on black crush yet, but I just ran the banding test. On greens and reds I can see the blocks, but it is very faint. Overall transitions look pretty smooth.

Make no mistake, this is a cracking panel imho. Any panel will fall down on close scrutiny, and I think we can all get carried away. In normal use this is the best panel I've ever used (caveat: only 2 hours use so far lol)

 

[MrGrumpie]

Someone asked me about how 1080p looks earlier in the thread. One of the big questions in my head has previously been about how well a 4k panel would scale to lower resolutions, and the typical answer that I've read has always been "not well."

Not true. I've just tried BF4 and it looks absolutely great. Based on this title alone, 1080p and 1440p downscaling looks fantastic (in the context of their resolutions). No issues scaling whatsoever, which has put a big smile on my face

 

[GNUse_the_force]

any news on 21:9 displays using the 4k resolution ? i tend to think that manufacturers would use a wider version of the existing 28" panels but then again all 21:9 monitors have been IPS which firmly put them in the camp of the 32" height panels.

for me given the discussions above about neck strain, day to day usage, eye focus and PPI etc.. vs immersion, that a 32" in height 21:9 screen at 4k ( or whatever they call that ? ) would be amazing. you get more PPI than 1440p 27" , more than the 40" but the height and width although still impressive and highly immersive dont mean excessive head movement, just peripheral vision like eyefinity and at a typical 70 - 80 cm away you can make out the text without scaling beyond 10%

you could work and game and it would still be big enough to properly watch a movie or play a console game sat back with a controller.

I assume that a 32" 21:9 screen height would make the screeen 39.5" 21:9 ? ( they would call it 40" ultra wide curved 5k or something )

 

[wirk]

any news on 21:9 displays using the 4k resolution ? i tend to think that manufacturers would use a wider version of the existing 28" panels but then again all 21:9 monitors have been IPS which firmly put them in the camp of the 32" height panels. for me given the discussions above about neck strain, day to day usage, eye focus and PPI etc.. vs immersion, that a 32" in height 21:9 screen at 4k ( or whatever they call that ? ) would be amazing. you get more PPI than 1440p 27" , more than the 40" but the height and width although still impressive and highly immersive dont mean excessive head movement, just peripheral vision like eyefinity and at a typical 70 - 80 cm away you can make out the text without scaling beyond 10% you could work and game and it would still be big enough to properly watch a movie or play a console game sat back with a controller. I assume that a 32" 21:9 screen height would make the screeen 39.5" 21:9 ? ( they would call it 40" ultra wide curved 5k or something )

Absolutely no info yet on 21:9 40"@4K panels. I would rather think they will appear only when the DP1.3 gets established since there is enough trouble with 4K in DP1.2. I think such panels would have to be curved, flat is too wide.

Obviously an even better would be a curved 21:9 5K display with the height of 40" 16:9, and the number of pixel lines slightly bigger than 4K, around 2300. That would make possible manipulating 4K windows on the screen . But for 5K DP1.3 is a must.

As we can see, for now the main strategic question is when DP1.3 arrives in monitors and especially in graphics cards. This for sure will be in 2015, but will it be Q1 or Q4?

 

[Rhinohelix]

Do we have any ETA for a US retailer/distributor for these yet, and what the pricing might be? Understand we have it in lots of places but I haven't seen anyone confirm a US MSRP/ Expected street price yet.

 

[GNUse_the_force]

Absolutely no info yet on 21:9 40"@4K panels. I would rather think they will appear only when the DP1.3 gets established since there is enough trouble with 4K in DP1.2. I think such panels would have to be curved, flat is too wide.

Obviously an even better would be a curved 21:9 5K display with the height of 40" 16:9, and the number of pixel lines slightly bigger than 4K, around 2300. That would make possible manipulating 4K windows on the screen . But for 5K DP1.3 is a must.

As we can see, for now the main strategic question is when DP1.3 arrives in monitors and especially in graphics cards. This for sure will be in 2015, but will it be Q1 or Q4?

the thing about having it a 40" in height 21:9 would mean you have a screen about 48" wide ! I think 40" wide is about the max comfortable limit for me as an ex-eyefinity user. But I cant deny a 40" in height would look amazing and you would still have the same PPI as 1440p i guess.
the thing i like about the 40" 21:9 is the PPI is still higher than what we had with 1440p yet its comfortably bigger, it might be 10% too smaller PPI, this leads me to think that actually a 34" in height 42" wide 21:9 5k would probably be the ultimate for me ( curved obviously and fitted with DP1.3 / HDMi 2.0)

 

[wirk]

the thing about having it a 40" in height 21:9 would mean you have a screen about 48" wide ! I think 40" wide is about the max comfortable limit for me as an ex-eyefinity user. But I cant deny a 40" in height would look amazing and you would still have the same PPI as 1440p i guess.

48" wide flat is impossible. It would have to be curved but what kind of curvature would be suitable? Present curved panels are just gently curved. More curvature like in multimonitor systems may result in picture distortions.

40" flat indeed seems to be maximum, 40"@2160p has the same ppi as the 27"@1440p, 3:2 ratio both for inches and pixels . I have 27"@1440p and from experience the 40"@4K ppi is not bothering me at all...

 

[GNUse_the_force]

48" wide flat is impossible. It would have to be curved but what kind of curvature would be suitable? Present curved panels are just gently curved. More curvature like in multimonitor systems may result in picture distortions.

40" flat indeed seems to be maximum, 40"@2160p has the same ppi as the 27"@1440p, 3:2 ratio both for inches and pixels . I have 27"@1440p and from experience the 40"@4K ppi is not bothering me at all...

when you say flat v wide its not what im specifically saying. Im sort of agreeing with you though, i think 40" curved width on a 21:9 panel with a 32" height would be ideal for me, 'perhaps' 34" height and 42" width.. but thats just being greedy.

An existing 32" PPI 4k (31.5") is 19575 pixels / sq. in. A 40" 16:9 4k panel is 12142 pixels / sq. in which is just 1k more pixels per inch than 1440p.

i could in theory get the screen i want now @ 32" 4k but id rather wait for the 21:9 versions with HDMi 2.0 / DP1.3 and cross my fingers that they have decent picture presets that can stretch bluerays & netflix to full screen

 

[Rainbow Beat]

I will probably get this monitor here in the Netherlands but I am still wondering about input lag someone here said that's it's "acceptable". I would not want to end up noticing it all the time.

Also wondering about it being semi glossy/matte. I have always had full matte monitors.
Does this monitor reflect a lot in a light room with sunlight?

 

[wirk]

i could in theory get the screen i want now @ 32" 4k but id rather wait for the 21:9 versions with HDMi 2.0 / DP1.3 and cross my fingers that they have decent picture presets that can stretch bluerays & netflix to full screen

4K 21:9 with DP1.3 is at least one year away. I am just modestly counting that a 40" curved 4K TV with HDMI 2.0 will be in the coming next year lineups, with acceptable input lag and 4:4:4. 40" 4K curved monitor is realistic in short time. 21:9 4K, 5K, are for longer future though I would like to be totally wrong on this .

 

[BigDisplayAddict]

Could the subject of this thread go back to the subject of it: the Philips BDM4065UC. All wild ideas about future monitors DP2.0 and 70": start a new thread about that subject, don't bother visitors interested in the BDM4065UC.

 

[bryanlasren]

It appears that the stand is fixed, with no adjustment, correct?

Can somebody recommend a good stand to use with this monitor? Preferably one with vertical adjustment so that we can lower it enough so that it (almost) touches the desk, and then easily raise it a few inches.

I plan on putting a BDN4065UC on a sit/stand desk. When sitting, I want the monitor almost touching the desk, and when standing, I want to raise it about 3 inches.

One nice thing about standing is that the extreme width of this monitor will be less noticeable. You're always subtly shifting back and forth anyways.

 

[MrGrumpie]

I will probably get this monitor here in the Netherlands but I am still wondering about input lag someone here said that's it's "acceptable". I would not want to end up noticing it all the time.

What kind of games do you play?

Also wondering about it being semi glossy/matte. I have always had full matte monitors.
Does this monitor reflect a lot in a light room with sunlight?

Alot more than you're used to for sure, but it's not like a full gloss TV screen. Impossible to answer accurately as every room is different and it depends where the light source is in relation to your display.

 

[MrGrumpie]

It appears that the stand is fixed, with no adjustment, correct?

Can somebody recommend a good stand to use with this monitor? Preferably one with vertical adjustment so that we can lower it enough so that it (almost) touches the desk, and then easily raise it a few inches.

I plan on putting a BDN4065UC on a sit/stand desk. When sitting, I want the monitor almost touching the desk, and when standing, I want to raise it about 3 inches.

One nice thing about standing is that the extreme width of this monitor will be less noticeable. You're always subtly shifting back and forth anyways.

Correct. I've just ordered an Ergotron Neo Flex Widescreen stand, and a 100mm to 200mm vesa adaptor plate. Should arrive tomorrow so hopefully I can test it then

 

[(^_^)]

Isn't this display already out in Europe? I wonder how come I haven't been able to find a single new review of it...is there just not a lot of interest? It's frustrating that we can't even find basic information on it like whether it is truly MST or SST...

 

[[X]eltic]

MrGrumpie, you said earlier that input lag is acceptable. You even said you think it's slightly less than the 32" VA panels. But how's the motion blur? Is that acceptable too? Would you say it is possible to play FPS games on the monitor without much trouble?

 

[Rainbow Beat]

What kind of games do you play?

Mostly World of Warcraft or other future MMOs. But also first person shooters like team fortress 2. Other then that all kinds of games that are found on steam.

Hoping the input lag won't mess with playing those games

 

[Wally Simmonds]

Just found out from our pc shop that delivery is on the 12/12. Pretty tempted to place an order..

 

[BigDisplayAddict]

Wally which shop is this? In the Netherlands? CP?

 

[elleana]

Mostly World of Warcraft or other future MMOs. But also first person shooters like team fortress 2. Other then that all kinds of games that are found on steam.

Hoping the input lag won't mess with playing those games

I'm currently having issues with WoW at 4K. Apparently WoD broke things for a lot of players, quite a number of threads on this in forums. Anyhow the point of this is my average FPS is only 20, so kinda hard to test anything when its so choppy.. I don't play FPSes so can't help you there. All I can say is we are probably closer to monitor territoy than TV territory in terms of 'amount' of display lag.

 

[jommy999]

Correct. I've just ordered an Ergotron Neo Flex Widescreen stand, and a 100mm to 200mm vesa adaptor plate. Should arrive tomorrow so hopefully I can test it then

please let us know . i contacted Dabs. i might order this monitor also and plan to lower monitor to the table level . can you give me both link of stand and vesa adapter ? i will be a copy cat from you. Thank you.

 

[Rainbow Beat]

I'm currently having issues with WoW at 4K. Apparently WoD broke things for a lot of players, quite a number of threads on this in forums. Anyhow the point of this is my average FPS is only 20, so kinda hard to test anything when its so choppy.. I don't play FPSes so can't help you there. All I can say is we are probably closer to monitor territoy than TV territory in terms of 'amount' of display lag.

I do plan to play on a lower a resolution. I am not that demanding when it comes to games. As long as I can play the game @ ultra settings with my pc. 1080p should do fine.
You might wonder why I want this monitor then. The main reason is for music production and the amount of desktop space it would give without the text getting blurry. This instead of a 3-monitor setup

 

[Smitster]

Just preordered the monitor on Amazon, waiting for stock now

I take it this is the one you've ordered Grumpie? -

http://www.dabs.com/products/ergomounts-ergotron-neo-flex-widescreen-lift-stand---stand-7BM9.html

Looks pretty good but seems to only go a maximum of 368mm of the ground -

http://www.ergotron.com/Portals/0/literature/dimensionIllustrations/DIM-074-C.pdf

Guessing the VESA Plate is dead centre at the back of the monitor? If so max height off the ground once it's mounted would be approx 10cm, which by the sounds of things is what it is with the current stand.

Just want to confirm as display height for the monitor is quoted as 512mm

Thanks

 

[WorldExclusive]

Just preordered the monitor on Amazon, waiting for stock now

This is UK Amazon, not US if anyone is wondering.

 

[jommy999]

yes amazon won't charge money till they dispatch the item .they are quite good .

 

[Seinfeld]

----------

 

[jommy999]

Some store has got the monitor in stock again.

But I was forced to order for a higher price again because the stores that has it for normal price said all monitors are reserved so there is no left for me.

I have order at 2 stores, I thought I should buy 2, in case I end up with a faulty monitor again I have a spare one. If the first one I pick up is fine, then I will just send the other back and they will give me the cash back. Else it could happen that I get a faulty again and there is no more in stock until several weeks later and I don't wanna wait much longer.

this time you sure will enjoy the monitor . good luck

 

[Seinfeld]

this time you sure will enjoy the monitor . good luck

Thanks. Well, I went out and bought a 48" inch 4K TV to use as monitor but had to return it because the color loss was terrible and it was much bigger and heavier then the Philips. I thought that 8" inch more wouldn't be that much bigger but it does feel so.

The Philips screen is really not so big on the desk as I thought and it really feels light and is easy to carry. It's even ok to use with the stand, it wasn't too high for me so I will probably use the stand on the new monitor.