Wednesday, November 29th 2017

Philips Launches the 356M6QJAB/11 1080p, 35" FreeSync Monitor With Ambiglow Tech

Philips has launched the 356M6QJAB/11 monitor, a 35" affair that sports a somewhat anemic resolution of just 1080p for such a diagonal size. Besides being aesthetically pleasing - whose mileage may vary, as always - there's not much to gloat about regarding its features, except for one thing: this monitor sports Philips' proprietary Ambiglow technology.

Ambiglow marries image processing capabilities with RGB LEDs that add to the viewing experience by projecting the on-screen color shifts around the monitor's bezels towards a close-proximity wall. It's not clear from Philips' product page, but it seems that this monitor's Ambiglow tech is only available on the bottom of the monitor - if so, this seems to be a mistake, since usually, the top and sides are preferred areas for color display (this editor speaks as a user of a Lightpack PC solution.)
The fact that this monitor incorporates Philips' Ambiglow will likely bring a pricing offset to the rest of the relatively low-cost specs on this 35" monitor. Its 1080p resolution and lowly 250 cd/m² brightness, allied to 178º viewing angles, point towards the usage of an IPS panel (if Philips' specs didn't confirm it), which is also supported by the relatively high (5 ms) response time Philips is quoting for this monitor. The base of the monitor is aesthetically pleasing, but will bring users some further thought to whether or not their computing environment can accommodate such a wide distance between the base's feet.
FreeSync support brings some measure of usability for this monitor outside an office environment, but it's likely that almost all enthusiasts/gamers will give this one a pass. There's also support for blue-light reduction technologies, in the form of Philips' Low Blue Mode, and a SmartImage game mode that sells itself by claiming better responsiveness, contrast, and response times. The 356M6QJAB/11 has built-in 2x 5 W speakers, and video inputs are distributed by 1x D-Sub, 2x HDMI 1.4, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. No pricing was available at time of writing.Source: Philips
Add your own comment

22 Comments on Philips Launches the 356M6QJAB/11 1080p, 35" FreeSync Monitor With Ambiglow Tech

#1
Vayra86
Ambilight might just be a positive to compensate for the low contrast ratio of IPS. More brightly lit room and background = less noticeable IPS glow and bad contrast ratio.

Beyond that, please know Philips panels are not Philips panels. This is TP-Vision, who bought the name and some IP.

That monitor base though... that is just stupid
Posted on Reply
#2
_JP_
I thought AmbiLight was a gimmick that TV makers forgot long ago...
That stand assures me I can headbutt the TV without concert it'll fall on its back :)
Posted on Reply
#3
Owen1982
1080p over 35 inches - ya noooo.

Unless you love 8-bit emulators?
Posted on Reply
#4
hyp36rmax
Why 1080P!? This is a prime candidate for 4K
Posted on Reply
#5
PowerPC
1080p on 35" in (almost) 2018... Just why?
Posted on Reply
#6
_UV_
356M6QJAB/11
such user friendly and easy to decipher, at least it's short...
Posted on Reply
#7
droopyRO
hyp36rmax said:
Why 1080P!? This is a prime candidate for 4K
Because 4k requires a monster GPU to even run at 60 fps with medium-high settings(not ultra) ?
Because bigger is better especialy for people that have poorer eye sight, bought a 32" 1080p VA panel Philips for an elderly person, very happy with it.
Because it can be used as a TV and or for consoles in smaller rooms.

The above monitor compared to my 1440p 27" 120Hz IPS i found it a more enjoyable experience, except the 60(75Hz) refresh rate. If you don't plant your face in it, the bigger dot pitch is not something you see while gaming from about one meter.
Posted on Reply
#8
Crustybeaver
Yay, 1080p. Feels like I've been waiting an eternity for 4K 144Hz HDR monitors to drop. One day, one day.
Posted on Reply
#9
wiyosaya
_JP_ said:
I thought AmbiLight was a gimmick that TV makers forgot long ago...
That stand assures me I can headbutt the TV without concert it'll fall on its back :)
AmbiLight was offered only on Phillips TVs a few years back. It is nothing less than a gimmick IMO.

Vayra86 said:
Ambilight might just be a positive to compensate for the low contrast ratio of IPS. More brightly lit room and background = less noticeable IPS glow and bad contrast ratio.

Beyond that, please know Philips panels are not Philips panels. This is TP-Vision, who bought the name and some IP.

That monitor base though... that is just stupid
The proper way to increase contrast with backlighting is to have a D6500 source set at something like 15-percent of full brightness. D6500 (basically gray) assures color neutrality.
Posted on Reply
#10
lexluthermiester
Noticing a lot of people displaying for all to see their resolution snobbery. There is nothing wrong with a high quality 1080p display. If you don't want it, don't buy it. But bemoaning a seemingly well crafted display because it "only" has the most adopted and standard resolution configuration on the planet is pure entitled elitism. Oh, boohoo. And most of the complaining is coming from accounts with very few posts and young age. Hmm..

I think this display looks cool and the effect would be interesting to see.
Posted on Reply
#11
Prima.Vera
Wait, is this a monitor or an old HD TV??
Posted on Reply
#12
JackOne
Prima.Vera said:
Wait, is this a monitor or an old HD TV??
I thought the same initially.

Btw. has nothing to do with elitism. 1080p is simply not enough for 35", you will see a lot of pixels that way, at least when you're on desktop and reading something. 1440p at least would've been way better. Again, has nothing to do with snobbery or elitism, it's simply a sub optimal resolution / experience for a 35" monitor.
Posted on Reply
#13
metalslaw
It would be great if manufactures put out a 36" 1440p 144Hz monitor.

36" @ 1440p has the same dot pitch as 27" @ 1080p.

It would suit alot of people I think.
Posted on Reply
#14
lexluthermiester
JackOne said:
Btw. has nothing to do with elitism. 1080p is simply not enough for 35", you will see a lot of pixels that way, at least when you're on desktop and reading something. 1440p at least would've been way better. Again, has nothing to do with snobbery or elitism, it's simply a sub optimal resolution / experience for a 35" monitor.
Nonsense. I have a 60" 1080p 120hz TV in my living room. Even when sitting 4 feet way, individual pixels are impossible to make out when watching video or playing a game. Now, I'm not saying higher resolution isn't good, I'm saying to whine about a worldwide standard resolution which everyone and their dog supports is total snobbish elitism.
Posted on Reply
#15
JackOne
lexluthermiester said:
Nonsense. I have a 60" 1080p 120hz TV in my living room. Even when sitting 4 feet way, individual pixels are impossible to make out when watching video or playing a game. Now, I'm not saying higher resolution isn't good, I'm saying to whine about a worldwide standard resolution which everyone and their dog supports is total snobbish elitism.
Nonsense for you maybe. I can see them. And I can see when a display has high PPI like on smartphones for example where you can't see them. I'd say your comment is completely BS, sorry. I can see pixels on a 27" 1080p, and I would easily easily see them on a 35" - get your eyes checked asap.

I'm also not saying 1080p is garbage - it's just garbage after a certain size of a monitor. 1080p and over 27"? That's a no. Even on 27" it's borderline. The reason being you're sitting in front of that monitor, not so when you watch a TV - that's the difference and reason why you can't make out pixels on that HDTV but on your monitor directly in front of you. IMO this monitor is viable as a TV replacement or unifying display for all matters, but not viable as a monitor solely for use on a PC - there are far better options available.
Posted on Reply
#16
lexluthermiester
JackOne said:
Nonsense for you maybe. I can see them. And I can see when a display has high PPI like on smartphones for example where you can't see them. I'd say your comment is completely BS, sorry. I can see pixels on a 27" 1080p, and I would easily easily see them on a 35" - get your eyes checked asap.
So you're being insulting now? Grow up. And let's review..
lexluthermiester said:
individual pixels are impossible to make out when watching video or playing a game
Yup, that's what I said. Hmm..
JackOne said:
I'm also not saying 1080p is garbage - it's just garbage after a certain size of a monitor. 1080p and over 27"? That's a no. Even on 27" it's borderline.
You've just contradicted yourself. And 90% of the displays being sold in the world are 1080p, including those larger than 27 inches.
JackOne said:
The reason being you're sitting in front of that monitor, not so when you watch a TV - that's the difference and reason why you can't make out pixels on that HDTV
You just contradicted yourself again.
JackOne said:
IMO this monitor is viable as a TV replacement or unifying display for all matters, but not viable as a monitor solely for use for a PC
That's exactly correct, just your opinion, not supported by all.
JackOne said:
- there are far better options available.
Of course there are, that's not the point. The point is that this display is not rubbish just because it's "only" 1080p. MOST of the gamers I know and play with are still on 1080p.
Posted on Reply
#17
droopyRO
I have trouble running games like ArmA 3 or TW Warhammer at a constant 60 fps at 1440p. 1080p is a far better alternative from the price/performance point.
1440p and 4k/5k/8k etc. are what i call "work" resolutions, not intended for playing games or watching YT/DVDs but for productivity on a single display.
Posted on Reply
#18
hyp36rmax
droopyRO said:
Because 4k requires a monster GPU to even run at 60 fps with medium-high settings(not ultra) ?
Because bigger is better especialy for people that have poorer eye sight, bought a 32" 1080p VA panel Philips for an elderly person, very happy with it.
Because it can be used as a TV and or for consoles in smaller rooms.

The above monitor compared to my 1440p 27" 120Hz IPS i found it a more enjoyable experience, except the 60(75Hz) refresh rate. If you don't plant your face in it, the bigger dot pitch is not something you see while gaming from about one meter.
I agree bigger is better, albeit with a tighter DPI that 1440P and 4K can provide at a larger screen size such as a 35". Your example for an elderly person with bad sight is fine, but did you forget the demographic that this monitor was posted to? Primarily tech oriented hardware and gaming enthusiast who you would hope have the experience.

Your profile says you have an ASUS MG279Q? I have three and can agree it's great experience even with my last setup with FURY X in crossfire. Freesync really saves the day with that.

Anyways you can actually run 4K with mid range GPU's at medium settings with minimal or no AA and AO and be completely fine at 60 FPS. Don't be fooled with benchmarks that are using pre-determined settings that includes AA and AO at it's max. You have to remember AA scales with resolution and isn't very fun or noticeable at 4K+ resolutions. (I also own an ASUS PB287Q and Samsung U28E590D 4K monitors)

lexluthermiester said:
Noticing a lot of people displaying for all to see their resolution snobbery. There is nothing wrong with a high quality 1080p display. If you don't want it, don't buy it. But bemoaning a seemingly well crafted display because it "only" has the most adopted and standard resolution configuration on the planet is pure entitled elitism. Oh, boohoo. And most of the complaining is coming from accounts with very few posts and young age. Hmm..

I think this display looks cool and the effect would be interesting to see.
It's really not about being a snob at all. I'd wager it's about the experience. 1080P is perfectly fine up to 24 inches. Anything more and I can personally notice the lower DPI. LOL at the bolded quote. C'mon man you're taking this a little too emotionally personal. almost as if you're justifying why you're so invested into 1080P.

Yes 1080P is the most adopted resolution due to cost and mainstream availability... Again this conversation is a post on an enthusiast website who most likely will have users who prefer higher resolution outside of that bell curve. Is that not ok too?

JackOne said:
I thought the same initially.

Btw. has nothing to do with elitism. 1080p is simply not enough for 35", you will see a lot of pixels that way, at least when you're on desktop and reading something. 1440p at least would've been way better. Again, has nothing to do with snobbery or elitism, it's simply a sub optimal resolution / experience for a 35" monitor.
Exactly! Hit the nail on the head.

metalslaw said:
It would be great if manufactures put out a 36" 1440p 144Hz monitor.

36" @ 1440p has the same dot pitch as 27" @ 1080p.

It would suit alot of people I think.
Although I prefer this in 4K, 1440P would be a great median for this.

lexluthermiester said:
Nonsense. I have a 60" 1080p 120hz TV in my living room. Even when sitting 4 feet way, individual pixels are impossible to make out when watching video or playing a game. Now, I'm not saying higher resolution isn't good, I'm saying to whine about a worldwide standard resolution which everyone and their dog supports is total snobbish elitism.
It's totally ok that you don't notice the pixels from 4ft away, it really is. Not everyone has great eyesight. But you're totally disregarding all the other users who might notice. Makes you sound like a 1080P snob...

JackOne said:
Nonsense for you maybe. I can see them. And I can see when a display has high PPI like on smartphones for example where you can't see them. I'd say your comment is completely BS, sorry. I can see pixels on a 27" 1080p, and I would easily easily see them on a 35" - get your eyes checked asap.

I'm also not saying 1080p is garbage - it's just garbage after a certain size of a monitor. 1080p and over 27"? That's a no. Even on 27" it's borderline. The reason being you're sitting in front of that monitor, not so when you watch a TV - that's the difference and reason why you can't make out pixels on that HDTV but on your monitor directly in front of you. IMO this monitor is viable as a TV replacement or unifying display for all matters, but not viable as a monitor solely for use on a PC - there are far better options available.
1080P 27 inch monitors probably have the most apparent low pixel density i have ever seen. Totally agree here.

droopyRO said:
I have trouble running games like ArmA 3 or TW Warhammer at a constant 60 fps at 1440p. 1080p is a far better alternative from the price/performance point.
1440p and 4k/5k/8k etc. are what i call "work" resolutions, not intended for playing games or watching YT/DVDs but for productivity on a single display.
Those games are very CPU intensive. Are you using the IQ presets?

As far as 1440P+ resolutions not game friendly..... you're delusional... I'd imagine you would pair up your GPU with your monitor for the best experience in most games. I wouldn't expect a GTX 1060 owner expecting to max out a 4K monitor, it's all relative, unfortunately you pay to play. If you want a cutting edge monitor you're going to need a monster GPU to drive it.
Posted on Reply
#19
medi01
No word on Freesync range or price?
Posted on Reply
#20
Prince Valiant
lexluthermiester said:
Nonsense. I have a 60" 1080p 120hz TV in my living room. Even when sitting 4 feet way, individual pixels are impossible to make out when watching video or playing a game. Now, I'm not saying higher resolution isn't good, I'm saying to whine about a worldwide standard resolution which everyone and their dog supports is total snobbish elitism.
Typical monitor viewing distance is around 2'. I wouldn't want more than a 30" display as a monitor regardless of resolution.

If you're interested in bias lighting I've heard these are quite good:
http://www.cinemaquestinc.com/ideal_lumesb.htm
Posted on Reply
#21
EarthDog
medi01 said:
No word on Freesync range or price?
If it wasn't on the marketing email, it won't make it here...
Posted on Reply
#22
lexluthermiester
hyp36rmax said:
I agree bigger is better, albeit with a tighter DPI that 1440P and 4K can provide at a larger screen size such as a 35". Your example for an elderly person with bad sight is fine, but did you forget the demographic that this monitor was posted to? Primarily tech oriented hardware and gaming enthusiast who you would hope have the experience.
Enough with the bad vision talk. That is not the problem here and isn't a factor for most of the people who'd consider this display. That is misconception on your part. Most gamers right now are 1080p display users. Higher resolutions in gaming generally require investing in $400+ video cards. Such a price is out of the reach of most gamers. So for those gamers it's a "sweetspot" resolution that gives good detail without wallet emptying price tags.
hyp36rmax said:
Anyways you can actually run 4K with mid range GPU's at medium settings with minimal or no AA and AO and be completely fine at 60 FPS. Don't be fooled with benchmarks that are using pre-determined settings that includes AA and AO at it's max. You have to remember AA scales with resolution and isn't very fun or noticeable at 4K+ resolutions.
That's certainly true, but it also applies to 1080p.
hyp36rmax said:
It's really not about being a snob at all. I'd wager it's about the experience. 1080P is perfectly fine up to 24 inches. Anything more and I can personally notice the lower DPI. LOL at the bolded quote. C'mon man you're taking this a little too emotionally personal. almost as if you're justifying why you're so invested into 1080P.
Yeah that's gotta be it... Except I'm not. And my personal displays are higher resolution than 1080p.
hyp36rmax said:
Yes 1080P is the most adopted resolution due to cost and mainstream availability... Again this conversation is a post on an enthusiast website who most likely will have users who prefer higher resolution outside of that bell curve. Is that not ok too?
TPU is a site that makes a distinct effort to appeal to tech enthusiasts of all economic ranges, not just the elitists. And I never said that wanting higher resolutions displays was a bad thing. The point was that there was a lot of moaning and whining going on because the advertised display was "only" 1080p...
hyp36rmax said:
Although I prefer this in 4K, 1440P would be a great median for this.
I wouldn't disagree. But there is nothing wrong with this model exactly as it is.
hyp36rmax said:
It's totally ok that you don't notice the pixels from 4ft away, it really is. Not everyone has great eyesight. But you're totally disregarding all the other users who might notice. Makes you sound like a 1080P snob...
Really? Thanks. Nothing wrong with my eyesight. The problem here is in contextual comprehension. Hmmm.
Prince Valiant said:
Typical monitor viewing distance is around 2'. I wouldn't want more than a 30" display as a monitor regardless of resolution.
That's fair. I had a 32" display about 3' away at one time. It was just too big that close up. Currently have dual 27" displays and they work much better. For me anyway.
Prince Valiant said:
If you're interested in bias lighting I've heard these are quite good: http://www.cinemaquestinc.com/ideal_lumesb.htm
Those are kinda cool, but anyone could get a light set. The point of the display in this article is that the ambient lighting somewhat matches what is being displayed on the screen, if I understand the technology correctly. The screen shot seem to suggest that concept.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment