Thursday, January 21st 2021

Philips Releases 288E2UAE Monitor: 28" 8-bit IPS, 4K, 60 Hz, 4 ms, 119% sRGB - $300

Philips today via its distributor MMD announced the 288E2UAE Monitor, a cost-effective 4K monitor with a 28" diagonal. The monitor features a native 8-bit display (10-bit FRC) with a pretty run-of-the mill 60 Hz refresh rate, 300 cd/m² luminance and 1000:1 static contrast for its 4K resolution. The 4 ms response time won't earn it any accolades, but that's to be expected on a 4K resolution monitor that is expected to retail for around $300. The 119% sRGB and 106.9% NTSC coverage sit above the mainstream monitors for color reproduction, but likely won't be enough for content creators - despite the monitor's color accuracy of DeltaE < 2.

I/O wise, the Philips 288E2UAE offers a 5x USB 3.2 hub, configured at 1x upstream and 4x downstream ports, 1x HDMI and 1x DisplayPort, alongisde 1x 3.5 mm audio output and 2x 3 W integrated speakers. The display further features an anti-reflection coating, and firmware-based EasyRead, Flicker-free and LowBlue technologies.
Add your own comment

75 Comments on Philips Releases 288E2UAE Monitor: 28" 8-bit IPS, 4K, 60 Hz, 4 ms, 119% sRGB - $300

#1
silentbogo
Not bad for $300. Better than my $350 Samsung, plus you get USB hub and speakers as a bonus.
Raevenlord
The 119% sRGB and 106,9& NTSC coverage sit above the mainstream monitors for color reproduction, but likely won't be enough for content creators - despite the monitor's color accuracy of DeltaE < 2.
In that price range I suspect it's not designed for content creation in mind, but rather for content consumption (just like my crappy U24E590).
Posted on Reply
#2
Sabishii Hito
28" UHD displays have traditionally used TN panels, but the spec list on the Philips website shows 178°V/178°H viewing angles so this is either IPS or VA.
Posted on Reply
#3
TheLostSwede
Why are the only 4K options cheap 60Hz screens or stupidly expensive 144Hz screens and nothing in-between? Well, I lie, there are also super expensive professional screens.
Posted on Reply
#4
dyonoctis
TheLostSwede
Why are the only 4K options cheap 60Hz screens or stupidly expensive 144Hz screens and nothing in-between? Well, I lie, there are also super expensive professional screens.
"Gamer tax" if you plan to play @4k 144hz it means that you got the money to afford it :D.
And seeing how Eizo's professional screen, the HP DreamColor max out at 60Hz, it doesn't seem like the pro market is asking for high refresh rate.

It's odd how high refresh screen on smartphone is a wanted feature even outside of the gaming benefits, but once again, pc's screens are lagging behind.
Posted on Reply
#5
silentbogo
TheLostSwede
Why are the only 4K options cheap 60Hz screens or stupidly expensive 144Hz screens and nothing in-between?
Tech did not catch up yet. Our only hope is that in the next couple of years 4K@120Hz becomes viable for mass market.
Display tech itself is not an issue, controllers and bandwidth are.
Even current implementations of 4K at higher than 100Hz require various workarounds (compression+chroma subsampling, or using two ports to facilitate bandwidth, etc.etc.etc.).
Gotta wait at least 'till 2022-2023 to see something real and adequately-priced (especially due to DP2.0 delays).
Posted on Reply
#6
Raevenlord
News Editor
Sabishii Hito
28" UHD displays have traditionally used TN panels, but the spec list on the Philips website shows 178°V/178°H viewing angles so this is either IPS or VA.
Uhm, yes, and it's also stated in the title and body of the news item... :)
Posted on Reply
#7
TheLostSwede
silentbogo
Tech did not catch up yet. Our only hope is that in the next couple of years 4K@120Hz becomes viable for mass market.
Display tech itself is not an issue, controllers and bandwidth are.
Even current implementations of 4K at higher than 100Hz require various workarounds (compression+chroma subsampling, or using two ports to facilitate bandwidth, etc.etc.etc.).
Gotta wait at least 'till 2022-2023 to see something real and adequately-priced (especially due to DP2.0 delays).
Which makes it even stranger that there are no 100 or 120Hz 4K monitors, as 120Hz is apparently doable with DP 1.3/1.4 without messing around.
A lot of the games I play can do more than 60Hz, but rarely over 100Hz, although I guess by now, I have a fairly modest graphics card :(
Posted on Reply
#8
Valantar
I agree entirely, it's completely baffling that there aren't more UHD120 monitors out there. Are gamers so dead set on 144Hz or higher that they won't touch a "lowly" 120Hz panel? Didn't those 90Hz ultrawides a few years back sell like hotcakes, despite poor motion resolution and response times? I can't imagine current affordable panel tech hasn't improved upon that enough to deliver a $5-600 UHD120 panel.
Posted on Reply
#9
Searing
Valantar
I agree entirely, it's completely baffling that there aren't more UHD120 monitors out there. Are gamers so dead set on 144Hz or higher that they won't touch a "lowly" 120Hz panel? Didn't those 90Hz ultrawides a few years back sell like hotcakes, despite poor motion resolution and response times? I can't imagine current affordable panel tech hasn't improved upon that enough to deliver a $5-600 UHD120 panel.
This Philips monitor is already beaten by the Asus equivalent Tuf Gaming 28" IPS for less money. I agree that they should aim for 90hz for all monitors, then we wouldn't necessarily even want "gaming" monitors, because 60hz is just horrid with LCD panels.

In luck, Asus has already announced a 120hz+ version of the Tuf 28" 60hz monitor for later this year. Of course it might cost more than double, expect $300 --> $600 minimum.
Posted on Reply
#10
Valantar
Searing
This Philips monitor is already beaten by the Asus equivalent Tuf Gaming 28" IPS for less money. I agree that they should aim for 90hz for all monitors, then we wouldn't necessarily even want "gaming" monitors, because 60hz is just horrid with LCD panels.

In luck, Asus has already announced a 120hz+ version of the Tuf 28" 60hz monitor for later this year. Of course it might cost more than double, expect $300 --> $600 minimum.
The VG289Q? I don't know its MSRP, but Newegg is currently selling that for $340, so $40 more than this Philips. If I were to guess I'd say they're using the same display panel - 28" is a rather odd size, and they ahve very similar specs.

I'm frankly surprised that anyone is still manufacturing 60Hz LCD panels outside of the very low end - and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if these panels were capable of more if tuned properly.
Posted on Reply
#11
Searing
Valantar
The VG289Q? I don't know its MSRP, but Newegg is currently selling that for $340, so $40 more than this Philips. If I were to guess I'd say they're using the same display panel - 28" is a rather odd size, and they ahve very similar specs.

I'm frankly surprised that anyone is still manufacturing 60Hz LCD panels outside of the very low end - and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if these panels were capable of more if tuned properly.
I just bought the monitor from Bestbuy Canada for $295 USD equivalent
Posted on Reply
#12
mechtech
dyonoctis
"Gamer tax" if you plan to play @4k 144hz it means that you got the money to afford it :D.
And seeing how Eizo's professional screen, the HP DreamColor max out at 60Hz, it doesn't seem like the pro market is asking for high refresh rate.

It's odd how high refresh screen on smartphone is a wanted feature even outside of the gaming benefits, but once again, pc's screens are lagging behind.
Yep gamer tax. 120Hz should have been the defacto standard long ago and 60Hz should have went out before the VGA port.

I'm not a big fan of frc, if not implemented good it can possibly cause banding in some scenarios, it also sucks that windows 10 isnt true 10-bit colour on the desk top, I feel like its 1998.

Also my LG 27UL550-W I picked up from best buy 1 year ago for $350 cnd
www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27UL550-W-4k-uhd-led-monitor
Posted on Reply
#13
lexluthermiester
silentbogo
Not bad for $300. Better than my $350 Samsung, plus you get USB hub and speakers as a bonus.
Agreed! This is a very nice bit of kit! Banging feature for the money and it's Philips so it going to be solid quality.

@W1zzard
This deserves a proper review by one of the staff. Just an idea.
Posted on Reply
#14
mtcn77
Raevenlord
The 119% sRGB and 106.9% NTSC coverage sit above the mainstream monitors for color reproduction, but likely won't be enough for content creators - despite the monitor's color accuracy of DeltaE < 2
This is grossly incorrect. Color gamut is a handicap, rather than an advantage in the domain of nanoIPS technology. Ever heard of the 'red shift'?
As the screen is has a wide gamut backlight, the screen did suffer from the same slow decay on red shades in MBR mode as the recently tested ViewSonic Elite XG270QG (see that review for more info). This leads to some red fringing in practice on moving content when using this feature.
Being a standard gamut screen it does not suffer from the slow red decay times mentioned for screens like the AOC 24G2U and 27G2U.
"Slow red decay" to be more precise...
Posted on Reply
#15
Valantar
mtcn77
This is grossly incorrect. Color gamut is a handicap, rather than an advantage in the domain of nanoIPS technology. Ever heard of the 'red shift'?


"Slow red decay" to be more precise...
You're presenting this as if this is something all wide-gamut displays have. That kind of statement needs more data backing it up than three examples.
Posted on Reply
#16
mtcn77
Valantar
You're presenting this as if this is something all wide-gamut displays have. That kind of statement needs more data backing it up than three examples.
I said nanoIPS. That is merely the latest gizmo.
I'm sure generalized statements do more harm than good and that is literally what you have said which is also what I'm also saying. There are no cheap and easy solution in display hardware like gamut beats all other variables.

PS: I'm defending the announced display, not discrediting it on a vague reference.
Posted on Reply
#17
InVasMani
I want a 21.5" display that looks as good as my Galaxy S20+ if only those existed.
Posted on Reply
#18
mtcn77
InVasMani
I want a 21.5" display that looks as good as my Galaxy S20+ if only those existed.
You can, although perceived brightness will be greater on the oled. Also, phone displays come with the craziest saturation curves, you could set brightness zero and still pick up color. My ips tablet cannot do that, although it is not as dark in the sun. I think the light bleed really won't let it, afterall it is sdr calibrated display not quite like actual oled.
Posted on Reply
#19
silentbogo
Sabishii Hito
28" UHD displays have traditionally used TN panels
"traditionally" is a bit of a strong word here. Even my E590 is PLS from 2015 model year (bought it in 2016, it was the cheapest 4K monitor on the market at the time).
Today you only see TN in gaming segment.
TheLostSwede
Which makes it even stranger that there are no 100 or 120Hz 4K monitors, as 120Hz is apparently doable with DP 1.3/1.4 without messing around.
Theoretically - yes, practically - no. Low demand on these things doesn't drive semiconductor manufacturers to deliver powerful-enough SoCs to handle 120Hz. So, in order to do so, a monitor manufacturer still needs "messing around" with custom solutions, like having two scalers on one board which will drive half the screen each or alternate frames, or rolling-out an even more expensive FPGA-based solution. DP2.0 was announced too soon, so no one really bothered to develop new ICs for soon-to-be-outdated standard, so they most likely kept their focus on DP2.0.
InVasMani
I want a 21.5" display that looks as good as my Galaxy S20+ if only those existed.
OLED monitors are on their way. Just gotta wait a year or two for something decently-priced to arrive. I believe Samsung has already some things cooked up for this year, but it's gonna be expensive.
There are some good IPS alternatives with crazy pixel densities, but realistically IPS will never be as good as OLED.
Posted on Reply
#20
mtcn77
silentbogo
but realistically IPS will never be as good as OLED.
It becomes hard fact when you factor in the perceived brightness. However, ips is still king in mobile when you are doing some studying.
Posted on Reply
#21
Valantar
InVasMani
I want a 21.5" display that looks as good as my Galaxy S20+ if only those existed.
Asus has you covered. Just be prepared to pay $4500 for the privilege.
mtcn77
I said nanoIPS. That is merely the latest gizmo.
I'm sure generalized statements do more harm than good and that is literally what you have said which is also what I'm also saying. There are no cheap and easy solution in display hardware like gamut beats all other variables.

PS: I'm defending the announced display, not discrediting it on a vague reference.
You still can't say as a general statement that the wide color gamut of NanoIPS is a handicap. You'd also do well to check your own sources more thoroughly. To quote the ViewSonic Elite XG270 review linked in your first quote:
TFTCentral
It should be noted that this has no effect during non-ULMB normal usage, it only causes an issue when ULMB is enabled.
In other words, this fringing effect is only noticeable when the display is driven overly hard at high refresh rates and in modes trying to compensate for the relatively low response times of the IPS panels. They note that it's not visible in 165Hz mode without ULMB either, so it needs both a high refresh rate and ULMB to be visible. For a 60Hz fixed refresh rate panel with no features like this Philips, it shouldn't be noticeable at all. And in no way does that take away from the advantages of having a wider-than-sRGB color gamut. Even if this is only calibrated for sRGB, users can calibrate it themselves to decent accuracy and coverage of P3, which is amazing for this price.

Also, your initial wording is problematic. Slow red decay literally means that the red phosphors in the nanoparticle layer have a slow light decay, i.e. they keep giving off light a bit longer than they ought to. "Red shift" like you termed it sounds like colors are generally shifted towards red, essentially implying a noticeable tint to the panel (and thus terrible color accuracy). This is clearly not the case. Using precise wording matters.
Posted on Reply
#22
mtcn77
Valantar
You still can't say as a general statement that the wide color gamut of NanoIPS is a handicap.
Yes, however I'm not making either generalisation, I'm pointing to it in the article. Gamut does not discredit this IPS monitor into either category, this comes after the fact depending on whether it can hold it with composure: we haven't seen it yet.
Posted on Reply
#23
Valantar
mtcn77
Yes, however I'm not making either generalisation, I'm pointing to it in the article. Gamut does not discredit this IPS monitor into either category, this comes after the fact depending on whether it can hold it with composure: we haven't seen it yet.
But that isn't what you said. You said
mtcn77
This is grossly incorrect. Color gamut is a handicap, rather than an advantage in the domain of nanoIPS technology.
That is an emphatic statement with no room for nuance. It is indeed a generalization - it says that this applies generally to all nanoIPS panels. There are no reservations to what you said there, nothing indicating that this hinges on the implementation, tuning or use case - thus implying that it must be generally applicable. Your statement is was entirely black-and-white, while the sources you provided only show that this can be a problem in severe edge cases that don't apply to this monitor (high refresh rate + ULMB). The problem you pointed out thus does not seem applicable to this monitor at all (it tops out at 60Hz, and lacks ULMB), even if this should be a general property of all nanoIPS panels (which I doubt, as different OEMs will use different nanoparticle compositions with different properties).
Posted on Reply
#24
mtcn77
To quote again;
Raevenlord
The 119% sRGB and 106.9% NTSC coverage sit above the mainstream monitors for color reproduction, but likely won't be enough for content creators - despite the monitor's color accuracy of DeltaE < 2.
I think it will be okay.
Valantar
There are no reservations to what you said there,
I'm just dispelling some FUD. I'm not making a digression on nanoIPS. I'm just saying the exception is the rule in the field of IPS. We can have differing opinions, but for the time being, there are solid arguments against this virtual arms race.
The main thing is still the overall quality, not some fringe benchmark. You might leave it at that. I'm really going to make a class example of it and I have the credits.
I understand you want to argue on the premise of monitors in general; however that is not the case. IPS and VA, each have their differing strong suits and it doesn't help anyone to blur the lines between them. If I cannot argue what makes a display good why would I argue? You should let me make the points clearer imo.
Posted on Reply
#25
TheLostSwede
silentbogo
Theoretically - yes, practically - no. Low demand on these things doesn't drive semiconductor manufacturers to deliver powerful-enough SoCs to handle 120Hz. So, in order to do so, a monitor manufacturer still needs "messing around" with custom solutions, like having two scalers on one board which will drive half the screen each or alternate frames, or rolling-out an even more expensive FPGA-based solution. DP2.0 was announced too soon, so no one really bothered to develop new ICs for soon-to-be-outdated standard, so they most likely kept their focus on DP2.0.
But DP 2.0 requires a captive cable, so that's not even in the same ballpark.
I'm sick and tired of all these IC vendors that do half assed implementations of standards in their chips, as time and time again this means that we end up with several revisions of crap that doesn't work as claimed. Can we go back to a time when quality stood for something and products were tested properly before being pushed into the market?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment