• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
9,351 (1.51/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MXVI
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory 32GB Viper Steel 3600 DDR4 @ 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Audio Device(s) Corsair Virtuoso SE
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G502 Lightspeed
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/33u9si
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 DP2.0 was announced too soon, so no one really bothered to develop new ICs for soon-to-be-outdated standard, so they most likely kept their focus on DP2.0.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?
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,465 (0.59/day)
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?
Swear, I couldn't believe it when some fellow forum users mentioned their monitors not working and looking into the matter revealed three different versions in a single model. It was a prominent name brand, too.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
5,035 (3.08/day)
Location
Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
To quote again;


I think it will be okay.

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.
I think you're fundamentally misreading what Raevenlord said. They were pointing out that while a 119% sRGB color gamut is pretty decent overall, the monitor only being calibrated for sRGB is in and of itself a drawback for content creators today, as an increasing amount of those are targeting wider color spaces (with P3 D65 being the best candidate for a new de facto standard). So while this panel can probably display a decent percentage of P3 with reasonable accuracy, the fact that the monitor lacks a mode preconfigured for that is a significant drawback as it then forces users to do their own calibration (which given the lack of 3D LUT support will never be perfect).

You took that quote, and responded to it by saying that
Color gamut is a handicap, rather than an advantage in the domain of nanoIPS technology.
due to the red fringing seen in overdriven, high refresh rate nanoIPS displays with ULMB. Which not only fails to apply to what Raevenlord was discussing at all, but takes an edge use case (144/165Hz ULMB) and uses it to make a general statement about nanoIPS monitors in general ("in the domain of nanoIPS technology"). All I'm saying is that your objections don't actually apply to the matter at hand, they aren't relevant to this monitor or the use case mentioned in the section you quoted.

As for me somehow blurring the advantages of IPS and VA - how? Have I even mentioned other display technologies? I have no interest in "arguing on the premise of monitors in general" either - I have only discussed the merits of your statements with regards to this specific monitor as well as the ones you specifically linked. Nothing else has been mentioned. The same goes for "the main thing is the overall quality, not some fringe benchmark" - that was precisely my point. You were the one bringing up a fringe benchmark and presenting it as if it said something about the overall quality of all nanoIPS panels. You made a clear, black-and-white generalization about nanoIPS panels based on a highly specialized use case. See the problem there?

As for "You should let me make the points clearer imo" - please do! So far you've both doubled down and directly contradicted yourself. I'm still waiting for some kind of arguments and/or sources to back up the simple statement that
Color gamut is a handicap, rather than an advantage in the domain of nanoIPS technology.
Which so far stands as an unsubstantiated claim with no factual basis.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,465 (0.59/day)
They were pointing out that while a 119% sRGB color gamut is pretty decent overall, the monitor only being calibrated for sRGB is in and of itself a drawback for content creators today, as an increasing amount of those are targeting wider color spaces (with P3 D65 being the best candidate for a new de facto standard).
So while this panel can probably display a decent percentage of P3 with reasonable accuracy, the fact that the monitor lacks a mode preconfigured for that is a significant drawback as it then forces users to do their own calibration (which given the lack of 3D LUT support will never be perfect).
Why do you think I'm so worked up about it while you go on wild tangents? Just how did you come up with such unsourced material and best of all, detest me for pointing out a simple generalization.
You might cherrypick based on which mode the artifact is ideally observed, but that is still the norm - LCD require strobing as a prerequisite for a clear image. That makes it the norm, not the outlier.

You made a clear, black-and-white generalization about nanoIPS panels based on a highly specialized use case. See the problem there?
No, I made a direct comparison with an 'actual' concern, not a made-up one.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
16,046 (5.29/day)
Location
USA
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Software Android 4.4.4R5 Custom
Ever heard of the 'red shift'?
Ever heard of nitpicking? That's kinda what you're doing. For the specs and the $300 price tag, it's an excellent value. It's Philips so it's unlikely not to be what they describe.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,465 (0.59/day)
Ever heard of nitpicking? That's kinda what you're doing. For the specs and the $300 price tag, it's an excellent value. It's Philips so it's unlikely not to be what they describe.
This is the opposite of what I'm saying. This one does not have wide gamut. Wide gamut is the speculation, here, not it's absence. This is a regular IPS monitor. This is what I also try to say: give it a shot, it might fit the bill just right. I stay clear of lofty marketing targets. That is what the nanoIPS example is for, not this.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
5,035 (3.08/day)
Location
Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
This is the opposite of what I'm saying. This one does not have wide gamut. Wide gamut is the speculation, here, not it's absence. This is a regular IPS monitor. This is what I also try to say: give it a shot, it might fit the bill just right. I stay clear of lofty marketing targets. That is what the nanoIPS example is for, not this.
Uhm... It does have a wide gamut. It's a specification. If it turned out that the real world color reproduction was nowhere near the advertised number, that would be grounds for RMAing every single monitor, or for a product recall. There is actually a requirement for adhering to advertised specifications, you know. And anything wider than sRGB qualifies as a wide gamut.
Why do you think I'm so worked up about it while you go on wild tangents? Just how did you come up with such unsourced material and best of all, detest me for pointing out a simple generalization.
You might cherrypick based on which mode the artifact is ideally observed, but that is still the norm - LCD require strobing as a prerequisite for a clear image. That makes it the norm, not the outlier.


No, I made a direct comparison with an 'actual' concern, not a made-up one.
And we're apparently back here again. Hooray! How many times have we had this type of discussion now, where you make increasingly outlandish claims and accuse people of attacking you for making on-topic counterarguments to your statements? I'm still convinced this is a language barrier thing, but i might still be wrong. But here are some questions:
- Which "wild tangents" have I gone on? Please show me some quotes. As far as I know, I've done nothing but follow up on your arguments. I haven't led this discussion in any new directions.
- Do you know the meaning of "detest"? That is an intensely personal word. I don't know you, nor have I made any comments as to your person or character, I have argued against the relevance of your arguments. If you take that personally, that is on you.
- What 'unsourced material' are you referring to? I have based myself on two things: the announced specifications of this monitor and the data you used to source your claims. I haven't argued a single point beyond that. I'm not required to source my counterarguments beyond showing that your sources fail to say what you claim they do.
- How did I cherry-pick anything? I actually looked at the data you provided and argued for how it didn't support your statements. You were the one taking a single, specialized issue and extrapolating it to apply to all nanoIPS panels, so the only cherry-picking here was done by you in favor of making your initial argument.
- How on earth is backlight strobing the norm? Its a feature that a tiny proportion of displays have. It can in no way be said to be the norm - for that to be true you would need to redefine the very meaning of the word 'norm'.
- Are you saying I have presented made-up concerns? As far as I know I haven't presented any concerns at all. I have simply pointed out that your concern doesn't actually apply to a 60Hz display lacking ULMB.


It might be that nanoIPS panels are indeed generally prone to slow red decay at high refresh rates and with backlight strobing. From what I've seen here, the data is too weak to make such sweeping generalizations, but it might be true. But that doesn't change the fact that from the data we do have, it's clear that none of this is visible at 60Hz or without backlight strobing. The monitor in question here tops out at 60Hz, and is not advertised to have any form of backlight strobing. Thus, this concern doesn't apply here. Nor does it apply to Raevenlord's initial comment that being calibrated only for sRGB despite its ability to display a wider gamut makes this a poor fit for content creators.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,465 (0.59/day)
It doesn't take a genius to make the call that this one does not have red decay when this point is what you have been arguing against all this time.
I don't get frustrated by your mental gymnastics. I hope it serves you well to use one's argument against himself, but I still don't recognize how you cannot seperate what I'm saying from nanoIPS.
Gamut is a misnomer here. Wide gamut monitors have higher color depth interface controls, possibly 8 to 10-bit color grading. It entails finer shifts which LCD's struggle to keep up unless they tone map with coarser grade control. There is a conflict going on between latency and tone banding.
The vast majority of ultra HD 4K content (and 8K in the near future) gets authored in 10-bit color depth or higher. That means an 8-bit panel won’t be able to display content as intended by content creators. An 8-bit panel receiving 10-bit or higher content has to “crush” details and color gradations to make them fit.

While to casual observers the difference may seem acceptable, if you really care about the content you’re using, whether for enjoyment or work, then the compromise may be too much to tolerate. An 8-bit panel has far less range than a 10-bit screen and can’t show the same rich variety of color gradations, resulting a duller, more washed out, and overall plainer-looking image. The lack of variety shows up most typically in dark and light areas. For example, on an 8-bit panel the sun may appear as a bright blob with very clear bands of light emanating from it. A 10-bit panel will show the same sun as a gradually bright object without obvious banding.

It can be distressing for people to make sense of my point, but IPS serves two different ends of the spectrum at the same time. One is the gaming market which this isn't it. The other is the studying workforce which this monitor is a keen observer.
Everybody should be working on an IPS monitor. It is that good. Mobile, phones, desktops, architects, engineers, literally everybody with a piece of paper is served by IPS without exception.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
5,035 (3.08/day)
Location
Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
It doesn't take a genius to make the call that this one does not have red decay when this point is what you have been arguing against all this time.
I don't get frustrated by your mental gymnastics. I hope it serves you well to use one's argument against himself, but I still don't recognize how you cannot seperate what I'm saying from nanoIPS.
Gamut is a misnomer here. Wide gamut monitors have higher color depth interface controls, possibly 8 to 10-bit color grading. It entails finer shifts which LCD's struggle to keep up unless they tone map with coarser grade control. There is a conflict going on between latency and tone banding.


It can be distressing for people to make sense of my point, but IPS serves two different ends of the spectrum at the same time. One is the gaming market which this isn't it. The other is the studying workforce which this monitor is a keen observer.
Everybody should be working on an IPS monitor. It is that good. Mobile, phones, desktops, architects, engineers, literally everybody with a piece of paper is served by IPS without exception.
I literally have no idea what you are trying to say here beyond wildly obvious things like "different display technologies have different advantages". I mean, is that even worth bringing up? Yes, IPS panels have the best color reproduction (except for good OLEDs) and viewing angles, but generally poor response times, with "fast IPS" panels somewhat alleviating that though still not matching the response times of TN. VA represents a decent compromise as long as the panel quality is good, though bad VA has terrible motion resolution - but even bad VA has better contrast than any IPS. And so on, and so on. Different display tech has different advantages and disadvantages. I really don't see how this applies to this panel at all - it's a run-of-the-mill 60Hz panel not mean for gaming, so very few of the above points are relevant at all.

As for gamut, it is by no means a misnomer. The color gamut of a monitor denominates the range of colors it's able to put out. Period. There is no requirement for a wider gamut panel to have matching controls or for it to be accurate within said gamut, nor is there any requirement for a wider gamut panel to be paired with hardware suited to fully make use of its capabilities. You're conflating color gamut and color accuracy, or gamut and display signal bitrates. Neither are directly related to a display's color gamut. The gamut is a property of the LCD panel and backlight, not the hardware beyond that.

There is no conflict between latency and color banding, but generally higher gamut, high bitrate per channel displays are slower displays - as mentioned above. Different display technologies have different advantages and disadvantages. OLED is the exception, with the possibility of both wide gamut, accurate color, smooth gradations and fast response times. Just because current display technologies all have drawbacks doesn't mean that the various parameters are in conflict.

Also, I'm not separating what you're saying from nanoIPS, I'm saying we don't have the basis to say conclusively that this applies to all nanoIPS. Period. You are making a generalization based on too little information. I also struggle to see how bringing up response times is really relevant here - this isn't a display targeting gamers. I'm not using your argument against you, I'm asking you to explain how and why this is at all relevant to the display in question here, and to expand on your statement that "Color gamut is a handicap, rather than an advantage in the domain of nanoIPS technology." If the goal is to make a display capable of showing a wide color gamut, how can color gamut be a handicap?

As for "It doesn't take a genius to make the call that this one does not have red decay" - then why bring it up as an issue? What was the point of that post?

Worse than that though, you bring up red fringing as an issue for a panel that lacks the fundamental requirements for red fringing to happen - backlight strobing and high refresh rate. This display has neither. So what's the point of bringing it up? If this uses the same panel technology as any of the monitors displaying red fringing, then yes, it would likely show that if it was run at 144+Hz with backlight strobing. None of the tested displays had fringing at 60Hz with a constant backlight. So why even bring it up? What is the relevance to the display in this news piece? And why bring that up as if it was somehow a counterpoint to Raevenlord's pointing out that sRGB calibration is limiting for creative use? It very obviously is, as a lot of creatives these days target P3 D65, not sRGB. Lacking a P3 D65 calibration profile is thus clearly a drawback. This has no relation to red fringing, but is rather simply a lacking feature that Philips/their OEM decided to leave out to bring down costs.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,465 (0.59/day)
You're conflating color gamut and color accuracy, or gamut and display signal bitrates. Neither are directly related to a display's color gamut. The gamut is a property of the LCD panel and backlight, not the hardware beyond that.
Certainly, by that regard a Dolby Vision display is no different than HDR10 if the panel and the backlight components are the same which is grossly misrepresenting. The controls are different, the overdrive is different, one has 10-bit per channel color gradients while the other 8 at best.
Now, the speed, on the other hand, is a different issue. 10-bit monitor will look up between hues finer which will cause some latency, you need to check LCD overdrive for that explanation.
you bring up red fringing as an issue for a panel that lacks the fundamental requirements for red fringing to happen
Obviously you still think I'm comparing monitor examples when I'm comparing gamut cases to exemplify what wide gamut can do. It isn't just between primary color differences, it is also bpp. Nowadays you can have filters and coatings that make the LCD brighter which can extend the gamut spectrum - that won't make a monitor wide-gamut. Wide gamut monitors have seperate "wide mode" icc calibration tables that normal monitors(however wide their gamut range may be) does not have and are limited to a single srgb profile.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
5,035 (3.08/day)
Location
Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
Certainly, by that regard a Dolby Vision display is no different than HDR10 if the panel and the backlight components are the same which is grossly misrepresenting. The controls are different, the overdrive is different, one has 10-bit per channel color gradients while the other 8 at best.
Now, the speed, on the other hand, is a different issue. 10-bit monitor will look up between hues finer which will cause some latency, you need to check LCD overdrive for that explanation.

Obviously you still think I'm comparing monitor examples when I'm comparing gamut cases to exemplify what wide gamut can do. It isn't just between primary color differences, it is also bpp. Nowadays you can have filters and coatings that make the LCD brighter which can extend the gamut spectrum - that won't make a monitor wide-gamut. Wide gamut monitors have seperate "wide mode" icc calibration tables that normal monitors(however wide their gamut range may be) does not have and are limited to a single srgb profile.
Sorry, but no. The color gamut of a monitor represents the range of colors it is able to output. Period. Not accurate colors, not calibrated colors, but the wavelengths of light it can output. Period. That is what nanoIPS does - it takes an IPS display panel and a low-gamut backlight (which is where all the wavelengths originate from, after all, before being filtered out by the LCD panel), adds a nanoparticle coating layer between the backlight and the LCD, which is excited by the backlight and emits light with a wider range of wavelengths than the original backlight. Thus, any nanoIPS monitor is a wide gamut monitor (unless they used a terrible nanoparticle coating, which ... why would they?), as the very effect of the nanoparticle coating is to broaden the output wavelengths and thus the color gamut of the panel.

And again, that doesn't mean that the monitor's signal processing is able to handle that kind of color gamut elegantly. This monitor clearly doesn't, as it's only calibrated for sRGB only, but it likely also has custom and/or uncalibrated modes where it uses its full gamut. The sRGB mode (hopefully) just doesn't use the out-of-spec ranges of the panel's gamut, leaving them unused as they exceed the sRGB range.

Even bpc/bpp doesn't link directly to gamut - it just tells us how fine the LCD layer's control is, how well it's able to display nuances in between the outer limits of the panel. A 8-bit panel can adjust each color filter in 256 steps. A 10-bit panel can adjust in 1024 steps. That doesn't affect the gamut of the panel; the colors shown at steps 0 of each panel and the colors shown at step 256 of the 8-bit panel and step 1024 of the 10-bit one can be exactly the same as long as the backlight and color filters are the same - the steps just change how finely you can adjust colors between the outer limits of the backlight's full range of wavelengths. Heck, a 1-bit per channel panel could have the same total gamut, it would just be limited to 2 steps for each color (essentially fully on or off).

You are of course right that this affects response times - if you're turning a knob with 1024 steps, you need to be more careful than if you're turning one with 256 steps of the same range and gearing. That's just physics. Of course this is also dependent on the LCD technology - essentially the type of knob in my analogy - IPS is the slowest type of LCD, with VA slightly faster, and TN much faster, regardless of the amount of steps. If someone were to make a 10-bit TN panel (which nobody does, as it would still look bad due to TN's poor ability to block out light when off, and its poor viewing angles) it would be much faster than a 10-bit IPS panel. And so on, and so on. All display panel technologies (so far) have one compromise or another.

As for what you're saying about HDR10 and Dolby Vision, again that mixes up the gamut of a display with how the display hardware is able to control nuances within that gamut. The main difference between those two encoding technologies is after all that one has static metadata and one has dynamic, per-scene metadata, meaning that one is able to carry more information about the light and color in the image than the other. If displayed on the same panel, they will still look different, simply because the data is different - and depending on the contents of the video and the capabilities of the display (such as FALD or other dynamic contrast schemes as well as content adaptive brightness), DV might use a higher range of overall color volume (not gamut) as its additional metadata is able to instruct the panel's controller in more detail, and might thus for example show brightnesses that the HDR10 image won't. They will however use the same color gamut, assuming both source files are graded for the same gamut. On the other hand, if displayed on a low-gamut panel with low brightness and no automatic adjustments (yet one that is still able to decode a HDR10/DV signal), they are likely to look very, very simlilar - but at that point they're being limited by an unsuited panel, and an SDR source file would also likely look very similar to the other two.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
5,035 (3.08/day)
Location
Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
I agree. As for the rest, I cannot consent to what you are saying when you have literally admitted to it.
Admitted to what? That what I am doing here is arguing that your initial point was entirely irrelevant to the monitor in question here? I'll gladly admit to that - that was the whole point after all.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,465 (0.59/day)
Admitted to what? That what I am doing here is arguing that your initial point was entirely irrelevant to the monitor in question here? I'll gladly admit to that - that was the whole point after all.
It was an argument to the contrary which is too wide gamut. It was to turn the tables on creeping oled benchmarks into IPS marketing. They don't work the same, can't have pie and eat it simultaneously.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
5,035 (3.08/day)
Location
Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
It was an argument to the contrary which is too wide gamut. It was to turn the tables on creeping oled benchmarks into IPS marketing. They don't work the same, can't have pie and eat it simultaneously.
Uhm... IPS monitors have had wide color gamuts for decades. My 2011 Dell U2711 has (IIRC) 100% Adobe RGB coverage, which is closer to P3 than sRGB. Wide color gamuts have nothing to do with OLEDs, and are highly relevant to professional workloads, as well as hobbyists doing anything where color is a factor (3D modelling, photo or video editing, graphic design, etc.). Nothing in the news post here is even remotely related to "creeping OLED benchmarks". Raevenlord's pointing out that sRGB-only calibration is a drawback for professional use would have been true in 2011, and it's certainly true now, regardless of the display technology.

The only way in which a monitor can have a too wide color gamut is if it's entirely uncalibrated and thus displays wildly wrong colors - though that applies to all uncalibrated monitors, as a 100% gamut coverage in no way guarantees accuracy.

As I said, it's entirely possible that this panel would show red fringing at high refresh rates and with backlight strobing, but... it doesn't have those features, and they're not relevant to its use case. It might also be that this is an inherent weakness of nanoIPS, but equating that to it having a "too wide gamut" is just plain wrong. If it can be attributed to anything, it is to the red nanoparticles not being ideally constructed. And it can likely be compensated for somewhat by the display driver if programmed properly.

Not all monitors have or need fast response times. A 60Hz panel for professional use has far, far more use for a wide gamut - provided that it can also utilize said gamut with some accuracy, of course. But saying a wide gamut is a handicap? That's just pure nonsense.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
16,046 (5.29/day)
Location
USA
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Software Android 4.4.4R5 Custom
Admitted to what? That what I am doing here is arguing that your initial point was entirely irrelevant to the monitor in question here? I'll gladly admit to that - that was the whole point after all.
You're arguing with a wall.. I hate to say this, but come on, he's winding you up for giggles. Don't play his game.

why oh why only 60hz! thats a let down.
Again, $300 for 4K. How do you not understand that value dynamic?
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,465 (0.59/day)
Don't play his game.
Gamut is a false narrative within this context as you said 4K for $300. It causes more problems than it fixes. There still isn't digital LUT for LCDs, they follow linear voltage levels. Gamut is not transmutable in LCDs, due to the inherent technology.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
5,035 (3.08/day)
Location
Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
Gamut is a false narrative within this context as you said 4K for $300. It causes more problems than it fixes. There still isn't digital LUT for LCDs, they follow linear voltage levels. Gamut is not transmutable in LCDs, due to the inherent technology.
There are plenty of LCDs out there with 3D LUT support - but they are relatively expensive professional monitors (like this one). Nothing inherent to LCDs about not supporting that, that's all down to the display driver and nothing else. And for a cheap, entry-level "pro"/creator display, how exactly does an extended gamut cause any problems whatsoever? Again: this monitor doesn't have a high refresh rate, and it doesn't have ULMB, so ... where's the issue? There won't be any noticeable slow red decay here. Instead, there'll be a sharp, wide-gamut display that can likely be calibrated with reasonable accuracy to AdobeRGB or P3 D65 - of course not with pro-grade accuracy, that's what you need a 3D LUT for, but good enough for hobbyist use? No doubt whatsoever. Even a calibrated dE<2 sRGB mode is very useful if your workflow is web only, and for that the wide gamut ensures that the sRGB mode actually covers 100% of sRGB, as production variance causes many "100% sRGB" display panels to not quite hit 100%. causing higher errors at high saturations. Either way, the extended gamut is a good thing. Period.

You're arguing with a wall.. I hate to say this, but come on, he's winding you up for giggles. Don't play his game.
I know, I know, but I'm too stubborn for my own good :p Besides, I take great pleasure in tiring out trolls, and when they turn out not to be trolls I do tend to actually get through at some point.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,465 (0.59/day)
how exactly does an extended gamut cause any problems whatsoever?
An LCD extracts light quite differently than an emissive display because it is transmissive. The backlight, the filter, the coating change the amount of light wavelengths passing through which primarily affects the saturation. There is not a direct scaling. If you start extracting more light, the gamut enlarges and you have to adjust internal LUT, or icc in order to keep the same standard colors. You cannot exchange its internals and call it a 125% srgb range monitor. You have to calibrate it manually, even from factory. Ambient light color affects the image, making it either duller in daytime, or brighter and flatter in night time.
I cannot even find the youtube lectures I watched that are about gamma compensation of display brightness. It is a huge topic with huge repercussions in power consumption.
If you don't believe me, that is why LCD's don't come with ambient light sensor because it cannot be done yet.

Besides, I take great pleasure in tiring out trolls
Don't be so boastful, you are the one posting text walls.

PS: you take a calibrated display and even slightly touch its brightness and those deep shades will be off. This is harder than you speculate.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
5,035 (3.08/day)
Location
Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
An LCD extracts light quite differently than an emissive display because it is transmissive. The backlight, the filter, the coating change the amount of light wavelengths passing through which primarily affects the saturation. There is not a direct scaling. If you start extracting more light, the gamut enlarges and you have to adjust internal LUT, or icc in order to keep the same standard colors. You cannot exchange its internals and call it a 125% srgb range monitor. You have to calibrate it manually, even from factory. Ambient light color affects the image, making it either duller in daytime, or brighter and flatter in night time.
I cannot even find the youtube lectures I watched that are about gamma compensation of display brightness. It is a huge topic with huge repercussions in power consumption.
If you don't believe me, that is why LCD's don't come with ambient light sensor because it cannot be done yet.
... again, what is the relevance of this? Nothing you are saying here is a) new or b) relevant. This monitor is calibrated for sRGB from the factory, to a deltaE of <2. The 119% sRGB spec is obviously not in this calibrated mode (that would be very, very difficult in order to achieve an average delta error of less than 2), but is the total color gamut that the display is capable of outputting. You're right that both gamut output and calibration are brightness dependent, but ... so what? This monitor is calibrated. Likely at 200 nits, which is typical, though it can be at any brightness, really. That is typically listed on the included calibration report.

There's no real difference between self-emissive or backlit displays in this regard - no matter what, you need both a wide gamut (i.e. the ability to output a wide range of light wavelengths) and a well calibrated display driver if you want a good display. And again: where is anything in this saying that a wide gamut is a handicap for an entry-level monitor not targeting gamers? You still haven't backed up that statement whatsoever.


As for "you cannot exchange its internals and call it a 125% sRGB range monitor" - why not? If changing the backlight or adding a nanoparticle intermediate layer changes the total range of wavelengths output by the backlight, that will change the gamut of the monitor. Again, there is nothing saying that a gamut specification in any way so much as implies accurate colors. Calibration and gamut are entirely separate factors, with the only direct link being that you can't get a good calibration within a given color space if the panel in question can't output at least 100% of that color space. By your logic any 100% P3 monitor would be deeply problematic for ordinary sRGB desktop use, which, well, they aren't. A monitor capable of producing any color gamut >100% of any other color gamut can be calibrated to be accurate within the smaller gamut as long as the display driver and controller support a sufficient level of calibration. These are entirely separate parts of the monitor, that can be combined pretty much at will. There are well calibrated narrow gamut monitors (though not that narrow, but I've seen pretty good deltaEs with ~90% of sRGB, for example), well calibrated wide gamut monitors, poorly calibrated narrow gamut monitors, and poorly calibrated wide gamut monitors. All combinations exist.

And what is that about ambient light sensors? Do you mean for brightness adjustment? There are a few that have those, though not many. But ... have you heard of laptops? Yeah, those have light sensors. All of them. If what you meant is light sensors for adjusting color temperature on the fly to account for ambient light, well Apple has a thing or two they want to tell you about the IPS LCD displays in their laptops, tablets and phones. The reason professional monitors don't have features like this is because they aren't accurate enough to be trusted. If you want to control for perceived color shift due to ambient light, you control the ambient light. There's a reason why people doing color grading typically work in blacked-out rooms, have monitor hoods, etc. Making an ambient light sensor advanced and accurate enough to do color temperature and brightness adjustments on the fly in a way that would be suitable for professional use would be essentially impossible - that would require not only a 3D LUT for the monitor, but cameras (not light sensors, full RGB cameras) on both the front and the back of the monitor (to account for both lighting behind the monitor and behind the user), also calibrated with their own separate 3D LUTs (per sensor), and with a highly complex algorithm to balance out how to prioritize different readings for the best result. And if you're in a scenario with mixed color temperature lighting, well, then you're not going to get it accurate no matter what. So doing this would be a fool's errand - it would require massive amounts of work and would still not be good enough for professional use.
Don't be so boastful, you are the one posting text walls.
Not boasting about anything, just stating a fact - I do indeed take enjoyment from that. Comes from being very stubborn, I think. For the record, I never said you were a troll, though this discussion has come up frequently due to your frequent raising of ... well, dubious arguments with varying levels of ability to argue for them, and typically with sources that don't say what you claim they do. As we have seen here. Also, is there any correlation between post lengths and whether or not one is a troll? I've seen plenty of trolls post one-word posts, so ...
PS: you take a calibrated display and even slightly touch its brightness and those deep shades will be off. This is harder than you speculate.
Again, I'm fully aware of this, and really don't see the relevance to this discussion. To recap: you made one general claim, and expanded on that by making a specific claim.
The general claim:
Color gamut is a handicap, rather than an advantage in the domain of nanoIPS technology
While the specific claim was:
Ever heard of the 'red shift'?
"Slow red decay" to be more precise...
So, you claim that a nanoIPS monitor having a wide color gamut is (always, as there were no reservations to your statement) a handicap, and never an advantage. You then claim that this is due to slow red decay.

We have seen from your linked reviews that slow red decay is only an issue in the nanoIPS monitors where it occurs if both high refresh rates (144/165Hz) and ULMB/backlight strobing are activated, and is not seen at lower refresh rates or without ULMB. The monitor in question for this thread does not refresh above 60Hz, and does not have any advertised backlight strobing feature, so there is no reason whatsoever to expect that slow red decay will be an issue.

Of course, adding to that, slow red decay as demonstrated in the linked reviews is an issue only when displaying fast motion, which is generally not very relevant for professional workloads. Film is typically 24fps, online video is 30 or at most 60, and a lot of editing work is with static views. Photo editing, graphical design, etc., are all mostly static. So an issue with red color fringing on fast moving high contrast images ... isn't likely to be very bothersome, and certainly won't make the color reproduction of the monitor inaccurate in any way.

So again: the issue you brought up has no relevance to the monitor we are discussing here, nor its intended use case. Nor is there any factual basis for your broad-reaching claim that the wide color gamut of nanoIPS is a handicap rather than an advantage.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,465 (0.59/day)
You aren't arguing for anything. It is pretty obvious at this point. You can't just be argumentative and make pot kettle arguments.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
5,035 (3.08/day)
Location
Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
You aren't arguing for anything. It is pretty obvious at this point. You can't just be argumentative and make pot kettle arguments.
What "pot kettle arguments"? Care to give an example? I'm arguing for a very simple point: that the "issue" with nanoIPS that you brought up is entirely irrelevant to this monitor, and by extension, that your categorical statement of wide gamut being a handicap has no factual basis. We keep going in circles here because you refuse to actually back up your claims with anything of substance, or even engage with counterarguments. That's on you, not me.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
5,035 (3.08/day)
Location
Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
That's a pot kettle argument.
Uh? No. Not that that is even a term, but the "pot calling the kettle black" adage is about pointing out that a person making a (typically derogatory) claim about someone else is themselves whatever they are accusing the other of being. I can't see that you have accused me of being anything in particular, nor have I made any attempt to take anything you've said about me and turn it around on you, so I don't see how this applies.

As to what I did say there: it's your responsibility to actually argue your points and back up your claims. That's your responsibility, not mine - I have argued my points aplenty. It's not my job to back up your claims.

Me saying that isn't the pot calling the kettle black unless you had accused me of not arguing my points, which you haven't (to my knowledge). It's also up to you to actually engage with counterarguments - you can't just ignore them and try to change the subject, as you have tried plenty of times here. You still have not shown whatsoever how a nanoIPS monitor having a wide color gamut is a handicap, nor how slow red decay is at all relevant to the monitor in question here (as it lacks both high refresh rates and ULMB). I'm still waiting for you to actually get into that.
 
Top