TechSpot

Philips packs 4K resolution into huge 43-inch monitor

By Scorpus
May 4, 2016
Post New Reply
  1. If a standard 32-inch monitor just isn't big enough for you, Philips new 43-inch 4K display – which the company claims is definitely a computer monitor and not a TV – might be exactly what you're after.

    The BDM4350UC, as it's called, packs a 3840 x 2160 resolution into a 42.51-inch IPS LCD panel, equating to a pixel density of 104 PPI. This places the pixel density in the same region as a smaller 27-inch 1440p display, and could allow you to use the monitor at its native resolution without any display scaling.

    Aside from boasting a size that's suitable for high information density, the BDM4350UC packs typical specifications for a computer monitor. You get 5ms GTG response times, a contrast ratio of 1200:1, 178-degree viewing angles, and brightness of 300 nits. Philips also packs in support for 1.07 billion colors (10-bit color).

    There are five inputs on this monitor: two DisplayPort, two HDMI 2.0 with MHL, and one VGA. You'll also get a four port USB 3.0 hub and two seven watt built-in speakers that are no doubt pretty substandard.

    For those interested in this monitor, Amazon currently has them listed for $800 with a shipping time of one to three months.

    Permalink to story.

     
  2. DaveBG

    DaveBG TS Addict Posts: 226   +72

    I have the previous model BDM4065UC - 40inch and use it with no scaling (it was the biggest one available) and it is great for the money. Got a great deal on it. This seems will be even better.
     
  3. stewi0001

    stewi0001 TS Evangelist Posts: 1,181   +528

    I'm guessing there is no G-sync
     
  4. IAMTHESTIG

    IAMTHESTIG TS Evangelist Posts: 954   +273

    Getting closer.... still not big enough though for 4K resolution. The DPI of 1080p makes text too small on a 20 or 21" monitor so 4x that on a 42 or 43" is the same. I'm pretty comfortable 1080p at about a 27" monitor, so this means I need about a 50" or 55" 4K monitor. I don't want to have to use UI scaling which in many ways defeats the purpose of such high resolutions.
     
  5. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,149   +1,423

    One needs not smaller than 23" to use 1080P comfortably (24" is ideal), and hence not less than 46"/48" for a 4K screen to use without scaling. Otherwise the text will be too small.
     
  6. yRaz

    yRaz TS Evangelist Posts: 1,897   +940

  7. tonylukac

    tonylukac TS Evangelist Posts: 1,309   +56

    And why would you buy this and not a $300 tv? I find my 42" 1080p hi def tv to be very adequate.
     
  8. IAMTHESTIG

    IAMTHESTIG TS Evangelist Posts: 954   +273

    We are talking about 4K or 2160p not 1080p. Most people will find text too large and overbearing at that screen size when at typical computer monitor distance.
     
  9. yRaz

    yRaz TS Evangelist Posts: 1,897   +940

    TV's have higher input lag and often times don't have a full 4:4:4 chroma. TV's are also usually built for high contrast instead of color accuracy. For the average user none of these things matter, but for the enthusiast, for whom this is marketed to, it matters a lot.

    If find your TV to be a tremendous value for your needs, I will not tell you otherwise. However, I need the extra screen realestate that 4k allows me and I need the color accuracy for editing photos. Latency is also a big deal for me because my screen is a big toy(for gaming) when I'm not using it for work.
     
    Xtreme gamer and dividebyzero like this.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...