Philips quantum-dot monitor delivers Adobe RGB for $300

Back in June of last year, Philips unveiled what it claimed to be the first monitor that used quantum dot technlogy. Now, a version of that monitor—the E-line 276E6ADSS—is making its way to North America. It's available on Amazon now for $299.99.

The 276E6ADSS can deliver a claimed 99% of the Adobe RGB spectrum "at a fraction of the price of commercial displays." The display uses a quantum-dot backlight filter from Color IQ to achieve that figure. Philips says that this technology lets the display deliver more saturated colors than traditional LCD backlights.

As we noted in our original report, the rest of the monitor is mostly par for the course It houses a 27" IPS-ADS panel with a 1920×1080 resolution. It's capable of 300 nits of brightness and sports a claimed contrast ratio of 1000:1. Philips also says the display delivers a fairly standard 5ms gray-to-gray response time and a 60Hz refresh rate. It has one VGA input, one DVI-D input, and one HDMI port. The HDMI port supports the Mobile High Definition Link (MHL) interface for connecting a mobile device.

Comments closed
    • jts888
    • 4 years ago

    I gather that the quantum dot stuff expands gamut mostly by making the primary colors purer/more narrow band, but how is this handled exactly?

    Is it more stringent color filters in the panel?
    Purer output by the backlight LEDs?
    Both?

    Is the point of this that they can approach RGB LED backlit quality while still being basically a white LED technology?

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 4 years ago

    Wonder what the refresh rate is? See this with a G-sync type tech, 4K goodness and we are in business.

    • rephlex
    • 4 years ago

    Adobe RGB is so last century. Give me Rec. 2020 colour space instead. It’s the standard for 4K Blu-ray and covers 75.8% of the CIE 1931 colour space whereas the Adobe RGB colour space only covers 52.1%, according to Wikipedia.

    • Chrispy_
    • 4 years ago

    See, none of the screens on sale have the appeal that makes me want one.

    This aRGB spec is married to an otherwise dated and uninspiring monitor:

    – Fixed refresh not variable
    – 60Hz not 75, 85, 100, 120, or 144Hz
    – Flat not curved
    – Old connectors not displayport.
    – 16:9 not 21:9 ultrawide
    – 1080p not 1440p or higher

    “Par for the course” is not how you sell monitors, otherwise people will carry on using their existing “par for the course” monitors.

    If someone put a 29″ quantum-dot curved ultrawide with at least some of the features I’ve griped about above covered, I’d buy it. Even Joe Sixpack visiting best buy would stop and want one because it would be beautiful and vivid and make him realise that curved ultrawides are gorgeous, and they don’t have to be nasty TN gaming screens. At it is he’ll just walk on by because it’s yet another 24″ boring flat screen that doesn’t look any more interesting to him than the one he’s already using at home.

      • cygnus1
      • 4 years ago

      Long rant, but I concur

      • auxy
      • 4 years ago

      The monitor I want has:[list<][*<]A-MVA LCD panel with at least 5000:1 contrast[/*<][*<]Full-array W-LED backlighting[/*<][*<]Black frame insertion at 120Hz, toggleable from OSD[/*<][*<]21:9 aspect ratio[/*<][*<]>4-megapixel resolution[/*<][*<]Displayport and HDMI inputs[/*<][*<]The ability to set multiple user setting profiles in the OSD and remember which one I was using on each input[/*<][*<]Gently curved display[/*<][*<]Front-facing speakers that don't sound like smartphone speakers literally played inside a conscious unwilling person's constricted rectum[/*<][*<]VESA mounting[/*<][*<]Front-facing headphone jack[/*<][*<]Rear analog audio in and high-quality audio out [/*<][*<]OSD crosshair with adjustable size, position, and opacity[/*<][/list<] It doesn't have:[list<][*<]Adaptive refresh (pointless since you can't use it with blur reduction)[/*<][*<]Absurdly wide color gamut, since games don't run in deep color anyway[/*<][*<]USB ports[/*<][*<]DVI or VGA ports (omg why? it's CURRENT_YEAR)[/*<][*<]A flimsy plastic stand (why not rubber feet along the bottom of the display and kickstand legs? why does nobody do this?)[/*<][*<]An outrageous price tag (something like this should be under $1000, yet monitors which are worse than this are $1200 or more!)[/*<][*<]Ridiculously thin form factor[/*<][/list<] [sub<][i<]- auxy, who has monitor fatigue[/i<] (´Д⊂ヽ[/sub<]

      • Kretschmer
      • 4 years ago

      Joe Sixpack isn’t spending enough on a monitor to afford this. he also wouldn’t understand any of those bullet points.

        • Chrispy_
        • 4 years ago

        But Joe sixpack then walks twenty paces to the left in the same store and walks out with a thousand-dollar TV based on similar marketing bullet points that are mostly nonsensical to him too….

          • auxy
          • 4 years ago

          With, invariably, a TN panel, misconfigured overscan, and always-on interpolation! (*≧▽≦)ノシ))

    • Meadows
    • 4 years ago

    Add “quantum” to anything and it becomes cutting edge.

      • Chrispy_
      • 4 years ago

      [url=https://www.finish.co.uk/products/detergents/quantum-max/quantum-max-regular/<]Yep[/url<]. It's really hard to go back to even just Quantum once you've experienced Quantum [i<]MAX[/i<].

        • Tumbleweed
        • 4 years ago

        Quantum MAX xTREME Gold Pro 3000+ Enterprise Edition…For Kids.

      • UnfriendlyFire
      • 4 years ago

      For the next generation, just tack on “HD” onto the end. “Quantum HD”!

      Ex: Radeon 8500 vs Radeon HD 8xxx

      Here’s a hint, one of those GPUs was released in 2001.

    • anotherengineer
    • 4 years ago

    If it had 1920×1200 24″ screen, with DP 1.3 / freesync and a fully adjustable stand, I would bite.

      • Ethyriel
      • 4 years ago

      I’m spoiled by 2560×1440 at 25″, but it’s intriguing technology. If it works as advertised, the backlight is even, and they flesh out their product lineup my first 4k screen might end up being a Philips.

    • odizzido
    • 4 years ago

    Looks interesting. I’d like to see it tested at TFT central or something.

    • nico1982
    • 4 years ago

    It one of the cheapest product renderer I have ever seen :O

      • DPete27
      • 4 years ago

      It’s Phillips.

        • kuraegomon
        • 4 years ago

        Hey, if eviscerating their marketing budget allows them to ship product at crazy price points like this one (and this: [url<]http://www.amazon.com/Philips-Computer-Monitor-3840x2160-Truevision/dp/B00UBCVY02[/url<] - $700!), then come on shoddy press materials!

    • JosiahBradley
    • 4 years ago

    Wake me up when OLED monitors hit the shelf.

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      Soon Spawn of Krogoth.
      Soon You Shall Arise From Your Slumber: [url<]https://pcmonitors.info/dell/dell-up3017q-4k-uhd-oled-monitor/[/url<]

        • nico1982
        • 4 years ago

        Yeah :/ If It only wasn’t 4000 bucks too expensive for my not-so-deep pockets. I guess dreaming of it will suffice, for now.

          • chuckula
          • 4 years ago

          Yeah, if you want *affordable* OLEDs then hitting the snooze bar repeatedly is recommended.

        • jihadjoe
        • 4 years ago

        4k OLED, 100% Adobe RGB, 120Hz, 0.1ms response time

        holy crap those specs!

          • chuckula
          • 4 years ago

          I’m not going to buy one, but from what I can gather it’s the first almost-ready-for-sale 4K monitor with 120Hz refresh that’s been announced for this year.

          • auxy
          • 4 years ago

          But does it have blur reduction? ( ;∀;)

            • anotherengineer
            • 4 years ago

            Well if that 0.1ms response time is true and correct, that would be pretty good blur reduction right there!

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            No. [url=http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/<]Please read this link![/url<]

            • anotherengineer
            • 4 years ago

            I didn’t say it would eliminate it, but should help reduce it an appreciable amount.

            Good info in the link.

            “This active-matrix OLED is impulse-driven at 7.5 milliseconds per pixel via a rolling scan, and has roughly equivalent motion blur as 120Hz non-LightBoost computer monitors, and LightBoost still outperforms OLED with as little as 1.4 milliseconds of measured motion blur (see 60Hz vs 120Hz vs LightBoost). As of 2013, most strobe-backlight gaming monitors today (see List of 120Hz/144Hz Monitors) has lower persistence than OLED.”

            Spec says 0.1ms, so still 14 times less than 1.4ms, as always a first hand review will determine if it is actually 0.1ms in practice and how ‘bad’ the blur is.

            Funny thing is when you pass an object as close range quickly it appears blurry, so what’s the big deal on a monitor, if the same effect happens?
            Now if it’s happening not because of that effect then yes I can see it as an issue.

            edit – 1 issue of blur reduction is it uses stobe lighting or basically pwm back lighting usually at the refresh rate, I found this tends to give me headaches, so there is always tradeoffs.

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            The passage you quoted is talking about persistence in milliseconds, not response time. You are comparing two completely different things.

            • Demetri
            • 4 years ago

            On a persistence display, you get motion blur completely independent of the lcd response time. A 60hz display @ 60fps for example inherently has 16.7ms of persistence based motion blur. Motion blur from the lcd’s response time would be added on top of that, but exactly how to accurately express that is sketchy from what I’ve read. Even if you’re going from 1.4 to .1ms response (assuming those figures are accurate and directly translate to blur, which I’m guessing they don’t), that’s only a 1.3ms total reduction.

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            [b<]No![/b<] lol. That's not how that works. [url=http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55813708.jpg<]That's not how any of this works![/url<] The link I gave anotherengineer explains it all. I'd summarize it but [url=http://i.imgur.com/jHJ0S9G.png<]I don't have any willingness.[/url<] [sub<]But if someone is really curious I might give it a go. (;'∀')[/sub<]

            • Demetri
            • 4 years ago

            Probably wouldn’t be too bad @ 120hz, but good luck pushing 120fps @ 4K in new games.

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            It will be very bad at 120Hz compared to a low-motion-blur display. My VG248QE is terrible at 120Hz solid vs. 120Hz strobe. Night and day, incomparably different.

            • Demetri
            • 4 years ago

            It’ll at least cut the amount of persistence based motion blur in half compared to 60hz, which may be enough for most people. But yeah, 120hz has at least 3 times the persistence-based motion blur vs 120hz strobed. Too bad strobing isn’t compatible with adaptive-sync.

            • orik
            • 4 years ago

            at 120hz, oled blur shouldn’t be bad. You could always insert black frames and do 60fps.

            Next best thing would be 180/240hz oled’s. I think you’ll prefer these to a lightboost/ulmb tn.

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            Definitely not. Not in one thousand years.

            Until you have experienced strobe backlight or black frame insertion you will never understand.

            • jihadjoe
            • 4 years ago

            Wow those downvotes. Let me help you with my pathetic +1.

            I do hope Dell implements some sort of Lightboost-like feature. OLEDs are ridiculously easy to strobe. Their super-fast response time means the feature can be implemented at the pixel level without messing with the backlight.

            • synthtel2
            • 4 years ago

            The main thing that makes OLED strobing difficult is that LED wear is very non-linear. Making 5 units of light 1/5th of the time is far more stressful for them than making 1 unit of light full time. Seeing as wear is still seemingly one of the biggest issues with OLED screens, I think we may be waiting a while on strobing OLEDs yet.

        • JosiahBradley
        • 4 years ago

        I am wide awake now. Just to figure out how to get work to buy me one.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This