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

[mtcn77]

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.

You must sense the irony in that.

 

[Valantar]

You must sense the irony in that.

Sorry, no. Taking your argument and demonstrating how it doesn't apply to the monitor in question here says nothing about you as a person whatsoever. You really need to learn to differentiate between factual, on-topic debate and ad hominem arguments. And I'm still waiting on you to back up your claims.

 

[mtcn77]

Sorry, no. Taking your argument and demonstrating how it doesn't apply to the monitor in question here says nothing about you as a person whatsoever. You really need to learn to differentiate between factual, on-topic debate and ad hominem arguments. And I'm still waiting on you to back up your claims.

That you are doing is not a debate, you cannot take the other person's case in points and form a different conclusion.
You haven't put any on the table, just have argued against them. You don't even know what a debate is.

1. Gamut is presented as an "end all, be all" solution in the article,
2. There are 3 different gamut standards,
3. They, wide gamut displays, come with calibrators and it adds to the pricepoint.
4. They aren't plug and play.

What you have stated looks nothing like one of those.

 

[Valantar]

That you are doing is not a debate, you cannot take the other person's case in points and form a different conclusion.
You haven't put any on the table, just have argued against them. You don't even know what a debate is.

1. Gamut is presented as an "end all, be all" solution in the article,
2. There are 3 different gamut standards,
3. They, wide gamut displays, come with calibrators and it adds to the pricepoint.
4. They aren't plug and play.

What you have stated looks nothing like one of those.

1. No, it isn't. A wide gamut is presented as a positive trait for a monitor to have, which is unequivocally true, as a narrow gamut is inherently negative. If a monitor can't display at least 100% sRGB, it can never display accurate colors. Thus, being able to display at least 100% sRGB is unequivocally a good thing - though how good depends on its calibration. The article doesn't say that is the be all, end all of monitor quality - in fact, the sentence you first quoted points out that specific thing! - but it's nonetheless better for a monitor to have a wide gamut rather than a narrow one.
2. There are far more than three different standards for color gamuts and color spaces. CIE 1931, Rec. 709, NTSC, sRGB, Adobe RGB (plus its wide-gamut variant), DCI-P3 (plus the consumer offshoot that isn't really a standard, often called P3 D65, which follows the DCI P3 color space but with different gamma and white point settings better suited to uses outside of cinema projection), Rec. 2020, CMYK, ACES, and several others. Not all of those are relevant to monitors, but most are. What you are doing is conflating gamut standards with gamut as an expression of which colors a display is capable of outputting. All of these standards delineate measurements of the same thing, after all, but in general when a monitor is described as wide gamut it generally indicates that it can display colors beyond the sRGB color space. Nothing more, nothing less. And a percentage value of any gamut standard tells us nothing about calibration nor accuracy, just a measurement of its color output as represented by a percentage relative to a given color gamut.
3. Yes, and? I have already linked one such monitor in this thread, after all. I don't see how it's relevant. We all know that calibration is a necessity. The monitor in question here is calibrated (at an unknown brightness) to sRGB at a deltaE of less than 2 for at least one of its color profiles. More calibrated profiles (for, say, Adobe RGB and P3 D65) would have been better, but those are premium features that you don't get in a $300 monitor. You can always buy a separate colorimeter or spectrophotometer and calibrate it yourself, though of course you won't get great calibration without 3D LUT support. How does this support your initial point that a wide color gamut is "always a handicap"? Because it certainly sounds like a contradiction of that point.
4. What does that even mean? Windows isn't a color aware OS at all, it naïvely sees any (non-HDR) monitor as 100% sRGB and outputs signals as that, regardless of the gamut and color space of the monitor - unless an application color manages itself, such as Adobe's Creative Suite apps do. So if your monitor can display, for example, 100% P3 D65, your web browser will oversaturate every single color displayed, while Photoshop will use the P3 color space accurately. Other OSes do this differently - MacOS is for example fundamentally color aware.

But besides all of this: you still can't say unequivocally that a wide gamut is a handicap. Period. An uncalibrated wide gamut is problematic, and unsuited for color critical work, though some might think it looks better due to more saturated colors. A calibrated wide gamut monitor in a non-color aware OS with non-color aware applications will have the same problem. But if the monitor is decently calibrated and the OS/applications used are color aware, a wide color gamut is a huge advantage, letting you do work that you simply can't do without one.

And again: this monitor is calibrated to sRGB with a deltaE of <2. That means that it, in the calibrated mode, will sidestep these concerns entirely. Its output will match what Windows expects, meaning that pretty much anything displayed should have accurate colors (depending on the accuracy of the rendering in each application, of course).

As for what you said first there: I haven't "take[n] the other person's case in points and form[ed] a different conclusion." I have engaged with your arguments, countered them with my own, shown how your sources don't say what you claim they say, and thus shown how your conclusions are mistaken, as well as how your initial concern isn't applicable to the monitor in question here. That is how a discussion works. If I had needed to provide my own sources I would have, but in this case it was entirely sufficient to look at the ones you provided, as they don't actually support your argument. You are consistently trying to defend a black-and-white statement without taking into consideration the specific monitor in question here, its intended use case, or how these differ from the monitors your argument was based on. A problem that shows up only with fast motion on high refresh rate monitors with ULMB will not be a problem on a low refresh rate monitor without ULMB.

 

[mtcn77]

An uncalibrated wide gamut is problematic,

Oh, the irony.

You are just trying to push people into a 'niche' from a mainstream market. That is called as shilling and it makes you a troll.

 

[Valantar]

Oh, the irony.

You are just trying to push people into a 'niche' from a mainstream market. That is called as shilling and it makes you a troll.

Uh, what? How is me saying that an uncalibrated wide gamut is problematic ironic in any way? Do you understand the difference between making a simple, unqualified statement such as "wide gamuts are a handicap for nanoIPS" and a more complex, qualified and nuanced statement such as "uncalibrated wide gamut displays are problematic"? Because there is a massive difference. To simplify, your initial statement was "X is a handicap", while what you quoted me on above is saying "Y is problematic under condition a". One statement claims to be universally true, one does not, and explains how. Your initial objection essentially stated that all wide-gamut nanoIPS displays (in other words all nanoIPS displays, as a wide color gamut is the whole point of nanoIPS) are problematic due to their wide color gamut. You said that a wide color gamut itself is a handicap. Period. No qualifications, no requirements, nothing. You did not say this was only true if the panel was uncalibrated, you did not say that this was only true if certain conditions were met; you said this was always and generally true. You've also entirely failed to engage with the further new implication of that statement: that there are no advantages to a wide color gamut (if it's always a handicap, then there can be no cases where any positive sides outweigh the negatives, after all).

The gap between you saying that and me saying that uncalibrated wide-gamut displays (nanoIPS or not - the same applies to regular IPS, VA, PLS, MVA, OLED, anything that can output a wide color gamut) are problematic is huge. There is no irony to be found here; you made a black-and-white statement, claimed to base it on sources that didn't support your stance, and I then attempted to show you how that statement was wrong. I made a broad but qualified statement, with a qualification that relates specifically to how and why it is generally true (though with an implicit base assumption that accurate colors are important).

You have since been dodging counterarguments, changing the subject, and generally refusing to actually argue your point. You have also consistently been moving the goal posts by modifying and qualifying your statements without ever explicitly acknowledging that you are saying something different from your initial statement, proving your fundamental bad-faith approach to discussion. Either your initial statement was factually wrong, or you need to provide some data showing how it is generally true. You can't add in qualifications such as "if uncalibrated" after the fact and pretend as if that was present in what you initially said.


And how, exactly, am I trying to push anyone into anything? Have I at any point in this argued that people in general should be buying this, or that this is somehow suited for use for anyone at all beyond its very explicit target market? I'd like to see some quotes, please. I mean, this is getting beyond ridiculous, and it's disappointing to see you resort to absurd and unfounded personal attacks to keep derailing this discussion.

Also, trolls don't shill, shills shill. Trolls troll.

And I'm still waiting for some data to support your statement that

Color gamut is a handicap, rather than an advantage in the domain of nanoIPS technology.

 

[mtcn77]

I mean, this is getting beyond ridiculous, and it's disappointing to see you resort to absurd and unfounded personal attacks to keep derailing this discussion.

I'm not resorting to slights, nor changing any of my previous statements. I'm not accepting that, keep it.
The question is whether we can push wide gamut into the mainstream if we make nondescript arguments like everybody will be better off with wide gamut. I'm telling it's a niche and it will stay that way - you can't make judgements for the people themselves. They buy standard rgb that works right off the bat and that is how this LCD gets launched because you are't paying attention to the demand and just pushing your narrative.
You cannot decide what the people will buy, they do it anyway. This false narrative of wide gamut is not realistic, nor practical. You cannot jump mental loops saying, "What if this was wide gamut" and "Everybody benefits" to change their purchasing behaviour and restrict mainstream options from being mainstream anymore by attaching useless conventions like wide gamut. This is 8-bit & srgb because we are talking mainstream option here. PnP matters more than your gamut standards who knows how many there are.

 

[Valantar]

I'm not resorting to slights, nor changing any of my previous statements. I'm not accepting that, keep it.
The question is whether we can push wide gamut into the mainstream if we make nondescript arguments like everybody will be better off with wide gamut. I'm telling it's a niche and it will stay that way - you can't make judgements for the people themselves. They buy standard rgb that works right off the bat and that is how this LCD gets launched because you are't paying attention to the demand and just pushing your narrative.
You cannot decide what the people will buy, they do it anyway. This false narrative of wide gamut is not realistic, nor practical. You cannot jump mental loops saying, "What if this was wide gamut" and "Everybody benefits" to change their purchasing behaviour and restrict mainstream options from being mainstream anymore by attaching useless conventions like wide gamut. This is 8-bit & srgb because we are talking mainstream option here. PnP matters more than your gamut standards who knows how many there are.

Uh ... what is "standard rgb"? Do you mean sRGB? Because the vast majority of monitors are not calibrated to any gamut, and many don't even come close to 100% sRGB, so every color they display is shown wrong. How is that a good thing? I'd say calibration is slightly more important than a wide gamut, but calibration is meaningless unless the gamut is sufficient. And having a too high gamut is never a drawback as long as the monitor is also calibrated. And how, exactly is a too-wide gamut worse than a too-narrow one? You seem to be arguing from the basis that today, all/most monitors are 100% sRGB and reasonably accurate. A more accurate representation would be that most monitors in use today are ~60-80% sRGB and entirely uncalibrated, with deltaEs often in the >10 if not >20 range. That is so inaccurate you can't trust the colors seen on the screen whatsoever.

As for "not resorting to slights"...

That is called as shilling and it makes you a troll.

You're quite right, that's not a slight, that's a plain-faced insult.

Changing your statements though ... yes, you unequivocally are. First you said a wide gamut is always a handicap for nanoIPS. Period. Then you say calibration is necessary. Then you say people saying a wide gamut is useful for various color-critical tasks are "shilling" and trying to "push" "mainstream" buyers into buying wide-gamut monitors. Now you're presenting yourself as some sort of champion of the people, defending their right to ... have shitty monitors? And not least drawing up false dichotomies, as if wide-gamut monitors are somehow not plug-and-play, or are somehow less compatible than narrow-gamut monitors. Which is both an entirely different thing than you started out saying, and patently untrue. Any monitor is plug-and-play ready as long as it has an interface supported by the PC in question, and if it defaults to an sRGB-calibrated profile then it will also be accurate out of the box, regardless of its color gamut (as long as it is at least 100% sRGB). I mean, the line-up of straw man arguments here is quite impressive.

Oh, btw, you know what the mainstream would benefit from? Microsoft updating Windows to be color aware on an OS level. If I was to advocate for anything, it would be that. But I haven't advocated that here, nor have I advocated anything beyond wide gamuts being good for any use case involving color (photo/video editing, graphic design, web design, 3D modelling, etc.) as long as it's reasonably calibrated. Which it doesn't really seem like you disagree with? It's hard to tell, with how you keep dodging questions and refusing to respond to arguments though. I've never said that people should stop buying narrow-gamut monitors - if they want their monitors to look dull and depressing, that's on them. I've used enough 60% sRGB monitors to know what a difference calibrated 100% makes. The perceived image quality from more saturated (but still accurate) colors is massive. Also, if smartphones have shown us anything, it's that people want bright and colorful displays. It is truly time that the LCD industry moved past <100% sRGB technologies - they might be cheap, but they aren't really noticeably cheaper than better alternatives, and the drawbacks are rare and minimal. I'm not saying people should buy or shouldn't buy anything, but a decade working in computer and smartphone retail has taught me a lot about what people generally want from their monitors and displays. And yes, everybody does indeed benefit from brighter, more colorful displays. Why? Because they look better, and have more potential to look as they should.

You're presenting this as if monitors moving to wider gamuts somehow limits their compatibility or makes them inherently worse for some uses. This is simply not true. Is an oversaturated monitor inherently worse than an undersaturated one? You're welcome to think so; in that case that is your opinion, not an indisputable fact. Me, I prefer correct colours, which also means a wide gamut, as reality isn't limited to sRGB (I know, shocking!). If I take a photo in Adobe RGB, I would like to be able to see all captured colors, and not need to convert it to sRGB and lose those tones. Btw, have you noticed that most upper midrange and upwards phones these days have P3 displays with P3 calibration? They're often not calibrated well, but the best ones are great. Would it really be a bad thing if PC monitors looked like that? But again, you seem to be assuming that we're working from a status quo of "full gamut" displays with reasonable accuracy, and moving towards exceeding that and going into something that is both not useful at all, and actively harmful to image quality. The premise of your argument is factually wrong, and thus the conclusions are also.

But I'm done indulging your ever-shifting arguments now: you started this out by saying

Color gamut is a handicap, rather than an advantage in the domain of nanoIPS technology.

A statement that you have yet to back up with any evidence that stands up to scrutiny. The sources you provided do not support that claim, especially as it relates to this monitor. I'm still waiting for you to back up that claim with something else. Please provide some evidence for that claim. I'm still waiting.

 

[mtcn77]

How is that a good thing?

It is neither good, nor bad.
You are trying to restrict people into a niche market. That won't happen as I was saying.
This skewed sjw logic has to go. People buy because they demand it, not because we tell them to. No amount of shilling is going to change that, if you have a problem with 8-bit srgb being the norm - not 10-bit Dolby Vision NTSC - check your premises. You are expecting too much.

Btw, have you noticed that most upper midrange and upwards phones these days have P3 displays with P3 calibration? They're often not calibrated well, but the best ones are great. Would it really be a bad thing if PC monitors looked like that?

I think I'm past arguing with you the inherent flaw in thinking mobile displays come with the same display panel found in desktop monitors. I'm just about done.

At this point, I don't think you do it out of any malfeasence. You just gloss over it.

 

[Valantar]

It is neither good, nor bad.

Actually it is quite bad. Let's say you're shopping for clothes or furniture online. Unless your display is reasonably color accurate, you have zero way of knowing what color the thing you're looking at actually is. Or if you're editing a photo to post online - unless your display is reasonably color accurate, you have no way of telling whether what looks good on your screen looks good on other people's screens (or if it looks like garbage). You might have edited your mother's face to have a weird green tint, or made the sky have intense neon-like colors - you can't know unless your display is reasonably accurate. With the current norm - which for the record isn't "8-bit sRGB", it is "Windows assumes sRGB, has zero color awareness for applications or the OS, and treats all monitors as generic, and most monitors have can display 60-80% of the sRGB gamut and are entirely uncalibrated - users have zero control over what their devices are displaying. And lacking factory calibration, with greyscale fixed-brightness calibration being the only option for calibrating most monitors, and given that colorimeters and spectrophotometers are expensive and require complex software to work, after-the-fact calibration is essentially nonexistent.

Is this a huge danger to the public? Obviously not. We're talking about monitors, for crying out loud. But you actively arguing that people have a right to buy bad monitors is beyond absurd. People can buy whatever they want, but they'll have a better experience if they buy actually good products. Go figure, eh?

You are trying to restrict people into a niche market. That won't happen as I was saying.

Wait, what? How? Why? When? Seriously, show me a quote to that effect.

skewed sjw logic

Oh man. I've seen that idiotic term thrown around in lots of stupid contexts, but this ... this takes it to a whole new level. I should screenshot this for posterity. Please oh please, explain how better color accuracy and wider color gamuts in monitors relates to social justice. Go on, I'm waiting.

People buy because they demand it, not because we tell them to.

Holy moly, that's a naïve stance. Have you heard of marketing? Advertising? PR? People buy a) what's available within their budget fitting their perceived needs, and b) what's marketed to them in a way that appeals to them. As for "we" - I don't know who you're including in this statement, but nothing I've said here has related to telling anyone to buy anything.

No amount of shilling is going to change that

Again with the (at least slightly veiled this time!) insults. I would love for you to quote me shilling anything. Go on!

if you have a problem with 8-bit srgb being the norm - not 10-bit Dolby Vision NTSC - check your premises. You are expecting too much.

Ah, here comes the straw man parade! Have you missed the part where I've argued that this monitor is probably quite decent because it's calibrated to sRGB? I've said it's a poor fit for content creators (as most of those work targeting wider color spaces than sRGB), but it's probably excellent, and certainly excellent value for anyone targeting sRGB web content. It's also a poor fit for watching HDR content (which uses either P3 or rec.2020), so that's another potential weakness. It generally has a lot of unutilized potential given that it has a wide-gamut panel but just sRGB calibration. Which is really too bad - the panel is likely good.

I would really think you would applaud this monitor for being calibrated to sRGB, as that effectively limits its gamut in the calibrated mode (it can't both be calibrated to match sRGB and output a much wider color gamut in the same mode after all, that would mean it's not calibrated at all!), but ... it seems it's a matter of principle for you, that monitors shouldn't be able to display more colors than the sRGB spectrum? I seriously struggle to grasp what on earth you are actually arguing for here.

You are expecting too much.

Wait, expecting too much. Okay. So, I'm expecting more of something, i.e. more than the baseline, or something improved from the baseline. So you are now saying that wider color gamut monitors (given good calibration) are better, but too expensive and complicated for most users? Because that's quite different than saying

This is grossly incorrect. Color gamut is a handicap, rather than an advantage in the domain of nanoIPS technology.

So, are you changing your stance, or are you just contradicting yourself?

Beyond that, I'm not expecting anything. I am hoping that displays will improve still - the average LCD still has worse color reproduction than the average CRT from the 90s! - but, well, I don't expect much. And I certainly don't expect the general public to make informed and reasonable purchase decisions. Any retail worker will tell you the same - most people have no idea what covers their needs or is the best purchase for them (and they often have no idea how to even figure out their own needs - they don't know what questions to ask themselves nor how they relate to the products).

I think I'm past arguing with you the inherent flaw in thinking mobile displays come with the same display panel found in desktop monitors. I'm just about done.

I would love to hear you explain how mobile displays are different from laptop or desktop displays beyond size, backlight layouts (for LCDs) and pixel density. Please, do inform us mere mortals how these displays are so utterly different that they don't even work in the same ways (i.e. by outputting a certain range of wavelengths of visible light, with this being controlled by display hardware and the relevant software). You have a penchant for making extravagant claims without backing them up, so it would be great if you could break that habit for once.

At this point, I don't think you do it out of any malfeasence. You just gloss over it.

I think anyone reading this thread would agree that I don't tend to gloss over anything whatsoever. That is again a very, very weird thing to say. But malfeasance? That is a very odd choice of words (last I checked I'm not an elected official in any capacity), but if anyone here could be accused of ill intent, perhaps it should be the one with a history of moving the goal posts, not backing up their arguments, changing their story when confronted, refusing to admit they've ever said anything different, insulting others, and consistently arguing in bad faith? Yeah, I would put my money on that alternative.

Sorry man, but you've dug yourself a hole you're not getting out of. What you are "arguing" (yes, that is a very generous use of the word) currently is something entirely different from your initial statement, so either you have changed your story, you don't understand the words you are using, or you are just flat out lying. There is no fourth option.

 

[mtcn77]

you actively arguing that people have a right to buy bad monitors is beyond absurd.

You cannot argue that a brand new monitor is a bad one. Maybe, you should listen to what you are saying from time to time.

And I certainly don't expect the general public to make informed and reasonable purchase decisions.

Did I hear you ask what is an example of skewed sjw logic because this is the type of high horse syndrome that sufferers argue without any benefit to society.

I would love to hear you explain how mobile displays are different from laptop or desktop displays beyond size, backlight layouts (for LCDs) and pixel density.

I happen to already, but you don't listen since you are so full of yourself.

An LCD extracts light quite differently than an emissive display because it is transmissive.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Sorry man, but you've dug yourself a hole you're not getting out of. What you are "arguing" (yes, that is a very generous use of the word) currently is something entirely different from your initial statement, so either you have changed your story, you don't understand the words you are using, or you are just flat out lying. There is no fourth option.

Yeah, pretty much this.

Did I hear you ask what is an example of skewed sjw logic because this is the type of high horse syndrome that sufferers argue without any benefit to society.

Are you done spewing your maligned fud?

 

[mtcn77]

Are you done spewing your maligned fud?

We could have never started and I'd be cool with that.

 

[Valantar]

You cannot argue that a brand new monitor is a bad one. Maybe, you should listen to what you are saying from time to time.

Uh ... yes I can? How is newness an indicator of quality in any way whatsoever? Are you actually arguing that a new product can't be a bad product? Uhm ... you understand that by that metric every product ever must be good, as every product ever has been new at some point? Right? Or does the quality of a product decline over time regardless of its function, aesthetics, usability, ability to fulfill its purpose(s), and so on? If newness is a criterion for quality, the entire notion of quality goes out the window, as it becomes an utterly meaningless word, synonymous with "new".

Also, let me remind you: this thread is discussing a new monitor, which you claimed was fundamentally flawed due to its wide color gamut and nanoIPS panel. So ... eh, make up your mind?

Did I hear you ask what is an example of skewed sjw logic because this is the type of high horse syndrome that sufferers argue without any benefit to society.

Again: we are discussing monitors. It would be very difficult for any discussion of monitors to be of benefit to society (though I can imagine a few, such as discussing repairability and reuseability of monitors to offset the significant environmental impact of their manufacture). But in general, the benefit of monitor quality to the general public is personal, not public.

But let me flesh out that statement a bit: most people live quite complex lives. People have kids, family, hobbies, activities, friends, groups and organizations they belong to, and demanding jobs, and need to juggle all of that to make it all work. Most people do not have the time, energy nor interest to be well informed about every thing they might need or want to buy - it's simply not feasible in the time we have available in our lives. For example, if I were to need a new fridge, I would have a vague idea of how much space I would need, and I would want it to be as environmentally friendly as possible, but beyond that I wouldn't have a clue how to make a choice, nor would I want to spend the time educating myself on the subject for a single purchase - and that's for a product that's a 10-20-year investment. I simply don't have that kind of time, and I have things I would rather spend my time doing. Further than that, thanks to marketing, many people also have significant misconceptions about their own needs (this for example largely explains the popularity of flagship phones, when the vast majority of users wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a $1200 flagship and a $6-700 upper midrange/"premium" phone).

That is why well-informed expert guidance is not only nice to have, but a necessity for making good, well-informed purchase decisions. Even knowing how to identify your own needs in a certain area is difficult, and requires a significant amount of knowledge. for someone who doesn't want to spend hours and hours doing research on something they might not even be interested in in the first place. One of the key differentiators between a good and a bad retail salesperson is their ability to identify the wants and needs of the customer and find a suitable product for them that will fulfill their needs without being wasteful or unnecessarily complex.

So my statement is, contrary to your interpretation, not based on arrogance or looking down on people, but years of experience with selling technology to the general public - thankfully in jobs where we weren't incentivized to push sales, and were given the freedom to provide the best advice possible. If your base assumption is that most purchase decisions are well researched and informed, or that the average customer has a clear overview of their own needs previous to making a purchase, then you are sadly misinformed about simple facts about consumer behavior, and have a view of people that is so utopian as to have no basis in reality. A decade of retail experience has taught me this, and my experience is corroborated by plenty of research on consumer purchasing behavior and consumer psychology. Of the millions and millions of purchases the average person makes during their lifetime, a only a small portion is actively thought-out, fully informed and rationally made decisions. Most purchase decisions are heavily influenced by perceptions of needs, which are again heavily influenced by marketing, social pressures, etc. That of course isn't to say that social needs aren't real needs - they obviously are - but rather that people are extremely susceptible to misunderstanding their own perceived needs and what causes them to be perceived as they are.

I happen to already, but you don't listen since you are so full of yourself.

An LCD extracts light quite differently than an emissive display because it is transmissive.

Uhm ... let me introduce you to two phones. One is the iPhone 12. It has an emissive OLED display. The other is the iPhone 11. It has a transmissive LCD display. This laptop, alongside many others, has an emissive OLED display, despite the vast majority of laptops being transmissive LCDs. Oh, and this Asus monitor, and this LG monitor both have emissive OLED displays. (Heck, there are even both phones and laptops out there with reflective e-ink displays!) As does five series of TVs from LG, plus a bunch from Sony, Panasonic and others. And then you have gigantic emissive LED displays found around the world, from billboards to sports arenas. Your argument would only apply if all mobile displays and only mobile displays were emissive, and all other displays were transmissive. Which is simply not true. Both emissive and transmissive displays are found in a wide range of products and applications, from really tiny one to really big ones. If that is the fundamental difference between mobile and PC displays you were talking about, it simply doesn't exist.

And, of course, the importance of a sufficiently wide gamut and good calibration is exactly the same for emissive displays as for transmissive displays, with the only difference being that the gamut is determined by the wavelength output of the light-creating pixels rather than a full-spectrum backlight. The need for control of the output as well as the need for the output to be of a sufficient quality to begin with (i.e. having a sufficiently wide gamut to display the necessary colors) is exactly the same whether the display is emissive or transmissive.

We could have never started and I'd be cool with that.

Well, we cold have avoided all of this if you had simply admitted that your initial comment was wrong and that you had misinterpreted the sources you based that statement on. Instead you doubled down, started dodging questions, changing your story, throwing out insults, and here we are.

 

[mtcn77]

this thread is discussing a new monitor, which you claimed was fundamentally flawed due to its wide color gamut and nanoIPS panel.

Stop putting a twist in my words. I claimed the article was wrong, not the monitor itself. In fact, the monitor is quite alright. I gave an example to prove my case, but since it went over your head you started associating the example for a "real issue" with the case in point which is a made up one that wide gamut is a drawback for this monitor.
Your understanding is all wrong. High gamut capability means the internals are all good(backlight, filters, coatings), however not necessarily that the screen would be better if it were wide gamut: saturation can compensate for the brightness level in case ambient reflections dull the screen. In fact, wide gamut is bad because it takes calibration and as is presented in the article it's absence is for the better since extended colors don't have strong intensities and are more susceptible to being drowned out by reflections any way. Trying to meet out of reach goals and speculating on that is not good journalism and, in your case, an act of trolling by moving the goalposts further and further away from the mainstream and into the niche. You are just making a wish to come true without understanding the forces at play. LCD's are transmissive, you cannot discount the effect of reflections. Otherwise, some loser complains how it cannot display colors. People have limited appreciation for the specifics, least of all you.

The other is the iPhone 11. It has a transmissive LCD display.

That comes with a clear coat. Glossy coatings don't reflect light as much as matte coatings. They are thinner. They look brighter. Also, if you have to compare with Apple, I rest my case. The amount of tech in Apple is an irony of itself being LCD.

One of the key differentiators between a good and a bad retail salesperson is their ability to identify the wants and needs of the customer and find a suitable product for them that will fulfill their needs without being wasteful or unnecessarily complex.

As I was saying, this monitor doesn't need the absurdity of being rejected on the premise of inaccessible whims on its promotion article.

The need for control of the output as well as the need for the output to be of a sufficient quality to begin with (i.e. having a sufficiently wide gamut to display the necessary colors) is exactly the same whether the display is emissive or transmissive.

Again, you lack of understanding is not our subject of debate. The "emission" versus "reflection" displayed from the panel changes based on incident light and depending on how close the light element is to the frame and how much light is absorbed and reflected back from the environment determines your final image. Your intensities are cancelled by white light noise coming from the environment, you cannot output pure wavelength band intensities if light comes through from an outside source and the emissive OLED, or the LCD backlight is inhibited from generating a calibrated image. The difference of emissive type displays is the distance to which reflections can travel within the frame is very shallow which mutes "the underwater effect" present in transmissive displays.
You cannot troll people, by virtue of being a salesman, into your interpretation of the subject. Obviously, years of ignorance has killed your curiosity and you are just targetting people to quarrel.

 

[Valantar]

Stop putting a twist in my words. I claimed the article was wrong, not the monitor itself. In fact, the monitor is quite alright. I gave an example to prove my case, but since it went over your head you started associating the example for a "real issue" with the case in point which is a made up one that wide gamut is a drawback for this monitor.
Your understanding is all wrong. High gamut capability means the internals are all good(backlight, filters, coatings), however not necessarily that the screen would be better if it were wide gamut: saturation can compensate for the brightness level in case ambient reflections dull the screen. In fact, wide gamut is bad because it takes calibration and as is presented in the article it's absence is for the better since extended colors don't have strong intensities and are more susceptible to being drowned out by reflections any way. Trying to meet out of reach goals and speculating on that is not good journalism and, in your case, an act of trolling by moving the goalposts further and further away from the mainstream and into the niche. You are just making a wish to come true without understanding the forces at play. LCD's are transmissive, you cannot discount the effect of reflections. Otherwise, some loser complains how it cannot display colors. People have limited appreciation for the specifics, least of all you.


That comes with a clear coat. Glossy coatings don't reflect light as much as matte coatings. They are thinner. They look brighter. Also, if you have to compare with Apple, I rest my case. The amount of tech in Apple is an irony of itself being LCD.


As I was saying, this monitor doesn't need the absurdity of being rejected on the premise of inaccessible whims on its promotion article.

Oh jesus, are we still going at this? Let's do this point by point then:

Stop putting a twist in my words. I claimed the article was wrong, not the monitor itself. In fact, the monitor is quite alright. I gave an example to prove my case, but since it went over your head you started associating the example for a "real issue" with the case in point which is a made up one that wide gamut is a drawback for this monitor.

I've never put words in your mouth. You claimed that wide color gamuts - with no reservations, so the statement is clearly meant to be generally applicable, i.e. to all nanoIPS displays - were a handicap. By extension, this means that wide gamuts also have no advantages, as being a handicap in all situations excludes the possibility of an advantage that might outweigh the (supposed) handicap in any situation. So by the innate logic of your initial statement, this must also apply to this specific monitor. Also, why else bring it up?

Secondly for that point, the sources you provided pointed out a minor drawback that only applied for monitors running at very high refresh rates with backlight strobing activated. (They also didn't see this as a sufficiently large problem even in those cases to have it really affect their overall evaluations of those monitors - they still recommended them.) How is that then a generally applicable problem, given that the vast majority of monitors don't run at 144Hz or more, and don't have backlight strobing? You are taking a small issue from a niche use case and claiming that it is a fundamental problem with all monitors based on the same technology. That is a massive logical fallacy.

Your understanding is all wrong. High gamut capability means the internals are all good(backlight, filters, coatings), however not necessarily that the screen would be better if it were wide gamut: saturation can compensate for the brightness level in case ambient reflections dull the screen.

Sorry, but no. The main and fundamental requirement for a wide color gamut (for an LCD) is a backlight that outputs a sufficiently wide spectrum of light. Anything beyond that (variations to the color filters, coatings, etc.) are tweaks to tune the output, but not fundamental requirements for a wide-gamut monitor. Of course you can't have elements in front of the backlight that actually block those frequencies of light, but ... yeah. Shocking. For an emissive display, the only fundamental requirement for a wide color gamut is - again - the ability of the light-emitting portion of the display to output a sufficiently wide spectrum of light. This applies whether these are colored (AM)OLED or LED subpixels, white OLED subpixels behind a color filter like LG's WOLED, or (likely blue, though possibly UV) subpixels exciting a nanoparticle coating like in upcoming nano-OLED displays.

All LCDs have color filters for their subpixels, and of course these vary in their design and makeup, but these can be exactly the same across wide- and narrow-gamut displays. Display coatings don't generally change the light output of the display, but can have significant effects on things like perceived contrast. But again, you can have exactly the same coatings on a wide- and narrow-gamut display. Whether they are matte or glossy is entirely irrelevant to the gamut of the display - there are plenty of wide-gamut displays of both types, as there are plenty of narrow-gamut displays of both kinds.

As for "saturation can compensate for the brightness level in case ambient reflections dull the screen" - first off, yes, more saturated colors appear brighter, that is true. But ... you understand that a wider gamut means the ability to show more saturated colors, right? All color gamuts range from entirely unsaturated (white) and out towards more saturated ranges of color. A wider gamut means the ability to display more vibrant, more saturated colors. So this would then be an advantage of a wide gamut, no? That they don't look as dull in sunlight?

In fact, wide gamut is bad because it takes calibration

All monitors need calibration. A narrow color gamut is in no way better-looking without calibration than a wide color gamut, nor is it in any way more correct. And as I have stated time and time again, you need to be able to output at least 100% of any given gamut - and more doesn't hurt, as you can always limit it - to be able to accurately represent colors. A narrow-gamut display can never be accurate.

is presented in the article it's absence is for the better since extended colors don't have strong intensities and are more susceptible to being drowned out by reflections any way.

1: The article presents the lack of wide-gamut calibration as a drawback, not "for the better".
2: Wider gamuts contain color tones that are more vibrant than narrower gamuts. Not the other way around.
3: Going from point 2: Narrow gamut monitors are more susceptible to being washed out due to their lack of ability to render vibrant colors.

That you seem to have mixed this up kind of explains the fundamental misunderstanding at hand here. If I were to guess, I'd say you've confused people saying that 10-bit high-gamut panels can display finer nuances of color - which means closer gradations of differences between color, a relative measure of color regardless of the overall gamut - with that meaning that high-gamut panels display duller, less vibrant colors than their narrow-gamut counterparts (reading "finer" as in "less vibrant" or "less saturated"). That is not the case, thankfully. A wide gamut display can output a wider range of color tones, which means more saturated color tones when the starting point for measurement is pure white.

It is of course important to highlight that 10-bit control alone doesn't help - that will make the gradations of any gamut smoother, but if your gamut is 60% of sRGB, you'll just have smoother dull tones. You also need a wide gamut to be able to render vibrant color. Of course the wider your range of colors, the more necessary finer control is, as the range of adjustments grows - if your display can output 200% of sRGB, your 256 steps of adjustment with an 8-bit panel will be twice as wide, and banding will be twice as visible, making finer control more of a necessity.

Trying to meet out of reach goals and speculating on that is not good journalism

There is nothing out of reach in wanting a display capable of outputting 119% of the sRGB gamut to be calibrated for at least one wider-than-sRGB gamut. It likely can't hit 100% of Adobe RGB or P3 D65, but a calibrated mode for either of these would still be a great feature, even if higher saturations of colors would be inaccurate due to the less-than-100% coverage of those gamuts.

in your case, an act of trolling by moving the goalposts further and further away from the mainstream and into the niche

How have I "moved the goalposts"? Have my goals, desires and ideals changed throughout this discussion? I would love to see an example. And how, exactly, is wanting to have nice-looking colors a niche desire? As I said, there is plenty of sales data to show that people prefer brighter, more vibrant displays if presented with the option.

You are just making a wish to come true without understanding the forces at play.

Uh ... okay? Which forces? Consumer desires? Market forces? Government regulations? International trade deals? I don't quite see how any of these would really be applicable to the general ideal of wanting displays to be able to more accurately represent reality. Remember, there are no commonly used color gamuts as wide as the range of light frequencies visible to humans, but the wider the gamut, the closer the approximation. sRGB compared to the full range of color perceptible to humans is like watching a movie through a keyhole.

LCD's are transmissive, you cannot discount the effect of reflections.

I haven't. Not whatsoever. But reflections don't fundamentally affect the ability of a display to render color, and all displays are dulled by reflections. Thus, if a wide-gamut and a narrow-gamut display, both with decent calibration, with the same surface treatment were viewed in the same light, the wide-gamut display would never look worse than the narrow-gamut one, due to its fundamental ability to output more vibrant color than the narrow-gamut one.

Also, reflections are just as important - if not more! - for emissive displays! Have you looked at an OLED TV's reflections? That is, for example, the main drawback of LG's otherwise fantastic OLED TV series - they are severely hampered by reflections. There is even reason to suspect that emissive displays (at least OLEDs) are more prone to image quality degradation in direct sunlight than transmissive displays - partly due to the thinner display stack with fewer layers.

Otherwise, some loser complains how it cannot display colors. People have limited appreciation for the specifics, least of all you.

Hold up, I though I was the one sitting on my high horse judging people? Nice that you keep coming with your "subtle" insults by the way. Real classy.

Also, it's quite hilarious to see someone actively arguing that displays should not be able to render a wider range of colors criticize someone for not appreciating specifics. You know, as in nuances? More specific tones of color?

That comes with a clear coat. Glossy coatings don't reflect light as much as matte coatings.

Uhhhhh... glossy coatings reflect more light than matte coatings. Matte coatings disperse light, that is their entire point. Dispersion is not reflection. Apple (and many others) spend a lot of time and money researching coatings for their glossy displays to cut down on reflections. Did you see their micro-etched glass for the Pro Display XDR? There's a reason their matte coating comes at a $1000 premium over then glossy one.

They are thinner. They look brighter.

There's nothing saying a clear coating is necessarily thinner than a matte coating. The do tend to look brighter, as matte coatings necessarily disperse some of the light output by the display, that much is true, but isn't that again another argument for wider gamuts on matte displays, given that more vibrant colors look brighter? Or are you saying you want your displays to look dark as well as dull?

Also, if you have to compare with Apple, I rest my case.

...because them being the only major computer and phone makers to consistently focus on the color accuracy and display quality of their products over the last 10+ years is somehow making them a bad example? Yeah, sorry, I don't follow you there. Have you noticed how PC makers/android phone makers are typically following Apple in moving to wider-gamut displays, calibrated displays, etc.?

The amount of tech in Apple is an irony of itself being LCD.

That sentence does not compute. Is Apple an LCD? Does Apple "have tech in it"?

As I was saying, this monitor doesn't need the absurdity of being rejected on the premise of inaccessible whims on its promotion article.

1: This isn't a "promotion article", it's press coverage of the release of a new display, with some basic information about the product and a tiny amount of journalistic reflections on its suitability to the market group it targets in how it is promoted.
2: Nobody has rejected this monitor - though both Raevenlord, myself and others have pointed out that not being calibrated to P3 or Adobe RGB makes it unsuited to true color-critical professional usage. It's still probably a decent monitor. These are established industry standards, and requirements for performing those types of work (if you're doing color work for an ad or film targeting the P3 space, you can't grade that on a display that can't display the P3 gamut!). Without them it is fundamentally unsuited for those tasks. Arguing against that is like arguing that you can use a philips-head screw driver to screw in slot-head screws. It just won't work.
3: What on earth is an "inaccessible whim"?
4: You were the one coming in here saying that all nanoIPS displays must be rejected due to their wide color gamuts somehow being a general and fundamental handicap, remember?

 

[mtcn77]

You claimed that wide color gamuts - with no reservations, so the statement is clearly meant to be generally applicable, i.e. to all nanoIPS displays - were a handicap.

Yes, in the frame set of mainstream monitors. What is so hard to get? You asking people buy monitors that need aftermarket service to just to start? Hello, Apple?

glossy coatings reflect more light than matte coatings. Matte coatings disperse light, that is their entire point.

Wrong, glossy coatings reflect more light, but that is different than reflecting light at the axis of view. Matte coatings not only disperse but introduce more reflected light at the viewing cone. You cannot see spectral light, you aren't a bee. What glossy coat reflects is good light that doesn't interfere with the axis of vision.

, sorry, I don't follow you there.

IPS is more expensive than similar technologies because it requires lower tolerance in order to look right. Without specific brushing techniques, like with rayon rather than cotton, the display can get 10° degree inclination of liquid crystal matrix rather than 1° in order to fix IPS glow issues not found on TN, or VA displays.
Look, if we are going to do this in a clause by clause basis, either admit you misunderstood my point and tried to get back at it, or don't judge people for bluntness. It is hard discussing with somebody who is constantly getting at back at yourself. It is not the best attitude in a debate.

 

[Valantar]

Again, you lack of understanding is not our subject of debate. The "emission" versus "reflection" displayed from the panel changes based on incident light and depending on how close the light element is to the frame and how much light is absorbed and reflected back from the environment determines your final image. Your intensities are cancelled by white light noise coming from the environment, you cannot output pure wavelength band intensities if light comes through from an outside source and the emissive OLED, or the LCD backlight is inhibited from generating a calibrated image. The difference of emissive type displays is the distance to which reflections can travel within the frame is very shallow which mutes "the underwater effect" present in transmissive displays.

And once again now: how does this apply to your initial point? Remember, we weren't comparing emissive and transmissive displays, nor were we talking about use cases where reflections are very important (if your desktop monitor is plagued by reflections, close your curtains or don't place it facing a window!). We were discussing how, apparently and according to you, wide color gamuts are always a handicap for nanoIPS displays. Care to expand on how this relates to differences between display types, glossy vs. matte coatings, or indoor vs. outdoor use?

Nor does this change in any way whatsoever depending on whether the display in question has a wide color gamut or not. Narrow-gamut displays are dulled just as much as wide-gamut ones are, and their color accuracy is thrown off by just as much. Of course they are already starting out dull (and by extension, typically inaccurate, as most displays don't hit 100% sRGB), so the perceived difference may be smaller, but that still doesn't mean the wider-gamut display will look worse than the narrow-gamut one. If sunlight reduces the perceived brightness and vibrancy of both displays by, say, 70%, the one starting out more vibrant will of course also end up more vibrant. And it's not like the wavelengths needed for a wider gamut are somehow more susceptible to interference from sunlight - sunlight has a relatively flat spectral distribution.

Yes, in the frame set of mainstream monitors. What is so hard to get? You asking people buy monitors that need aftermarket service to just to start? Hello, Apple?

Again, you seem to be assuming that a wider gamut is fundamentally more inaccurate or more unrealistic than a more narrow gamut. This explains the fundamentally flawed premise of your arguments, and the misunderstanding at the core of this entire debacle. There is no direct correlation between color gamut and color accuracy. The only direct link is that a display needs to be able to output at least 100% of any given gamut to be able to render it correctly. Thus, a narrower gamut (for example the relatively standard ~60% sRGB backlights of cheap LCDs) will never be able to display colors correctly. And the narrower the gamut, the further removed from reality its range of colors. All displays need calibration. An uncalibrated display capable of displaying exactly 100% of the sRGB spectrum can still look terrible due to not being calibrated, and entirely misrepresent its colors. Without calibration, that is essentially entirely random. And remember, any wider gamut can display all colors present in a narrower gamut. So they can be equally accurate within the narrow gamut, but the wider gamut has the advantage of being able to display more color tones, thus being a better representation of reality.

There is nothing whatsoever saying that a wide-gamut monitor needs more aftermarket service than a narrow-gamut one. People who require wide-gamut monitors typically also require more after-market service as they use these displays for color-critical work which requires the colors to be as accurate as possible. That does not mean that a narrow-gamut monitor needs less service, it means that a narrow-gamut monitor couldn't be used for what they need it for at all.

Wrong, glossy coatings reflect more light, but that is different than reflecting light at the axis of view. Matte coatings not only disperse but introduce more reflected light at the viewing cone. You cannot see spectral light, you aren't a bee. What glossy coat reflects is good light that doesn't interfere with the axis of vision.

Wait, hold up, didn't you just say that

Glossy coatings don't reflect light as much as matte coatings.

Isn't that a direct contradiction of what you're now saying? See what I was saying about moving the goal posts?

Also, what is "spectral light"? Human visible light is a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. All light exists on this spectrum. Can some light be more or less "spectral" than other light?

And what on earth is "good light that doesn't interfere with the axis of vision"? Is there "good" and "bad" types of light now? Last I checked, light hitting a display does three things: cause our eyes to adjust to a higher brightness, making the display look duller in comparison (outside sunlight is far brighter than any indoor illumination, for example, so a screen that looks bright indoors can look really dark outdoors); cause interference within the display stack which can affect color perception (mainly due to the broad spectrum of sunlight making the different color outputs of various pixels less perceptible - drowning out the emitted light, if you will); and cause reflections that might make the surface of the display so bright and clearly visible that we are no longer able to make out the light coming through it.

Matte display coatings do have one disadvantage in terms of reflections, and that is that due to their ability to disperse light, some external light will always be reflected back at the user from some part of the screen (but never all of it unless you are very far away from it). The severity of this drawback will vary depending on the situation (angle and intensity of external light, etc.), but it's more than compensated for in comparison to glossy displays by the fact that a glossy display will also reflect indirect light, i.e. you will see a reflection of not only sunlight, but everything behind you that the sunlight hits. If you find a shadowy spot and stand in it, you will still see the sunlit scene behind you reflected in a glossy scene, but not in a matte one. And again, given the much, much higher intensity of sunlight than most displays, this will still be able to wash out the glossy display more than a visible bright spot on a matte display.

 

[mtcn77]

Or are you saying you want your displays to look dark as well as dull?

Darkness and dullness is a matter of screen reflection. If the screen has lots of coats, and thus is not considered as "thin", this obstructs light coming out off it and also creates a gap which reflected light can enter and can dull your wavelength intensities. The question is whether ambient light is reflected off the display plane in which case a secondary reflected image is obfuscating the original image.

Narrow-gamut displays are dulled just as much as wide-gamut ones are, and their color accuracy is thrown off by just as much.

No, narrow gamut displays - like you said! - does 'not' display a wide range of intensities like wide gamut displays do. They can have primary intensities that are so strong that reflections cannot dull them. I suppose you didn't know that since you argue like you never heard of amazon kindle.

 

[Valantar]

IPS is more expensive than similar technologies because it requires lower tolerance in order to look right. Without specific brushing techniques, like with rayon rather than cotton, the display can get 10° degree inclination of liquid crystal matrix rather than 1° in order to fix IPS glow issues not found on TN, or VA displays.
Look, if we are going to do this in a clause by clause basis, either admit you misunderstood my point and tried to get back at it, or don't judge people for bluntness. It is hard discussing with somebody who is constantly getting at back at yourself. It is not the best attitude in a debate.

That is true to a certain degree. However, you can get dirt-cheap IPS panels these days. Looking at retail prices (which is a good estimation as it takes into account production costs, distribution costs, volume production savings, etc.) - price differences between IPS and TN or VA are tiny. Expensive IPS is often the most expensive among the three - particularly as due to the inherent drawbacks of TN you can never make a really great overall TN display - but the base cost is still very much comparable. And while IPS is overall better suited to displaying a wide range of colors than, say, TN due to its better ability to adjust its subpixels, this is entirely irrelevant to the gamut output of the display - you can still make IPS with shitty, way-below-sRGB backlights. There are tons of examples of IPS monitors and displays out there that only render 60-80% of the sRGB gamut. Most budget laptops these days have IPS (or IPS-like, with similar tech but not made by LG who owns the IPS name and patents) displays, yet most of them can output 60-80% of the sRGB spectrum due to their cheap, shitty backlights.

Also, how on earth are we going to discuss something without actually responding to each others' arguments? I'm not "getting back at you", I'm calling out errors, logical inconsistencies and your constantly changing arguments, and demanding that you a) actually address the issues with your initial statement, b) address the fact that you have been changing your arguments radically throughout this discussion, and c) have been consistently using bad-faith arguing tactics (failing to respond to direct questions, failing to clarify when asked to do so, refusing to accept that you have said different things throughout the discussion, etc.). Oh, and the heaps and heaps of derogatory comments and insults, of course. That too.

 

[mtcn77]

price differences between IPS and TN or VA are tiny.

You are out of your league in making such statements. I don't care what you think, you have no idea. Absolute zero.

 

[Valantar]

Darkness and dullness is a matter of screen reflection. If the screen has lots of coats, and thus is not considered as "thin", this obstructs light coming out off it and also creates a gap which reflected light can enter and can dull your wavelength intensities. The question is whether ambient light is reflected off the display plane in which case a secondary reflected image is obfuscating the original image.

No, narrow gamut displays - like you said! - does 'not' display a wide range of intensities like wide gamut displays do. They can have primary intensities that are so strong that reflections cannot dull them. I suppose you didn't know that since you argue like you never heard of amazon kindle.

a) The kindle has a reflective display. Its foundational principle is that it reflects outside light to display an image. Also, have you noticed that it's black-and-white?
b) "They can have primary intensities that are so strong that reflections cannot dull them" is pure, unadulterated nonsense. There is zero truth to that claim. By their very nature the outer ranges of a narrow gamut display are less intensely saturated than a wider-gamut display. That is how gamuts are defined, for crying out loud! A wide-gamut display can display everything a narrower gamut display can. Period.
c) While it is more difficult to make a very bright wide-gamut backlight, that does not mean that most narrow-gamut displays are very bright. Quite the opposite, as they also tend to be cheap, they tend to have weak backlight (often in the 2-300 nit range). On the contrary, premium, wide-gamut displays (like for example Apple's laptops) hit high brightnesses (600 nits sustained for most Apple laptops) far more consistently than laptops with narrower gamut displays.
d) Darkness and dullness is partly a matter of screen reflection. Screen reflectivity is not tied to gamut coverage, as any display coating can be used on pretty much any display. There are both thick and thin wide-gamut displays, just as there are both thick and thin narrow-gamut displays. None of this applies to the point you are arguing.

You are out of your league in making such statements. I don't care what you think, you have no idea. Absolute zero.

Either you are looking at only the base production cost of the panel itself, dismissing the entire rest of the value chain that determines the actual sales price of the product (and thus considering a single variable with no real-world consequences for end users without factoring in all the rest) or you just have no idea what you are talking about. Consumer sales prices are the only price point worth considering when discussing consumer monitors, after all.

So let's compare prices! I'm looking at 1080p panels across common sizes - 22", 24" and 27" - as that's the most common resolution for the past few years, and covers the most popular display sizes. I used Newegg.com as a source, as they're the biggest US specialty PC component store, the US typically has the broadest selection of products, and they have a filtering system making such a comparison feasible.

Cheapest TN on Newegg.com: Samsung 22", $87.99
Cheapest IPS on Newegg.com: Asus 21.5", $99.99
Cheapest 24" TN on Newegg.com: Acer 23.6", $113.94
Cheapest 24" IPS on Newegg.com: LG 24", $109.99
Cheapest overall 24" monitor on Newegg.com: Vizta 24" (23.8"), panel type not listed, but 178° viewing angles mean it's not TN
Cheapest 27" TN on Newegg.com: Viewsonic 27", $149.99
Cheapest 27" IPS on Newegg.com: Westinghouse 27", $119.99

So while IPS might be a fundamentally more expensive technology to produce, it has long since reached commodity pricing, and production volumes are high enough to offset any panel production cost difference to TN. As shown above, in many cases IPS is far cheaper than TN, even! The cheapest 27" IPS is $30 or 20% cheaper than the cheapest 27" TN!

 

[mtcn77]

a) The kindle has a reflective display. Its foundational principle is that it reflects outside light to display an image. Also, have you noticed that it's black-and-white?

Kindle Fire HDX 7" Nanosys Quantum Dot display obviously.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Woooow! You two are still at it? Really?

So while IPS might be a fundamentally more expensive technology to produce, it has long since reached commodity pricing, and production volumes are high enough to offset any panel production cost difference to TN. As shown above, in many cases IPS is far cheaper than TN, even! The cheapest 27" IPS is $30 or 20% cheaper than the cheapest 27" TN!

Actually, that's a really good point.

 

[95Viper]

Get on topic.
Stay on topic.

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

Thank You and Be Safe