Portkeys Releases Affordable 5.5” HDMI Monitor

Portkeys released its most affordable monitor yet this month. On the official website is a new monitor listing called P6 5.5" 4K Signal HDMI Monitor With 3D LUT. It spans 5.5" across, as the name implies, with a resolution of 1920 x 1080.

Spec	Portkeys P6 5.5" Monitor
Dimensions	142mm x 78mm x 16.5mm (5.5" x 3.07" x .65")
Resolution	1920 x 1080
Weight	130g (.28 lb)
Input/Output	4K HDMI
Audio Out	3.5mm Headphone Jack
Power Input/Output	DC 7.4~24V
Material	ABS Plastic

The P6 display is notably bright—with specs listed at 500 NIT. The image quality and size are ideal for camera mounting the display. If you're looking for both a portable HDMI monitor that won't burn a hole in your pocket, the P6 might be for you.

The whole unit weighs just .28lbs. You can find additional accessories on the Portkeys website that are compatible with the P6, like this adjustable popeye mount. The screen comes with a variety of advanced features, like audio meters, various image adjustment tools, and 3D LUT. You can even add unique LUT settings specific to your project needs. Given its use of an HDMI port, it could also be used for other purposes, such as for Raspberry Pi systems.

You can pick up this monitor on the Portkeys website. The package will include the P6 monitor, a wipe cloth for the screen, and a USB Disk. According to the official product page, orders will ship before December 25th.

Topics

Monitors

Peripherals

3 Comments Comment from the forums

cryoburner 16 December 2019 01:25

When the article said "affordable" I was expecting something in the $50-$100 range, not $170. That seems a bit much for a 5.5" display. It's pretty much a cell-phone screen, without the cell phone, in a plastic housing that's twice as thick.

Maybe its a decent quality screen, but it's hard to tell, since the product page lacks many important specifications, like the panel type, color space, bit depth or refresh rate. It might be good as a somewhat larger display for photography or something, but it seems like one would want to check detailed reviews first due to the lack of information available.

If someone just wants a display for a portable computing project or something, there are far less expensive options available.
Reply
gggplaya 16 December 2019 14:02

cryoburner said:
When the article said "affordable" I was expecting something in the $50-$100 range, not $170. That seems a bit much for a 5.5" display. It's pretty much a cell-phone screen, without the cell phone, in a plastic housing that's twice as thick.

Maybe its a decent quality screen, but it's hard to tell, since the product page lacks many important specifications, like the panel type, color space, bit depth or refresh rate. It might be good as a somewhat larger display for photography or something, but it seems like one would want to check detailed reviews first due to the lack of information available.

If someone just wants a display for a portable computing project or something, there are far less expensive options available.

This is targeting photography due to the LUT color profiles and the 500nit brightness(outdoor usable). Sure you can find 7" displays for <$100, but they're usually half the brightness and just plain displays with no color profiles, and maybe not even audio meters. This can also "accept" 4k signal input as well, a must for today's videographers. Many cheaper displays will only accept up to 1080p input.
Reply
g-unit1111 16 December 2019 17:17

gggplaya said:
This is targeting photography due to the LUT color profiles and the 500nit brightness(outdoor usable). Sure you can find 7" displays for <$100, but they're usually half the brightness and just plain displays with no color profiles, and maybe not even audio meters. This can also "accept" 4k signal input as well, a must for today's videographers. Many cheaper displays will only accept up to 1080p input.

Also I think the battery could add to the weight and cost of the unit. I think this thing could be really interesting when used in Raspberry Pi applications.
Reply