Philips 288P6LJEB 28-Inch Ultra HD Monitor Review

Reviews
By Christian Eberle
published

We're hard at work reviewing every 4K screen we can get our hands on so that you know which one is best. With our evaluation of Philips' 288P6LJEB, only one available monitor remains. How does this 28" Ultra HD display size up to its competition?

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Results: Grayscale Tracking And Gamma Response

Our grayscale and gamma tests are described in detail here.

Out of the box, the 288P6LJEB is set to 6500K in its Color Temp mode. The measurements look decent with only slight errors at 50 percent and above. If you switch to sRGB, you’ll get the exact same result. While brighter whites run a little blue, the monitor looks good without calibration.

If you switch to the User mode without calibrating, the errors below 80 percent drop dramatically. Unfortunately, the brighter levels become worse. There is an obvious green tint, so if you want to use the 288P6LJEB unadjusted, stick to the Color Temp mode shown in the first chart.

Calibration does improve accuracy, though we struggled a bit with the contrast control. We adjusted the sliders using an 80-percent pattern, and you can see how it’s nearly perfect. But the other levels don’t show a lot of improvement. And we had to drop contrast by 12 clicks to fix the 100-percent step, reducing image contrast by over 16 percent. Our choice is still the calibrated mode, but some users may opt for greater dynamic range.

Here is our comparison group:

The out-of-box result is well under three, which is the visible threshold. Philips offers about the same stock accuracy as the other TN-based monitors we tested.

Calibration doesn’t produce a dramatic improvement in the average number. The principal change is in the brightest steps from 80 to 100 percent. If you use the 288P6LJEB for gaming and entertainment, the extra contrast of an uncalibrated display might be more appealing than realizing maximum color accuracy.

Gamma Response

We found some interesting behavior when trying the gamma presets. Most monitors simply move the same curve up or down. But the 288P6LJEB exhibits different tracking patterns as the setting is changed. The above chart represents the 2.2 option with no other adjustments. It looks great from a tracking standpoint, but it’s just a bit low (too bright).

Switching to User mode skews the gamma considerably. Not only do green errors appear in the brighter steps, but overall brightness is reduced too. To fix this, we dropped the preset to 2.0 and performed our usual grayscale calibration.

Our adjustments result in an almost-perfect gamma trace. The slight dip at 10 percent represents a microscopic error of only .27cd/m2. It doesn’t get much better than this.

Here is our comparison group again:

The comparison chart proves that Philips' 288P6LJEB is one of the best gamma performers we’ve seen. Coupled with an excellent ANSI result, we can see why its image looks far better than its on/off contrast numbers indicate. Gamma this tight can make up for middling contrast.

We calculate gamma deviation by simply expressing the difference from 2.2 as a percentage.

With a deviation of only .09 percent, Philips’ average gamma performance is just about perfect. The final number is 2.18 with a low of 2.12 and a high of 2.25.

Christian Eberle
Christian Eberle
Contributing Editor

Christian Eberle is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware US. He's a veteran reviewer of A/V equipment, specializing in monitors. Christian began his obsession with tech when he built his first PC in 1991, a 286 running DOS 3.0 at a blazing 12MHz. In 2006, he undertook training from the Imaging Science Foundation in video calibration and testing and thus started a passion for precise imaging that persists to this day. He is also a professional musician with a degree from the New England Conservatory as a classical bassoonist which he used to good effect as a performer with the West Point Army Band from 1987 to 2013. He enjoys watching movies and listening to high-end audio in his custom-built home theater and can be seen riding trails near his home on a race-ready ICE VTX recumbent trike. Christian enjoys the endless summer in Florida where he lives with his wife and Chihuahua and plays with orchestras around the state.

See more Monitors Reviews
20 Comments Comment from the forums
  • blackmagnum
    Oh, how I miss Sony and its Trinitron!
    Reply
  • envy14tpe
    It seems as though this is a 4k gaming monitor but I don't think that really lives up to the demand for fast fps gaming. 2160p sounds great but if its lag isn't that good it loses out to the 1440p 144Hz Asus PG278Q monitor. That seems more appropriate for gaming.

    I know this review is about 4k gaming but I'd like to see how the speed of a 1440p compares. There is a tradeoff when you take resolution over speed.
    Reply
  • ubercake
    Great review.

    If I'm looking in the $799 price range, I'm looking for higher-than-1080p resolutions and I'm either looking for the color accuracy of an IPS or PLS monitor for work purposes or I'm looking for TN gaming performance.

    Since this is a TN monitor, we need to consider gaming performance. No G-sync at $799 retail? I can get the Acer 4K 60Hz with G-sync for this price or less. That's just too much for this Philips, but the Amazon price of around $580 seems closer to the target. Further, if a monitor is not using G-sync or a high refresh rate (120Hz+), I definitely wouldn't consider it for gaming. $580 might be worth simply upgrading to 4K though if you're on a 60Hz, but the contrast on this monitor kind of stinks.

    Also, I'm not looking for color accuracy in a TN monitor. If I want color accuracy for matching print to screen colors, I'm looking at IPS or PLS options. On the other hand, when looking for a good TN monitor for gaming, you want good contrast for picking out bad guys in shadows and this monitor has not-so-good contrast.

    I might consider this monitor for productivity, but nothing else.
    Reply
  • envy14tpe
    double post. sry. delete me.
    Reply
  • general lee
    "When viewed head-on, they are indistinguishable from an IPS monitor." Yeah, no. Put any solid Win 8 color to the desktop and see how the gamma shift makes upper and lower parts of the monitor look completely different, even when viewing head on. The new 4K TN panels might be color accurate to a calibrator, but it doesn't take into account the viewing angle, which is only 90 degrees in dead center of the monitor when viewed head on. These are simply not good for color accurate work, period. The same goes for VA's due to its gamma shift viewing cone. That said, these are better than the cheaper TN panels you find in budget models and 144 Hz monitors, and are good enough for non-color critical work. I'd still go for IPS for color work, and VA for media consumption due to it's superior contrast. TN is only good for fast-paced CS:GO type gaming where motion performance and visibility trumps any picture quality concerns.
    Reply
  • ahnilated
    Why would you buy a monitor that is not true 4K resolution? 4096 X 2160 is true 4K resolution and not down sampled or just cut off.
    Reply
  • Eggz
    Accuracy check on the following paragraph, concerning color reproduction of 4K displays:

    Tom's Hardware said:
    We covered the subject of pricing in Planar IX2850 28-Inch Ultra HD Monitor Review: Affordable 4K, but it bears repeating. If you want 4K today, you have three choices. At the high end are 32-inch IGZO panels from Dell, Asus and Sharp. They sell for between $2000 and $3000. The Dell UP3214Q offers a wide gamut option, while the other two are sRGB-only.

    Is that correct about the Sharp display? It boasts a "1.07 Billion Color Palette." That's a 10-bit panel, I believe, unless there is some sort of trickery I'm not seeing. The touch version of the Sharp also has the same panel, boasting "1.07 billion colours."
    Reply
  • Eggz
    Accuracy check on the following paragraph, concerning color reproduction of 4K displays:

    Tom's Hardware said:
    We covered the subject of pricing in Planar IX2850 28-Inch Ultra HD Monitor Review: Affordable 4K, but it bears repeating. If you want 4K today, you have three choices. At the high end are 32-inch IGZO panels from Dell, Asus and Sharp. They sell for between $2000 and $3000. The Dell UP3214Q offers a wide gamut option, while the other two are sRGB-only.

    Is that correct about the Sharp display? It boasts a "1.07 Billion Color Palette." That's a 10-bit panel, I believe, unless there is some sort of trickery I'm not seeing. The touch version of the Sharp also has the same panel, boasting "1.07 billion colours."
    Reply
  • Bondfc11
    4K and gaming just don't mix right now. I am not a 120 or 144 hz snob by any means, but I just cannot go back to lower FPS and slightly increased lag. It is noticeable once you have been in a higher bracket for a period of time.

    I played a few games on a 28" ASUS and returned it - just couldn't take the pixel density (size issue on the desktop - I know scale scale scale, but I didn't like it), I didn't like the higher lag, lower FPS, and hated to have to drop the native resolution for some tasks.

    Personally, I will not buy 4K until these issues are no longer issues. I find it funny when people say "well just scale up or change the native res to 1440/1080". Ok fine, but why buy 4K if you have to do those things? 4K and me are just not ready for prime time.
    Reply
  • wiyosaya
    14714619 said:
    Oh, how I miss Sony and its Trinitron!

    Agreed! Sony tossed innovation out the door when they hired its first western CEO. They have not quite yet figured out that innovation was what made Sony legendary even though they got rid of the western wonk.
    Reply