Philips 272G5DYEB

Colour in games and movies

Colour representation on Battlefield 4 was respectfully rich. As noted in the calibration section there was weakening saturation further down the screen, but overall shades had good depth. A lighter screen surface would have encouraged a little more vibrancy in places, but there was some good deep greens, bright glowing oranges and bold reds. The environments looked quite natural and vibrant elements such as fires and brightly painted containers stood out nicely.

On Dirt 3 the monitor produced fairly vibrant colours on the car liveries and the menu systems. Neon greens, deep blues, bright pinks and strong yellows amongst others. Saturation again weakened a bit further down the screen (a TN trait) and the screen surface held back the ‘wow factor’ a bit, but the overall look was quite vibrant yet natural. The racing environments also benefited from some good shade depth and a reasonably accurate shade representation overall. The Kenya rally tracks showed some good dusty greens and browns whilst the Finnish forest tracks were fairly lush and vibrant.

Colours looked natural and much as they should on the Skyfall Blu-ray. The thick black bars at the top and bottom of the screen (due to the ‘UltraWide’ aspect ratio common to films like this) helped cut off the areas that would usually show the greatest viewing angle related colour inconsistencies. Skin tones and environments appeared appropriately saturated. Other elements showed good shade variety and looked much as they should really.

Unlike Skyfall, the Blu-ray of Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder is represented in a 16:9 aspect ratio and therefore fills the entire screens. This, coupled with the fact that large areas of a single shade often fills a lot of the screen, really highlights the TN-related colour inconsistencies. A given shade appears lighter further down the screen and technically only appears as it should in the central region of the screen. As a result you don’t get the same distinction between closely matching shades as you might otherwise see. Nonetheless there was quite a decent variety of pastel shades. Furthermore there were lots of fairly vibrant-looking neon and deep shades which stood out quite well.

Viewing angles

To further explore the colour consistency of the monitor and see how viewing angle influences the colours displayed by the monitor from a normal viewing position, we used the Lagom tests for viewing angle. The following observations were made from a viewing distance of 70cm.

The following video demonstrates the Lagom text test, a light desktop background and dark desktop background from a variety of viewing angles. Here you can see quite pronounced colour shifts, particularly vertically. Past a certain point, vertically, colour inversion can also be seen. Unlike ‘IPS glow’ this can’t be seen from a normal viewing position and doesn’t flare up in the same way.

Responsiveness

Input lag

Input lag was calculated on the Philips 272G5DYEB by comparing with a range of monitors of known latency using SMTT 2.0 and a highly sensitive camera. We recorded 3.0 ms (under ½ a frame at 144Hz) of input lag. This input lag figure is influenced by both the element of input lag that you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the element that you ‘feel’ (signal delay). This indicates a very low signal delay that shouldn’t bother even the most sensitive of users. When ULMB was active we couldn’t record a significant change in latency with the average value being very similar.

Pixel responsiveness

The monitor’s pixel responsiveness was analysed using the UFO Motion test for ghosting. This web-based test was used alongside a highly sensitive camera to capture the pixel response behaviour of the monitor using various ‘SmartResponse’ settings and refresh rates. The medium cyan background (middle row) of the test was used. It was run at ‘1920 Pixels Per Sec’, so the UFO crossed the screen in around 1 second. The following image shows the results with the top row showing the results at 60Hz, the middle row at 120Hz and the bottom row at 144Hz. The columns show respective ‘SmartResponse’ pixel overdrive settings; ‘Off’, ‘Fast’, ‘Faster’ and ‘Fastest’.

Trailing (various 'SmartResponse' settings)

You can see from this testing that the refresh rate had very little influence on the pixel responsiveness for these transitions. The separation distance between the object and each trail decreases as refresh rate is increased, as the screen is updating (refreshing) more frequently and therefore the UFO is redrawn more often. The nature of the trailing itself does not really change, however.

The ‘SmartResponse’ settings, on the other hand, significantly impacted the nature of the trailing. With the ‘Off’ settings there was a bold primary trail and a slight secondary trail. The ‘Fast’ setting eliminated the secondary trail and weakened the primary trail. The trail here has a slight woven appearance which indicates very mild overshoot not really detectable by eye. The ‘Faster’ setting increases the woven appearance, indicating that the overshoot is becoming a bit stronger – these artifacts can just about by seen by eye, but they aren’t obvious. The ‘Strong’ setting ramps up the acceleration massively and induces obvious overshoot – colourful inverse ghosting artifacts are obvious in the snapshots and by eye.

We found the ‘Fast’ setting optimal in practice. Although the difference here appears quite slight, on some transitions the ‘Faster’ setting induces some slightly bolder inverse ghosting. It’s still quite faint and would escape the notice of most users, but it isn’t there with the ‘Fast’ setting whilst no additional ‘conventional trailing’ is added either. Feel free to experiment for yourself (we feel both the ‘Fast’ and ‘Faster’ settings are very useable) but be aware of our preferences and the mode we settled on for our testing below.

Responsiveness in games and movies

The static photographs assessed previously do not reflect how our eyes see motion. As this article explains it is very important to take eye movement into account – as it is in fact this eye movement that accounts for most of the motion blur you see when looking at movement on a ‘sample and hold’ monitor such as this. That is a key reason why perceived motion blur is massively reduced as refresh rate is increased – more frequent screen updates reduces the amount of time the eye spends moving. In order to put all of this together (pixel responsiveness, latency and our eye movement) it helps to subjectively assess a range of game titles.

The first title we looked at was Battlefield 4. The pixel responsiveness was clearly excellent, without the use of an overly aggressive pixel overdrive algorithm (using the ‘Fast’ setting we preferred). In other words, we didn’t notice any trailing resulting from sluggish pixel responsiveness, nor any obvious overshoot (inverse ghosting). Where the frame rate matched the refresh rate (144fps at 144Hz) the connected feeling was excellent. The interaction with the game world was slick and smooth and the levels of motion blur was low – the experience was vastly different to playing on a 60Hz monitor. As the frame rate dropped below this, the level of motion blur increases in proportion to the drop. The level of connectedness and fluidity of your character as it interacts with the game world also takes a hit. Furthermore, the fact that the refresh rate and frame rate are no longer ‘in sync’ produced tearing and juddering textures (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on). We still felt having well above 60fps (for example 100fps) was a nice bonus over a 60Hz monitor but didn’t find the experience optimal at all.

The second title we tested was Dirt 3. On this title our GPU comfortably maintained 144fps a lot of the time, so the issues with reduced frame rates weren’t there. Of course if we were to disable VSync and not use any sort of frame rate limiter the frame rate would comfortably climb above this at times, inducing tearing and the like. The fluidity as you drove at great speed on this title was a nice bonus to the gameplay. The course remained relatively sharp and it made focusing on the track that little bit easier. The responsiveness of the vehicle to user input was also improved, but we were playing with a keyboard so this wasn’t really all that noticeable. If you were a keen racer with a steering wheel, though, this extra connectedness would be very nice to have.

We also tested our Blu-ray film titles. The frame rate of these is limited to around 24fps and therefore the monitor wasn’t used to anywhere near its full potential. There were no issues forced upon the experience due to sluggish pixel responses or overly aggressive pixel overdrive – no trailing or inverse ghosting from the monitor in other words. Fluidity was certainly limited by the low frame rate of the films and of course we weren’t interacting with them so the low latency didn’t come into play either. One bonus of the 144Hz refresh rate (or indeed 120Hz) compared to 60Hz is that the 24fps divides evenly. This means each frame can be ‘cleanly’ repeated a certain number of times every second (4 times at 120Hz or 5 times at 144Hz), reducing the ‘judder’ which some users really dislike.

G-SYNC

Monitors traditionally operate at a fixed refresh rate, for example 60Hz, 120Hz or 144Hz. When the frame rate of your game doesn’t match this refresh rate, certain visual issues occur. If you have VSync enabled, you get stuttering and if VSync is disabled you get tearing and juddering. These sort of issues were described in the previous section during our game testing. G-SYNC is a technology which allows the monitor to dynamically adjust its refresh rate to match the frame rate of the game, avoiding such issues. On this monitor it operates between 30Hz and 144Hz. For a further look at this technology and the limitations of the usual static refresh rate please refer to our G-SYNC article. If you’d like to know how to activate it please refer to the ‘G-SYNC – activating it’ part of the ‘Responsiveness’ section on our review of the ASUS PG278Q. The process is exactly the same with any G-SYNC monitor. It should be noted that the application must be running full screen for this to work and Nvidia recommends disabling VSync in game in addition to ensuring VSync is set to G-SYNC in the Nvidia Control Panel.

The first title we tested to see how G-SYNC worked on the 272G5DYEB was Battlefield 4. This title has highly variable rates – as we mentioned early on in the ‘Responsiveness’ section, the frame rate rarely stayed at 144fps on our system using our preferred settings. It commonly dropped a bit to around 110-130fps. The interaction with the game world felt very fluid and the overall experience very smooth. These drops in frame rate did increase motion blur and decrease this ‘connected feel’ in much the same way as without G-SYNC, but with G-SYNC these drops were nowhere near as noticeable as without. There was no stuttering or tearing from frame and refresh rate misalignments. There was the occasional stutter every now and then, but that was due to network latency or coding – nothing G-SYNC can fix. At times the frame rate dipped even further, sometimes well below 100fps. It was nice to have the usual stuttering or tearing eliminated in such cases, but the overriding fluidity and motion blur impact of the relatively low frame rate could still be seen and felt.

Next we took a look at Warframe. This title is known to have extremely variable frame rates, so is a good test for G-SYNC. A lot of the time the frame rate would dip just a bit below 144fps, which would traditionally lead to ‘frustrating’ stuttering and the like. With G-SYNC these drops were much less obnoxious and things maintained a smooth look and feel. Sometimes there were insane amounts of action where the screen became blitzed by dozens of different special effects all at the same time. The frame rate sometimes dropped sharply, at times as low as 40-70fps or so. The ‘connectedness’ was really lost at such frame rates and the level of motion blur was relatively high. It was a nice bonus not having to endure stuttering, tearing or juddering – but it was still a ‘system shock’. We even saw the frame rate dip below 30fps on one occasion, which is below the floor of G-SYNC on this monitor. It therefore acted as ‘VSync on’ but at such painfully low frame rates this was neither here nor there.

Finally we took a look at Tomb Raider, a title which worked particularly well with G-SYNC. The frame rate generally fluctuated between 80 and 120fps using our preferred ‘Ultimate’ settings. With a static 144Hz or 120Hz this would induce stuttering or tearing and juddering. With G-SYNC, though, the fluctuations were much less noticeable. Although it is still a case of ‘the higher the better’ with frame rates, the frame rate remained high enough for the connectedness to remain decent. Many other titles will run in this sort of ‘frame rate zone’ – it’s really these slight to moderate dips in frame rate that G-SYNC helps make much more bearable.

ULMB – the technology

ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur) is an Nvidia-specific strobe backlight technology which is enabled on G-SYNC monitors. As with G-SYNC, a compatible Nvidia GPU is required and the mode must be activated independently of other technologies (i.e. no G-SYNC and ULMB at the same time). We won’t spend too much time explaining the technology as that’s done in great detail in our responsiveness article. The basic concept is that the backlight blinks on and off in-sync with the refresh rate of the monitor (either 85Hz, 100Hz or 120Hz for this mode). It spends most of its time in the ‘off’ state but blinks on briefly up to 120 times per second (120Hz). Compared to the usual backlight behaviour of this and other typical LCDs, where the backlight is always ‘on’, your eyes spend a lot less time tracking motion. If you recall it is this eye movement which is the most significant contributor to the blur you see when using a modern monitor – so reducing that movement reduces perceived blur.

To enable ULMB you must set the monitor to either 85Hz, 100Hz or 120Hz and ensure G-SYNC is disabled in the Nvidia Control Panel. You can activate the feature in the ‘Setup’ section of the OSD or use the dedicated button on the monitor. There are a couple of issues to be aware of when running ULMB, other than the brightness hit and flickering that we’ve already covered. We mentioned in the calibration section that some faint artifacts could be seen, particularly at 144Hz. These look like a sort of horizontal striped interlacing pattern, quite tightly spaced together. With ULMB activated these were a bit more pronounced and could be seen quite clearly on certain lighter shades, for example sky and smoke textures. This occurred regardless of refresh rate.

Another issue is that ULMB forces the use of an (overly) aggressive pixel overdrive solution. This causes ‘inverse ghosting’ which can appear as a translucent trail that is dark and shadowy or bright depending on the shades involved in the transition. It was not obnoxious in the same way as setting ‘SmartResponse’ to ‘Fastest’ normally, but it can’t be removed and will bother some users. Furthermore the strobe behaviour of the backlight causes the trails to fragment rather than appear as a single smooth trail. At times you can see faint repetitions of some objects, during particularly fast motion and where certain shades are involved. This is universal to all monitors we’ve tested so far using ULMB.

ULMB – the experience

For most users it’s fair to say that these issues will be considered quite minor. The overall image clarity when the monitor is displaying moving content, using ULMB, is exceptional and of potentially great benefit from a competitive point of view. On Dirt 3 the extra clarity isn’t really something we’d consider ‘game changing’ on the normal racing modes unless you’re highly sensitive to motion blur and find it uncomfortable gaming at ‘regular 144Hz’. On the infamous Gymkhana mode, though, we find the experience quite dizzying on ‘sample and hold’ monitors even when they’re running 144fps at 144Hz. ULMB helps things remain incredibly sharp and well-defined during motion which takes this dizziness away. You could say that makes the experience less authentic in a way, but people don’t generally play games and actively want to experience visual discomfort.

On Battlefield 4, provided the frame rate matched the refresh rate, the motion clarity was excellent. Turning your character quickly didn’t create the usual blur of the game world (usually seen to a degree even at 144Hz) – the environment remained sharp. This made enemies very easy to track and target. Even during very fast-paced action on this title, that remained the case. One thing that’s crucially important for ULMB to work properly is that the frame rate can match the refresh rate of the monitor. Because the clarity is so good there is no motion blur there to mask stuttering and other such responsiveness imperfections – they becoming painfully obvious and really cause the smoothness to suffer. We found that the motion clarity was excellent even at 85Hz or 100Hz (where the frame rate target is 85Hz or 100Hz, respectively) with ULMB enabled but preferred the overall connected feel and relative lack of flickering at 120Hz.

As we mentioned in the G-SYNC section, Warframe is a game with extremely variable frame rates. Due to this and the fact that the game style we didn’t feel ULMB was really very useful on this title. It did improve motion clarity as you would expect, but the drawbacks tended to outweigh the benefits. There was no reason to gain that competitive edge and the highly variable frame rates screamed out for G-SYNC. That’s really a key thing to remember about ULMB and G-SYNC – the former can be useful if your frame rate consistently matches the frame rate, whereas the latter is useful in variable frame rate environments. Oh and we didn’t find ULMB added anything to movies so we won’t be saying anything more about them. Some people may still like this effect on movies, but the low frame rate (typically ~24fps) really limits its usefulness.

ULMB – the numbers

There is a setting called ‘Pulse Width’ (PW) which alters how long the backlight is kept ‘off’ compared to ‘on’ when using ULMB. As we’ve explored previously, a lower setting will yield lower brightness. This is because the backlight spends even longer on the ‘off’ period than at higher PW settings. This also further improves the clarity of motion, although it must be stressed that many users will find the clarity excellent at a PW of 100, as we did. And the extra brightness was helpful, especially during daylight. You can adjust the PW by single unit increments, which gives excellent flexibility.

It is possible to assess the clarity of motion at the different PW settings and also various refresh rates (85Hz, 100Hz and 120Hz). These results can then be compared to monitors that do not use a strobe backlight, including the Philips itself with ULMB disabled. There is a value called MPRT (Moving Picture Response Time) which gives an indication of the motion clarity of the display taking into account eye movement and perceived blur, with lower values indicating better clarity. We’ve done enough analysis on all of the G-SYNC monitors we’ve tested to conclude that the ULMB implementation is very similar on all of them. We therefore won’t be repeating some of the extremely detailed, time consuming and at times painfully testing we performed on the ASUS PG278Q. The behaviour of the Philips (MPRT values) are much the same, so what you would see is much as in the graph below.

MPRT values on the PG278Q

Here shorter bars indicate lower MPRT values and hence better motion clarity. You can see that higher refresh rates improve the motion clarity, whether the monitor is using a strobe backlight (green bars) or not (blue bars). The jump in clarity when using ULMB is profound. Decreasing PW improves the motion clarity from an already excellent level and so does raising the refresh rate. Shortly after this review is published we will be adding some values specifically taken on the Philips 272G5DYEB to the relevant section near the end of our responsiveness article.

We also tested ULMB in our film titles but didn’t feel that it worked well at all there. It added a bit of flickering but didn’t really help overcome the hurdle of fluidity that is the low frame rate at which the films are shot. And to finish off, we’d just like to say a few final things about the choice between ‘G-SYNC’ and ‘ULMB’ – because you can’t have both at the same time. G-SYNC works beautifully in variable refresh rate environments, getting rid of tearing and stuttering that results from a divergence between refresh rate and frame rate. In such environments ULMB does not work well, because the stuttering and anything else of that nature sticks out like a sore thumb. If you can consistently match the frame rate to your static refresh rate (120Hz, 100Hz or 85Hz) then ULMB is definitely worth considering for the exceptional motion clarity it can provide. Not everybody likes the slight flickering it introduces and indeed some users find the clarity of 144Hz with ULMB disabled more than good enough for their needs anyway.

Nvidia 3D Vision 2

This monitor is fully compatible with Nvidia 3D Vision 1 and 2, but requires the kit is bought separately (i.e. there is no integrated transceiver and no glasses are included). You can find out more about this technology and our general impressions of the 3D Vision 2 kit by reading the ‘Nvidia 3D Vision 2’ sections of our PG278Q review, just above the conclusion. Some key points to bear in mind:

The first title we tested with 3D Vision 2 was Thief. The depth effects on this title were quite good, adding another element of immersion to the game. Using the default settings all elements appeared either at the plane of the screen surface or going into it. On one hand this removes a bit of the ‘in your face’ factor we quite like from the 3D experience, on the other some users would find it makes it a bit more comfortable on the eyes. There are two sliders in the ‘Display’ options of the game that change this experience. The first is ‘Stereo separation’ which is what the scroll wheel on the 3D Vision emitter controls. The second is ‘Stereo depth’ – increasing this can give that ‘pop out of the screen’ look we wanted. Everyone will have their own preferences, but we found setting these both to the middle gave an impressive ‘pop out’ 3D experience without being too visually uncomfortable. Most objects in the environments showcased really good depth effects using these settings. The character’s hands when climbing ropes and the perspective when firing arrows from a bow was particularly impressive. There were some slight convergence issues in places where certain objects appeared to have a sort of faint semi-transparent woven-textured repetition of the object beside them. When picking locks (which happens a lot on this game) it was difficult to focus on the indicators, but the hand, pin and door handle showed great perspective and looked rather impressive.

Next, we tested Tomb Raider using the system. The in-game basic graphics options have two sliders which alter the 3D experience; ‘Depth’ and ‘Strength’. We found the best balance between impressive ‘in your face’ 3D effects and visual comfort could be achieved with each slider up ¼ of the way. If you’re close to a wall and you shift the camera so that Lara fills much of the screen, the depth effects are incredible. Her glossy hair flowed out of the screen and the perspective on her bow (that is one of her weapons, incidentally) and stored arrows was very impressive. The sense of perspective when hanging off buildings or zip-lining down ropes was excellent. The 3D models of weapons when you go to upgrade them at a camp at artifacts as you find them were also pleasing in full 3D. As with Thief, the 3D experience was generally nicely polished. There were again a few instances of ‘cross-hatched’ semi-transparent repetitions of certain artifacts. Some of the menu systems were difficult to navigate through due to the mouse cursor appearing in a completely different plane to what you’re clicking. Overall 3D worked well on this title and made for an enjoyable and different way to play.

The 3D Vision 2 system also supports 3D Blu-rays, allowing you to view such titles in full 3D if your movie software supports it. The only 3D Blu-ray we had to hand and could test was Ocean Wonderland 3D. This worked exactly as it should, with some very impressive depth effects. Shoals of fish, corals and the main ‘character’ of the film (a sea turtle) frequently popped out of the screen in much the same way you’d see when watching a 3D film at the cinema. Unlike passive 3D systems, these effects work just as well if you’re sitting a normal distance from the screen as a little way back from the screen. There isn’t the sort of restrictive 1.5m+ minimum viewing distance which would lend itself better to TV viewing than monitor viewing.

Conclusion

Every now and then a monitor or monitor technology comes along that really changes the gaming experience. Since the inception of the LCD monitor, responsiveness is an element that his seen consistent improvement over the years. With 144Hz refresh rates now comfortably supported by advanced pixel overdrive solutions, players can feel much more ‘connected’ to their game world. But as the frame rate drops away even slightly this feeling begins to fade. G-SYNC puts a stop to this almost irrepressible urge to keep that frame rate hitting the monitors refresh rate by making sure that the refresh rate is hitting the frame rate instead! Genius.

As the third G-SYNC monitor we’ve thoroughly tested the responsiveness performance of the monitor came as no surprise – but it was still excellent. The pixel overdrive solution was implemented brilliantly and was highly flexible, there was no real input lag to speak of and the high refresh rate delivered a really smooth experience. The trio of Nvidia extras also worked nicely, two of which (ULMB and G-SYNC) are tightly focused on improving the responsiveness of the gaming experience. G-SYNC was certainly nice in the variable refresh rate environments that are common on modern games, but low frame rates remained low frame rates regardless of this. The ULMB strobe backlight feature presented a nice alternative for when the frame rate was consistently hitting the refresh rate. The downside of this included an aggressive and non-adjustable pixel overdrive solution (with some overshoot and inverse ghosting), a bit of dimming of the screen and a mild flickering. The upside, provided the frame rate was where it should be, was a profound reduction in motion blur.

We’ve also noticed that all of the G-SYNC monitors we’ve tested had a relatively pleasing image for 144Hz monitors – and the 272G5DYEB was no exception. The colour temperature was bang on the ‘6500K’ daylight target and adjustable gamma modes made it easy to adjust gamma appropriately. Colours lost a bit of saturation further down the screen (a viewing angle restriction of the TN technology required to make such a responsive monitor) and the screen surface dampened the vibrancy a bit. But overall, colours had a good richness than was a far cry from the usual washed out mess that 144Hz usually present you with. The contrast performance was also decent. Not entering the great atmospheric depths of ‘VA panel’ contrast, but still as you would expect from a decent TN panel without any major drawbacks to hamper the experience.

We also enjoyed the 3D capabilities of the monitor. We’re not the biggest fans of that sort of technology in general, but we can’t deny it made some of our single player titles more engrossing and interesting to play (or replay). The Philips 272G5DYEB may not be the cheapest gaming monitor out there and it may not have the most breath-taking image quality. But its responsiveness is second to none and its image quality is so much better than what most people associate with 144Hz monitors. Couple this ‘inner beauty’ with a remarkably solid and fully adjustable stand and there is a lot to like about this model.

Positives	Negatives
Excellent out of the box white point. Pleasing shade depth and gamma handling following slight adjustments –adjustable gamma modes are nice to have as well	The colour consistency (and hence colour accuracy) is limited by the TN panel with weakening saturation further down the screen from a normal viewing position
The contrast performance was as you’d hope for from a decent TN panel, without any major issues or strange gamma behaviour which would break the atmosphere of many games	We personally prefer lighter screen surfaces – there are other matte solutions out there which provide strong glare-busting without such an impact on the clarity and vibrancy but none are used on current 144Hz models
Excellent responsiveness with no significant input lag, well-tuned and adjustable pixel overdrive and Nvidia extras – G-SYNC, ULMB and 3D Vision	ULMB has a fixed overdrive solution which is a little stronger than it needs to be in our opinion, giving some inverse ghosting in places
Very good build quality and ergonomics, something we’ve come to expect from Philips monitors that look like this	A very limited port selection and a price that not everyone will agree with

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.