Philips 276E8VJSB

Interlace pattern artifacts

On some monitors, particularly but not exclusively those with high refresh rates, interlace patterns can be seen during certain transitions. We refer to these as ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ but some users refer to them as ‘inversion artifacts’ and others as ‘scan lines’. They may appear as an interference pattern, mesh or interlaced lines which break up a given shade into a darker and lighter version of what is intended. They often catch the eye due to their dynamic nature, on models where they manifest themselves in this way. Alternatively, static interlace patterns may be seen with some shades appearing as faint horizontal or vertical bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade. We did not observe either artifact type on this monitor.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A small utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the 276E8VJSB, with over 30 repeat readings taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 2.79ms (~1/6th of a frame at 60Hz) of input lag. Note that the input lag measured here is influenced by both the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a very low signal delay which shouldn’t bother even sensitive users.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article on responsiveness explores the key factors affecting monitor responsiveness. Chief amongst these is ‘perceived blur’, contributed to by both the pixel responsiveness of the monitor and eye movement as you track motion on the screen. This second factor is usually dominant on modern monitors, although both factors are important. We also introduce a photography method called ‘pursuit photography’, which uses a moving rather than static camera to capture snapshots of motion on a monitor in a way that reflects both these key elements of perceived blur rather than only reflecting pixel responses.

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at 960 pixels per second. This is a good practical speed for capturing such photographs and highlights both elements of perceived blur nicely. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. All background shade levels (dark, medium and light) were used with the monitor set to all its ‘SmartResponse’ pixel overdrive settings; ‘Off’, ‘Fast’, ‘Faster’ and ‘Fastest’. The final column shows a reference, a fast TN model (ViewSonic XG240R) showing what things look like where pixel responsiveness isn’t generally a limiting factor.



The UFO appears soft and unfocused without sharp details, reflecting a moderate amount of perceived blur due to eye (camera) movement. This aspect is also reflected in the reference shots. There are also various degrees of trailing behind the object, reflecting weaknesses due to suboptimal pixel responsiveness. With ‘SmartResponse = Off’ there is significant trailing behind the object for the dark (top row) and medium (middle row) backgrounds and just a bit for the light background (bottom row). The ‘Fast’ setting cuts down on this, so a little bit remains but significantly less. The light background shows a small amount of overshoot (inverse ghosting) as a slightly bright (‘halo’) trail behind the UFO. The ‘Faster’ setting further cuts down on the trailing. There’s now just a whiff of light ‘powdery’ trailing for the dark background. The medium and light backgrounds both show some overshoot (slightly bright trailing) but nothing extreme. The ‘Fastest’ setting introduces a small amount of overshoot for the dark background and significantly increases overshoot for the medium and light backgrounds. It’s very colourful and obvious. According to this analysis and indeed broader analysis in-game, we consider ‘Faster’ to be optimal. Users who prefer slightly lower overshoot at the expense of a bit more conventional trailing may want to try the ‘Fast’ setting instead.

Note that we will not be including a section on overclocking, as the monitor skipped frames when set much above 60Hz at its native resolution or indeed lower resolutions such as Full HD.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield V there was a moderate degree of perceived blur, mainly caused by eye movement and linked to the 60Hz refresh rate. There were some slight weaknesses beyond that, although nothing that really stood out in a distracting way. Some of the pixel transitions involving brighter shades against a much darker background (and sometimes dark shades against a much brighter background) produced a ‘powdery’ trailing similar to that shown in the top row of the UFO Motion Test for ghosting earlier. This was most noticeable if you moved past white text prompts or interaction notifications against dark backgrounds. But even that was less noticeable than the sort of weaknesses (‘smeary’ trailing) you typically observe for similar transitions on VA models. There was also some overshoot in places. A dark tree trunk against a dusky sky, for example, produced a semi-transparent (‘snail slime’) trail behind the tree that was slightly brighter than the background. And observing very bright shades such as lamps against medium backgrounds sometimes revealed trailing that was slightly darker than the background (‘dirty trailing’). We didn’t find either type of overshoot particularly strong or obnoxious and as far as overshoot goes these examples were far less obtrusive or noticeable as they could be.

We made similar observations on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. It was really the perceived blur due to eye movement that dominated, with secondary weaknesses such as a bit of ‘powdery’ trailing and some overshoot very much secondary. And not sufficient to really detract from the gameplay. We also made observations using movie content at a range of frame rates, including 24fps – 30fps and 60fps content. There were no significant weaknesses observed due to pixel response behaviour here. For the higher frame rate content exactly the same slight weaknesses were exposed as when gaming at 60fps. For the lower frame rate content these weaknesses were not really evident, aside from a small amount of overshoot (bright trailing) in places. This was mild and could be eliminated by reducing the ‘SmartResponse’ setting if desired. The fluidity of motion and pixel response requirements were significantly limited by the frame rate itself. The monitor therefore provided a good response performance for movie viewing without any stand-out weaknesses.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.

The ‘4K’ UHD experience

Our article on the ‘4K’ UHD experience explores the pros and cons of the resolution on a variety of tasks. The article is focused on a 28” screen – the 27” screen of the 276E8VJSB offers a very similar experience. With a pixel density of 163.18 PPI (Pixels Per Inch), many users will want to use a degree of scaling. We were able to use the monitor without any scaling from our normal viewing distance (~70cm), but text and various other elements on the screen appeared very small indeed and we found this rather strange. We preferred using a reasonably low level of scaling (‘125%’) worked nicely, making things a bit larger and therefore less weird-looking whilst maintaining an excellent level of ‘desktop real estate’. Properly scaled elements (including text on most applications we used) appeared lovely and crisp as well, benefiting greatly from the high pixel density. The images below are there to give a rough idea of how things appear using our preferred ‘125%’ scaling setting on the desktop. The experience article linked to at the start of this paragraph draws further comparisons, with various different scaling levels applied.

The strong 163.18 PPI pixel density also brings excellent detail and clarity to suitably high resolution image content. Including high-resolution images, movies and games. Even if you set the game to fairly low detail levels, or you’re running an older title which is far from graphically complex, there is great benefit to be had from the pixel density. Various elements simply appear sharper and better defined – objects or people stand out better from one another and their environment, even quite far into the distance. Add in some fancy particle effects and high resolution textures and the benefits of this pixel density were very clear to us. The images below show various game titles in action on the monitor. They in no way reflect what the monitor look like in person, they’re simply there for a bit of visual stimulation.

Interpolation and upscaling

The 3840 x 2160 (‘4K’ UHD) resolution is relatively demanding, requiring a good amount of GPU power to run smoothly. Because of this, it may be desirable to use a lower resolution. And on some systems (some games consoles etc.) it would be necessary as they don’t support ‘4K’ output. The monitor is able to use an interpolation (scaling) process to map lower resolutions such as 1920 x 1080 (‘1080p’ or Full HD) onto all of its 3840 x 2160 pixels. You need to ensure, as a PC user, that the GPU is not trying to take over scaling duties. For AMD GPU users the monitor will handle the scaling by default, when gaming at non-native resolutions. Nvidia users should open the Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Adjust desktop size and position’. They should ensure that ‘No Scaling’ is selected and ‘Perform scaling on:’ is set to ‘Display’ as shown below.

The ‘SmartSize’ section of the OSD has various settings that control the monitor’s scaling behaviour. There’s ‘Panel Size – 27”W (16:9)’ which will ensure all pixels of the monitor are illuminated and the full screen space is used. There’s ‘1:1’, a pixel mapping feature that will display the source resolution without any distortion or ‘stretching’ and fill up the remaining pixels as a black border. And there’s ‘Aspect’, which will use interpolation vertically but not horizontally. It is intended to maintain the aspect ratio of the source resolution but fill up as much of the screen as possible with that in mind, although it seemed to horizontally compress resolutions with a 16:9 aspect ratio so that they appeared stretched and distorted. Considering the Full HD resolution, the monitor provided some softening to the image when using interpolation. It certainly didn’t have the same clarity and edge definition as a screen of this size running Full HD natively. But the softening was not extreme and was actually quite difficult to notice if you sit a bit further back from the monitor. This was also true for the 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution, which actually looked about as good as we’ve seen it displayed on a 3840 x 2160 model. The softening that was observed was not improved by increasing ‘Sharpness’ in the OSD, that just gave an artificially over-sharpened and frankly ugly appearance to the image.

As usual, if you’re running the monitor at 3840 x 2160 and viewing 1920 x 1080 content (for example a video over the internet or a Blu-ray, using movie software) then it is the GPU and software that handles the upscaling. That’s got nothing to do with the monitor itself – there is a very small amount of softening to the image compared to viewing such content on a native Full HD monitor, but it’s slight and shouldn’t bother most users.

Video review

The video below summarises some of the key points raised in this written review and shows the monitor in action. The video review is designed to complement the written piece and is not nearly as comprehensive.

Timestamps:
Features & Aesthetics
Contrast
Colour reproduction
Responsiveness

Conclusion

With its 27” ‘4K’ UHD screen, the Philips 276E8VJSB provides an excellent pixel density and an excellent amount of desktop real-estate. Even if you end up using a bit of scaling or application-specific zoom, which most mere mortals will be doing. The monitor had a homely look with a nice solid looking and feeling powder-coated metal crescent-shaped stand. This afforded tilt as the only ergonomic freedom, though, and there was no provision for VESA mounting. The fairly bright white pinprick-style power LED could bother some users as well – it can’t be disabled in the OSD, so a less elegant solution such as a small bit of tape would be required. The OSD controls, although intuitive, were quite picky about how firmly and in what direction you pressed them. Not a major problem, of course, but potentially slightly annoying to some users.

The monitor provided excellent gamma handling out of the box and offered provision to easily correct white point. Which wasn’t wildly off on our unit out of the box, but was certainly not quite where we wanted it. There were various gamma settings in the OSD, alongside an array of other settings including various Low Blue Light (LBL) modes. These worked effectively and were easy to activate or deactivate – including by assigning them to a custom preset. The gamma consistency throughout the screen was strong, as hoped for given the panel type. Static contrast was also in-line with our expectations for an IPS-type panel, with a moderate (but largely average) level of ‘IPS glow’ eating away at some detail and atmosphere for peripheral sections of the screen. We were quite pleased with the choice of screen surface, which was light matte anti-glare with a fairly smooth finish. There was slight graininess when observing lighter shades, easy to ignore for the most part and less obtrusive than on many competing models.

The palette of colours provided by the screen was rich and varied. There was some extension beyond the sRGB gamut which lifted up the vibrancy of many shades without strong oversaturation. This allowed the monitor to output shades in a way that was quite faithful to the original source material whilst injecting a little extra vividness. The IPS-type panel’s gamma and shade consistency helped maintain this rich look throughout the screen. Far from being some sort of cheap imitation of IPS technology, we found this Panda Electronics IPS-type panel to perform every bit as well if not better in some areas compared to its LG IPS counterparts. An effective sRGB emulation mode was also included, effectively cutting back on the colour gamut without compromising on contrast. The colour channels were locked when using this setting and if you wish to make changes of that nature you’d need to use a colorimeter or make changes at the software level by other means, such as the graphics driver.

The monitor provided decent 60Hz responsiveness, too. Input lag was nice and low and there were no major issues with pixel responsiveness. A bit of ‘powdery’ trailing in places and a bit of overshoot, but it was largely the 60Hz refresh rate that dictated the experience. Given the price of the monitor and its clearly superior colour performance (and in fact responsiveness) compared to the more common 28” TN alternatives in the price range, this is worth careful consideration. Paying a higher price could grant features like FreeSync support, very rudimentary HDR support and greater ergonomic flexibility or mounting options. Considering, for example, the LG 27UK650, 27UL650 and related models. But if such additions don’t interest you then there are far worse ways to spend your money than on the Philips 276E8VJSB.

The bottom line; strong all-round performance at an attractive price, with vivid and varied colour output and good 60Hz responsiveness.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.