Acer XV282K KV

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 sensitive camera and a utility called SMTT 2.0 was used to analyse the latency of the Acer XV282K KV. Over 30 repeat readings were taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 3.02ms (under ½ a frame at 144Hz) of input lag and recorded similar values at 120Hz. At 60Hz we measured a higher but still reasonable 6.96ms. These figures are influenced by both the element of input lag you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the main element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). They indicate a low signal delay at high refresh rates, which even sensitive users shouldn’t find bothersome. Note that we don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with VRR technology active in a VRR environment or HDR active in an HDR environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article explores the key factors affecting monitor responsiveness. An important concept is explored here called ‘perceived blur’, which is contributed to not just by the pixel responses of the monitor, but also the movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. This second factor is predominant on most modern monitors, but both factors play a role. A photography technique called ‘pursuit photography’ is also explored in the article, which uses a moving rather than stationary camera. This allows motion to be captured on a monitor in a way that reflects both aspects of perceived blur rather than just reflecting the pixel response element.

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at its default speed of 960 pixels per second. This is a good practical speed to take such photographs at and highlights both elements of perceived blur well. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. All three rows of the test are analysed to show a range of pixel transitions. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 120Hz and 144Hz using all available ‘Over Drive’ settings; ‘Off’, ‘Normal’ and ‘Extreme’. The final column includes a reference screen, the Acer XB273K P, set to what we consider the optimal setting for a given refresh rate. This is another 144Hz ‘4K’ UHD model with IPS-type panel, a tightly-tuned model with G-SYNC module but using an older AUO AHVA panel.

If ‘Adaptive-Sync’ or ‘FreeSync Premium’ is set to ‘On’ in the OSD, it greys out the ‘Over Drive’ setting. It doesn’t matter what this is set to before activating Adaptive-Sync, the monitor will lock it off with similar behaviour to ‘Normal’. You can change the ‘Over Drive’ setting when using HDMI 2.1 VRR, but as we explore here we see no real reason you’d want to do so.

At 60Hz, above, the UFO appears soft and unfocused without clear internal detailing. This reflects a moderate amount of perceived blur due to eye movement. Whilst no conventional trailing is visible with this model in these pursuit photographs, which would be due to slower than optimal pixel responses. There are varying degrees of overshoot (inverse ghosting). The ‘Off’ and ‘Normal’ settings appear very similar, with moderately strong overshoot with some colourful bright cyan elements and an inky appearance in places. It’s clear that calling the lowest setting ‘Off’ is rather misleading given the clear use of (fairly aggressive) pixel overdrive. This becomes much stronger with the ‘Extreme’ setting. The Reference screen offers more appropriate pixel response tuning, with much lower overshoot and just a small trace of faint ‘powdery’ trailing due to some very slightly slower than optimal pixel responses. We consider the ‘Off’ or ‘Normal’ setting optimal here. It’s possible the ‘Off’ setting could be re-tuned in later revisions of this model but that’s not something we’d count on. Below you can see how things appear with refresh rate doubled to 120Hz.

At 120Hz, above, the UFO appears significantly narrower with clearer internal detailing. This reflects a significant decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. There’s again no real conventional trailing to speak of, just a very small whiff of faint ‘powdery’ trailing for the dark background (top row) behind the yellow UFO cockpit. The ‘Off’ and ‘Normal’ settings are essentially indistinguishable from one another. The overshoot is significantly reduced compared to 60Hz and things are actually quite well-tuned here. Pixel responses are rapid enough to provide a very solid 120Hz performance for the transitions shown, with just a bit of overshoot which mainly appears as ‘halo’ trailing that’s brighter than the background shade. This overshoot is clearest but not extreme for the light background (bottom row), a bit more subdued for the medium background (middle row) and very faint for the dark background. The reference screen set top its optimal setting doesn’t perform quite as well as it shows some conventional trailing behind the red UFO body, particularly for the dark and medium backgrounds. And shows some ‘inky’ overshoot behind the yellow UFO cockpit. The ‘Extreme’ setting ramps up the overshoot so it appears bright, colourful and behind the UFO cockpit rather inky. It’s clear from this and broader analysis that the ‘Off’ or ‘Normal’ setting is optimal. The images below show things bumped up slightly to 144Hz.

At 144Hz, above, the UFO appears very slightly narrower with slightly better definition. This reflects a slight reduction in perceived blur to eye movement – with only an extra 24Hz, this difference is not dramatic. The ‘Off’ and ‘Normal’ settings are again very similar to one another. The overshoot is further reduced compared to 120Hz, whilst there’s no real conventional trailing observed. Overall the monitor provides a rather clean performance here and handles the demands of the 144Hz refresh rate very well for the transitions shown. The overshoot is clearest behind the red UFO body with the light background, as a ‘halo’ trail – but even then it’s not extreme. The reference screen shows some slight ‘powdery’ trailing in places and morte noticeable overshoot, with an ‘inky’ appearance behind the UFO body. Switching over to the ‘Extreme’ setting on the XV282K KV provides very strong overshoot with no practical benefit. Although the segmentation may appear clearer, to the eye this difference is not observed. This is simply due to how the camera captures things, compensating differently when faced with a large amount of colourful overshoot in the image. The ‘Off’ or ‘Normal’ setting is again optimal here.

The monitor also includes a setting called VRB (Visual Response Boost) that can be activated instead of using a VRR technology if you wish. This is a strobe backlight setting which forces the backlight to flicker at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display, with 120Hz and 144Hz selectable. Sensitivity to this flickering of the backlight varies and some will find it bothersome whilst others may notice accelerated eye fatigue, even if the flickering isn’t actively bothersome to them. The pursuit photographs below were taken with the monitor set to 120Hz using VRB set to both the ‘Normal’ and ‘Extreme’ setting. The ‘Extreme’ setting uses a marginally shorter pulse width than ‘Normal’, meaning the backlight spends a relatively long period in its ‘off’ phase. This offers a potential motion clarity improvement at the expense of brightness. The reference screens used for comparison are the AOC C24G1 using its ‘MBR’ setting and the Dell S2417DG using its ‘ULMB’ settings. These are both quite useable strobe backlight settings and make appropriate references.

Note that the ‘Over Drive’ setting is adjustable with VRB active, but the ‘Off’ and ‘Normal’ are very similar and ‘Extreme’ (not to be confused with VRB setting of the same name) shows obnoxious levels of colourful overshoot. We’ll therefore only focus on the ‘Normal’ setting here.

With VRB active at 120Hz, above, the main object is significantly narrower with clearer internal detailing than compared to the setting deactivated. Whilst the ‘Extreme’ setting gives a slightly sharper look to the segmentation and in particular the white notches compared to ‘Normal’, the difference isn’t as exaggerated as it appears in these photos. The relatively high brightness pulses using the ‘Normal’ setting caused a bit of bleaching of the white notches in particular. There’s just a touch of overshoot, but less than in the reference shots. The clearest trailing is actually visible in front of the object, particularly for the dark background. This trailing appears as a distinct repetition of the object and is broadly termed ‘strobe crosstalk’ – it can appear in front as it mainly does here or behind the object. The KSF phosphors of the backlight introduce a colourful (magenta to red) fringes to the crosstalk here, due to their relatively slow decay rate. Whilst the reference shots show stronger overshoot, there is no strobe crosstalk with colourful fringing. The images below show the monitor running with VRB set to 144Hz.

With VRB active at 144Hz, above, the main object again shows excellent clarity. With the notches now extremely sharp and distinct with the ‘Extreme’ setting in particular. The trailing behaviour is largely similar to 120Hz, although some of the overshoot has been replaced by faint conventional trailing – particularly behind the UFO for the dark and medium background using the ‘Extreme’ setting., The trailing or strobe crosstalk fragments are slightly narrower due to the increased refresh rate. In practice the colourful fringes from the KSF phosphors are the main visual distinction here. The overall levels of strobe crosstalk or overshoot is not too extreme, with the C24G1 reference showing more strobe crosstalk and the AG2521FG more overshoot. Not all areas of the screen refresh simultaneously. So the strobe crosstalk can be stronger or weaker depending on how far up or down the screen the motion is observed. The images below show pursuit photographs running from the top to bottom of the screen, with the screen set to 144Hz and VRB set to ‘Normal’. Broadly similar observations were made at 120Hz and using the ‘Extreme’ setting, so we won’t be providing separate analysis of those.

Further up the screen the strobe crosstalk appears in front of the object, crossing over so it’s behind the object towards the centre of the screen. Centrally and just below centre the strobe crosstalk is quite strong, eventually becoming as bold as the object itself further down the screen. So the UFO essentially appears as a double object. When gaming normally it’s the central band of the screen you’ll mainly focus on, so the reasonable level of strobe crosstalk here is a plus. It could be lower, but we’ve certainly seen worse examples. We explore the VRB experience subjectively using in game examples shortly.

Responsiveness in games and movies

The monitor provided a very fluid experience on Battlefield V, where the frame rate kept pace with the 144Hz refresh rate. Compared to a 60Hz monitor or indeed this monitor running at 60Hz, over twice as much visual information is presented every second. This provides an excellent ‘connected feel’, particularly when combined with the low input lag recorded for this model. The ‘connected feel’ describes the precision and fluidity felt when interacting with the game world. Another key benefit to the high frame and refresh rate combination is a significant decrease in perceived blur, as demonstrated using Test UFO earlier. This provides a competitive edge on titles such as this, making it easier to track and engage enemies. It also complements the high resolution and pixel nicely, preserving some of that detail better during motion.

The monitor provided impressively rapid pixel responses, too, which helped cement this strong 144Hz performance. We had no real complaints in terms of conventional trailing. Some very faint whiffs of ‘powdery’ trailing in places, such as very light shades (white text or icons, for example) against somewhat darker backgrounds. But this was slight and far from widespread, with most transitions performed optimally or very close to optimally. There was a touch of overshoot in places, with some ‘halo’ trailing that was somewhat brighter than the background colour and stood out a bit for that reason. Sensitivity to overshoot varies, but in our view this was far from extreme overshoot at 144Hz – as demonstrated earlier using Test UFO. It was mainly observed where medium to dark shades moved against brighter backgrounds – such as a tree trunk with a bright sky behind it.

We made similar observations on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. An impressively strong 144Hz performance, with some overshoot in places (nothing extreme) and nothing to really complain about in the way of conventional trailing. The competitive edge this all gives is less relevant on this title, but we still found the fluidity to be a nice bonus. Sensitivity to refresh rate and response performance varies so not everyone would notice this difference so readily, but for us it certainly enhanced the experience. We also observed video content at a range of frame rates, including ~24 – 30fps content on platforms such as Netflix and 60fps YouTube content. There were no real weaknesses on the monitor side in terms of pixel responsiveness. Some traces of overshoot in places, but nothing that really caught the eye. The main barrier to fluidity in both cases was really the frame rate of the content itself rather than any weakness from the monitor.

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.

VRB (Visual Response Boost)

We explored the VRB (Visual Response Boost) feature earlier in the review and have covered its principles of operation and how it performs using specific tests. When using VRB or a similar strobe backlight feature, your frame rate must match the refresh rate precisely. Otherwise you’re left with extremely obvious stuttering or juddering. Standing out in such a clear way due to there being very little perceived blur due to eye movement to mask it. You can’t use Adaptive-Sync or HDMI 2.1 VRR at the same time as VRB and you’re limited to certain brightness levels as covered earlier. ‘ProxiSense’, ‘LightSense’ and HDR must also be disabled. We tested VRB using various game titles, but to keep things simple we’ll just use Battlefield V running at a solid 144fps and monitor set to 144Hz for this section. Changing the refresh rate or changing VRB from ‘Normal’ to ‘Extreme’ did not significantly affect the observations made here. The most obvious change with the different VRB levels was simply to brightness. We consider any increase in clarity marginal going from ‘Normal’ to ‘Extreme’, so we’d really just advise selecting the setting based on brightness preferences.

This setting did what it set out to do, significantly reducing perceived blur due to eye movement. The main object clarity and subtle texture details were certainly clearer during motion with this setting activated and the competitive edge that gives will be appreciated by some. We observed moderate strobe crosstalk in places, including the central band of the screen where your eyes mainly fixate during competitive gaming on titles like this. This strobe crosstalk was not too bad for the most part and we’ve certainly seen ‘messier’ strobe backlight settings in that respect. It was quite strong for some transitions, particularly where very bright shades were involved. It was also accompanied by a magenta to red fringe due to the backlight phosphors, clearest for brighter objects. We could see colourful flashes which we perceived as green to cyan or magenta whilst moving our eyes as well, particularly where slender light-coloured objects were displayed. Coupled with the flickering of the screen and the restrictions mentioned earlier, we don’t really see this setting as having broad appeal on this model, but some will certainly appreciate its utility. And although not perfect in its implementation, we’ve certainly seen worse strobe backlight efforts.

VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) technology

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology, an AMD-specific alternative to Nvidia G-SYNC. Where possible, the monitor dynamically adjusts its refresh rate so that it matches the frame rate being outputted by the GPU. Both our responsiveness article and the G-SYNC article linked to explore the importance of these two elements being synchronised. At a basic level, a mismatch between the frame rate and refresh rate can cause stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off). FreeSync also boasts reduced latency compared to running with VSync enabled, in the variable frame rate environment in which it operates.

FreeSync requires a compatible AMD GPU such as the Radeon RX 580 used in our test system. The monitor must support ‘VESA Adaptive-Sync’ for at least one of its display connectors, as this is the protocol that FreeSync uses. The XV282K KV supports FreeSync via DP and HDMI on compatible GPUs and systems. Note that HDR can be activated at the same time as FreeSync. You need to make sure ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ (DP) or ‘AdaptiveSync’ (HDMI) is set to ‘On’ in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD. The naming difference is a bit confusing as it’s AMD FreeSync Premium that’s supported in both cases. On the GPU driver side recent AMD drivers make activation of the technology very simple. You should ensure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync, so open ‘AMD Radeon Software’, click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider is set to ‘Enabled’ as shown below. The top image shows the monitor connected by DP and the bottom image by HDMI. The setting is referred to as ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ in both cases, although the exact wording may depend on the driver version you’re using.

The Acer supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 144Hz. That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 144fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 144fps, the monitor will stay at 144Hz and the GPU will respect your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 144fps, at which point VSync activates and imposes the usual associated latency penalty. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate is free to climb as high as the GPU will output (potentially >144fps). AMD LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) is also supported by this model, which means that the refresh rate will stick to multiples of the frame rate where it falls below the 48Hz (48fps) floor of operation for FreeSync. If a game ran at 35fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 70Hz to help keep tearing and stuttering at bay. This feature is used regardless of VSync setting, so it’s only above the ceiling of operation where the VSync setting makes a difference.

To configure VSync, open ‘AMD Radeon Software’. Click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click ‘Graphics’. The setting is listed as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. This configures it globally, but if you wish to configure it for individual games click ‘Game Graphics’ towards the top right. The default is ‘Off, unless application specifies’ which means that VSync will only be active if you enable it within the game itself, if there is such an option. Such an option does usually exist – it may be called ‘sync every frame’ or something along those lines rather than simply ‘VSync’. Most users will probably wish to enable VSync when using FreeSync to ensure that they don’t get any tearing. You’d therefore select either the third or fourth option in the list, shown in the image below. Above this dropdown list there’s a toggle for ‘Radeon Enhanced Sync’. This is an alternative to VSync which allows the frame rate to rise above the refresh rate (no VSync latency penalty) whilst potentially keeping the experience free from tearing or juddering. This requires that the frame rate comfortably exceeds the refresh rate, not just peaks slightly above it. We won’t be going into this in detail as it’s a GPU feature rather than a monitor feature.



Some users prefer to leave VSync enabled but use a frame rate limiter set a few frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 141fps) instead, avoiding any VSync latency penalty at frame rates near the ceiling of operation or tearing from frame rates rising above the refresh rate. If you activate the ‘Refresh Rate Num’ setting in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD, this will display the refresh rate of the display and therefore indicate the frame rate if FreeSync is active and the frame rate is within the variable refresh rate range of the display. The final point to note is that FreeSync only removes stuttering or juddering related to mismatches between frame rate and refresh rate. It can’t compensate for other interruptions to smooth game play, for example network latency or insufficient system memory. Some game engines will also show stuttering (or ‘hitching’) for various other reasons which won’t be eliminated by the technology.

FreeSync – the experience

As usual we tested various games using AMD FreeSync and found the experience similar in all cases. Any issues affecting one title but not another suggests a game or GPU driver issue rather than a monitor issue. For simplicity we’ll just use Battlefield V as our example in this section. The game has sufficient flexibility with its graphics options to test the entire VRR range with our RX 580. Although without extreme adjustments there, it was common to see significant dips in frame rate below 144fps. Or indeed 120fps, which matches the maximum 120Hz supported by our RX 580 via DP 1.4. DSC is required to push this up to 144Hz, which isn’t supported by our AMD GPU but is for newer generation products. These dips were free from the tearing (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on) you’d get without the technology active. The refresh rate of the screen was dynamically adjusting to match that frame rate. The drops in frame rate still had an adverse effect on the ‘connected feel’ and level of perceived blur, which isn’t something VRR technology can counteract. But for users sensitive to tearing and stuttering the technology is very welcome.

As frame rate dipped we observed increasing levels of overshoot, including some fairly bright ‘halo’ trailing’. Although it’s not a hard cut-off point, we found this quite noticeable with frame rates in the double-digits. As things dipped below 80fps and closed in on 60fps or even lower, the overshoot became quite difficult to ignore. It didn’t have the sort of colourful bursts we sometimes see, but it was significantly brighter than the object or background shade and stood out for that reason. Sensitivity to this varies, but unfortunately the monitor doesn’t give you any means to get rid of this overshoot at low refresh rates. Some users might find the tearing or stuttering of having VRR disabled and the monitor set to a static high refresh rate more tolerable. The technology worked down to the floor of operation of 48Hz (48fps), below which LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) came into play. Keeping the refresh rate at a multiple of the frame rate to keep tearing and stuttering at bay. There was a brief stuttering when passing this boundary in either direction, potentially annoying if you’re frequently doing so but not something you’d generally find bothersome otherwise.

Nvidia Adaptive-Sync (‘G-SYNC Compatible’)

As noted earlier, AMD FreeSync makes use of Adaptive-Sync technology on a compatible monitor. As of driver version 417.71, users with Nvidia GPUs (GTX 10 series and newer) and Windows 10 can also make use of this Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) technology. When a monitor is used in this way, it is something which Nvidia refers to as ‘G-SYNC Compatible’. Some models are validated as G-SYNC compatible, which means they have been specifically tested by Nvidia and pass certain quality checks. With the XV282K KV you can connect the monitor up via either DisplayPort 1.4 or HDMI 2.1 to use ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’, with the latter technically making use of HDMI 2.1’s integrated VRR functionality rather than Adaptive-Sync. If using DP you need to make sure ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ is set to ‘On’ in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD. If using HDMI, you just need to ensure ‘HDMI 2.1’ is set to ‘On’ in the ‘System’ section of the OSD. When you open up Nvidia Control Panel, you should then see ‘Set up G-SYNC’ listed in the ‘Display’ section. Ensure the ‘Enable G-SYNC, G-SYNC Compatible’ checkbox and ‘Enable settings for the selected display model’ is checked as shown below and press ‘OK’. If you’ve enabled ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ and it was previously disabled, the monitor should re-establish its connection with the system and the technology should now be active.



You will also see in the image above that it states: “Selected Display is not validated as G-SYNC Compatible.” This means Nvidia hasn’t specifically tested and validated the display, not that it won’t work. On our RTX 3090 the experience was very similar to what we described with FreeSync. With the technology getting rid of tearing and stuttering from what would otherwise be frame and refresh rate mismatches, within the VRR range of 48 – 144Hz (48 – 144Hz fps). An LFC-like frame to refresh multiplication technology was employed below that to keep tearing and stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches at bay. There was again a momentary stuttering as the boundary was crossed, as we observed with our AMD GPU as well. Our suggestions regarding use of VSync also apply, but you’re using Nvidia Control Panel rather than AMD Radeon Software to control this. The setting is found in ‘Manage 3D settings’ under ‘Vertical sync’, where the final option (‘Fast’) is equivalent to AMD’s ‘Enhanced Sync’ setting. You’ll also notice ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ listed under ‘Monitor Technology’ in this section, as shown below. Make sure this is selected (it should be if you’ve set everything up correctly in ‘Set up G-SYNC’).



Note again that you can activate the ‘Refresh Rate Num’ setting in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD. This displays the refresh rate of the display and therefore indicates the frame rate if that is within the VRR window (48 – 144Hz). This is a useful indication that the technology is active. And as with AMD FreeSync Premium, HDR can be used at the same time as ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’.

HDMI 2.1 VRR

HDMI 2.1 includes Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) support as part of the specification. This is an integrated technology, which unlike FreeSync does not rely on VESA Adaptive-Sync to function. As such it can potentially be used by devices such as the PS5 that don’t support Adaptive-Sync. It can also be leveraged via ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’ on compatible Nvidia GPUs. Based on our testing of ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’ using HDMI 2.1 VRR, the experience was very similar to the Adaptive-Sync experience under SDR and HDR. Unlike when using Adaptive-Sync, the ‘Over Drive’ setting was not greyed out. But because the ‘Off’ and ‘Normal’ settings were so similar and ‘Extreme’ shows very strong overshoot there’s little benefit to doing this.

HDR (High Dynamic Range)

The ideal HDR (High Dynamic Range) experience on a monitor involves the simultaneous display of very bright light shades and very deep dark shades. An excellent range of shades between these extremes should also be shown, from muted pastel shades to eye-catching vibrant shades with plenty of ‘pop’. Ideally, per-pixel illumination would be used (backlightless technology such as OLED). Failing that, a backlight solution such as FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) with a great number of dimming zones is desirable. This allows some areas of the screen to display very deep dark shades whilst other areas display brilliant bright shades. Colour reproduction is also an important part of HDR. The long-term goal is support for a huge colour gamut, Rec. 2020. A more achievable near-term goal is support for at least 90% DCI-P3 (Digital Cinema Initiatives standard colour space) coverage. Finally, HDR makes use of at least 10-bit precision per colour channel, so its desirable that the monitor supports at least 10-bits per subpixel.

The most widely supported HDR standard for games and movies is HDR10, and that’s what’s supported here. As we’ve seen on other HDR-capable models from Acer, the XV282K KV doesn’t automatically switch into its HDR operating mode when an HDR signal is detected. Instead you need to do this manually – there are various ways to do this. You can set ‘HDR’ to ‘Auto’ or ‘HDR-400’ in the ‘Picture’ section of the OSD. As explored in the ‘Contrast and brightness’ section earlier, these settings involve very different dimming behaviours for the backlight. Or you can select ‘HDR’ as the ‘Mode’ or ‘Color Space’ in the ‘Color’ section of the OSD. As of the latest Windows 10 update, relevant HDR settings in Windows are found in ‘Windows HD Color settings’ which can be accessed via ‘Display settings’ (right click the desktop). Most game titles will activate HDR correctly when the appropriate in-game setting and monitor setting is selected. A minority of game titles that support HDR will only run in HDR if the setting is active in Windows as well. Specifically, the toggle which says ‘Play HDR games and apps’. If you want to view HDR movies on a compatible web browser, for example, you’d also need to activate the ‘Stream HDR Video’ setting. These settings are shown below. Also note that there’s a slider that allows you to adjust the overall balance of SDR content if HDR is active in Windows. This is really just a digital brightness slider, so you lose contrast by adjusting it. The balance of the image was decent when displaying SDR content with HDR enabled – but you lose adjustment or brightness, colour channels gamma and various other settings in the OSD. We’d recommend only activating HDR in Windows if you’re about to specifically use an HDR application that requires it, and have it deactivated when viewing normal SDR content on the monitor.

To keep things simple we’ll just focus on our two main game test titles for this section; Battlefield V and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We’ve used a broad range of HDR models using these titles and know they’re good at highlighting the strengths and weaknesses in HDR performance. The experience described here is really limited by the screen itself and its HDR implementation. Our testing here is focused on HDR PC gaming using DisplayPort, but we made similar observations when viewing HDR video content on the Netflix app. There are some additional points to bear in mind if you wish to view such content. We made similar observations using HDMI, which would be used when viewing HDR content on an HDR compatible games console for example. Testing on both our Nvidia and AMD GPUs showed that the HDR implementation was similar in both cases, too. Under HDR it’s common for monitors to include a sharpness filter to help accentuate some of its enhancements. In this case it can be manually enabled via ‘Super Sharpness’ in the ‘Picture’ section of the OSD. Or disabled, which is our preference. As usual under HDR, many settings are inaccessible – including the entirety of the ‘Picture’ menu. You can’t change presets or adjust things like brightness, colour channels or gamma.

The Acer XV282K KV is VESA DisplayHDR 400 certified. This is the lowest level of VESA DisplayHDR certification, so only a basic HDR experience is offered. One area that the VESA DisplayHDR 400 requirement isn’t very strict about is colour gamut, compared to higher tiers which require at least 90% DCI-P3 coverage. In this case we measured 89% DCI-P3, shown in the representation below. The red triangle shows the monitor’s colour gamut, the blue triangle DCI-P3 and green triangle sRGB. This reasonable DCI-P3 coverage coupled with the strong colour consistency of the panel helped keep a good amount of vibrancy in place where developers intend it. Roaring orange flames, lush deep greens and bright blue flowers being some examples of elements that stood out well. With shades some way beyond the sRGB colour space. Further extension in the gamut towards DCI-P3 and even beyond that towards the longer term Rec. 2020 target would’ve helped inject even more vibrancy to such shades. Superior local dimming precision would also help provide extra depth to some shades. Elements that should appear more muted such as dusty greens, earthy browns and sky blues looked appropriate – without the extra saturation observed under SDR. Lara’s skin tone on Shadow of the Tomb Raider showcased the more muted shades appropriate to her complexion under HDR. Compared to the slightly too tanned appearance under SDR – similar observations were made to various characters on Battlefield V, with the skin tones appearing somewhat richer and more saturated than intended. Although not to the extent observed on models with an even more generous gamut, as noted earlier.

Colour gamut 'Test Settings'

The HDR10 pipeline makes use of 10-bits per colour channel, which this monitor supports via 8-bit + FRC. This enhanced precision not only helps the monitor put its generous gamut to appropriate use, it also aids the nuanced shade variety at the low and high end. At the low end (dark shades) there’s a natural uplift of detail, with a superior variety of closely matching shades. Very different to the ‘flooded’ look you’d get if you were to lift out such detail without this increase in shade variety – such as a low-end gamma enhancement under SDR. At the high end (bright shades) there were smoother progressions of shades, with finer gradients used for smoke and weather effects for example. The image below is taken from one of our favourite scenes to test HDR on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Remember that the photo is purely for illustrative purposes and in no way represents how the monitor appeared running HDR in person.

The enhanced nuanced shade variety was showcased nicely here, with some fine gradients for the mist and spray around the waterfall. And for the light streaming in from above. VESA DisplayHDR 400 doesn’t require local dimming and is far more restrictive than higher tiers when it comes to luminance levels. In terms of luminance control things were extremely limited using the ‘Auto’ HDR setting – even Dynamic Contrast was lacking, with the backlight sticking to a moderate luminance (344 cd/m²) regardless of content displayed. The ‘HDR-400’ setting provided a somewhat higher luminance, but it was still rather limited by HDR standards (419 cd/m²). It also provided 8-zone local dimming as covered earlier, an edge-lit arrangement with light guides creating 8 dimming zones running across the screen. This is a small number of dimming zones and the local dimming algorithm is less aggressive than some. Zones covering entirely dark content dimmed somewhat but never reached particularly low levels. And relatively small bright areas such as a torch or candle might not trigger a pulse to higher brightness for that zone. This means the setting isn’t as ‘dynamic’ as it could’ve been. But on the plus side it made the frequent luminance adjustments of the zones less jarring than if more extreme brightness adjustments were made.

The overall result of this was a situational edge in perceived contrast, allowing areas composed of largely dim content to look somewhat dimmer and more atmospheric than they otherwise would. And for brighter areas elsewhere to pulse a bit brighter at the same time. Certainly nothing earth-shattering and not comparable to the experience of a much greater number of dimming zones with stronger peak luminance and dimming potential. To give some examples from the above scene, the light streaming in and glints of this light on the water and waxy leaf surfaces didn’t appear as brilliant as it should. And didn’t stand out as well as it could against the darker shades surrounding it. The depth of these medium to dark shades simply weren’t as strong as it should be, but were still improved a bit by the local dimming. The HDR experience using Shadow of the Tomb Raider as an example is explored in the section of video review below.

The ‘4K’ UHD experience

Our article on the ‘4K’ UHD experience explores what the resolution brings to the table when gaming, watching movies and on the desktop. The XV282K KV uses a 28” panel, the same size as the model used in the article – with a pixel density of 157.35 PPI (Pixels Per Inch). This is a high pixel density and as such many users will want to use a degree of scaling. We enjoyed using the monitor without scaling and found it very useable in that way from our usual viewing distance of ~70cm. But text and other elements were very small and it took some getting used to. We found 125% scaling to offer a good balance as well, giving an excellent amount of ‘desktop real estate’. And still advantageous in that respect compared to a 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) model. But it’s worth remembering that elements that scale cleanly – and that’s most content now – appeared with a definite clarity and crispness that’s simply lacking from models with lower pixel density. This is retained even if you use scaling or application-specific zoom and is tied to the high pixel density itself. The following images show the screen on the desktop natively (100%, no scaling) and a small amount of scaling applied (125%). The article linked to earlier includes further analysis over a broader range of scaling settings, but the level of scaling preferred will be a very individual thing and something you’d need to explore in person when using the monitor.

Note that these images are just for illustrative purposes and don’t accurately reflect how the monitor appears in person. Banding and patchiness on solid backgrounds are artifacts in the image, not observed in person.

The tight pixel density is also beneficial to the detail and clarity it gives suitably high resolution image content, ‘4K’ UHD movie content and game content. Some games naturally make better use of the resolution as they include high resolution textures, detailed lighting and particle effects which are best accompanied by a high pixel density. But even for older or less graphically impressive titles, the strong pixel density gives a definite clarity and definition to objects and the game environments – especially as you view distance objects. This isn’t something that models with significantly lower pixel densities such as 27″ WQHD can replicate. It’s also easier to appreciate this level of detail in motion with the high refresh rate (at suitably high frame rates). A combination we very much enjoy and found to be a competitive advantage, with enemies appearing more distinct from the background and easier to spot in the distance. The images below show the monitor in action on various game titles. Again, the images are just for illustrative purposes and don’t accurately reflect how the monitor appears in person.

Interpolation and upscaling

The 3840 x 2160 (‘4K’ UHD) resolution is graphically taxing, so it may be desirable to reduce the resolution for graphically intensive tasks, such as running some games. Or this may be necessary due to the system you’re using, such as a games console that may not run at the ‘4K’ UHD resolution. The monitor can use an interpolation (scaling) process to map lower resolutions such as 1920 x 1080 (‘1080p’ Full HD) onto all 3840 x 2160 pixels. To ensure the monitor rather than GPU is handling the scaling process, as a PC user, you need to ensure the GPU driver is correctly configured so that the GPU doesn’t take over the scaling process. 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 monitor includes a range of scaling settings found under ‘Wide Mode’ in the ‘System’ section of the OSD; ‘Full’, ‘Aspect’, ‘1:1’ and ’21:9’. These are accessible at up to 144Hz (WQHD) or 120Hz (Full HD), even if Adaptive-Sync is active. We tested a range of resolutions of different aspect ratios and found the default ‘Full’ setting and ‘Aspect’ worked in the same way. Using interpolation and filling up as many pixels of the screen as possible to display the image, whilst maintaining an appropriate aspect ratio. So the image wasn’t stretched and distorted and black borders were present for unused pixels. The ‘1:1’ setting is a pixel mapping feature, only using the pixels called for in the source resolution, presenting an undistorted and unscaled image in the centre of the screen with a black border for unused pixels. The ’21:9’ setting simulates an UltraWide aspect ratio, compressing things downwards with a black border at the top and bottom. We demonstrate these settings in this section of the OSD video.

When running the monitor at either 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or 1080p) or 2560 x 1440 (WQHD or 1440p), the interpolation process provided a moderate amount of softening. Not as much as we’ve seen on some models, but certainly without the sort of sharpness you’d observe natively on a screen of this sort of size. This could be offset effectively by activating ‘Super Sharpness’ in the ‘Picture’ section of the OSD. With this the image appeared somewhat over-sharpened, particularly at the Full HD resolution. Everybody will have their own preference for sharpness levels and some might prefer the softer look with ‘Super Sharpness’ disabled, whilst others will prefer the over-sharpened alternative. We felt WQHD was quite well-balanced with ‘Super Sharpness’ enabled – we haven’t really seen a substantially better interpolation performance than this. We would’ve liked to have seen better flexibility to help people fine-tune the sharpness to their own preferences, though, particularly for the Full HD resolution where the two sharpness options were dramatically different.

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 shows the monitor in action. The camera, processing done and your own screen all affect the output – so it doesn’t accurately represent what you’d see when viewing the monitor in person. It still provides useful visual demonstrations and explanations which help reinforce some of the key points raised in the written piece.

Timestamps:
Features & Aesthetics
Contrast
Colour reproduction
HDR (High Dynamic Range)
Responsiveness (General)
Responsiveness (VRR)

Conclusion

The 28” screen and 3840 x 2160 (‘4K’ UHD) resolution of the Acer XV282K KV delivers an excellent pixel density. Providing strong clarity and a crisp look to text and excellent detail to suitably high content such as images, games and UHD videos. Impressive ‘desktop real estate’ potential is also afforded by this resolution. We enjoyed using the screen from our normal viewing position without scaling, although most will want to use a degree of scaling. Even with this, the text clarity benefits and other positive attributes of the resolution can be enjoyed all the same. The monitor’s homely design is quite unfussy overall, without the overtly ‘gamery’ aesthetic of some gaming monitors. The powder-coated metal stand neck was probably our favourite feature here. Not just because we like a bit of metal, but because it included a satisfyingly smooth height-adjustment mechanism. The bottom bezel jutting out was perhaps the most aesthetically displeasing aspect from the front, but we paid little attention to this when using the monitor normally. It also facilitated the ‘Vision Care 3.0’ sensor suite. We found the ‘LightSense’ feature to be more of a hindrance than anything, making adjustments to brightness which seemed unsuitable at times. We certainly got some use out of the ‘ColorSense’ feature in the evening and found the ‘ProxiSense’ feature useful as well. The ‘always on’ reduction in energetic blue light output (Eyesafe) was also a reassuring touch, which will also aid viewing comfort for some users.

The contrast lined up with our expectations for the panel, with a static contrast of a bit beyond 1000:1 with our ‘Test Settings’ and a touch higher with all colour channels in their neutral position. Coupled with ‘IPS glow’, which was at the usual level for an IPS-type panel, the screen certainly didn’t provide a deep and atmospheric look to things. Particularly darker content when observed in a dimly lit room. On the plus side, the excellent gamma consistency helped keep detail levels appropriate throughout the screen without the TN or VA shifts. The light to very light matte screen surface aided vibrancy and clarity potential, too – although the surface texture imparted a bit of a grainy look to lighter content. The monitor also received a contrast boost under HDR, something not required under its VESA DisplayHDR 400 level. 8-zone local dimming was employed, without a particularly aggressive dimming algorithm. So this was certainly limited in its effect on contrast, but still gave a situational edge. The peak luminance was not overly impressive by HDR standards, although still provided a boost compared to the maximum SDR brightness on this model.

On the colour side the IPS-type panel delivered strong colour consistency, matched with 89% DCI-P3 colour space coverage. This provided quite a vibrant look, with good richness maintained through the screen. But without the sort of strong oversaturation of sRGB content shown by models with a more generous gamut. It fell some way short of the desired DCI-P3 and certainly Rec. 2020 desirable for HDR10 content, but still delivered a definite boost there compared to models tracking sRGB more closely. Overall, shades that should be vibrant looked quite vibrant and those that should look more muted did so under HDR. Back to SDR, for accurate output within the sRGB colour space the monitor provided an sRGB emulation mode. This was not fully flexible as colour channels and gamma couldn’t be adjusted. But the setting was impressively calibrated on our unit, with the promised DeltaE <1 achieved there as per the promised factory calibration. And a good match to sRGB for the gamut. Brightness could also be adjusted, which is more than can be said for some models.

When it came to responsiveness, the Acer provided an impressively fluid high refresh rate experience. The pixel response tuning we felt was quite aggressive but not overdone for high refresh rates. There was very little to complain about there in terms of ‘conventional’ trailing and there was some but not a lot of overshoot – it’s at a level where most people wouldn’t really notice it. Unfortunately, the tuning was less impressive for lower refresh rates due to increasingly strong overshoot. Which could accompany a drop in frame rate if using VRR on the monitor. Under Adaptive-Sync the ‘Overdrive’ control is locked at the ‘Normal’ setting – but being able to shift this to ‘Off’ (the lowest setting) for lower refresh rates wouldn’t help anyway. The ‘Off’ setting was essentially indistinguishable from ‘Normal’ on our unit. This could perhaps be re-tuned in the future, but we can only comment on what we had in front of us for testing. Input lag was also very low and with HDMI 2.1 the monitor provided options for a high refresh rate ‘4K’ UHD experience for not just PC users but also new games consoles. The VRR technology either via HDMI 2.1 or using Adaptive-Sync via DP worked in much the same way on our Nvidia GPU (‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’) as Adaptive-Sync on our AMD GPU (FreeSync Premium). This got rid of tearing and stuttering from frame rate and refresh rate mismatches within the advertised range. And without any unexpected upsets. Input lag on this model was also low, whilst a reasonable (but certainly not perfect) strobe backlight setting was included for those wishing to use it.

Overall, we very much enjoyed the experience offered by this model. The combination of high refresh rate and high resolution was very attractive, especially when coupled with a pleasing overall colour performance. And impressively strong responsiveness for high refresh rates. This was certainly the case with our RTX 3090 at least – it’s alright for some. And this is likely true for other users able to maintain good triple digit framerates, ideally close to 144fps. But ever-increasing overshoot as refresh rate dipped, particularly into the double digits, could be bothersome. Something which would coincide with frame rate dips if VRR was active. The fact there was no escaping this due to the lowest overdrive setting actually being rather aggressive was an unfortunate inflexibility. Perhaps some would even prefer disabling VRR for that reason. Indeed, some are more sensitive to overshoot than tearing and stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches. We’d also liked to have seen the retail price a bit lower than the ~$900 USD it hovered around at time of review. Although we understand the current market situation is not favourable – this is one of the earlier HDMI 2.1 capable 144Hz ‘4K’ UHD models available and there are global supply issues to contend with.

Positives	Negatives
Strong colour consistency and a fairly generous colour gamut delivered quite a vibrant but not heavily oversaturated image throughout the screen	DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB coverage insufficient for work within those colour spaces, gamma didn’t quite sit at ‘2.2’ on our unit even with reasonable OSD adjustment
Reasonable contrast performance and a light to very light screen surface providing quite direct emission of light without an obvious layered appearance. 8-zone local dimming lifted HDR above some VESA DisplayHDR 400 level displays	Moderate ‘IPS glow’ ate away at detail and atmosphere, especially in dimmer conditions and a slightly grainy look to the screen surface. HDR limited by luminance, basic local dimming capability and gamut
Impressively strong pixel responsiveness for 144Hz, low input lag and VRR working as promised via HDMI 2.1 or Adaptive-Sync (FreeSync Premium and ‘G-Sync Compatible’)	Some overshoot, particularly at reduced refresh rates even using the lowest ‘Over Drive’ setting available. Strobe backlight experience marred by visual disturbances (mainly related to KSF phosphors)
Excellent ergonomics and a weighty feel to the stand. A tight pixel density, providing strong detail and clarity alongside excellent on-screen ‘real estate’ potential	Prominent bottom bezel, plastic rather than metal used for stand base outer surface. Price a bit on the high side at time of review

The bottom line; an impressive high refresh rate ‘4K’ UHD performer with many features – less well-suited to lower refresh rates due to overdrive tuning.<span class="su-quote-cite">PC Monitors</span>

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.

Buy from Amazon

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.