Philips 279P1

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 279P1, with over 30 repeat readings taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 7.12ms (under 1/2 a frame at 60Hz) of input lag. The input lag measured here is influenced by both the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the main element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a reasonably low signal delay which shouldn’t bother most users. Note that we don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with Adaptive-Sync active in a variable refresh rate environment.

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 responses of the monitor and the movement of your eyes as you track motion of the screen. This second factor generally dominates on modern monitors, although both factors play a role. We also explore a photography technique called ‘pursuit photography’, using a moving rather than stationary camera to capture motion on a monitor in a way that reflects both elements of perceived blur.

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, highlighting 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, 60fps and 60Hz in this case. All three rows of the test are analysed to show a range of pixel transitions and all ‘SmartResponse’ pixel overdrive settings were tested. Reference shots are included in the final columns for comparison, set to their optimal pixel overdrive setting. The first reference is the Philips 276E8VJSB, based on the same panel but with a different backlight and feature set. The second reference is the Philips 328E1CA, a larger ‘4K’ VA option.

The UFO appears soft and unfocused without clear internal detail. This reflects a moderate amount of perceived blur due to eye movement. This is also reflected by the reference shots. There is also varying degrees of trailing behind the UFOs caused by weaknesses in pixel response times. The ‘Off’ setting shows some ‘powdery trailing’ that’s boldest for the dark background (top row) but still pronounced for the medium background (middle row). Performance for the light background (bottom row) is fine even with this setting. Turning things up to ‘Fast’ cuts down on the trailing quite effectively, although a fair bit remains for the dark background in particular. This is quite a bit bolder than the IPS reference screen (276E8VJSB), particularly behind the yellow UFO cockpit with the dark background. There isn’t the very bold trail immediately behind the UFO as observed on the VA reference (328E1CA), caused by some significantly slower pixel responses. This is reflected by our broader subjective testing which considers a broader spread of transitions, including much darker and brighter shades than shown here.

The ‘Faster’ setting introduces strong overshoot in places, particularly with the medium background where a bright and colourful blue and cyan ‘halo’ trail is visible. This is very eye-catching in practice. The 276E8VJSB we use as a reference was actually set to this same ‘Faster’ setting. But it was clearly better tuned in that case, without this obvious overshoot. The ‘Fastest’ setting ramps things up further, with the overshoot now becoming very strong, colourful and eye-catching. With this and according to broader testing we consider the ‘Fast’ setting optimal for the 279P1, although we would’ve preferred something between the ‘Fast’ and ‘Faster’ setting in terms of tuning here.

Note that we will not be including a section on overclocking, as the monitor skipped frames or displayed clear visual artifacts when set much above 60Hz.

Responsiveness in games and movies

There was a moderate degree of perceived blur on Battlefield V, running at a solid 60fps to make the most out of the monitor. This was mainly related to eye movement and linked to the 60Hz refresh rate, but there were certainly some weaknesses on top of that due to slower than optimal pixel responsiveness. Quite a few transitions were performed somewhat slower than optimal, leading to what we like to call ‘powdery’ trailing and similar to what was shown with the UFO Motion Test for ghosting earlier. Where very dark or much brighter shades were involved the weaknesses were more pronounced. We observed bolder and denser trailing behaviour that we’d describe as ‘heavy powdery’ trailing, extending further back from the object during motion. This could actually be described as slightly ‘smeary’ in places. This added a mask of perceived blur in many places where darker shades were mixed in with brighter shades, leading to a loss of definition for elements such as bricks with darker join lines and some foliage. Whilst there’s always going to be a moderate amount of perceived blur due to eye movement at 60Hz, we did find performance here noticeably weaker than on the Philips 276E8VJSB using its optimal ‘SmartResponse’ setting of ‘Faster’. Which unfortunately caused too much overshoot on the 279P1. But still better than what you’d typically observe on a VA alternative, even a fairly well-tuned one like the 328E1CA.

We made similar observations on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. This title has plenty of contrasting scenes in it which mix together very dark and very bright shades. There were again instances of ‘heavy powdery’ trailing with a somewhat ‘smeary’ appearance in places. Not to the extent you’d typically see on a VA model, but a bit beyond faster IPS-type performers at 60Hz. These weaknesses won’t bother everyone, especially for casual gaming or outside of gaming – and this is indeed a productivity focused monitor. But we still feel the ‘SmartResponse’ pixel overdrive could’ve been better tuned so that the ‘Faster’ setting provided a bit of a boost with less extensive overshoot. Going back to our preferred ‘Fast’ setting, which we were using for our testing here, there were only slight traces of overshoot on either title. Nothing that really stood out or caught the eye. We also made observations using video content at a range of frame rates, including ~24 – 30fps content on platforms such as Netflix and 60fps YouTube content. We didn’t observe any significant weaknesses caused by slow pixel responses for the lower frame rate content – the pixel response requirements for optimal performance are much lower here. The low frame rate of the content itself is really the main barrier to fluidity. For the higher frame rate content, we observed the same weaknesses as we did in game at the same 60fps.

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.

VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) technology

Adaptive-Sync

Adaptive-Sync is a Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) technology that can be leveraged on a compatible monitor on compatible AMD GPUs and systems via FreeSync. As of driver version 417.71, users with Nvidia GPUs (GTX 10 series and newer) and Windows 10 can also make use of this VRR technology. Adaptive-Sync isn’t an officially listed or advertised feature, so no guarantees are made by Philips as to how well this will be supported on various GPUs or if it will be supported at all. Our AMD Radeon RX 580 did not allow FreeSync to be used with the monitor via either DP or HDMI. Curiously, though, our Nvidia RTX 3090 did offer some degree of Adaptive-Sync support. It allowed activation of ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’. Some models are specifically validated as G-SYNC compatible, which means they have been specifically tested by Nvidia and pass specific quality checks. With the 279P1, you need to connect the monitor up via DisplayPort. There’s no OSD setting for Adaptive-Sync on the monitor, that’s handled automatically. 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. Press OK, then turn the monitor off then on again so that it re-establishes connection – the technology should now be active.



You will also see in the image above that it states: “Selected Display in not validated as G-SYNC Compatible.” This means Nvidia hasn’t specifically tested and validated the display. The technology worked, with caveats. At higher frame rates it worked as it should – anything higher than 38Hz (38fps) in fact. We diidn’t observe the tearing that we’d usually see (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on) from the frame and refresh rate mismatches that occur without a VRR technology like this active. Even at 38Hz there wasn’t an obnoxious level of overshoot using our preferred ‘SmartResponse = Fast’ setting, either. Which can sometimes sour the experience at reduced refresh rates.

The real kicker here was that there was no floor of operation. So rather than the technology deactivating at 38Hz, it kept on going. With the monitor attempting to run at refresh rates that it doesn’t actually support. We were greeted with flickering, partial screen blanks or other artifacts on the screen. If you’re always going to be running >38fps this isn’t a problem, but if you dip below this even momentarily this could prove distracting. This can unfortunately happen during some cut-scenes in games and could potentially occur in other applications when running full screen. We didn’t have any issues viewing video content through a browser or using the Netflix App, thankfully. Again, as Adaptive-Sync isn’t considered an officially supported feature on this model any usage you can get out of the technology is a bonus.

If you enable VSync the refresh rate will not rise above the maximum supported by the monitor (ceiling) of 60Hz, with Adaptive-Sync employed below that. If VSync is disabled the frame rate will run as high as it can, potentially >60fps, at which point the monitor will stay at 60Hz. The VSync 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 that the refresh rate displayed in ‘Setup’ – ‘Information’ in the OSD reflects in real time the frame rate of the content (up to 60Hz = 60fps). Finally, it’s worth noting that Adaptive-Sync 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.

The ‘4K’ UHD experience

Our ‘4K’ UHD experience article looks at the advantages and disadvantages of the resolution for a range of different tasks. This article uses a 28” ‘4K’ panel as an example, which provides a very similar experience to the 27” panel used on the 279P1. The pixel density of this screen is 163.18 PPI (Pixels Per Inch), which is a high pixel density that will necessitate the use of scaling for many users. We found the monitor useable and text readable without scaling from our preferred viewing distance (~70cm). Although we got used to how things looked unscaled and quite enjoyed it, we’d agree that text and UI elements appeared very small indeed. This might look a bit weird and unnatural or simply difficult for some to work with or adjust to. We found using a relatively low level of scaling (125%) was nicely balanced as an alternative. With this, an excellent amount of ‘desktop real estate’ was still maintained. Furthermore, text and others elements which scale ‘cleanly’ (that’s most content now, thankfully) still benefited from the excellent pixel density. This remains the case even if a higher level of scaling or application-specific zoom is used, with a crispness that you simply don’t get from significantly lower pixel density displays. The images below show the screen in action on the desktop without scaling (100%) and using 125% scaling. Further analysis using different scaling settings on a screen of this sort of size is provided in the article linked to previously. Note that these images are just for illustrative purposes and don’t accurately reflect how the monitor appears in person.

The excellent pixel density also brings benefits to suitably high resolution image content, ‘4K’ movies and games. Some games naturally make better use of the resolution than others, with high-resolution textures and particle effects used very generously. But the strong pixel density provides benefits even if you’re running older titles or using low graphics settings. Various elements appear sharper with superior definition. Objects and people in the game appear more distinct from one another and their surroundings because of this, with a distant clarity you simply don’t get with a significantly lower pixel density. The images are again for illustrative purposes, using a range of game titles. They don’t accurately reflect how the monitor appears in person.

Interpolation and upscaling

The 3840 x 2160 (‘4K’ UHD) resolution is quite graphically taxing and requires a fairly powerful GPU to run smoothly, especially when gaming or carrying out other graphically intensive tasks. It may be desirable to drop the resolution to compensate, whilst some systems (including older games consoles) don’t necessarily support ‘4K’ output anyway. 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.



‘Picture Format’ in the ‘Picture’ section of the OSD has various settings that control the monitor’s scaling behaviour. ‘Wide Screen’ uses an interpolation process with all pixels of the monitor used to display the image, so the full screen space is used. If you’re using Adaptive-Sync (‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’ active in the driver) the monitor will be locked into this setting. ‘4:3’ enforces that aspect ratio regardless of resolution used, whilst ‘1:1’ is a pixel mapping feature that only uses pixels called for by the source resolution to display an image. With a black border filling out the remaining pixels. These settings are shown in this section of the OSD video.

When running the monitor at either 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) or 2560 x 1440 (WQHD), the image was presented in a somewhat softer way than on a 27” screen and that as their native resolution. The softening wasn’t as extreme as we’ve seen in some cases and was somewhat less noticeable for WQHD vs. Full HD. You can also adjust ‘Sharpness’ in the ‘Picture’ section of the OSD according to taste. When gaming at either the Full HD or WQHD resolution on the monitor, we preferred setting ‘Sharpness’ to ‘60’. It didn’t completely offset the softening or make things look like that resolution would natively, but it did improve things. Whilst providing a bit of oversharpening, which we found more noticeable in Full HD. Overall we found the interpolation performance of the monitor quite decent and it made non-native resolutions quite useable if you need to rely on them from time to time. Even finer control of sharpness would’ve been nice to have, though, as the difference between ‘50’ and ‘60’ and then a further step up to ‘70’ was quite dramatic.

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
Responsiveness (General)
Responsiveness (Adaptive-Sync)

Conclusion

The 3840 x 2160 (‘4K’ UHD) resolution has a lot to offer for both work and play. This model is productivity-focused, making use of a 27” screen of the resolution. We often say we consider ~32” screens to be something of a sweet spot for this resolution, allowing you to use lower levels of scaling (if any) compared to a 27” screen. Although it’s not something we’d expect most people to get on with, we did manage to use this screen throughout the review without using any scaling. But we also felt 125% scaling offered a nice compromise between readability and ‘real-estate’. Even if scaling is used, most elements scale ‘cleanly’ and you benefit from the excellent pixel density. Text has a definite crispness and definition that’s simply lacking with significantly lower pixel densities. Suitably high resolution image content, games and movies can also make very good use of this. We found the addition of the PowerSensor particularly useful and felt the monitor was well-built with good ergonomic flexibility. Some users such as those with Mac systems or compatible laptops might appreciate the USB-C support, too. Which included a decent amount of Power Delivery (PD) and data transfer capability. Alongside DP Alt Mode.

The contrast was very much in-line with our expectations from the panel type. We measured static contrast as a touch above the specified 1000:1 (1127:1 under our ‘Test Settings’). Some are a bit stronger in that respect and some a bit weaker. But the overarching experience was very familiar, with moderate ‘IPS glow’ that ate away at depth and atmosphere for darker content. Particularly when viewed in dimmer lighting conditions. But excellent gamma consistency, maintaining detail levels in more of an even and appropriate way for such content compared to a VA or TN model. The screen surface imparted just a light ‘misty’ graininess rather than anything heavier and was more agreeable to us than some screens of this sort of size and resolution.

The monitor provided vibrant colour output with good variety and a pleasing ‘out of the box’ performance in terms of gamma and colour channel balance. Covering 93% DCI-P3, it injected extra vividness for standard sRGB content which some users will enjoy. It didn’t cover enough of the DCI-P3 and moreover Adobe RGB colour spaces to be well-suited for colour-critical work within those spaces. But it offered comprehensive sRGB coverage, which was combined with strong colour consistency. The monitor includes an sRGB emulation setting which the factory calibration is based around. Unfortunately, this was locked at the monitor’s maximum brightness and we recorded 274 cd/m² using this setting. That’s much brighter than most users will want to use and even brighter than the factory default brightness (‘70’, which yields 216 cd/m²). Perhaps a slight saving grace was that our unit failed to reach the specified 350 cd/m² even at maximum brightness and colour channels set natively – so the sRGB setting could be even brighter on some units.

Responsiveness was reasonable, within the confines of its 60Hz refresh rate. Input lag was reasonable, whilst pixel responsiveness were quite acceptable when looked at though a productivity-focused lens. With some video content and a bit of casual gaming on the side. But we’ve seen better from a model based around the same panel (or CELL – with different backlight solution) – the Philips 276E8VJSB. So we know the panel can be better utilised in this respect and can’t help feeling a bit disappointed as a result. The monitor at least provided a low-overshoot experience using our preferred ‘SmartResponse’ setting. And worked with Adaptive-Sync – at least on our Nvidia GPU. If you ignore the fact there was no floor of operation, which is the likely reason our AMD GPU refused to use FreeSync. This isn’t an officially advertised feature and really any use you get out of that technology should be considered a bonus. All things considered, this model is quite a well thought out productivity-oriented screen. And in some regions more than others – the US being a good example – the price is highly competitive given the performance and feature-set. For those who don’t mind the stripped down feature-set, including lack of ergonomic flexibility, fewer ports and narrower colour gamut the Philips 276E8VJSB remains an attractive alternative. Especially if the tighter pixel response tuning and significantly lower price is of interest.

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.