Asus Rog Strix XG279Q review. The fastest 1440p IPS monitor*

Everything about displays and monitors. 120Hz, 144Hz, 240Hz, 4K, 1440p, input lag, display shopping, monitor purchase decisions, compare, versus, debate, and more. Questions? Just ask!
Avean
Posts: 26
Joined: 13 Feb 2020, 07:15

Re: Asus Rog Strix XG279Q review. The fastest 1440p IPS monitor*

Post by Avean » 12 May 2020, 05:09

I need to test more. After you replied i tested again and now i have no issues..... i dont get it. I even had brightness at 100 as well. I need to test more cause when i originally wrote this i had clear image retention after 5 minutes.

RLCSContender*
Posts: 541
Joined: 13 Jan 2021, 22:49
Contact:

Re: Asus Rog Strix XG279Q review. The fastest 1440p IPS monitor*

Post by RLCSContender* » 12 May 2020, 05:12

the best way to test image retention is doing a ghosting UFO test on this website. Leave it on for 5-10 mins without exiting. Use a black background on your desktop.

once 5-10 mins has past, exit the screen. If you see white aritfacts, then yuor monitor is defective and will have image retention problems. This will lead to burn in artifacts making your monitor haves zero value for resale.

Avean
Posts: 26
Joined: 13 Feb 2020, 07:15

Re: Asus Rog Strix XG279Q review. The fastest 1440p IPS monitor*

Post by Avean » 12 May 2020, 05:51

RLCScontender wrote:
12 May 2020, 05:12
the best way to test image retention is doing a ghosting UFO test on this website. Leave it on for 5-10 mins without exiting. Use a black background on your desktop.

once 5-10 mins has past, exit the screen. If you see white aritfacts, then yuor monitor is defective and will have image retention problems. This will lead to burn in artifacts making your monitor haves zero value for resale.
Got it! I forgot to do the UFO test in fullscreen. As soon as i did that, image retention straight away after 8-10 minutes.
Checkerboard tests didnt reveal anything but UFO Ghost test in fullscreen gave me retention.
Took a picture: A bit of noise but those horizontal lines are straight from the UFO test ... Its also with 50 in brightness, default color profile that Asus have pre-calibrated.

Image

User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
Posts: 11647
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44
Location: Toronto / Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Asus Rog Strix XG279Q review. The fastest 1440p IPS monitor*

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 12 May 2020, 17:52

The cause of burn-in is the interaction between flicker patterns of any kind, interacting with the LCD inversion algorithm built into the monitor panel.

Burn-ins are typically when weak voltage inversion algorithms are defeated. Common situations include software BFI, and perfect-flicker pixels that synchronize to the frequency of the LCD voltage inversion.

LCD voltage inversion links:
www.techmind.org/lcd/
www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/inversion.php

It's sort of a static electricity effect -- the voltages of pixels automatically invert temporally (every refresh cycles) and spatially (adjacent pixels). But often the inversion sequence is only 2 frames long, which means pixel flicker will amplify voltage polarity (too much positive-polarity white pixels, too few negative-polarity white pixels.... So you've got a static charge buildup because of flickering pixels in sync with voltage balancing algorithm.

Voltage polarity of pixels should be invisible, but sometimes becomes visible when the average voltage polarity is unbalanced.

Fortunately this is usually just "static electricity temporary" the vast majority of the time. Regular exercise of pixels (video playing full screen) typically erases this over a few minutes.

Smart inversion patterns should not be easily defeated by flickering pixels, some panels automatically switch voltage inverison patterns to stay out-of-sync with flickering pixels -- and things like software black frame inversion -- or frame-sequential 3D glasses graphics.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

Image
Forum Rules wrote:  1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
  2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
  3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!

Dmoney405
Posts: 48
Joined: 01 Mar 2020, 01:14

Re: Asus Rog Strix XG279Q review. The fastest 1440p IPS monitor*

Post by Dmoney405 » 12 May 2020, 22:04

I tried to test again using full screen and still had no issues after 10 min. I left it on for 15 minutes and I could see a very very very mild discoloration where the lanes were. So mild that I second guessed myself a few times. I changed tabs for 20 seconds and went back and nothing was there. My camera didn't pick up anything either.

I guess I could leave it for 25-30 minutes and see how it goes.

User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
Posts: 11647
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44
Location: Toronto / Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Asus Rog Strix XG279Q review. The fastest 1440p IPS monitor*

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 12 May 2020, 23:32

Minor amount of image retention is really nothing to worry about. Most games don't do flicker-patterns that build up a static-electricity charge in the pixels (temporary image retention artifact).

I've never seen this become permanent, although if someone ran for 2 months 24/7, it might take many months to erase.

These LCD image retention artifacts are not as scary as OLED burn-in or CRT burn-in, because it more of a static electricity buildup behavior rather than actual damage/wear. But the longer it builds up, the longer it takes to erase.

Not all panels exhibit rapid image retention behavior with flicker, but as long as retention doesn't appear fast (e.g. under a minute), I don't consider it RMA. Unfortunately voltage inversion algorithms are more cheaped out since 3D Vision was discontinued, and it's something we have to live with.

A minor modification to the TestUFO tickmarks is being considered to make this less likely to happen (odd-numbered tickmarks) since all voltage inversion sequences tend to be even-numbered (2-cycle or 4-cycle voltage inversion). However, the same problem affects all flicker tests -- that's why ther's a slow vertical shifting in the flicker square in www.vsynctester.com to prevent inversion. Also www.testufo.com/flicker sometimes creates faint image-retention in if you drag window slightly after 15 seconds but I had added image-retention-compensation by adding an extra repeat-frame once every few seconds, to jar it out of sync with voltage inversion electronics.

Emulator software BFI also creates image retention behaviours on some panels.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

Image
Forum Rules wrote:  1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
  2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
  3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!

Dmoney405
Posts: 48
Joined: 01 Mar 2020, 01:14

Re: Asus Rog Strix XG279Q review. The fastest 1440p IPS monitor*

Post by Dmoney405 » 14 May 2020, 01:36

Static electricity huh? Sounds like an easy fix, just connect a ground wire to each pixel and let it trail off. We only need several million for each screen right? No problem :D

dANii
Posts: 49
Joined: 11 Jan 2020, 08:09

Re: Asus Rog Strix XG279Q review. The fastest 1440p IPS monitor*

Post by dANii » 21 May 2020, 05:11

I purchased this monitor yesterday and I have 0 issues with it. Looks like you just got a bad panel.

Jason38
Posts: 102
Joined: 24 May 2019, 10:23

Re: Asus Rog Strix XG279Q review. The fastest 1440p IPS monitor*

Post by Jason38 » 23 May 2020, 02:08

Chief Blur Buster wrote:
12 May 2020, 23:32
Minor amount of image retention is really nothing to worry about. Most games don't do flicker-patterns that build up a static-electricity charge in the pixels (temporary image retention artifact).

I've never seen this become permanent, although if someone ran for 2 months 24/7, it might take many months to erase.

These LCD image retention artifacts are not as scary as OLED burn-in or CRT burn-in, because it more of a static electricity buildup behavior rather than actual damage/wear. But the longer it builds up, the longer it takes to erase.

Not all panels exhibit rapid image retention behavior with flicker, but as long as retention doesn't appear fast (e.g. under a minute), I don't consider it RMA. Unfortunately voltage inversion algorithms are more cheaped out since 3D Vision was discontinued, and it's something we have to live with.

A minor modification to the TestUFO tickmarks is being considered to make this less likely to happen (odd-numbered tickmarks) since all voltage inversion sequences tend to be even-numbered (2-cycle or 4-cycle voltage inversion). However, the same problem affects all flicker tests -- that's why ther's a slow vertical shifting in the flicker square in www.vsynctester.com to prevent inversion. Also www.testufo.com/flicker sometimes creates faint image-retention in if you drag window slightly after 15 seconds but I had added image-retention-compensation by adding an extra repeat-frame once every few seconds, to jar it out of sync with voltage inversion electronics.

Emulator software BFI also creates image retention behaviours on some panels.
I have been using retro arch 120hz BFI and to my amazement the flicker doesn't seem to strain my eyes. I noticed that image retention as well. So in your experience on an LCD it's not really am issue? I would exit the emulator and everything seems fine. It makes the games so smooth. Has me super interested in that XG270 pure XP option. I really like how BFI dims the screen.

Locked