PG279QE Image Retention Help ASAP pls!

[Chief Blur Buster]

OK -- then if image retention occurs from stationary non-flickering images, then the panel is defective, or the firmware is defective (inversion algorithm failures). RMA it.

EDIT to add to previous post:
"If image retention occurs from stationary images (non-flickering), like the Windows taskbar, then the panel is defective or the firmware is defective (e.g. a firmware bug that accidentally disables the protective inversion algorithms -- e.g. voltage-polarity inversion stops occuring)."

What about VA panels? I have a VA TV that I always get mad at my girlfriend for leaving on, am I doing this irrationally? Is there any worry of static images on VA panels?

As far as the panel voltage inversion logic is bug-free, static images never produces burn-in on a correctly functioning LCD. The voltages are thus always perfectly balanced for static stationary images.

It's when you use special synchronized flicker patterns (BFI, 3D glasses, synchronized flicker patterns), that this causes voltages to go out-of-sync and builds up to a positive-voltage buildup or a negative-voltage buildup (creating temporary image retention).

Buggy LCDs sometimes had a situation where the firmware accidentally disabled voltage inversion during some situations (especially out-of-range timings), in which case, static images will show retention behaviors. However, it is eraseable by a proportionate countermeasure. If retention appears only for a few minutes, it can disappear in only a few minutes. If you let retention become worse for several days, it can take several days to fully erase.

Image Retention: Buggy LCD Panel Test
(A) Test a static image for a few minutes
(B) If no image retention, continue to long test
(C) Test a static image for a few hours
(B) If no image retention, you're good!
If you get image retention, then pixels are not correctly swapping voltages. Do an RMA or firmware upgrade, which will sometimes fix this type of issue. LCDs should never do this.

Image Retention: Normal LCD Inversion Logic Sensitivty Test
And if you're picky about sensitive retention from flicker patterns (if you need to use BFI or 3D glasses)
(A) Test flicker image for few minutes such as www.testufo.com/ghosting ... keep the tickmarks in the same location
(B) Now suddenly display a full screen solid-gray field (e.g. 50% gray), or go fullscreen and drag ghosting bar up/down out of the way, look for retention in solid midshade color. Tickmarks (Sync Track) would have image retention
(C) If image retention, panel is sensitive. Drain pixel static electricity buildup via playing highly active full screen video for at least roughy 1x to 4x+ you displayed the flicker pattern for.
RMA usually won't fix this type of issue, panels will typically have the same image retention velocity.

This is largely simply a static electricity buildup behavior instead of a damaged pixel behavior (Caveat: If you defeated the inversion circuit continuously for a long period like weeks or months continuously, it's possible for the charge to permanently imprint. (So you don't want to display a frame-seqeuential Stereoscopic 3D Glasses Image as your screensaver!).

[STOPchris]

OK -- then if image retention occurs from stationary non-flickering images, then the panel is defective, or the firmware is defective (inversion algorithm failures). RMA it.

EDIT to add to previous post:
"If image retention occurs from stationary images (non-flickering), like the Windows taskbar, then the panel is defective or the firmware is defective (e.g. a firmware bug that accidentally disables the protective inversion algorithms -- e.g. voltage-polarity inversion stops occuring)."

What about VA panels? I have a VA TV that I always get mad at my girlfriend for leaving on, am I doing this irrationally? Is there any worry of static images on VA panels?

As far as the panel voltage inversion logic is bug-free, static images never produces burn-in on a correctly functioning LCD. The voltages are thus always perfectly balanced for static stationary images.

It's when you use special synchronized flicker patterns (BFI, 3D glasses, synchronized flicker patterns), that this causes voltages to go out-of-sync and builds up to a positive-voltage buildup or a negative-voltage buildup (creating temporary image retention).

Buggy LCDs sometimes had a situation where the firmware accidentally disabled voltage inversion during some situations (especially out-of-range timings), in which case, static images will show retention behaviors. However, it is eraseable by a proportionate countermeasure. If retention appears only for a few minutes, it can disappear in only a few minutes. If you let retention become worse for several days, it can take several days to fully erase.

Image Retention: Buggy LCD Panel Test
(A) Test a static image for a few minutes
(B) If no image retention, continue to long test
(C) Test a static image for a few hours
(B) If no image retention, you're good!
If you get image retention, then pixels are not correctly swapping voltages. Do an RMA or firmware upgrade, which will sometimes fix this type of issue. LCDs should never do this.

Image Retention: Normal LCD Inversion Logic Sensitivty Test
And if you're picky about sensitive retention from flicker patterns (if you need to use BFI or 3D glasses)
(A) Test flicker image for few minutes such as www.testufo.com/ghosting ... keep the tickmarks in the same location
(B) Now suddenly display a full screen solid-gray field (e.g. 50% gray), or go fullscreen and drag ghosting bar up/down out of the way, look for retention in solid midshade color. Tickmarks (Sync Track) would have image retention
(C) If image retention, panel is sensitive. Drain pixel static electricity buildup via playing highly active full screen video for at least roughy 1x to 4x+ you displayed the flicker pattern for.
RMA might sometimes fix, but usually won't fix this type of issue, panels will typically have the same image retention velocity.

This is largely simply a static electricity buildup behavior instead of a damaged pixel behavior (Caveat: If you defeated the inversion circuit continuously for a long period like weeks or months continuously, it's possible for the charge to permanently imprint. (So you don't want to display a frame-seqeuential Stereoscopic 3D Glasses Image as your screensaver!).

Do you think the "E" version of our monitors are different in this way? I did exactly as the OP stated and had no image retention. I used this grey screen, in full screen, immediately after the 5 minutes of the test: http://deadpixelbuddy.com/grey.html

[Chief Blur Buster]

Do you think the "E" version of our monitors are different in this way? I did exactly as the OP stated and had no image retention. I used this grey screen, in full screen, immediately after the 5 minutes of the test: http://deadpixelbuddy.com/grey.html

That would mean ASUS changed the inversion logic or inversion patterning to be more flicker-resistant. If so, that's a good sign that switching to the "E" model will work with a superior panel revision. So yes, PG279Q versus PG279QE may actually make a difference. Where a panel was unusually sensitive to retention via flicker, but is no longer sensitive to retention via flicker. So yes, minor model upgrades, or different panel vendor, can provide changes to image retention resistance during flicker patterns.

Generally, I don't consider minor IR via flicker patterns, an RMA-solvable thing -- since inversion is a mandatory part of all monitors -- and image retention is when the inversion is bypassed temporarily (via flicker patterns). Playing the panel lottery usually doesn't solve this -- but a minor hardware revision change (e.g. PG279Q versus PG279QE) may actually make a big difference.

So if you displayed www.testufo.com/ghosting in exactly the same screen location for a long time -- then suddenly displayed that solid gray -- and did not see inversion problems -- then that's great news. TestUFO is not the only way to generate flicker patterns, one can also use a frame sequential 3D glasses sequence too.

STOPchris / rane94, are either of you using any custom resolutions (ToastyX or NVIDIA)? There's been rare situations where certain models went image-retention-sensitive during custom resolutions, because of a bug (where the protective inversion circuits stopped functioning at specific timings).

[STOPchris]

Do you think the "E" version of our monitors are different in this way? I did exactly as the OP stated and had no image retention. I used this grey screen, in full screen, immediately after the 5 minutes of the test: http://deadpixelbuddy.com/grey.html

That would mean ASUS changed the inversion logic or inversion patterning to be more flicker-resistant. If so, that's a good sign that switching to the "E" model will work with a superior panel revision. So yes, PG279Q versus PG279QE may actually make a difference. Where a panel was unusually sensitive to retention via flicker, but is no longer sensitive to retention via flicker. So yes, minor model upgrades, or different panel vendor, can provide changes to image retention resistance during flicker patterns.

Generally, I don't consider minor IR via flicker patterns, an RMA-solvable thing -- since inversion is a mandatory part of all monitors -- and image retention is when the inversion is bypassed temporarily (via flicker patterns). Playing the panel lottery usually doesn't solve this -- but a minor hardware revision change (e.g. PG279Q versus PG279QE) may actually make a big difference.

So if you displayed www.testufo.com/ghosting in exactly the same screen location for a long time -- then suddenly displayed that solid gray -- and did not see inversion problems -- then that's great news. TestUFO is not the only way to generate flicker patterns, one can also use a frame sequential 3D glasses sequence too.

STOPchris / rane94, are either of you using any custom resolutions (ToastyX or NVIDIA)? There's been rare situations where certain models went image-retention-sensitive during custom resolutions, because of a bug (where the protective inversion circuits stopped functioning at specific timings).

No, I am not running a custom resolution. I am the one with the PG279Q and rane94 has the PG279QE. So that would mean that it got worse with the newer version?

[Chief Blur Buster]

No, I am not running a customer resolution. I am the one with the PG279Q and rane94 has the PG279QE. So that would mean that it got worse with the newer version?

Ouch. Hmmm. It's quite possible, though need more people with PG279QE's and PG279Q's to test this out.

[rane94]

for some reason it posted 2 posts instead of one so i reserve this post for Chief with the first original post below

[rane94]

No, I am not running a customer resolution. I am the one with the PG279Q and rane94 has the PG279QE. So that would mean that it got worse with the newer version?

Ouch. Hmmm. It's quite possible, though need more people with PG279QE's and PG279Q's to test this out.

so Chief, my PG279QE's counts as a defective panels if they does that on UFO ghosting test after a minute or should i keep one of them? thats a sign for future image retention problems?
that's the only Actual Gsync monitor in my county and the return policy in my country is bad tbh

what is your opinion on it? i really need a monitor because im playing on 8 years old 23 inch TN 60HZ 6bit+FRC and the backlight is so bad that even if i put my phone with minimum brightness next to it its more brighter than my monitor on 100%...

please help me Chief!

[Chief Blur Buster]

For many manufacturers, it is somewhat a matter of interpretation if flicker-based burn-in counts as a defect or not. Most content do not use flicker patterns like some TestUFO tests do.

For LCDs, image retention from synchronized flicker patterns are more found in:
(A) 3D Vision material (alternate shutter);
(B) Motion tests such as TestUFO or others
(C) Software based black frame insertion (MAME / RetoArch optinal feature)
(D) Other situations where there is a perfectly synchronized flicker pattern

Unlike for OLED/plasma, Image retention on LCDs are a static-electricity buildup artifact & usually not permanent. It is also quickly eraseable via playing highly active full screen video (lots of motion, many scene changes) or a panning test such as www.testufo.com/photo in full screen mode. It is normally a temporary effects if you don't keep running the same flicker pattern for days on end. To erase it you have to run highly active material that isn't a synchronized flicker (e.g. playing full screen video) for an approximately proportionate time as the amount of time you spent displaying flicker patterns.

Also, if you don't do (A)(B)(C), it is generally not an issue. However, some video games might do some synchronized flicker that defeats the LCD-inversion-protection circuits.

Currently, I do not have enough data on PG279QE to determine if it's an entire-model-line issue (it has happened before with certain model lines) or if it is a panel lottery issue (it has happened before with different model lines).

[rane94]

For many manufacturers, it is somewhat a matter of interpretation if flicker-based burn-in counts as a defect or not. Most content do not use flicker patterns like some TestUFO tests do.

For LCDs, image retention from synchronized flicker patterns are more found in:
(A) 3D Vision material (alternate shutter);
(B) Motion tests such as TestUFO or others
(C) Software based black frame insertion (MAME / RetoArch optinal feature)
(D) Other situations where there is a perfectly synchronized flicker pattern

Unlike for OLED/plasma, Image retention on LCDs are a static-electricity buildup artifact & usually not permanent. It is also quickly eraseable via playing highly active full screen video (lots of motion, many scene changes) or a panning test such as www.testufo.com/photo in full screen mode. It is normally a temporary effects if you don't keep running the same flicker pattern for days on end. To erase it you have to run highly active material that isn't a synchronized flicker (e.g. playing full screen video) for an approximately proportionate time as the amount of time you spent displaying flicker patterns.

Also, if you don't do (A)(B)(C), it is generally not an issue. However, some video games might do some synchronized flicker that defeats the LCD-inversion-protection circuits.

Currently, I do not have enough data on PG279QE to determine if it's an entire-model-line issue (it has happened before with certain model lines) or if it is a panel lottery issue (it has happened before with different model lines).

first of all thank you for your replies Chief!

now lets say if it was you in my shoes ( i went trough 3 PG279QE's and all of them had the same problem with UFO Ghosting Test), would you keep this monitor or search/wait for other models instead? i have no idea if this is normal because its not even happens on my 8 years old TN panel that is not even gaming monitor and my other friend who have the original PG279Q without the E or Z at the end did the test for me for 15mins on 60hz and 144hz each and saw nothing so i have no idea if that problem with the PG279QE will be a future problem with image retention (like playing games with static UI for a long time)
and by the way, this monitor cost in my country nearly 800 US dollars i really want your opinion if i should take the risk and buy this monitor again or search/wait for other/newer upcoming models to be released?

waiting for your answer Chief and thank you again!

[STOPchris]

I just randomly got this on my newer XB253Q GX. I never had this before and then all of the sudden it showed up. It was while I was tagging games in Playnite. Weird, I have never seen this before in ANY monitor that I've owned. It went away now, but it was really strange. It does not happen with the UFO test though. I tried it again and nothing happened. So, in only certain situations this happens? It's nothing to worry about then?

EDIT: I think I accidentally caused this actually. The screen would flicker when I scrolled through the list I had. I kept doing it because it seemed weird to me. I guess maybe I triggered this issue? It was the Playnite application causing the flicker, but the image retention for sure happened for a few minutes after. Again, nothing like this until today.