Syntax Olevia 30" LCD: Cheap, Robust and Exceptional
by Kristopher Kubicki on June 30, 2004 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Subjective Analysis
For the subjective analysis below, we use a combination of test patterns, test methods from FPDM2.0, DisplayMate and CheckScreen software.| DisplayMate/CheckScreen/VESA FPDM 2.0 | ||
| Test | Monitor | Observations |
| Intensity range check | LWX-30-AMS (digital) | 4 |
| LWX-30-AMS (analog) | 4 | |
| Olevia 30" (digital) | 4 | |
| Olevia 30" (analog) | 4 | |
| Black level adjustment | LWX-30-AMS (digital) | 5, Excellent |
| LWX-30-AMS (analog) | 5 | |
| Olevia 30" (digital) | 5 | |
| Olevia 30" (analog) | 5 | |
| Defocusing, blooming and halos check | LWX-30-AMS (digital) | 5 |
| LWX-30-AMS (analog) | 5 | |
| Olevia 30" (digital) | 5, No Imperfections | |
| Olevia 30" (analog) | 5 | |
| Screen uniformity and color purity | LWX-30-AMS (digital) | 5, Excellent |
| LWX-30-AMS (analog) | 5 | |
| Olevia 30" (digital) | 5, Excellent | |
| Olevia 30" (analog) | 5 | |
| Dark screen (Glare Test) | LWX-30-AMS (digital) | 4.5 |
| LWX-30-AMS (analog) | 4.5 | |
| Olevia 30" (digital) | 4.5 | |
| Olevia 30" (analog) | 4.5 | |
| Primary colors | LWX-30-AMS (digital) | 4.5, Accurate but not perfect |
| LWX-30-AMS (analog) | 4.5 | |
| Olevia 30" (digital) | 4.5, Almost identical to the LWX-30AMS | |
| Olevia 30" (analog) | 4.5 | |
| Color Scales | LWX-30-AMS (digital) | 4.5, minor red errors |
| LWX-30-AMS (analog) | 4.5 | |
| Olevia 30" (digital) | 4.5+ | |
| Olevia 30" (analog) | 4.5+ | |
| 16 intensity levels | LWX-30-AMS (digital) | 4.5, Uniform |
| LWX-30-AMS (analog) | 4.5 | |
| Olevia 30" (digital) | 4.5 | |
| Olevia 30" (analog) | 4.5 | |
| Screen regulation | LWX-30-AMS (digital) | 5, No issues |
| LWX-30-AMS (analog) | 5 | |
| Olevia 30" (digital) | 5, No problems | |
| Olevia 30" (analog) | 5 | |
| Streaking and ghosting | LWX-30-AMS (digital) | 5, none |
| LWX-30-AMS (analog) | 4, 1024x768 signal does not present huge streaking issue. Interference can be attributed to the cabling | |
| Olevia 30" (digital) | 5 | |
| Olevia 30" (analog) | 4, Artifact Issues as expected | |
One of the largest issues with LCDs of this size is the black level. With so many high powered backlights behind the LCD that even with an liquid crystal completely blocking the light path, a large majority of light still passes through. Of course, since the LCD has three brightness levels, we were able to achieve excellent results with some tweaking. During gaming and high motion video, we used the "Bright" backlight preset. There were obvious instances where the darkest darks were washed out with this preset, but compared to other LCDs that we have seen in the past, the trade-off was acceptable. While using the "Soft" backlight preset, black level was excellent - it was actually almost impossible for us to discern an "off LCD" from an "all black image" in soft atmosphere lighting.
As expected, performance-wise, the Syntax LT-30 looks identical to the Albatron LWX-30AMS. Both displays use nearly identical panels, although vastly different construction techniques and signal processors.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
View All Comments
gbc02 - Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - link
Nice review, although I would have liked a little more information in regards to component input quality vs DVI input quality. I sure it would be similar, but as the owner of an AWI 9800pro wanting one (syntax olevia 30') to use as a second monitor, it would be nice to see a comparison of the two input methods.Anyone out there have any input as to how the component input would compare to the DVI input (or VGA, as I might buy a PCI vidcard) with relation to Powerstrip & gaming etc. let me know.
thx.
MAME - Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - link
I meant the 30 inch lcd displayapple was saying how they are the first to bring it out but now they're not alone.
Yes the resolution is crap in comparison but it's literally half as much ($700 video card needed for the apple). For another $500, you'll be able to get a high resolution LCD soon
Dagar - Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - link
"... screen capable of 1080p." It should be 1080i.However, how or why would you consider interlacing a signal on a digital display?
araczynski - Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - link
still crap compared to the new apple one, half the price, but that's won't mean much when you try to use it for some gaming.not sure what they were tryign to accomplish with this monitor, maybe just the typical sheep-milking, imagine that.
Apologiliac - Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - link
Those game screenshots look tinted blue alot and the UT2k4 one looks like it has too much red :(Fr0zeN2 - Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - link
But shouldn't ratings be given out be comparable to other products at this exact instant in time? Going along with your logic, in 10 years or so every single product you review would get 5's and there'd be no point in doing reviews. It's just like how game sites review games -- a 9.0 5 years ago would get maybe a 5 today. You need to keep raising your standards to match the rate at which technology is progressing :pklah - Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - link
"Stealing apple's thunder"Resolution: 1280x768
Apple's Res: 2560 x 1600
------------------------
"LCD quality has improved dramatically enough that we need to reevaluate our subjective benchmark. I am open to suggestions if anyone has them."
Have you ever considered renting a high-speed video camera(1000pps should suffice) and determining actual response times? Perhaps you could test 10-20 or so color transitions in addition to the black-white-black time they provide us with now. If the expense is too great to do this often, maybe a single article devoted to this with every lcd you can get hold of would be possible. I would definitely like to see the response times from some of the worst case scenarios on the new 12-16ms lcds. You could find some good transitions to test here: http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3428,a=...
KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - link
Zebo we used to give out 3s, 2s, and even 1s. To be honest, in the last two years LCD quality has improved dramatically enough that we need to reevaluate our subjective benchmark. I am open to suggestions if anyone has them.Kristopher
Zebo - Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - link
I guess it's an unwriiten rule when using a 1-5 scale never giver an average 3? 25 ms could'nt be anything else but a 2-3.I'm going to assume from now on since I've never seen below a 4 in any of these monitor reviews 4 means below average, 4.5 average, 5 good.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - link
This is a lower resolution part than Apple's solution ...