Syntax Olevia 30" LCD: Cheap, Robust and Exceptional
by Kristopher Kubicki on June 30, 2004 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Construction
| Syntax Olevia LT-30 | |
| LCD | 30" UXGA LCD (Active Matrix) pixel pitch: 0.71mm Anti-glare coating Super MVA |
| Response Time | 25ms (TrTf) 16.6ms (Gray-to-Gray) |
| Contrast Ratio | 500:1 (Typical) |
| Compatibility | 1280x768 (Native) |
| Brightness | 500 cd/m2 |
| Dimensions (WxHxD) |
32" x 20.5" x 7" |
| Power | Working: 150W Standby/Off: 15W |
| Weight | 36 lbs |
| Warranty | 1 year parts and labor |
Although the LCD is out of the box ready to go with an HD-ready consumer appliance (any Component or DVI input should do), getting the LCD to function with our computer was significantly harder. There is no recognized driver for the monitor, so Windows XP was forced to use default display modes. Unfortunately, the HD 1280x720 resolution is not in the standard Windows profile. What complicates matters even further is that displaying unusual resolutions on the Olevia 30" forces the monitor into a Standby mode.
The solution in the end was to use PowerStrip to force the monitor to recognize a correct resolution. You may recall that we attempted to do a similar procedure when our Albatron LWX-30AMS would only display 1024x768 on the 1280x768 LCD panel (as we see later, the panels in these two displays are nearly identical). Unfortunately, the Albatron was limited by the signal processor on board; we could not utilize the monitor to its full potential because of the chipset. Fortunately, the Olevia display was much better thought out and, with enough patience, we were able to set up a correct display mode using a custom PowerStrip profile. Hopefully, in the future, Syntax will devise a better solution to this hack - ultimately, they should probably produce a driver for users who will use the LCD for presentations or enthusiast gaming.
Using PowerStrip to create a custom 1280x720 profile.
Click to enlarge.
Windows Properties
We were also able to use the same methodology to force the LT-30 into a 1280x768 display mode. The default Windows 1280x768 mode does not work correctly with the display; we needed to use PowerStrip to create a custom profile. Technically, our LCD is not the most optimal for viewing a 720p signal. Syntax uses a 1280x768 LCD panel, while a 720p HD signal uses 720 vertical lines in the signal. Therefore, 48 pixels are stretched vertically when we view a 720i/p signal. This is unfortunate, yet difficult to notice, as we show later in the analysis.
Fortunately for Syntax, the Olevia contained zero pixel defects. We were extremely pleased with the quality of the monitor as it arrived.
Our LT-30 came wall-mount capable, and removing the base to attach the wall mount brackets was extremely simple.
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 ...