Syntax Olevia 30" LCD: Cheap, Robust and Exceptional
by Kristopher Kubicki on June 30, 2004 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Full Screen Application - TV
480i (NTSC) - A significant advantage that the Olevia 30" has over the Albatron 30" LCD is its ability to format the screen into 4:3 for NTSC and PAL signals.480p - Using a progressive scan DVD player, we were able to obtain our 480p signal. If anything, we test the ability of our Silicon Image and PixelWorks processors to determine if they are correctly converting our 480 line DVD movie onto a 768 line LCD.
1080i - Visually, on a screen this size, we really should not be able to tell the still image difference between a 720p and a 1080i signal. Any 1080i image is stepped down to 720 lines, since our screen can only display 768 pixels vertically. We used HD WMV9 samples from Microsoft.com's "Coral Reef Adventure" for our testing purposes.
Click to enlarge.
720p - This is where we should see the real showcase of the Syntax LCD TV in all of its glory. The signal is not being stepped and we should be able to detect progressive scan working during the images with fish moving rapidly.
Click to enlarge.
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 ...