I thought I could do without a field monitor but I just can't bring myself to trust the image that I see in my little viewfinder. Does anyone use their LCD monitors for setting color and such? They sure look handy, small, portable. The price is pretty attractive too when I compared a battery powered portable color monitor to them. I haven't found one for less than $700. Any suggestions? I'm still a newbie.

I'm told LCD monitor are liars, and shouldn't be used for anything other than framing. . .perhaps letting your director see your shot.

I know they have television sized monitors, possibly fairly low quality, but they're NTSC and use cathode ray tubes, for around $300. The only problem with these is that you have to plug them in. The ones that accept battery packs are $800-1000.

Go to www.dvfreak.com/buyersguide.htm

When you see the pic of the field monitor, click it. That'll take you to the product website. Video Mag gave this monitor top honours a couple issues back.

hi,
just wanted to confuse you (sony can do you know)
sony has LMD-650 6,5" LCD field monitor, price is approx 2600$, and still you can't control color balance thru it. seems that LCD technology does'nt allow color-calibrated monitors.
rgrds, Margus

Becky,

First, field monitors, for this shooter, are simply too expensive and out of range for my pocketbook. Second, this forced me to shoot several tests and learn how to trust the "little viewfinder." So far, after almost three years, I haven't had any surprises.

I came to video from film when you never saw the results of your shooting until hours--sometimes days--later!

If we're talking about the XL1s, can I have some of your viewfinder trusting tips?

Josh,

I'll send it to you in an e-mail. I have a tendency to ramble, and besides it'll take up less bandwidth that way.

<<<-- Originally posted by Good Dog : Josh,

I'll send it to you in an e-mail. I have a tendency to ramble, and besides it'll take up less bandwidth that way. -->>>

We'd probably all be interested in hearing them, post away!
If you only want to send e-mail, count me in on that too if you could.

Jay, please keep the talking in here so that everyone can learn
and read. That is what this place is for! The bandwidth is here
to read. So please post it here.

Thank you.

Hey, I appreciate all of your help! I too would like to read your tips Josh. The great thing about the xl1s is that it's so portable, it would be nice if canon would include an LCD monitor in the package, but then it wouldn't be as light weight. I wouldn't want to sacrifice any of the other features to make room for it. I tried out the sony pd 150 before ordering my canon, the monitor was handy. I'll check out the websites mentioned. I've been testing my color viewfinder with various settings and am starting to trust it a bit more. I have run into a few situations where I need to frame my shots w/o looking at the viewfinder. Why can't I just win the lottery, then I can buy all of the toys?

Becky

Okay, here it is... but first, let me say my methods are NOT all that "technical" or "scientific." So please don't fault me on that.

You do need an NTSC monitor to REALLY know what you've got. That's where I started. I bought a low-end NTSC monitor by Sony (about $800 for a 13" model). Using my NLE program, I generated the SMPTE Color Bars and made sure the monitor was properly adjusted (I don't have and can't afford a
waveform monitor) using a method that requires gel filters for viewing the Color Bars (I can't afford the monitor with the Blue Gun Only option, either). So I used a sample swatch pack of blue Rosco filters. (Visit ttp://www.greatdv.com/video/smptebars.htm for an explanation on how this is done.)

Once that was done, I went outside and shot a series of images making written notes describing the scene with its range of highlights to shadows. As I shot, I also made mental notes as to how it "looked" in the viewfinder. Based on my experience, I have come to the conclusion that it's best to expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. Most
audience members are willing to accept black shadows without detail. However, there is nothing more distracting than a glaring white shape void of any detail. The human eye automatically goes to the brightest part of any scene. If there's nothing there, that certainly isn't what you want the audience focus their attention! Once in a blue moon it is unavoidable, but in such cases, try everything you can to minimize the burned out area's size. Of course, under studio conditions, and even some field conditions, you can fill the shadows with fill light from either a lamp or bounce card. By the same token, that's not always an option, either, and depending on the situation, as in on-the-fly documentary shoots.

Anyway, as I looked in the viewfinder, the highlights were taken care of by adjusting the zebra pattern (mine is set at 100 IRS, the high-end broadcast standard). Then I studied the shadow areas and how much or how little detail I saw in the viewfinder and made notes. Then, back in post, I compared my notes, both written and mental, with what I saw on the monitor I had adjusted eariler.

With each shooting session, I kept making minor adjustments in exposure, especially paying close attention to the zebra pattern, and going back and forth from the field to post and studying the differences. It takes time, but it boils down to training your eye see what the viewfinder shows, being able to translate that to what the monitor will show and do this in your mind's eye. Ansel Adams referred to this as "pre-visualizing."

When in college, I was an art student. Drawing, we learned, was actually a matter of eye/hand coordination. The reason most people can't draw is because they aren't really "thinking" or "pre-visualizing." They look at the object and say, 'Oh, it's a chair,' and proceed to put on paper what they THINK it looks like. They haven't been trained to "really look" at it and train their hand to draw what the eye is seeing in reality. I think the same is true in our situation or in any visual art form--training the eye.

I was taught cinematography, years a go, by an older gentleman who was able to light a set and determine exposure by eye. This came only after years of experience. I haven't reached that level yet, and may never. But I have come to trust my viewfinder!

Hope this helps, even a little.

Thanks very much for sharing that Jay, good piece. I still need
a lot of eye training myself. Have been planning on looking around
for a monitor in my edit suite so that I know what things look
like.... Thanks again!

Jay, I got the e-mail as well. Definitely some good ideas and useful experience. Thanks!

Your info was very helpful! I too am operating on a limited budget. Your info on zebra pattern gives me a little more to go on as well. I haven't been using the zebra because it's so distracting but I had better learn how to use it. I think I'll go with the portability of an LCD and learn to adjust according to that and my xl1s stock color viewfinder. Thanks so much for taking the time to help us all!!! Does anyone have a recommendation for a decent (but affordable) monitor for my edit suite?

This might make interesting reading for you. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2655 I personally use Sony monitors for both field and studio use. However, the JVC that Bill mentions has great specs and an even better price. If I was starting out, I'd look very hard at the JVC. In your particular cas eI would also ask what your local station is using. That's why your going Avid, right? So it might help to go with the same brand monitor starting out.

Jeff

A couple things: a LOW end monitor is 800??? I thought for 800 dollars you basically got a TV that could accept a battery pack and therefore be used anywhere. When I think low end, I think of the 265-300 dollar CRT monitors.


I feel retarded, but what do you mean when you say "Expose for the highlights?" The only thing I know about exposure, judging from what I see on TV and in the movies, is that what can be overexposed in your shot has to do with framing (i.e. on a closeup, background could be blown out is long as your subject's not, but in a wide shot or medium closeup, a blown out background would look crappy. The zebra bars bother me because it usually tells me my sky is overexposed, and when I take the iris down enough so that it isn't, everything else in the picture is dark! Aaargh.

Josh,

When I said "low-end monitor" I was talking about an NTSC monitor. Not all are classified as NTSC monitors--a standard in the industry. Hence the cost. You can pay in the $1000s! Someone mentioned JVC as an alternative.

Don't feel retarded. The only dumb questions are those that never get asked.

I think you said eariler that your camera's IRE was set for 70--that's for flesh tones (white folks). The top end for "pure white" in the broadcast world (NTSC) is an IRE of 100. Black is, if I remember correctly, 7 or 7.5. In Japan, black is "0" -- duh! Leave it to the American's to muck things up! If there are no "people" in your shot, you must use a different IRE setting to determine your proper exposure, especially when it comes to the hightlights.

Think of it as a scale. Pure black--"7.5"--is at the bottom (or left, delending how your look at things), and pure white--"100"--is at the top, or on the far right of the scale. Anything beyond those numbers on the scale does not broadcast properly (look good).

When I said to expose for the highlight, you set the exposure so as to make certain any details in the "highlight" (brightest) area are visible in the final image. I saw a beautiful documentary about Yellowstone National Park. When shooting the geysers, the videographer made certain that the detail in the "white" of the geyser retained it's detail. That way it looked like water (although it was white), there were details and texture to be seen (snow is another example--snow, white as it is, has texture!). Many of the shadows, in and under the trees, for example, fell into black. That was far more acceptable, because that was NOT our point of interest. It was the white, gushing water of the geysers. Had he exposed for the shadows, the geysers would have been flat, bright-white shapes. Very boring to look at!

Take your camera outside and find something that is white and has details or texture, like a clapboard house. Adjust your IRE so the zebra pattern is set for 100. Focusing on the white subject, adjust your exposure so the zebra patter is either just one click away from disappearing or has just disappeared. Shoot some tape. Now adjust the exposure so you have a hint of detail in the shadow areas. Shoot some more tape. Take the shots home and compare them. Tell me which one you prefer.

For more info go to: http://www.greatdv.com/cameras/Zebra.htm

Josh,

Here's a recent thread you might be interested http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2269 It covers black level, IRE, set-up and such very thoroughly. For the complete treatment on DV try http://www.adamwilt.com/DV.html spend a few hours reading and post back with questions and comments. It will help.

Jeff

Ok . . .I was going to ask about that: setting the IRE on the zebra levels. It's set to 90 when the XL1s is new, I believe. So it should be 100 (with people in the shot)?

How is it different when there are no people in the shot? I figure white is white, right? If something's too bright, it's too bright.

Just read the above recommended post. It just made my brain hurt. Guess it's off to futz with the camera.

I'm going to keep this in small chunks so we can go step by step. The XL1 Zebra pattern is fixed and can not be adjusted. It is set at 95 IRE. The XL1s has a user adjustable Zebra pattern. It is adjustable from 80 IRE to 100 IRE in 5 IRE increments. The Zebra pattern does not directly influence or adjust the cameras exposure. It mearly displays in the viewfinder the part of the scene that exceedes the preset Zebra pattern value.

Contrast is the measure of difference between the lightest and darkest values appearing in an image. High contrast images contain mainly dark values and white values with few steps or middle tones in the image. Video produces an image with more contrast (fewer middle tones) than film. It has fewer steps or tones between black with no detail and white with not detail. DV in its pure form (before going into a NLE) measures this from 0 IRE (black) and 100 IRE (white). In North America analog video (not DV) has it's black level raised to 7.5 IRE. This is referred to as setup (or pedistal). Setup is added by some decks and NLEs but we'll discuss that latter. In PAL and the rest of the world black is 0 IRE. Our early NTSC (analog) broadcast system required this bump to 7.5 because it needed a saftey margin to allow for poorly adjusted TV sets.

You really need to understand this little bit of basics before we move on. Questions?

Jeff