I need to buy a really good Widescreen HD compatible monitor for colour matching and output from our edit PC. Size is not essential, but anything above 20' would be fine. I have a budget that stretches up to £2000 (US$4000) if necessary. Ideally I would prefer to keep it around £1000 and spend the extra money elsewhere.

Finally I still feel that CRT's provide the best option re colour matching (i.e. multi camera footage), however I haven't followed the latest developments in monitors and I'm open to being convinced that LCD's are just as good.

Depending on your editing software, you can use a typical computer monitor as a semi-accurate monitor to display your footage. Of course a broadcast monitor can have advantages (response time, good de-interlacing, better black levels, etc.), though broadcast monitors vary in quality (i.e. the Sony Luma series IMO is now seriously outclassed by competitor's products).

For LCD broadcast monitors, I wouldn't bother with anything that doesn't have at least 1920x1080 resolution. Without it, you get lower resolution and scaling artifacts.

In terms of color response, a monitor implementing a 3-D LUT should look pretty much like a CRT. The ~$25k Sony BVM-L LCDs do this; Sony had a color matching demo at NAB and the LCD looks the same on most material. In dark scenes, the CRT has better black level. On bright scenes, I believe CRTs suffer from flaring (which lowers saturation and raises black level); hence why they look the same on normal scenes. The equivalent eCinemasys panel has very nice black levels, though I didn't compare it directly to the Sony panel.

For affordable 1920x1080 monitors, companies like LCD, eCinemasys, Marshall are making em.
JVC ($3400USD):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/469731-REG/JVC_DTV24L1U_DTV24L1U_24_Multi_Format.html

I haven't compared them directly. My guess is that the FX-series eCinemasys monitors are the best of the bunch.

2- In terms of LCD versus CRT:
--LCDs have gotten better black levels. The very best ones are better than CRT I believe.
--Color response is (more or less) there on better models. Things might change since all the new TVs sold are predominantly LCD. Standards should change to reflect that. (*The Sony Luma series definitely do not match CRT.) The future for HD will be LCD so it would likely be prudent to get a LCD.
--Response time is better with LED backlighting + black frame insertion
--Price is getting better and better. 1920x1080 monitors are coming down in price.
--LCDs will always need to de-interlace the signal. De-interlacing quality will vary and introduces a signal delay.
--LCDs have better resolution
--LCDs are getting bigger in size... eCinemasys is showing 40" models. The biggest broadcast-grade CRT is 32" (and disappearing).

Thanks for the repsonse. To be honest up until now I've been considering this option.

http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/publi...jvc_dt-v1710cg

Anyone have any thoughts?

For matching up cameras, you probably want a monitor that shows you everything. A 1920x1080 LCD might be a better idea since it is sharper (so you can see if the camera's apparent sharpnesses are wildly off). Color-wise, you need the monitor not to do wacky things... which the eCinemasys looks like it does (I didn't look at the JVC stuff though).

2- IMO, most HDTV sets will be LCD and this is likely going to be the future (esp. with LED backlit LCDs... they look good). CRT is a dying technology (though a lot of people watching SD will still be on CRTs).

Eizo monitors get good press at a reasonable price, JVC do a decent 24" field monitor with HD SDI and audio level monitoring but not so hot in the calibration department. Cinetal have some serious offerings but very expensive and if the monitor is going to be hooked up to a PC I don't really understand why the 3D LUT mapping couldn't be done in the PC rather than expensive hardware added onto their Samsung panels.

By (re)building your LCD I believe you can do things like black frame insertion, where the LED backlight can be flashed on and off to improve response time. When the pixels are transitioning, you turn the LED backlight off. Whereas a typical PC monitor may have the LEDs on all the time to improve brightness (which is helpful in an office environment).

There's probably other changes you can make to the panel to make it better... i.e. the eCinemasys stuff put in denser backlighting to improve uniformity, it monitors itself for stable calibration, they're doing something to really improve the black levels, etc.

2- I believe Cinetal is also making a product to help calibrate typical PC monitors or LCD TVs.

By (re)building your LCD I believe you can do things like black frame insertion, where the LED backlight can be flashed on and off to improve response time. When the pixels are transitioning, you turn the LED backlight off. Whereas a typical PC monitor may have the LEDs on all the time to improve brightness (which is helpful in an office environment).

There's probably other changes you can make to the panel to make it better... i.e. the eCinemasys stuff put in denser backlighting to improve uniformity, it monitors itself for stable calibration, they're doing something to really improve the black levels, etc.

2- I believe Cinetal is also making a product to help calibrate typical PC monitors or LCD TVs.

I think the LED backlighting can do more than be just turned on and off. They control how bright each LED is, so for example in the darker parts of the frame the LEDs lighting that part of the frame are turned down or off. One side effect of this seems on the one such monitor I've looked at is the image looks almost 3D.

Cinetal run Iridas OnSet in their monitors or in a box you use to feed your own monitor. I can see the usefulness of this literally on a set. Optional extras allow you to calibrate say a monitor and a projector so they match, I can see the usefulness of this in a grading suite although all those options push the price up dramatically. What I still can't figure out is the advantage of bolting their expensive hardware onto a monitor compared to using the same monitor with 3rd party calibration tools that use the CPU that's feeding the monitor. Perhaps offloading the processing from the host CPU to the monitor isn't such a bad thing, just that the $10K cost added to the monitor would buy a lot of extra host CPU power.