Which monitor profile at DVinfo.net

Bob Kerner · February 23rd, 2008, 02:33 PM

I need some advice as to which Apple Cinema Display monitor profile to use while I figure out whether to buy a broadcast monitor or Matrox box.

The three options that "seem" logical to me are:
Apple RGB
Cinema HD
NTSC (1953)

The issue I am having is related to gamma, I think, not so much color distortion. Colors (black in particular) are much more saturated on final output to DVD than they appear on the editing ACD. Maybe I've been using the wrong monitor profile to begin with. As I understand it, a Spyder won't help in the video arena.

I'm hoping there's a neophyte mistake I'm overlooking, like a way to monitor and adjust the overall saturation/gamma level in FCS before I burn the disc.

Thanks
Bob

Mike Barber · February 23rd, 2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Kerner

I need some advice as to which Apple Cinema Display monitor profile to use while I figure out whether to buy a broadcast monitor or Matrox box.

The three options that "seem" logical to me are:
Apple RGB
Cinema HD
NTSC (1953)

The issue I am having is related to gamma, I think, not so much color distortion. Colors (black in particular) are much more saturated on final output to DVD than they appear on the editing ACD. Maybe I've been using the wrong monitor profile to begin with. As I understand it, a Spyder won't help in the video arena.

I'm hoping there's a neophyte mistake I'm overlooking, like a way to monitor and adjust the overall saturation/gamma level in FCS before I burn the disc.

Thanks
Bob

AFAIK, computer monitors can't be calibrated to NTSC standards as broadcast monitors are. For one thing, they don't handle the interlacing the way a broadcast monitor (or a TV) does.

When I brought up the idea of using the Matrox, someone suggested i check out their user forums for the issues people have been having with them.

Broadcast monitors are expensive pieces of calibrated technology. You won't get an equivalent from a computer monitor.

Bob Kerner · February 24th, 2008, 10:35 AM

Thanks Mike. Yes, that's what I thought but NTSC is listed in the monitor profiles window. Maybe it's just there to make us feel good.

I've not been to the Matrox forum but I've seen a lot of referrences in others about problems and that's why I'm hesitant to invest in a bridge device when what I may really need is a stand-alone monitor.

I just can't help but wonder if my native ACD profile is off a little and that is contributing to the problem.

Robert Lane · February 24th, 2008, 10:48 AM

Bob,

The NTSC 1953 preset in the Color Profiles will closely replicate the color-space of an NTSC signal on your ACD; no computer monitor regardless how it's being fed can accurately replicate how a tube-type TV displays it's information, which is why if your content is destined for either broadcast or DVD it's best to have a tube-type monitor as your main *external* monitor. (see the post referenced below)

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.ph...917#post829917

There are two things to consider about getting a WYSIWYG output from FCP to DVD:

If your ACD is old - more than 3 years of constant service - then it will not properly display any colors correctly. Like everything else, the color accuracy of LCD displays degrade slowly over time to the point that they will eventually have a fixed and un-correctable color shift, most going either blue-ish green or yellow-ish in tint. There's only one way to fix it and that's with a fresh monitor, either ACD, Dell (same monitor components for far less in cost) or the Sony pro-models.

The other thing to keep in mind is to use the "match FCP output" if you view your final content in the native Quicktime player outside FCP; see screenshot for the option I'm referring to.

If you use either a KONA or BlackMagic card to view your content externally to either a standard TV set (with component input) or a broadcast monitor (that's been properly calibrated) then using the NTSC 1953 preset for your ACD or main LCD monitor then what you see in the viewer/canvas will very closely match what you see on the external.

One last thing: Monitor calibrators such as Spyder are only for printed graphics, so that your monitor can closely match what your in-house printer is outputting; they are completely useless for film/video editing. That's why the large post-houses and production facilities will always watch their final content on various TV's and monitors, to see how their color-correction schemes work in real-world output. There's no way to perfectly color-match your final video to every monitor the end user will use, because you can't control what it is or even if *their* TV-set or monitor is itself properly setup.

Bob Kerner · February 24th, 2008, 12:16 PM

Thank you Robert. Are there any HD monitors in the sub $2k range that would fit tht bill? I think I've seen reference to Sony broadcast LCDs in that price range. On the other hand, what's out there in CRTs in that range...the only ones I've seen are 9 inchers and that seems a tad small for viewing.

Robert Lane · February 24th, 2008, 04:26 PM

You don't want or need an HD monitor, your monitor needs to replicate the exact environment that your viewing audience is seeing your content on. Read the post I copied in my reply earlier and look at what Darrin is doing - that's exactly the path you should be on.

Bob Kerner · February 24th, 2008, 08:28 PM

Sorry about that. I skipped the second post on the thread which answers everything. But to be sure I got it.....for editing for DVD I'd need:

BM or Kona card to downconvert
Monitor such as that mentioned in the thread. No need (yet) for a HD monitor as most people aren't viewing content on HD sets.

I think I've been obsessing over the HD part when in reality none of the devices I show my content on at work are HD to begin with!!

Thanks again,
Bob

Steve Oakley · February 25th, 2008, 02:42 AM

[QUOTE=Robert Lane;831999]Bob,

The NTSC 1953 preset in the Color Profiles will closely replicate the color-space of an NTSC signal on your ACD; no computer monitor regardless how it's being fed can accurately replicate how a tube-type TV displays it's information, which is why if your content is destined for either broadcast or DVD it's best to have a tube-type monitor as your main *external* monitor. (see the post referenced below)

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.ph...917#post829917

uh.... sorry but there are number of LCD's that can equal or _exceed_ NTSC color gamut. some are rather pricey ones that have been around for a while, but newer models have just hit the market with 3000:1 contrast ratios and exceed NTSC color spec. the new OLED models will also exceed NTSC color gamut, perhaps venturing into 10bit color space.

interlace is an entirely seperate issue where generally speaking, a real CRT is better.

in regards to MXO, it has a color managed LUT per monitor. It knows several common monitors, and applied the appropriate LUT. directly comparing to a CRT in the same room its dead on, or at worst, a few percent out. Nothing saying that the CRT isn't out of perfect adjustment. the problem with forums is, if 10,000 people have a good experience, 2 won't, will make a big stink like its the end of the world, and then in the end, 90% of the time the problem is between the keyboard and the seat.

Years ago Sony sold two levels of monitors the PVM "everyman's" series, and the BVM "broadcast" series at 10X the price. was there a difference ? too small to count in the real world. just like 6500K is the "broadcast" standard for looking at color. well its irrelevenat because all consumers and end viewers have monitors at around 9300K. even in TV stations, they have their monitors at 9300K. yes, there are some holdouts who stay at 6500K, but since no one else is, who is right ? a standard only counts if everyone uses it.

Robert Lane · February 25th, 2008, 07:28 AM

[QUOTE=Steve Oakley;832408]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

uh.... sorry but there are number of LCD's that can equal or _exceed_ NTSC color gamut. some are rather pricey ones that have been around for a while, but newer models have just hit the market with 3000:1 contrast ratios and exceed NTSC color spec. the new OLED models will also exceed NTSC color gamut, perhaps venturing into 10bit color space..

You're missing the point; the concept is that you want to be able to see your content in the same manner as your final output - the way your audience will be viewing it. So if your external monitor *exceeds* the NTSC color-space then you're not seeing things as the audience will, are you? Are home audiences going to be watching DVD's on an ultra-expensive LCD or OLED monitor? No, 85% or more are watching on tube-type TV's, so having an external that is capable of "beyond NTSC gamut" is overkill and, ultimately an inaccurate monitoring method - based on the final output.

If however Bob were working with film projects on a regular basis, then yes, the high-end monitors would be appropriate and necessary for proper color correction.

Steve Oakley · February 25th, 2008, 08:57 AM

one LCD in particular is a 24" for $700 so I'd hardly call the expensive. Even the older models could be had for under $3k. sure a e-cinema was like $20k, but I'm not talking about one of those - and lots of folks are saying that panasonic LCD's for 1/7th the price are just as good. priced a sony PVM 20" ? about $2400 if you can find one. So LCD's with a color gamut covering NTSC are in the same price range as CRT's.

as far as a LCD exceeding NTSC color gamut, that doesn't mean the picture is different. it just means the display can cover NTSC with ease. thats where LUTs come into play and manage the color. Either built into the display, or into the device driving the display.With the correct use of color management these new LCD's will provide accurate color and gamma compared to a CRT.

I mean by the same argument then, you should use a consumer CRT instead of a pro grade one because the end user is seeing your project on a consumer set. A Pro grade CRT will show you more colors, be more accurate... ect then a consumer set - except - consumer CRT's have gotten really good over the last few years, very consistent. a consumer CRT of recent purchase may well look better then a 10 year old pro CRT. its all relative. In fact if anything, LCD's between units are FAR more color consistent then CRT's. Ever try to color match a wall of CRT's ? and them have them look the same even a week later ? they drift. CRT's are not as color consistent as people would like to think, even really expensive ones.they require constant checking and adjustment.

HD sets have been selling very well for the last year and 1/2. its finally having large acceptance. go into your local best buy on a weekend and watch how many sets are going out the door, especially when they have a "sale". in fact, CRT's do serve some purpose for checking interlace, but after that are not longer as relevant as they once where when working with proper color management. Since CRT manufacture is on the rapid decline, its only a matter of a few years before none will be made.

February 23rd, 2008, 02:33 PM	#1
Bob Kerner Major Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: New York Posts: 388	Which monitor profile I need some advice as to which Apple Cinema Display monitor profile to use while I figure out whether to buy a broadcast monitor or Matrox box. The three options that "seem" logical to me are: Apple RGB Cinema HD NTSC (1953) The issue I am having is related to gamma, I think, not so much color distortion. Colors (black in particular) are much more saturated on final output to DVD than they appear on the editing ACD. Maybe I've been using the wrong monitor profile to begin with. As I understand it, a Spyder won't help in the video arena. I'm hoping there's a neophyte mistake I'm overlooking, like a way to monitor and adjust the overall saturation/gamma level in FCS before I burn the disc. Thanks Bob

February 24th, 2008, 10:48 AM	#4
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,823 Images: 15	Bob, The NTSC 1953 preset in the Color Profiles will closely replicate the color-space of an NTSC signal on your ACD; no computer monitor regardless how it's being fed can accurately replicate how a tube-type TV displays it's information, which is why if your content is destined for either broadcast or DVD it's best to have a tube-type monitor as your main external monitor. (see the post referenced below) http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.ph...917#post829917 There are two things to consider about getting a WYSIWYG output from FCP to DVD: If your ACD is old - more than 3 years of constant service - then it will not properly display any colors correctly. Like everything else, the color accuracy of LCD displays degrade slowly over time to the point that they will eventually have a fixed and un-correctable color shift, most going either blue-ish green or yellow-ish in tint. There's only one way to fix it and that's with a fresh monitor, either ACD, Dell (same monitor components for far less in cost) or the Sony pro-models. The other thing to keep in mind is to use the "match FCP output" if you view your final content in the native Quicktime player outside FCP; see screenshot for the option I'm referring to. If you use either a KONA or BlackMagic card to view your content externally to either a standard TV set (with component input) or a broadcast monitor (that's been properly calibrated) then using the NTSC 1953 preset for your ACD or main LCD monitor then what you see in the viewer/canvas will very closely match what you see on the external. One last thing: Monitor calibrators such as Spyder are only for printed graphics, so that your monitor can closely match what your in-house printer is outputting; they are completely useless for film/video editing. That's why the large post-houses and production facilities will always watch their final content on various TV's and monitors, to see how their color-correction schemes work in real-world output. There's no way to perfectly color-match your final video to every monitor the end user will use, because you can't control what it is or even if their TV-set or monitor is itself properly setup. Attached Thumbnails Last edited by Robert Lane; February 24th, 2008 at 11:58 AM.

February 25th, 2008, 08:57 AM	#10
Steve Oakley Trustee Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United States Posts: 1,158	one LCD in particular is a 24" for $700 so I'd hardly call the expensive. Even the older models could be had for under $3k. sure a e-cinema was like $20k, but I'm not talking about one of those - and lots of folks are saying that panasonic LCD's for 1/7th the price are just as good. priced a sony PVM 20" ? about $2400 if you can find one. So LCD's with a color gamut covering NTSC are in the same price range as CRT's. as far as a LCD exceeding NTSC color gamut, that doesn't mean the picture is different. it just means the display can cover NTSC with ease. thats where LUTs come into play and manage the color. Either built into the display, or into the device driving the display.With the correct use of color management these new LCD's will provide accurate color and gamma compared to a CRT. I mean by the same argument then, you should use a consumer CRT instead of a pro grade one because the end user is seeing your project on a consumer set. A Pro grade CRT will show you more colors, be more accurate... ect then a consumer set - except - consumer CRT's have gotten really good over the last few years, very consistent. a consumer CRT of recent purchase may well look better then a 10 year old pro CRT. its all relative. In fact if anything, LCD's between units are FAR more color consistent then CRT's. Ever try to color match a wall of CRT's ? and them have them look the same even a week later ? they drift. CRT's are not as color consistent as people would like to think, even really expensive ones.they require constant checking and adjustment. HD sets have been selling very well for the last year and 1/2. its finally having large acceptance. go into your local best buy on a weekend and watch how many sets are going out the door, especially when they have a "sale". in fact, CRT's do serve some purpose for checking interlace, but after that are not longer as relevant as they once where when working with proper color management. Since CRT manufacture is on the rapid decline, its only a matter of a few years before none will be made. Last edited by Steve Oakley; February 25th, 2008 at 01:57 PM.

February 24th, 2008, 10:35 AM	#3
Bob Kerner Major Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: New York Posts: 388	Thanks Mike. Yes, that's what I thought but NTSC is listed in the monitor profiles window. Maybe it's just there to make us feel good. I've not been to the Matrox forum but I've seen a lot of referrences in others about problems and that's why I'm hesitant to invest in a bridge device when what I may really need is a stand-alone monitor. I just can't help but wonder if my native ACD profile is off a little and that is contributing to the problem.

February 24th, 2008, 12:16 PM	#5
Bob Kerner Major Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: New York Posts: 388	Thank you Robert. Are there any HD monitors in the sub $2k range that would fit tht bill? I think I've seen reference to Sony broadcast LCDs in that price range. On the other hand, what's out there in CRTs in that range...the only ones I've seen are 9 inchers and that seems a tad small for viewing.

February 24th, 2008, 04:26 PM	#6
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,823 Images: 15	You don't want or need an HD monitor, your monitor needs to replicate the exact environment that your viewing audience is seeing your content on. Read the post I copied in my reply earlier and look at what Darrin is doing - that's exactly the path you should be on.

February 24th, 2008, 08:28 PM	#7
Bob Kerner Major Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: New York Posts: 388	Sorry about that. I skipped the second post on the thread which answers everything. But to be sure I got it.....for editing for DVD I'd need: BM or Kona card to downconvert Monitor such as that mentioned in the thread. No need (yet) for a HD monitor as most people aren't viewing content on HD sets. I think I've been obsessing over the HD part when in reality none of the devices I show my content on at work are HD to begin with!! Thanks again, Bob

February 25th, 2008, 02:42 AM	#8
Steve Oakley Trustee Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United States Posts: 1,158	[QUOTE=Robert Lane;831999]Bob, The NTSC 1953 preset in the Color Profiles will closely replicate the color-space of an NTSC signal on your ACD; no computer monitor regardless how it's being fed can accurately replicate how a tube-type TV displays it's information, which is why if your content is destined for either broadcast or DVD it's best to have a tube-type monitor as your main external monitor. (see the post referenced below) http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.ph...917#post829917 uh.... sorry but there are number of LCD's that can equal or _exceed_ NTSC color gamut. some are rather pricey ones that have been around for a while, but newer models have just hit the market with 3000:1 contrast ratios and exceed NTSC color spec. the new OLED models will also exceed NTSC color gamut, perhaps venturing into 10bit color space. interlace is an entirely seperate issue where generally speaking, a real CRT is better. in regards to MXO, it has a color managed LUT per monitor. It knows several common monitors, and applied the appropriate LUT. directly comparing to a CRT in the same room its dead on, or at worst, a few percent out. Nothing saying that the CRT isn't out of perfect adjustment. the problem with forums is, if 10,000 people have a good experience, 2 won't, will make a big stink like its the end of the world, and then in the end, 90% of the time the problem is between the keyboard and the seat. Years ago Sony sold two levels of monitors the PVM "everyman's" series, and the BVM "broadcast" series at 10X the price. was there a difference ? too small to count in the real world. just like 6500K is the "broadcast" standard for looking at color. well its irrelevenat because all consumers and end viewers have monitors at around 9300K. even in TV stations, they have their monitors at 9300K. yes, there are some holdouts who stay at 6500K, but since no one else is, who is right ? a standard only counts if everyone uses it.