Finally got an HD CRT

Michael Maier · September 25th, 2005, 02:52 PM

I wonder what would be best though. The 2405 is a PC monitor and the W1900 is a TV with HD resolution.

I also heard one of the Envision models give very good results and they are very affordable.

About the Dell, if Lucas really used them, so I think they are up to the task.

Nate Weaver · September 25th, 2005, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

About the Dell, if Lucas really used them, so I think they are up to the task.

Lucas is a director, not a director of photography. He's watching performances, not exposure. On a shoot that big, there are multiple monitors scattered about, each one appropriate for the job of the person who's watching it.

I GUARANTEE there was a CRT on set for the D.P. to look at.

Also, I have a Dell 2405 at the office. It's about the same as the cinema display I have, of course, but bigger. Also, the component input is sketchy and introduce moving magenta and green noise into the image very badly. A known defect I could get a replacement for, but I read a horror story of another 2405 user trying to get a replacement from Dell...it took him weeks.

Paul Mogg · September 25th, 2005, 03:27 PM

Trying to judge exposure by what appears on a reference monitor during a shoot is a very bad idea IMHO. You need to have a Waveform monitor hooked up to the camera at all times for HD, and if you can't afford that, use your Zebras. These tools, if used correctly, do not lie. The reference monitor will lie for a multitude of reasons, it could be set up incorrectly (especially prevelant with CRT's) or the ambient light shining on it may distort your impressions, making it an unreliable tool for exposure decisions.
There are some small HD LCD monitors that have built-in Waveform monitors that you can rent for the day, (for example the Panasonic BT-LH900 8.4" monitor) and it's worth every penny to have that up on the screen at all times. The Waveform monitor will save your ass.

Nate Weaver · September 25th, 2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Mogg

Trying to judge exposure by what appears on a reference monitor during a shoot is a very bad idea IMHO.

I use zebras too. But the LCD on the camera is so bad for brightness and contrast that just using zebras is lacking too. Having a CRT and a waveform (aka a "real" HD engineering station) is obviously best.

Is everybody here really coming down on CRTs? Every HD shoot I've either been on or witnessed has had one on set. While going back and forth with posts on this thread today, I've been tweaking the camera live on my monitor, and FINALLY getting some images I'm really stoked on...something that wasn't working when using an NTSC monitor to play with settings.

I had one when I shot F700 for a month, and I can barely imagine NOT having it for a real shoot with real money.

Michael Maier · September 25th, 2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

Why is everybody coming down on using a CRTs? Every HD shoot I've either been on or witnessed has had one on set.

Maybe times are just changing Nate. If a LCD is sharp enough, which they are, it's good for focus. If there are people doing color correction on Apple Cine displays, the LCDs are good enough to judge color on set. if they are good enough to judge color and are sharp enough, you should be able to judge exposure with them plus your zebras. Just all suppositions, based on what has been said.

Paul Mogg · September 25th, 2005, 03:48 PM

If people are interested in the issue of CRT versus LCD for HD they might want to read these articles, which are quite interesting:

http://www.uemedia.net/cgi-bin/artma...8033&printer=1

http://www.ecinemasys.com/products/e...lcd_vs_crt.htm

A quote from the second article.....

"For HD camera operators this signals also points out a serious problem with CRT's: You cannot use them for cricital focus, no matter how large and expensive they might be. They simply cannot display a true HD signal."

...I'm not saying I agree with everything in these articles but they are informative reading.

Nate Weaver · September 25th, 2005, 04:23 PM

Something the discussion is ignoring is using LUTs for LCDs...the idea of modifying the signal to the LCD so it will display more accurately.

I think it's clear this will be the future. Sony is doing it with their Lume series, etc etc. If a company like eCinema Systems or Sony is claiming superiority with their system, rest assured their claims depend on some sort of color management system. You don't get this plugging your Z1 into the back of a Dell via component!

I think something else the discussion is ignoring is there is something intangible about viewing on a CRT as opposed to a LCD. I (and you!) have an entire lifetime of experience to draw from when it comes to them. If I color correct on a professional level CRT, then I know what it will look like on Grandma's tv set in Albuquerque. Not because my monitor is so amazingly accurate, but more because it's a known quantity. I already know my project won't look anything like it does on my monitor, but I can make reasonably accurate guesses about how it will look.

So far trying to do the same on a LCD has been a let down. The blacks on my Apple LCD are different than the blacks on my Dell at work; there's no way to calibrate either without going into ICC profiles. And so on and so forth. I can make either look amazing through the blue gel, but start looking at images and there's still differences...I could never get a handle on what I really had on tape. Then there's the quality issue of the Dell's component inputs.

Believe me, I was sorting my options too, convinced I was going to have to go with an LCD. I didn't want one, but I'm in the same boat as most of you funds-wise (i.e. can't afford a $3000 monitor). There's a lot of used HD monitors out there if you know where to look. Sony's been making them in quantity for 15 years...the older ones are out there. Mine was made in 1999, but brand new...at a stellar price.

(p.s. I fudged what I paid for mine in my post because I didn't want the guy to get badgered on the one he's trying to sell for $1300. I got it for $900, only a tiny bit more than a Dell)

Stephen L. Noe · September 25th, 2005, 04:46 PM

Sort of the same thing here Nate. I got used to color correcting HD on a blue balanced Sony HS94P Xbrite. This is the same stock monitor for Sony's Xpri system (I later found out). I've never seen an LCD more closly emulate the phosphors of a CRT. It really doesn't matter what you pick as long as you get used to how the display handles colors and what to expect. I always validate against the waveform and vector.

When I first started using the Sony HS94P Xbrite a year ago, I'd take projects burned to DVD to places like Circuit City or Bust Buy which had alot of TV's and checked my results. The Circuit City was very nice in that they let me put finished content on their DVD player that pumped signal out to 40 or 50 TV's at once. Anyway, I found that I could trust my readings and what I was seeing on the Sony.

So what you write, I've found to be true. Once you know your monitor then CC becomes easier and you can trust what you see.

Nate Weaver · September 25th, 2005, 04:55 PM

Yes, yes! An accurate monitor isn't the most important part. A monitor you know, and know what it does to your signal IS.

So far I haven't figured out just what it is that LCDs are doing to signals I know and love (old videos I've made and seen on a zillion different displays). Maybe that's just what I'm going to have to do eventually as LCDs come into play more...view old material that I KNOW what looks like on LCDs.

I suppose somebody just getting into this (CC work, shooting) could start fresh with LCDs, and get to know and love them just like I know, love, and trust certain types of CRTs.

Khoi Pham · September 26th, 2005, 08:06 AM

"Which Sony, Khoi?"

Nate, it's a pvm14l4, it is SD but since I deliver my final product on SD widescreen dvd, I use it to check for color and interlace artifacts that I might have missed since I'm editing in HD with the Dell, but now I pretty much knows the Dell so I don't hardly turn it on anymore, I'm using Edius NX so I can easily switch from HD project to SD with a mouse click.

Jiri Bakala · September 26th, 2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

If I color correct on a professional level CRT, then I know what it will look like on Grandma's tv set in Albuquerque.

Well, very true. However, the world is moving to LCDs and eventually even that grandma will have one. Lots of people are buying them and we may as well start seeing what they will see on their incorrecly set up LCDs. Speaking of incorrectly set up, I am yet to see a TV in an average house that's set up properly...:-) Or a movie projector at a multiplex...

Steve Connor · September 26th, 2005, 04:16 PM

We have 3 monitors in our HD suite, JVC DTV 19" HD CRT, Apple Cinema display with HD Link and Panasonic 42" HD Plasma. First display I ALWAYS look at is the JVC, it certainly shows focus issues where sometimes the Apple Display does not.

It's scary how, even when set up correctly, how different pictures look on the three types of monitor!

Nate Weaver · September 26th, 2005, 05:23 PM

I'd love the JVC 1910. That seems to be the one HD CRT that size that's not over $5k.

And yes, it IS scary how you can think something is close to accurate, and then get it next to something else and find out it's not.

Steve Mullen · September 26th, 2005, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

I use zebras too. But the LCD on the camera is so bad for brightness and contrast that just using zebras is lacking too. Having a CRT and a waveform (aka a "real" HD engineering station) is obviously best.

When I first recorded at +18dB with the lens cap-on with an HD100 -- looking at the LCD there was a real difference between the left and right sides -- the "split-screen problem." Casually, I also noted the LCD was not calibrated -- Black Level was about 2 -stops to high.

When I watched the test on calibrated monitors -- the split-screen effect was gone! Unfortunately, it is almost always the case that camcorders' LCDs do not have complete calibration adjustments. So they are useless. Likewise, most color VFs. Thankfully, the HD100 VF has both Black and White Level controls.

Zerbra's are useless in making adjustments that relete to shadow detail. You need a calibrated monitor not affected by ambient light -- the HD100 VF works well -- and, ideally, a WF monitor. (A WFM really need to be built-in.)

Why waste microcode on CineFrame modes -- and not have all the LVD/VF adjustments?

I CAN't double post -- so you all should be aware I'm doing a daily micro-review of the HD100 as I explore the camcorder at:

http://www.gyhduser.com/

In "Day 1" I explain WHY the split-screen problem affects the HD100. Turns-out running a high-res, progressive CCD at 60Hz is a REALLY difficult problem the SMALLER the chip because of heat dissapation limitations. To get speed you need to increase voltage, which increases current, which increases heat. A fascinating story -- one which echos Apple's choice of Intel.

John Mitchell · September 27th, 2005, 08:46 PM

I 100% agree with Nate on the CRT v LCD equation. On CRT's we see true blacks and that is by far the most important factor, we are talking contrast ratios above 20,000:1 on a decent CRT.

BY contrast (ahem excuse the pun) some of the LCD's mentioned in this thread can manage only 350:1 and 700:1. This manifests as burnt out highlights, muddy blacks and a lack of smooth transition between light and dark. However you can check focus and composition on them. It really comes down to whether you intend your final output to be film, in which case I'd go for CRT over LCD every time.

Anyway my $0.02.

September 25th, 2005, 03:27 PM	#18
Paul Mogg Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco CA Posts: 386	Trying to judge exposure by what appears on a reference monitor during a shoot is a very bad idea IMHO. You need to have a Waveform monitor hooked up to the camera at all times for HD, and if you can't afford that, use your Zebras. These tools, if used correctly, do not lie. The reference monitor will lie for a multitude of reasons, it could be set up incorrectly (especially prevelant with CRT's) or the ambient light shining on it may distort your impressions, making it an unreliable tool for exposure decisions. There are some small HD LCD monitors that have built-in Waveform monitors that you can rent for the day, (for example the Panasonic BT-LH900 8.4" monitor) and it's worth every penny to have that up on the screen at all times. The Waveform monitor will save your ass. __________________ Paul

September 25th, 2005, 03:48 PM	#21
Paul Mogg Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco CA Posts: 386	If people are interested in the issue of CRT versus LCD for HD they might want to read these articles, which are quite interesting: http://www.uemedia.net/cgi-bin/artma...8033&printer=1 http://www.ecinemasys.com/products/e...lcd_vs_crt.htm A quote from the second article..... "For HD camera operators this signals also points out a serious problem with CRT's: You cannot use them for cricital focus, no matter how large and expensive they might be. They simply cannot display a true HD signal." ...I'm not saying I agree with everything in these articles but they are informative reading. __________________ Paul

September 26th, 2005, 08:06 AM	#25
Khoi Pham Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Posts: 747	"Which Sony, Khoi?" Nate, it's a pvm14l4, it is SD but since I deliver my final product on SD widescreen dvd, I use it to check for color and interlace artifacts that I might have missed since I'm editing in HD with the Dell, but now I pretty much knows the Dell so I don't hardly turn it on anymore, I'm using Edius NX so I can easily switch from HD project to SD with a mouse click. __________________ Khoi Pham www.proeditproductions.com

September 25th, 2005, 02:52 PM	#16
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	I wonder what would be best though. The 2405 is a PC monitor and the W1900 is a TV with HD resolution. I also heard one of the Envision models give very good results and they are very affordable. About the Dell, if Lucas really used them, so I think they are up to the task.

September 25th, 2005, 04:23 PM	#22
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	Something the discussion is ignoring is using LUTs for LCDs...the idea of modifying the signal to the LCD so it will display more accurately. I think it's clear this will be the future. Sony is doing it with their Lume series, etc etc. If a company like eCinema Systems or Sony is claiming superiority with their system, rest assured their claims depend on some sort of color management system. You don't get this plugging your Z1 into the back of a Dell via component! I think something else the discussion is ignoring is there is something intangible about viewing on a CRT as opposed to a LCD. I (and you!) have an entire lifetime of experience to draw from when it comes to them. If I color correct on a professional level CRT, then I know what it will look like on Grandma's tv set in Albuquerque. Not because my monitor is so amazingly accurate, but more because it's a known quantity. I already know my project won't look anything like it does on my monitor, but I can make reasonably accurate guesses about how it will look. So far trying to do the same on a LCD has been a let down. The blacks on my Apple LCD are different than the blacks on my Dell at work; there's no way to calibrate either without going into ICC profiles. And so on and so forth. I can make either look amazing through the blue gel, but start looking at images and there's still differences...I could never get a handle on what I really had on tape. Then there's the quality issue of the Dell's component inputs. Believe me, I was sorting my options too, convinced I was going to have to go with an LCD. I didn't want one, but I'm in the same boat as most of you funds-wise (i.e. can't afford a $3000 monitor). There's a lot of used HD monitors out there if you know where to look. Sony's been making them in quantity for 15 years...the older ones are out there. Mine was made in 1999, but brand new...at a stellar price. (p.s. I fudged what I paid for mine in my post because I didn't want the guy to get badgered on the one he's trying to sell for $1300. I got it for $900, only a tiny bit more than a Dell)

September 25th, 2005, 04:46 PM	#23
Stephen L. Noe Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,214	Sort of the same thing here Nate. I got used to color correcting HD on a blue balanced Sony HS94P Xbrite. This is the same stock monitor for Sony's Xpri system (I later found out). I've never seen an LCD more closly emulate the phosphors of a CRT. It really doesn't matter what you pick as long as you get used to how the display handles colors and what to expect. I always validate against the waveform and vector. When I first started using the Sony HS94P Xbrite a year ago, I'd take projects burned to DVD to places like Circuit City or Bust Buy which had alot of TV's and checked my results. The Circuit City was very nice in that they let me put finished content on their DVD player that pumped signal out to 40 or 50 TV's at once. Anyway, I found that I could trust my readings and what I was seeing on the Sony. So what you write, I've found to be true. Once you know your monitor then CC becomes easier and you can trust what you see.

September 25th, 2005, 04:55 PM	#24
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	Yes, yes! An accurate monitor isn't the most important part. A monitor you know, and know what it does to your signal IS. So far I haven't figured out just what it is that LCDs are doing to signals I know and love (old videos I've made and seen on a zillion different displays). Maybe that's just what I'm going to have to do eventually as LCDs come into play more...view old material that I KNOW what looks like on LCDs. I suppose somebody just getting into this (CC work, shooting) could start fresh with LCDs, and get to know and love them just like I know, love, and trust certain types of CRTs.

September 26th, 2005, 04:16 PM	#27
Steve Connor Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: UK Posts: 383	We have 3 monitors in our HD suite, JVC DTV 19" HD CRT, Apple Cinema display with HD Link and Panasonic 42" HD Plasma. First display I ALWAYS look at is the JVC, it certainly shows focus issues where sometimes the Apple Display does not. It's scary how, even when set up correctly, how different pictures look on the three types of monitor!

September 26th, 2005, 05:23 PM	#28
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	I'd love the JVC 1910. That seems to be the one HD CRT that size that's not over $5k. And yes, it IS scary how you can think something is close to accurate, and then get it next to something else and find out it's not.

September 27th, 2005, 08:46 PM	#30
John Mitchell Contributor Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 873	I 100% agree with Nate on the CRT v LCD equation. On CRT's we see true blacks and that is by far the most important factor, we are talking contrast ratios above 20,000:1 on a decent CRT. BY contrast (ahem excuse the pun) some of the LCD's mentioned in this thread can manage only 350:1 and 700:1. This manifests as burnt out highlights, muddy blacks and a lack of smooth transition between light and dark. However you can check focus and composition on them. It really comes down to whether you intend your final output to be film, in which case I'd go for CRT over LCD every time. Anyway my $0.02.