SDI-equipped HD field monitors for XDCAM HD? at DVinfo.net

John Terendy · December 19th, 2007, 01:59 AM

Has anyone used any of the Sony LMD series LCD monitors? I can't find any
feedback or reviews on these.

Uli Mors · December 19th, 2007, 07:17 AM

I only had short experience with the medical version (identical but waterproof etc) of it.

So far - I love it! Beneath its multiple options of input it gave a very great picture coming from an XDCAM HD player.

See the pic :

www.media-in-work.de/kunden/opel/vegasnle.jpg

ULi

Glenn Chan · December 20th, 2007, 03:37 PM

1- Don't bother with anything that doesn't do at least 1920x1080/1200 pixels. If the monitor doesn't have that, you'll have lower than full HD resolution and scaling artifacts (aliasing, ringing, and/or even lower resolution).

For critical quality control work, you want to see full resolution and you don't want to see scaling artifacts that are being introduced by the monitor.

*It's only recently that you have lots of good choices for 1920x1200 monitors. The new models tend to be much better than old models. The earliest Luma monitors had some problems (burn in, bad colors). The burn-in is laughable and pretty much not a problem in current LCDs (LCD burn-in goes away though, unlike plasma and CRT). But I'm talking about a really early Luma model.

1b- Only getting 1920x1200 pixel monitors pretty much rules out all but a few Luma models.

1c- The only exception to this is if you need a field monitor, and there you have to suffer some compromises if you want something small.

2- I haven't seen the latest Luma models with 1920x1200 pixels so I can't say how good they are.

Kaku Ito · January 5th, 2008, 08:38 AM

If you are editing HDCAM, HDV, DVCPRO HD then full pixel won't be as important because all of them are not full pixel format.
They are either 1440 x 1080 or 1280 x 1080.

Unless you are working on native 1920 x 1080 files like something generated by computer graphics, current HD video format is not full pixel.

My concern for HD monitors would be view angle and the response time. I tested JVC's full pixel LCD HD monitor but it suffers narrow view angle (it changes contrast even you are bit off) and not that fast response time. Comparing to that I would be more comfortable editing with Panasonic LH1700W.

As far as the old Luma wasn't really impressive but the new ones are whole different animal, so I'm looking into testing some in the near future.

Glenn Chan · January 5th, 2008, 03:02 PM

With the non-full raster/pixel formats you will have scaling artifacts on top of scaling artifacts.

If you want to see the correct aspect ratio, then the image has to be expanded out to 1920x1080 (or otherwise scaled down, which introduces scaling artifacts).
Without a full raster monitor, you'll have scaling artifacts from the monitor scaling the 1920x1080 image to its native resolution. These scaling artifacts can be avoided with a full raster monitor.

2- Scaling artifacts tend to happen when scaling the image. Suppose you took any image into Photoshop and scaled it 2X larger and then 2X smaller. You will get scaling artifacts- the resulting image doesn't look like the original.

The "nearest neighbour" algorithm will avoid this, but it looks terrible (and I'm not aware of any monitors that use it).

Paul Gale · February 29th, 2008, 03:10 AM

I was wondering what field monitors people here use?

I've been thinking about upgrading my old Sony PVM-9042 which is a great monitor for SD (If not a little bulky). I like the look of some of the newer HD LCD monitors (although nowhere near full HD res yet), especially with V-lock battery support.

I still use the Sony with SD out from the camera which is still good for composition, colour etc but crucial detail obviously is not there.

Anyone use an HD field monitor or the LCD type care to share their thoughts?

Paul.

Clive Haycock · February 29th, 2008, 05:20 AM

Paul,

We have been using a Sony LMD-9050 fitted in a Portabrace bag for the last 18 months & have been very happy with it.

Hope that helps

Clive

Paul Gale · February 29th, 2008, 05:26 AM

Thanks Clive.

How have you found that with 16:9 HD? - it looks like a primarily SD 4:3 monitor with HD SDI support???

What kind of use do you get with say a 98w/h battery?

Clive Haycock · February 29th, 2008, 06:31 AM

Paul,
16:9 HD looks fine on it but obviously part of the screen area is wasted in this mode as it is basically a 4:3 monitor as you said. At the time of purchase there wasn't really anything better available & I'm not sure whether there is now but there maybe new products shown at NAB.
With regards to running time I would say between 90-120 mins on a 98watt battery. I have the manual as a PDF if you are interested.

Clive

Paul Gale · February 29th, 2008, 07:29 AM

Thanks - I like the look of the newer Marshall monitors (yet to be released)

Clive Haycock · February 29th, 2008, 09:29 AM

Paul,

Which model of the Marshall ones are you looking at? Most of their field monitors also seem to have a 4:3 screen size switchable to 16:9 apart from the V-R70P which although widescreen native seems fairly low rez.
Another one that maybe worth looking at is the Panasonic BT-LH900AE as this seems to have lots of features including a waveform overlay.

Cheers

Clive

Stewart Menelaws · February 29th, 2008, 10:05 AM

Another happy Sony LMD 9050 monitor user coupled to the F350.

Despite being a small screen it has served us flawlessly in regard to critical focus and lighting checks for Hi Def work on the F350. We use it nearly every place we shoot. Using an IDX7s battery we get about 3 hours or more out of it. We fitted a strap to ours to enable it to be hung up on something, or around the neck. Would also strongly advise a deep hood for the screen as it can be difficult to see the image on the screen in strong light. It is quite heavy, and it is expensive but it is certainly a great little monitor.

We also considered the Marshall HD monitors (a while ago now, so something new could be on the market now) but decided against it in favour of the Sony.

Regards, Stu
www.studioscotland.com

Paul Gale · February 29th, 2008, 11:14 AM

These sun bright ones:

http://www.lcdracks.com/monitors/v-lcd84sb-afhd.html

Or the R901DP ones.

Eelco Romeijn · February 29th, 2008, 12:38 PM

We still use the Sony PVM-9L2 on 2 NP1's in a Portabrace bag. Good for colour and compostion but it has only 250 lines resolution.

With Premiere CS3 came Adobe Onlocation witch makes monitoring on a laptopscreen via firewire possible. Tried that once on a Compaq with 1280x800 screen and it gives a much more detailed image eventhough the firewire output of XDCamHD only supplies SD.

Onlocation has also a waveform/vectorscope on board.

Clive Haycock · February 29th, 2008, 12:39 PM

Paul,

The "sunbright" one looks OK but as far as I can see it's still a 4:3 screen & the resolution is lower than the Sony one & there doesn't seem to be any specs for the R901DP yet.
I'm off to NAB mid April & will have a look to see what else is available & let you know, if you can wait that long.

Cheers

Clive

December 19th, 2007, 01:59 AM	#1
John Terendy Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Chicago U.S.A Posts: 28	Sony LMD-2450 Has anyone used any of the Sony LMD series LCD monitors? I can't find any feedback or reviews on these. Last edited by John Terendy; December 19th, 2007 at 01:59 AM. Reason: typo

February 29th, 2008, 03:10 AM	#6
Paul Gale Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Oxfordshire, UK Posts: 425	SDI-equipped HD field monitors for XDCAM HD? I was wondering what field monitors people here use? I've been thinking about upgrading my old Sony PVM-9042 which is a great monitor for SD (If not a little bulky). I like the look of some of the newer HD LCD monitors (although nowhere near full HD res yet), especially with V-lock battery support. I still use the Sony with SD out from the camera which is still good for composition, colour etc but crucial detail obviously is not there. Anyone use an HD field monitor or the LCD type care to share their thoughts? Paul.

February 29th, 2008, 12:38 PM	#14
Eelco Romeijn Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Rotterdam (Netherlands) Posts: 60	We still use the Sony PVM-9L2 on 2 NP1's in a Portabrace bag. Good for colour and compostion but it has only 250 lines resolution. With Premiere CS3 came Adobe Onlocation witch makes monitoring on a laptopscreen via firewire possible. Tried that once on a Compaq with 1280x800 screen and it gives a much more detailed image eventhough the firewire output of XDCamHD only supplies SD. Onlocation has also a waveform/vectorscope on board. __________________ XDcamHD F330, 2" VF, Fujinon 13x3,3. 550D, MagicLantern, CS5.5 www.picturethis.tv

December 19th, 2007, 07:17 AM	#2
Uli Mors Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 565	I only had short experience with the medical version (identical but waterproof etc) of it. So far - I love it! Beneath its multiple options of input it gave a very great picture coming from an XDCAM HD player. See the pic : www.media-in-work.de/kunden/opel/vegasnle.jpg ULi

December 20th, 2007, 03:37 PM	#3
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	1- Don't bother with anything that doesn't do at least 1920x1080/1200 pixels. If the monitor doesn't have that, you'll have lower than full HD resolution and scaling artifacts (aliasing, ringing, and/or even lower resolution). For critical quality control work, you want to see full resolution and you don't want to see scaling artifacts that are being introduced by the monitor. *It's only recently that you have lots of good choices for 1920x1200 monitors. The new models tend to be much better than old models. The earliest Luma monitors had some problems (burn in, bad colors). The burn-in is laughable and pretty much not a problem in current LCDs (LCD burn-in goes away though, unlike plasma and CRT). But I'm talking about a really early Luma model. 1b- Only getting 1920x1200 pixel monitors pretty much rules out all but a few Luma models. 1c- The only exception to this is if you need a field monitor, and there you have to suffer some compromises if you want something small. 2- I haven't seen the latest Luma models with 1920x1200 pixels so I can't say how good they are.

January 5th, 2008, 08:38 AM	#4
Kaku Ito Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Posts: 1,382	If you are editing HDCAM, HDV, DVCPRO HD then full pixel won't be as important because all of them are not full pixel format. They are either 1440 x 1080 or 1280 x 1080. Unless you are working on native 1920 x 1080 files like something generated by computer graphics, current HD video format is not full pixel. My concern for HD monitors would be view angle and the response time. I tested JVC's full pixel LCD HD monitor but it suffers narrow view angle (it changes contrast even you are bit off) and not that fast response time. Comparing to that I would be more comfortable editing with Panasonic LH1700W. As far as the old Luma wasn't really impressive but the new ones are whole different animal, so I'm looking into testing some in the near future.

January 5th, 2008, 03:02 PM	#5
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	With the non-full raster/pixel formats you will have scaling artifacts on top of scaling artifacts. If you want to see the correct aspect ratio, then the image has to be expanded out to 1920x1080 (or otherwise scaled down, which introduces scaling artifacts). Without a full raster monitor, you'll have scaling artifacts from the monitor scaling the 1920x1080 image to its native resolution. These scaling artifacts can be avoided with a full raster monitor. 2- Scaling artifacts tend to happen when scaling the image. Suppose you took any image into Photoshop and scaled it 2X larger and then 2X smaller. You will get scaling artifacts- the resulting image doesn't look like the original. The "nearest neighbour" algorithm will avoid this, but it looks terrible (and I'm not aware of any monitors that use it).

February 29th, 2008, 05:20 AM	#7
Clive Haycock New Boot Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Caernarfon, North Wales Posts: 7	Paul, We have been using a Sony LMD-9050 fitted in a Portabrace bag for the last 18 months & have been very happy with it. Hope that helps Clive

February 29th, 2008, 05:26 AM	#8
Paul Gale Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Oxfordshire, UK Posts: 425	Thanks Clive. How have you found that with 16:9 HD? - it looks like a primarily SD 4:3 monitor with HD SDI support??? What kind of use do you get with say a 98w/h battery?

February 29th, 2008, 06:31 AM	#9
Clive Haycock New Boot Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Caernarfon, North Wales Posts: 7	Paul, 16:9 HD looks fine on it but obviously part of the screen area is wasted in this mode as it is basically a 4:3 monitor as you said. At the time of purchase there wasn't really anything better available & I'm not sure whether there is now but there maybe new products shown at NAB. With regards to running time I would say between 90-120 mins on a 98watt battery. I have the manual as a PDF if you are interested. Clive

February 29th, 2008, 07:29 AM	#10
Paul Gale Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Oxfordshire, UK Posts: 425	Thanks - I like the look of the newer Marshall monitors (yet to be released)

February 29th, 2008, 09:29 AM	#11
Clive Haycock New Boot Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Caernarfon, North Wales Posts: 7	Paul, Which model of the Marshall ones are you looking at? Most of their field monitors also seem to have a 4:3 screen size switchable to 16:9 apart from the V-R70P which although widescreen native seems fairly low rez. Another one that maybe worth looking at is the Panasonic BT-LH900AE as this seems to have lots of features including a waveform overlay. Cheers Clive

February 29th, 2008, 10:05 AM	#12
Stewart Menelaws Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Scotland (UK) Posts: 219	Another happy Sony LMD 9050 monitor user coupled to the F350. Despite being a small screen it has served us flawlessly in regard to critical focus and lighting checks for Hi Def work on the F350. We use it nearly every place we shoot. Using an IDX7s battery we get about 3 hours or more out of it. We fitted a strap to ours to enable it to be hung up on something, or around the neck. Would also strongly advise a deep hood for the screen as it can be difficult to see the image on the screen in strong light. It is quite heavy, and it is expensive but it is certainly a great little monitor. We also considered the Marshall HD monitors (a while ago now, so something new could be on the market now) but decided against it in favour of the Sony. Regards, Stu www.studioscotland.com

February 29th, 2008, 11:14 AM	#13
Paul Gale Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Oxfordshire, UK Posts: 425	These sun bright ones: http://www.lcdracks.com/monitors/v-lcd84sb-afhd.html Or the R901DP ones.

February 29th, 2008, 12:39 PM	#15
Clive Haycock New Boot Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Caernarfon, North Wales Posts: 7	Paul, The "sunbright" one looks OK but as far as I can see it's still a 4:3 screen & the resolution is lower than the Sony one & there doesn't seem to be any specs for the R901DP yet. I'm off to NAB mid April & will have a look to see what else is available & let you know, if you can wait that long. Cheers Clive