Looking for a flat 19 inch monitor for editing...a few questions at DVinfo.net

David Delaney · March 12th, 2006, 10:01 AM

What should I look for with monitors for my computer - I want to get two for dv editing:

Here are the specs:
• 1280 x 1024 resolution
• 400:1 contrast ratio

It doesn't list the refresh rate, but I am unsure what to look for in the RATIO and the REFRESH RATE - so if someone could give me the low down,. that would be great.

Steve House · March 12th, 2006, 10:53 AM

1280x1024 is pretty good for a smaller monitor but 19" LCDs can go higher. I have a Dell 2001 FPW 20" that goes to 1600x1200. A 16x9 aspect ratio is also a good thing to look for to give you more elbow room in the timelines.

Dionyssios Chalkias · March 13th, 2006, 07:12 AM

Refresh rate should be 75Hz at least. 85Hz is better.

Contrast rate of 400:1 seems low...

Christopher Lefchik · March 13th, 2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dionyssios Chalkias

Refresh rate should be 75Hz at least. 85Hz is better.

That's how the specs are listed for a CRT. However, LCDs refresh rate is presented in Pixel Response Time. I've seen response times as low as 3-ms (milliseconds). If you're not into playing games or watching full-screen movies, however, you don't need that fast of a response time. My LCD, for example, has a 25-ms response time (then again, I also have a CRT as well).

My recommendation would be to search the Internet for reviews on any models you are interested in. Also, see if you can view the display in person at a store (of course, one must be aware that the displays may not be set up optimally).

Patrick King · March 13th, 2006, 12:56 PM

When I did my last PC refresh a little over a year ago, the prevailing wisdom at the time was that for LCDs to replace CRTs in video editing, the response time needed to be <10ms. Last year, that was a tough spec with only a handful of expensive LCDs that were at or below 10ms response times. Consequently, I selected two good CRTs. Now I think that level of performance is much easier and cheaper to acquire.

Christopher Lefchik · March 13th, 2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick King

When I did my last PC refresh a little over a year ago, the prevailing wisdom at the time was that for LCDs to replace CRTs in video editing, the response time needed to be <10ms.

Unless one is trying to use an LCD for critical video previewing (not a good idea), or watching DVDs, the response time doesn't really matter. Computer monitors, whether LCD or CRT, should not be used for critical video work. One needs to have a good broadcast CRT calibrated to color bars for that. I think broadcast LCDs may be available now, also, but I'm sure they are very expensive.

Patrick King · March 13th, 2006, 03:19 PM

Christopher,

I think we are in violent agreement...if you want to do video editing on LCDs, you would want at least DVD level capability, and thus you need <10ms response time. When you say LCDs should not be used for 'critical video work' I'm assuming that you mean that the judgement of video quality should not be based off of LCD imagery, but should be done on a calibrated monitor. Other editing functions can be performed quite nicely on LCDs, just check your output on a CRT, right?

I've not heard of an LCD calibration routine for actual video output preview, it may be available, but I lead a sheltered and backward life and don't know of such things, though I would have to agree with your assumption that they would be very expensive.

So edit on LCDs with <10ms response times and check output on a calibrated CRT.

Christopher Lefchik · March 13th, 2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick King

I think we are in violent agreement...

That's diplomatic way of putting it. ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick King

if you want to do video editing on LCDs, you would want at least DVD level capability, and thus you need <10ms response time.

I would agree, if one wants/needs to watch full-screen video on the LCD. But if it is just the small preview screen in the editing software, I think the response time doesn't really matter.

When checking my DVD's I've sometimes briefly watched them on my LCD screen. Even with the pokey 25ms response time I can't recall seeing any noticeable smearing/jittering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick King

When you say LCDs should not be used for 'critical video work' I'm assuming that you mean that the judgement of video quality should not be based off of LCD imagery, but should be done on a calibrated monitor.

Right. Color, brightness/contrast and the general quality of footage should not be judged from a computer monitor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick King

Other editing functions can be performed quite nicely on LCDs, just check your output on a CRT, right?

Quite right.

Patrick King · March 13th, 2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

That's diplomatic way of putting it. ;-)

I've come to learn the hard way that Chris demands diplomacy here and I learn more when I behave with civility, especially when conversing with my betters. I'm a neophyte in this forum compared to some of the stellar individuals who post here, you included.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

When checking my DVD's I've sometimes briefly watched them on my LCD screen. Even with the pokey 25ms response time I can't recall seeing any noticeable smearing/jittering.

I had exactly the opposite response when viewing DVDs (MPEG2) on slow LCD screens; the smear and judder seemed pronounced to me and thus I selected not to go with dual LCDs and went with a dual CRT setup. But of course that might just be the difference of my untrained eye's bias even though I remember squinting really hard and trying to convince myself that it wasn't that bad because the dual LCDs were far sexier on the desktop than two big honking CRTs. Obviously my mileage may vary. ; )

Christopher Lefchik · March 13th, 2006, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick King

I've come to learn the hard way that Chris demands diplomacy here and I learn more when I behave with civility, especially when conversing with my betters. I'm a neophyte in this forum compared to some of the stellar individuals who post here, you included.

<blush> Oh please, believe me, I have a lot to learn myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick King

I had exactly the opposite response when viewing DVDs (MPEG2) on slow LCD screens; the smear and judder seemed pronounced to me and thus I selected not to go with dual LCDs and went with a dual CRT setup.

Like I said, I've only viewed DVDs very briefly on my LCD. I could have easily missed the smearing. I won't dispute your recommendation to get an LCD with less than 10ms refresh rate if viewing video will be important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick King

But of course that might just be the difference of my untrained eye's bias even though I remember squinting really hard and trying to convince myself that it wasn't that bad because the dual LCDs were far sexier on the desktop than two big honking CRTs. Obviously my mileage may vary. ; )

There's nothing at all wrong with getting CRTs. In fact, I'm rather disappointed that they aren't being produced anymore due to the stampede to LCDs. CRTs are still the king when it comes to color accuracy for graphics and photo editing, and LCDs just cannot touch CRTs in reproducing deep black.

Daniel J. Wojcik · March 14th, 2006, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

There's nothing at all wrong with getting CRTs. In fact, I'm rather disappointed that they aren't being produced anymore due to the stampede to LCDs. CRTs are still the king when it comes to color accuracy for graphics and photo editing, and LCDs just cannot touch CRTs in reproducing deep black.

Then again, once everyone is viewing the final product on LCDs, it won't matter much. No sense in getting the perfect image via CRT if it will never be shown on anything that will display it properly.

Dionyssios Chalkias · March 14th, 2006, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

That's how the specs are listed for a CRT.

These specs apply to a TFT as well. Believe me, after two hours in front of my laptop's 60Hz screen, I see stars...

Christopher Lefchik · March 14th, 2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dionyssios Chalkias

These specs apply to a TFT as well. Believe me, after two hours in front of my laptop's 60Hz screen, I see stars...

Per Wikipedia:

"Much of the discussion of refresh rate does not apply to LCD monitors. This is because while a phosphor on a CRT will begin to dim as soon as the electron beam passes it, LCD cells open to pass a continuous stream of light, and do not dim until instructed to produce a darker color."

Wikipedia: Refresh rate

In other words, LCDs do not refresh themselves continually as CRTs do. Of course, the graphics card needs to continually pass data to the LCD panel so that the LCD can update itself when the screen does change, so I imagine 60Hz is just the sync time most LCD manufacterers have chosen. But that doesn't mean that the LCD is refreshed that often.

March 12th, 2006, 10:01 AM	#1
David Delaney Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Niagara Ontario Canada Posts: 1,121	Looking for a flat 19 inch monitor for editing...a few questions What should I look for with monitors for my computer - I want to get two for dv editing: Here are the specs: • 1280 x 1024 resolution • 400:1 contrast ratio It doesn't list the refresh rate, but I am unsure what to look for in the RATIO and the REFRESH RATE - so if someone could give me the low down,. that would be great.

March 12th, 2006, 10:53 AM	#2
Steve House Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Posts: 5,742	1280x1024 is pretty good for a smaller monitor but 19" LCDs can go higher. I have a Dell 2001 FPW 20" that goes to 1600x1200. A 16x9 aspect ratio is also a good thing to look for to give you more elbow room in the timelines. __________________ Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams!

March 13th, 2006, 12:56 PM	#5
Patrick King Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Enterprise, AL Posts: 857	When I did my last PC refresh a little over a year ago, the prevailing wisdom at the time was that for LCDs to replace CRTs in video editing, the response time needed to be <10ms. Last year, that was a tough spec with only a handful of expensive LCDs that were at or below 10ms response times. Consequently, I selected two good CRTs. Now I think that level of performance is much easier and cheaper to acquire. __________________ Fear No Weevil!

March 13th, 2006, 03:19 PM	#7
Patrick King Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Enterprise, AL Posts: 857	Christopher, I think we are in violent agreement...if you want to do video editing on LCDs, you would want at least DVD level capability, and thus you need <10ms response time. When you say LCDs should not be used for 'critical video work' I'm assuming that you mean that the judgement of video quality should not be based off of LCD imagery, but should be done on a calibrated monitor. Other editing functions can be performed quite nicely on LCDs, just check your output on a CRT, right? I've not heard of an LCD calibration routine for actual video output preview, it may be available, but I lead a sheltered and backward life and don't know of such things, though I would have to agree with your assumption that they would be very expensive. So edit on LCDs with <10ms response times and check output on a calibrated CRT. __________________ Fear No Weevil!

March 13th, 2006, 07:12 AM	#3
Dionyssios Chalkias Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 64	Refresh rate should be 75Hz at least. 85Hz is better. Contrast rate of 400:1 seems low...