300 Line Field Monitor vs. 450 Line

S

SirAllen

Well-known member
I'm looking to buy a monitor for both use in the field (mainly color/lighting purposes but hoping it will also help in focusing) and also will use it for editing/color correction at home. I've narrowed it down to 2 choices, the Sony PVM-9L3 (~$1000) and an Ikegami TM9-1 (~$670). The specs are close to the same, but the Sony has 450 lines of resolution and the Ike only has 300 (actually I think it's 280).

Now my dilema is this, having never seen or used either of these monitors I'm torn as to whether the Sony's extra 150+ lines of resolution is worth the extra $330. A big part of me wants to buy the Sony, but a friend who has seen the Ike said he really liked it and the resolution shouldn't make that much of a difference. I hate the idea of resolution loss and even though after interlacing, etc. NTSC is somewhere around 360 or so I still wouldn't be seeing the full resoltion w/ the Ike right?

Am I worried about nothing? Does it make much of a difference for those that have used higher resoluton monitors for focusing and editing? Opinions appreciated, I hate shopping in the blind!
 
Re: 300 Line Field Monitor vs. 450 Line

If you are using this for a field monitor, then the resolution should not be that big a deal.  In the field, you are not generally using the monitor for focusing, but using it for framing, checking lighting and getting a good color balance.  As long as the monitor you choose has a blue gun or 'blue only' mode, you can calibrate it using color bars so that you know that your chosen white balance is good.  Obviously, the monitor itself has nothing to do with the resolution of your camera, so what is going to tape is as good as your camera can provide.  
PS- I just read your post again and noticed you plan to use it for editing as well. Again, your main purpose is color correction and the resolution won't matter there either. Hope this helps.
 
Re: 300 Line Field Monitor vs. 450 Line

I don't know. I always like the sharpest monitor (most resolution) that I can afford. When you edit and shoot on something less, sometimes you have surprises when you watch it later on a sharper monitor.

That said, I think that sometimes the manufacturer's declared lines of resolution aren't all that perfect. I'm not sure how they calculate them, but it's probably best to see what you're buying ahead of time if you can. The Ike might be just as sharp.
 
Re: 300 Line Field Monitor vs. 450 Line

Yeah, I wish there were a place around here where I could see them in person. It's strange though, usually if I can't try before I buy I can get enough information and user feedback to make a pretty informed decision, but there seems to be very little talk about specific makes and models of monitors other than manufacturer's specs. I know the 9L3 hasn't been around long, but it should be equivalent to the 8045Q which people seemed to regard well in the few posts I've found. The Ike is rarely mentioned. And comparisons between monitors is pretty non-existant.

I guess another reason I'm a little paranoid, the one experience I've had with a monitor on a shoot was a 8" Sony (pretty low end I believe) and I was disappointed in the sharpness of it, the color, contrast, etc. was very nice, but I could see the actual scan lines of the monitor and it looked very low rez. I don't want a monitor like that, and wonder if the Ike will fall into that category. The Sony 9L3 I'm pretty sure wouldn't, but is it worth $330 to make sure? Has anyone every used this Ike model or a Sony 9L3 (or even 8045Q) and care to comment?
 
Re: 300 Line Field Monitor vs. 450 Line

I was a big fan of the 8044 and the 8045 when I shot for an agency that had lots of those monitors to spare for us. Even though most had been abused and dropped, they still performed well (minus the pink spot in the corner ;))
That said, you may want to try and get your hands on a JVC TM-910SU. I have been shooting with one for a year now, and have been very impressed. Even has blue-check. I wouldn't recommend it for editing. Only an opinion, but it's just too small. I like my $150 Toshiba 14" just fine for editing. I sell both the Sony and the JVC, and the Sony has the name and the quality, but on a budget I would pick the JVC. If you can see it in action, you'll see what I mean. ;D
 
Re: 300 Line Field Monitor vs. 450 Line

Is it true that the JVC TM-910SU and the Ikegami TM9-1 are essentially the same monitor? Or at least use the same tube?
 
Re: 300 Line Field Monitor vs. 450 Line

the Sony 8045Q is a great little monitor. very crisp, good and easy control. 16:9 switch is VERY helpful if you are shooting anamorphic. expensive little bugger, but if you want to see exactly what you're getting on tape, it does the trick. as Rush said, they'll take a beating and keep on going. i've used it for editing also, and it works, but i prefer a 14". i have no experience with the Ike or JVC.

my recommendation is get as much resolution as you can afford.
 
I have no experience with the Ike, but I've had a lot of experience with the 450 line vs 300 line Sony monitors. For a 6 year stretch I worked at two different studios out here in Chicago that had both the 300 and 450 line monitors. I ALWAYS noticed a difference between the two monitors. You could more easily see the scan lines in the lower end monitor, BUT it was still completely acceptable for making sure that everything that was going to tape was good to go. When we started using them as 2nd client/crew monitors for HD shoots, the difference REALLY became apparent.

I've always like the 450 line monitors, they just seem to make you feel a tad better about what you're shooting. BUT, I was using them on someone else's dime, today I ordered the JVC TM-910SU---- need the $500.00 in savings for other gear!!!! :crybaby:

Oh, one more thing, if you are using your field monitor as your edit monitor you may want to think about going with the higher res monitor. OR--- get the lower end for the field, and then with the $500.00 savings get a decent 13"-15" dedicated edit monitor. Sony, JVC and Panasonic seem to have good prices on the 600 line and up monitors (just over $500 it seems). Check out B&H Photo for comparisons. Then you could have a good field monitor and a good post monitor.
 
I had the same debate as you and I went with the JVC. I am using it in the field, but not neccessarily for editing. I think it will be fine for the DVX. I bought it at B&H and they told me that the Ike and the JVC are the same tube, so if it is between those two, I would go with the JVC
 
I've used both the 450 line SONY and the low end Sony.
I prefer the 450 line Sony...hands down.

Huge difference in my opinion.
So much easier to see critical focus.
Especially when you're back a few feet.


This is what I consider when purchasing gear...

What will matter more two years from now?
That you saved a few hundred bucks?
Or that you have the superior product?


-BillP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top