Confused, second monitor for video editing/color correction?

S

Sebastian.UK

New member
Hello guys,


I've spent a good two hours or so reading through articles/threads on the internet and i am just plain confused. I've searched for some basic guides for 'dual monitor editing' to no real avail.


I'm looking into getting a secondary monitor. Specifically, i want a secondary screen for color correction/DVD-TV/Web delivery. I began looking at IPS monitors and/or simple HDTV monitors, but upon further research i noticed people talking about 'Matrox' color corrector devices, 'spyders', 'black magic' adapters and $1500 screens? What exactly am i looking at spending here? I just want a secondary monitor for secondary preview and color calibration/grading. I came into this with a budget of around $400 in mind for a secondary monitor and i'm really surprised at the 'must haves' being thrown around. I am not a broadcast professional but a free lance videographer mainly dealing in DVD/web delivery. Do i need an adapter? Do i need a $1000 monitor, etc?


I currently use a Philips HD 1080p monitor (http://www.philips.co.uk/c/pc-monitor/brilliance-23-inch-w-c-line-full-hd-230c1hsb_05/prd/)

Many thanks for your input.
 
For SD/DVD, you want a monitor which will give you your image, without any enhancements, as it would appear in SD/PAL. A lot of TVs do things to the image to enhance it or improve it; you don't want any of that. You want a flat, well-calibrated screen so you can view your video reliably. You need to see what it really is, not what some enhancement makes it.

But it needs to be PAL for SD, because a TV's responses are nothing like a computer monitor. Things which look great on a computer monitor may look awful on a TV.

Professional monitors are expensive, but there are TVs which can give an adequate approximation. You would calibrate it as best you can according to PAL standards/color bars.

For the web, a properly-calibrated computer monitor is fine. For HD/Blu-ray, a calibrated HDTV should be fine. Obviously a professional HD monitor would be best, but that's really expensive.
 
Some interesting thoughts brought up.

Having a calibrated monitor is a MUST - so many times I've had clients complain (mostly on Macs) "this isn't the right color" until I fix their crappy custom settings; "but the wizard told me to increase gamma until I couldn't see the logo!".

It means that any deviation from standard colors, brightness etc. is on the end of the client and not yourself.

That being said, assuming you go for a decent IPS monitor and tack on a calibrator like the Spyder you should be fine.
People splurge and spend $1500 on monitors which have very very specific tolerances when it comes to color.
Generally at this price point they also have built in colorimeters as well as a wide, accurate gamut.
I've seen some interesting ones which also rotate from landscape to portrait and back again.

Bottom line - unless you're making enough money that throwing $1500 on a monitor isn't a big deal, I think you'll happily get by with a basic colorimeter.
 
David Jimerson said:
For SD/DVD, you want a monitor which will give you your image, without any enhancements, as it would appear in SD/PAL. A lot of TVs do things to the image to enhance it or improve it; you don't want any of that. You want a flat, well-calibrated screen so you can view your video reliably. You need to see what it really is, not what some enhancement makes it.

But it needs to be PAL for SD, because a TV's responses are nothing like a computer monitor. Things which look great on a computer monitor may look awful on a TV.

Professional monitors are expensive, but there are TVs which can give an adequate approximation. You would calibrate it as best you can according to PAL standards/color bars.

For the web, a properly-calibrated computer monitor is fine. For HD/Blu-ray, a calibrated HDTV should be fine. Obviously a professional HD monitor would be best, but that's really expensive.
Click to expand...

Phew, thank you David for clearing that up for me. It's a big relief! I was getting worried since i really hadn't budgeted for something in the $1500 price range.

So, since i already own an LCD monitor, i guess a HDTV would be the logical choice. Do you or anyone else here have any good recommendations before i set forth? :)

josh-ozirigpro said:
Some interesting thoughts brought up.

Having a calibrated monitor is a MUST - so many times I've had clients complain (mostly on Macs) "this isn't the right color" until I fix their crappy custom settings; "but the wizard told me to increase gamma until I couldn't see the logo!".

It means that any deviation from standard colors, brightness etc. is on the end of the client and not yourself.

That being said, assuming you go for a decent IPS monitor and tack on a calibrator like the Spyder you should be fine.
People splurge and spend $1500 on monitors which have very very specific tolerances when it comes to color.
Generally at this price point they also have built in colorimeters as well as a wide, accurate gamut.
I've seen some interesting ones which also rotate from landscape to portrait and back again.

Bottom line - unless you're making enough money that throwing $1500 on a monitor isn't a big deal, I think you'll happily get by with a basic colorimeter.
Click to expand...

Thank you Josh, very helpful info. I'm wondering how necessary the calibrator's are? Wouldn't a good IPS monitor come with in-built calibrators/settings on the screen? I'll tell you right now, as someone who is part-time looking to go full-time videographer i simply could not afford $1500 right now on a monitor.

Thanks again peeps.
 
Are you saying there is a way to NOT spend $2k and still get something accurate enough for color correction? In hd? Can you elaboRate? What about for on-set monitoring (to judge color/contrast accuraty)?
 
Josh Bass said:
Are you saying there is a way to NOT spend $2k and still get something accurate enough for color correction? In hd? Can you elaboRate? What about for on-set monitoring (to judge color/contrast accuraty)?
Click to expand...

I can't really suggest much for onset monitoring... half decent field monitors are way up there in terms of cost.
Definitely if you have enough room where you're shooting and a power point, you could use the same monitor.. although this doesn't really sound like a very portable solution.
Most people I know shoot underexposed and with lower contrast specifically so they can edit for accuracy in post.

@Sebastian; I don't recommend going for a TV monitor as a basis for color correction. As David correctly said, they are great for approximating what a normal broadcast would look like. However, my main monitor set-up at the moment is a 50" Plasma (definitely don't do that!) - colors are very difficult to distinguish and everything is much darker than it should be. If I went with an LCD this might be different...

But I still think going for a proper IPS LCD and calibrating it correctly will give you the best result.

For a better example of what I'm talking about (just 'coz it's all fluff at the moment!):

If you REALLY want to splurge then the best you can get is:
http://www.eizo.com.au/products/flexscan/index.php
These things are awesome in every way and Eizo are completely anal about keeping the quality high.

If like most people you want to stay under a budget then something like this:
Asus PA246Q - 24" Monitor, IPS, 1920x1200 : ~$450 US
OR HPZR24w - 24" Monitor, IPS, 1920x1200: ~$385 US

Spyder Express/Pro: $120US/$180US
NB: Both the Express and the Pro do the same thing - but with some small differences in feature set: http://spyder.datacolor.com/s3compare.php

Anyway, combine one of the monitors with any of the Spyder 3 and do a proper calibration and you will have a very very good quality monitor for a fraction of the price.

I know it still works out to be about $500 with everything, but I really wouldn't spend too much less than that... the last thing you want is a bleeding backlight or inconsistent colors.. which is how they bring the price down at the lower end. If you purchase a decent monitor it will last you ~5 years...

Edit: Color calibration tools are necessary if you go with an LCD. This is because of the nature of the display means that brightness, color temperatures etc. can fluctuate as the panel ages (also, when it's new). Built in calibration tools are only accurate enough if the operator knows what they're doing. Whilst you can easily adjust it as per the wizard, there's no way (unless you're a magical magician) of being able to compare your color settings directly with a standard profile. This is what a color calibration tool like the Spyder will do - ensure that what you see is what you print. In the grand scheme of things, it's a small expense for a greater control over what you produce.
 
Last edited:
Again thanks a lot Josh. I was pretty clueless on this subject, did not realize there was a whole other world surrounding secondary monitors. How important would you say a HDMI cable is? I mean, since im only using it for editing captured footage it seems negligible to me but perhaps there's something i'm missing.

I was looking at this monitor which is around my budget, i think it will serve its purpose for now, what do you think? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-U2312-...K332/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1328952834&sr=8-3

It comes with 3 year warranty including instant replacement upon any noticeable 'light bleeding'.
 
No problem Sebastian, glad I could help to clear some things up!

Yes, it's definitely a wilderness out there when it comes to choices!

The Dell looks fairly decent and the fact that they'll offer a replacement upon light bleeding is a good sign that it's a decent monitor.
The reviews are also generally positive, which is even better!

With regards to the HDMI cable - if you're talking about plugging it into a computer, generally the cable which is included with it and goes into the computer will be sufficient - this will carry a Full HD signal.

An HDMI cable itself also carries a FHD signal, so there'd be no difference in quality using it with a computer (provided that computer can output the high resolution)

If you're talking about showing footage directly from the camera (or any other source, really) straight to the monitor, then you're going to need an HDMI cable to get a high resolution output. Any of the other cables (red, white + yellow) will have a noticeable decrease in quality when compared directly to that provided via HDMI.

That being said, the resolution of the picture is still dependent upon the source - so if your computer isn't set to 1920x1080 then you won't be getting the most out of the monitor!
 
Awesome, cheers Josh. I think ill take the plunge and grab this monitor. Then in the future if i feel i need to spend another £300+ on a better one, ill do that. I think im happier doing it this way.

Thanks again.
 
Sebastian.UK said:
Phew, thank you David for clearing that up for me. It's a big relief! I was getting worried since i really hadn't budgeted for something in the $1500 price range.

So, since i already own an LCD monitor, i guess a HDTV would be the logical choice. Do you or anyone else here have any good recommendations before i set forth? :)
Click to expand...

Just remember, an HDTV won't be suitable for color-correcting for SD/DVD/PAL. The color responses are very different.
 
Hi. Ok, so you're saying you can get a decent monitoring setup for color correction for around $500? If it's not as amazing as the $2500+ monitoring setups, how accurate is it?

For instance, way back when, I was looking to get a CRT monitor for on-set monitoring and color correction in post. I was told that a monitor with SEMPTE-C phosphors were the dog's whiskers (these monitors were super pricey), but that a monitor with P-22 phosphors was generally considered accurate and "good enough" for most applications (I'm not doing work for network broadcast, but I still would like contrast and color on the monitor to accurately reflect what they really look like). So that's what I did. . .got a SONY PVM 14m2u. Is your $500 recommendation the HD equivalent, in your opinion? Good enough for most applications?

Also, Is there a reason, portability aside, you couldn't use this same setup for a field monitor with any HD camcorder, DSLR, etc.?
 
Hey was just wondering if you took the plunge with the monitor you mentioned http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-U2312-W...8952834&sr=8-3
and if so how is it? I'm debating to get eithert that one, the asus or the following http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/EIZO-FLEX...mputerComponents_Monitors&hash=item231e307a9c for a 2nd monitor.
Also i take it that a dvi cable is sufficient to carry the full high definition output from my laptop to the monitor? As some of the flexscan monitors have no hdmi input? Another niave question sorry, I'm assuming that any of these monitors are fine to use both in PAL countries and over in the US and Canada NTSC places? As my af100 does both and I plan to move out to canada in the middle of next year. Thanks
 
Ebay is full of cheap class 1 production CRT monitors that you can calibrate wit the on board tools and a color bar.
For SD PAL, nothing beats an old school Sony production CRT.
Hook it up with a used BlackMagic Intensity Pro and you are golden (and cheap).

Frank
 
Hi thanks for the reply, that adds another element to what I've been researching. Out of the ones I posted above though which would you opt for? The Eizo monitors dont have hdmi but I've heard good things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top