What kind of monitor is needed to do accurate color correction?
- Thread starter oxband
- Start date
QuickHitRecord
Veteran
Depends on the whether your final deliverable will be viewed in Rec.709 or RGB. You want to do your grading with a monitor that reflects your final deliverable. Most computer monitors do not allow you to view content in true Rec.709, but broadcast monitors usually display in Rec.709 and many are switchable between the two standards.
Another consideration is 8-bit monitors versus 10-bit monitors. An 8-bit monitor can present banding that may not actually be in the final deliverable, so it's more desirable to have a 10-bit monitor because it will give you a more accurate idea of what you are actually working with (if you see banding on a 10-bit monitor, you know that it's in the footage and not being created by the monitor). Of course, 10-bit monitors are more expensive.
Lastly, you'll want your broadcast monitor to be calibrated regularly because they do tend to shift over time.
A lot of people bring up the fact that most of the TVs and theater screens and computer monitors that the audience will be watching videos on are not calibrated -- why bother going through the trouble and expensive of setting up a broadcast monitor? The idea is that you'll be delivering a video that is graded to a standard (i.e. a baseline) and that way, it will look better on more screens.
One of the more economical grading monitors on the market is the Flanders Scientific CM171. It is switchable between RGB and Rec.709, and it arrives calibrated at your doorstep. Flanders has a program through which you can send it back for free (minus the cost of shipping) calibrations as often as you like. I don't have one myself but I've heard that it's a great monitor.
Another consideration is 8-bit monitors versus 10-bit monitors. An 8-bit monitor can present banding that may not actually be in the final deliverable, so it's more desirable to have a 10-bit monitor because it will give you a more accurate idea of what you are actually working with (if you see banding on a 10-bit monitor, you know that it's in the footage and not being created by the monitor). Of course, 10-bit monitors are more expensive.
Lastly, you'll want your broadcast monitor to be calibrated regularly because they do tend to shift over time.
A lot of people bring up the fact that most of the TVs and theater screens and computer monitors that the audience will be watching videos on are not calibrated -- why bother going through the trouble and expensive of setting up a broadcast monitor? The idea is that you'll be delivering a video that is graded to a standard (i.e. a baseline) and that way, it will look better on more screens.
One of the more economical grading monitors on the market is the Flanders Scientific CM171. It is switchable between RGB and Rec.709, and it arrives calibrated at your doorstep. Flanders has a program through which you can send it back for free (minus the cost of shipping) calibrations as often as you like. I don't have one myself but I've heard that it's a great monitor.
First you need something that can be calibrated, cheapest I know of are from Ikegami at around $2000 each and another $2000 for the calibration device. Though I'm not sure I would use that model and would probably go up to a more expensive model which will go more than $4000 each. We own two of the Ikegami HLM-1705WR (the $2000 level) monitors but didn't buy the calibration device yet, they are nice with good pictures but I don't think I would try more than "pleasing color" from them (calibrated or not). And that is just for HD, 4K is going to cost you a lot more. Sony makes some nice grading level reference monitors too. And many higher end productions set up calibrated projection systems for their grading and grade in theater light level rooms.
With more and more editing/grading applications using computer monitor display profiles, there may be a way to use a wide gamut computer monitor after it has been calibrated with a real 3D profile and a hardware based measuring tool. But I'm not ready to commit to that workflow because I haven't investigated to make sure it really works. You can certainly get close with the "pleasing color" that most photographers use for stills. Technical accuracy may not yet be possible for video with this workflow. But it does work very well for matching still images from monitor to print and can be very accurate for stills if you control the lighting under which both monitor and print are viewed.
So the summary is, I guess it depends on your target.
With more and more editing/grading applications using computer monitor display profiles, there may be a way to use a wide gamut computer monitor after it has been calibrated with a real 3D profile and a hardware based measuring tool. But I'm not ready to commit to that workflow because I haven't investigated to make sure it really works. You can certainly get close with the "pleasing color" that most photographers use for stills. Technical accuracy may not yet be possible for video with this workflow. But it does work very well for matching still images from monitor to print and can be very accurate for stills if you control the lighting under which both monitor and print are viewed.
So the summary is, I guess it depends on your target.
Michael Carter
Veteran
Low budget ghetto setup that I use:
A production monitor that can be calibrated (even a 5" or 7" good quality with blue-only);
A 22" HDTV (samsung in my case, wall mounted above my edit screens on an adjustable VESA);
A powered HDMI splitter;
And HDMI out solution (on my Mac Pro it's card based - Blackmagic Intensity is under $200; laptop solutions are usually a USB breakout box). The HDMI solutions put just your primary edit window (from FCP, After Effects, Premiere, etc) out via HDMI with no menus, etc.
So everything but the Blackmagic card, I already owned and used on set (the 22" goes on a roller stand for clients, playback and focus).
I have a marshall on-camera monitor that goes on an arm next to my edit screen, and I calibrate this visually using bars and blue-only (that's not how they calibrate the monitors at ILM or anything but is how on-set stuff is calibrated).
I put bars on the TV and adjust the TV picture controls with a Lee Tri-Blue filter over my eye; then I put some footage up and fine tune the TV to match the Marshall as close as possible. I don't know if there are blue-only TVs out there nowadays.
So when coloring, I can focus on the Marshall for color and have the TV for checking masks, keys, focus and general playback that's big and uncluttered. And the TV is pretty dang close color wise.
I'd love to have a 22" screen with blue-only - a blue only calibration setup on a quality panel isn't full-on hollywood grading suite by any means, but for local broadcast, web, corporate stuff, it's a big step up. And in my case it was 200 bucks.
A production monitor that can be calibrated (even a 5" or 7" good quality with blue-only);
A 22" HDTV (samsung in my case, wall mounted above my edit screens on an adjustable VESA);
A powered HDMI splitter;
And HDMI out solution (on my Mac Pro it's card based - Blackmagic Intensity is under $200; laptop solutions are usually a USB breakout box). The HDMI solutions put just your primary edit window (from FCP, After Effects, Premiere, etc) out via HDMI with no menus, etc.
So everything but the Blackmagic card, I already owned and used on set (the 22" goes on a roller stand for clients, playback and focus).
I have a marshall on-camera monitor that goes on an arm next to my edit screen, and I calibrate this visually using bars and blue-only (that's not how they calibrate the monitors at ILM or anything but is how on-set stuff is calibrated).
I put bars on the TV and adjust the TV picture controls with a Lee Tri-Blue filter over my eye; then I put some footage up and fine tune the TV to match the Marshall as close as possible. I don't know if there are blue-only TVs out there nowadays.
So when coloring, I can focus on the Marshall for color and have the TV for checking masks, keys, focus and general playback that's big and uncluttered. And the TV is pretty dang close color wise.
I'd love to have a 22" screen with blue-only - a blue only calibration setup on a quality panel isn't full-on hollywood grading suite by any means, but for local broadcast, web, corporate stuff, it's a big step up. And in my case it was 200 bucks.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
If you are releasing to the web, a computer monitor can do fine, as long as you calibrate it. Where you run into trouble, if you call it that, is when trying to use a computer monitor to color correct/grade for DVD, Blu-ray, broadcast HDTV, projection, etc. This is generally because most computer monitors aren't equipped to show your image in the delivery color space.
If what you want is just something to show you Rec.709 (HDTV, Blu-ray, broadcast, and does an adequate job of covering the old Rec.601 (DVD and SDTV) for non-critical work), you can get by with an HDTV -- as long as it can be well calibrated (many cheaper ones can't be). This is one of the reasons that people were using big Panny plasma displays, especially for client viewing purposes.
If you want to do high end color correction and color grading, where accuracy is at a premium, then you need an actual production monitor. Because it makes it easy to see what you are doing, and gives you a reasonable amount of confidence that what you are doing will translate well to your presentation target. If you can't see what you are doing, you're in for a long hard rode. Just sayin'.
Last edited:
Before you go to a lot of trouble over the monitor, does your computer have a video card that can actually output 10 bit video? Does your software, Resolve or whatever you use for color correction, actually support 10 bit RGB video output to the desktop computer monitor? Most NLE's don't. You would need to add a 10 bit video card to your system, typically something like a Black Magic Decklink of one kind or another, that is supported by your software for deep color output.
If you do this, the best quality least expensive route to a calibrated color reference monitor is a current gen LED consumer TV. LG, Sharp and Samsung support blue gun for basic color bar calibration. LG also provides a deep ISF certified expert adjustment menu for broadcast grade calibration with colorimeter. Above the lowest model line. these are true 10 bit deep color displays now. LG is moving rapidly to a full line of OLED displays, and these are spectacular if still a bit pricey.
If you are delivering web video primarily, don't give up on 8-bit. Banding is largely an artifact of video compression and low resolution color encodings like 4:2:0, not your computer monitor.
I grade mostly on my midrange LG 8-bit IPS computer monitor that comes out of the box with a factory calibrated SRGB menu setting. Running uncompressed 4:2:2 8-bit broadcast AVI video at 800Mbps shows no signs of banding at all. The out of the box calibration is good enough that what I post looks substantially the same on most other computer monitors at their factory default settings. Looks just fine on my consumer TV too, which is calibrated and used as a second color reference. I would have no problem handing graded output from my system to a local broadcast station for air in a high quality broadcast grade codec.
No question 10 bit is going to give you more refined capabilities, but that may not be particularly relevant to your delivery format anyway. In a workflow test from 12 bit DNG raw to Vimeo output, I graded a 45 second 1.5GB 12 bit original to a 10 bit 4:2:2 XDCAM 300 MB master, which got compressed to a 90MB H.264 stream for posting to Vimeo, who further compressed the online version to just 9MB file. The lossy quality of H.264 completely killed any subtleties that you might see in an uncompressed 8 bit grading process. much less 10 bit.
Perfection is relative to purpose. If you are delivering JPEG 2000 DCI output for theatrical release, that is a completely different context.
If you do this, the best quality least expensive route to a calibrated color reference monitor is a current gen LED consumer TV. LG, Sharp and Samsung support blue gun for basic color bar calibration. LG also provides a deep ISF certified expert adjustment menu for broadcast grade calibration with colorimeter. Above the lowest model line. these are true 10 bit deep color displays now. LG is moving rapidly to a full line of OLED displays, and these are spectacular if still a bit pricey.
If you are delivering web video primarily, don't give up on 8-bit. Banding is largely an artifact of video compression and low resolution color encodings like 4:2:0, not your computer monitor.
I grade mostly on my midrange LG 8-bit IPS computer monitor that comes out of the box with a factory calibrated SRGB menu setting. Running uncompressed 4:2:2 8-bit broadcast AVI video at 800Mbps shows no signs of banding at all. The out of the box calibration is good enough that what I post looks substantially the same on most other computer monitors at their factory default settings. Looks just fine on my consumer TV too, which is calibrated and used as a second color reference. I would have no problem handing graded output from my system to a local broadcast station for air in a high quality broadcast grade codec.
No question 10 bit is going to give you more refined capabilities, but that may not be particularly relevant to your delivery format anyway. In a workflow test from 12 bit DNG raw to Vimeo output, I graded a 45 second 1.5GB 12 bit original to a 10 bit 4:2:2 XDCAM 300 MB master, which got compressed to a 90MB H.264 stream for posting to Vimeo, who further compressed the online version to just 9MB file. The lossy quality of H.264 completely killed any subtleties that you might see in an uncompressed 8 bit grading process. much less 10 bit.
Perfection is relative to purpose. If you are delivering JPEG 2000 DCI output for theatrical release, that is a completely different context.
Last edited:
Guys, super helpful thread.
I'm basically on the prosumer end and I didn't realize how expensive proper, professional monitors are. I'm a doc maker. I had some stuff get on PBS, although for that I had an editor to color correct. I have another feature I'm working on, but that won't get to color correction stage for a year now and hopefully I can raise money for a post-production person then.
Most stuff I do then goes to the web in which case it doesn't seem worth while to get a production monitor.
Am I best off buying a color calibrator and using it on my monitors? For monitors, I use my MBP and this guy: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-SyncMaster-920NW-19-inch-Monitor/dp/B000OSA39...
That said, I'm considering maybe getting an LED screen since I wanted a large second screen anyways in place of my MBP monitor since I want something larger. Maybe something like this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...Pe8vMYCFZIWHwodi6sM9A&is=REG&m=Y&Q=&A=details
I'm basically on the prosumer end and I didn't realize how expensive proper, professional monitors are. I'm a doc maker. I had some stuff get on PBS, although for that I had an editor to color correct. I have another feature I'm working on, but that won't get to color correction stage for a year now and hopefully I can raise money for a post-production person then.
Most stuff I do then goes to the web in which case it doesn't seem worth while to get a production monitor.
Am I best off buying a color calibrator and using it on my monitors? For monitors, I use my MBP and this guy: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-SyncMaster-920NW-19-inch-Monitor/dp/B000OSA39...
That said, I'm considering maybe getting an LED screen since I wanted a large second screen anyways in place of my MBP monitor since I want something larger. Maybe something like this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...Pe8vMYCFZIWHwodi6sM9A&is=REG&m=Y&Q=&A=details
Yes, you really should calibrate your computer screens. I suggest Xrite devices, but many like the Colorvision stuff. It will at the least get your gamma curves correct which loads before the application look for a profile (if they can look for it), so at least the grayscale will be pretty close to correct on all your stuff.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
Two ways to go. Either a third party calibrator, or a calibrator that comes with the monitor. I come from a still photography background where accuracy was paramount, so I tend toward the Nec Spectraview monitors, and the Eizo monitors. Expensive, but to my mind well worth it.
You can use a 21:9 monitor if you want; I find them to be somewhat awkward since most of what I do is 16:9. I like a 16:10 monitor better, because my NLE wants more top and bottom edge real estate, so 16:10 is just a better fit for me.
If it's going to be a second monitor and all the NLE gunk is off it, then to make good use of a 21:9 monitor you need to be shooting 2.39:1 widescreen. If you are, then your referenced monitor may be just the ticket. What ever works for you, works for you.
Michael Carter
Veteran
I just swapped my HDTV for a blue-only model. Still, comparing to my Marshall, it's not that close. I can get perfect bars on the marshall, the Samsung there are some compromises.
Keep in mind, you need two things - one is something that takes just your edit window out to HDMI and bypasses any computer calibration - not just an HDMI monitor adapter, but something that bypasses everything and skips menus, etc - just your 16x9 footage window. for PCI boxes, the Intensity is great and cheap. For laptops or iMacs you'll need a USB (or maybe thunderbolt?) solution. I don't know if the new mac pro HDMI output is clean and has an edit-window-only option.
The other is a source of NTSC bars - but most NLEs out put bars.
I suggest if funds are tight, try running your on-set monitor as a color checking source (through an HDMI solution as above), even if it's a 5 or 7" model. Just seeing the same colors you saw on set is pretty "ahhhhhh".
If you own one, it seems to me to be better than trying to get a computer monitor to play nice - and monitor cal. for these screens isn't based on broadcast, is it?
Keep in mind, you need two things - one is something that takes just your edit window out to HDMI and bypasses any computer calibration - not just an HDMI monitor adapter, but something that bypasses everything and skips menus, etc - just your 16x9 footage window. for PCI boxes, the Intensity is great and cheap. For laptops or iMacs you'll need a USB (or maybe thunderbolt?) solution. I don't know if the new mac pro HDMI output is clean and has an edit-window-only option.
The other is a source of NTSC bars - but most NLEs out put bars.
I suggest if funds are tight, try running your on-set monitor as a color checking source (through an HDMI solution as above), even if it's a 5 or 7" model. Just seeing the same colors you saw on set is pretty "ahhhhhh".
If you own one, it seems to me to be better than trying to get a computer monitor to play nice - and monitor cal. for these screens isn't based on broadcast, is it?
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
I have an award winning (prestigious awards from major festivals) feature doc in festival circuit now. It's close to impossible to see a film that didn't go through major professional color grade at a major festival. That said, i met a filmmaker at a medium festival who mentioned that he grades on regular monitor and doesn't know the difference between rec709 and RGB - uh oh, i thought and sure enough the results were atrocious (thankfully it was a rough cut screening).
To do real color grade (besides the fact it's MUCH easier to pay a few $ grand to a professional as it's much more about his/her skills and not the gear) you need:
-- understand clearly difference between rec709 and RGB [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
-- calibrate your monitors carefully (understand how to do it correctly)
-- understand the variables and their implications (i had 3 professional calibrated monitors in the color room and they all looked a bit different! thus we were grading for a median of those 3 monitors: what looks good on all 3 not what looks best on one of them)
-- watch the final result on a number of "crappy" monitors to see what the average looks like
-- compress as the compression through its mathematical averaging amplifies subtle differences that your eye can't see
To do real color grade (besides the fact it's MUCH easier to pay a few $ grand to a professional as it's much more about his/her skills and not the gear) you need:
-- understand clearly difference between rec709 and RGB [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
-- calibrate your monitors carefully (understand how to do it correctly)
-- understand the variables and their implications (i had 3 professional calibrated monitors in the color room and they all looked a bit different! thus we were grading for a median of those 3 monitors: what looks good on all 3 not what looks best on one of them)
-- watch the final result on a number of "crappy" monitors to see what the average looks like
-- compress as the compression through its mathematical averaging amplifies subtle differences that your eye can't see
Run&Gun
Veteran
I keep seeing this said repeatedly on DVX and I'm afraid that people that don't know any better will think that all you need to "calibrate" a monitor is a source of color bars and the monitor being able to switch to "blue only". Yes, that's a good place to start, but there's a lot more to it than that. I sent my two primary field monitors off to be calibrated. I received a several page report back with each detailing before and after measurements, performance and tolerances(how close certain criteria/points are to where they are supposed to be). Both monitors looked good to me before, but when I got them back and looked at the reports I was a little surprised. The Sony OLED was pretty damn close before the calibration to the after calibration results, but the smallHD was WAY off from "spec" before they calibrated(even after it's still not exactly a reference monitor. Lol). And I had tweaked it myself before with color bars and "blue only" ; )
Michael Carter
Veteran
I agree - my post included "this isn't how they do it at ILM". For web video and lower-budget broadcast, bars & blue are better than nothing and should get you in a decent ballpark. Getting an HDMI or SDI clean source out is another good step to take for this level of color work - if only to see your edit on a big consumer HDTV. I also check some edits by burning a version to SD card and viewing it on my big living room TV, etc.
I really feel though - the next step up isn't to start buying a bunch of expensive grading gear - it's decide that you're going to primarily be a colorist or you're going to send stuff to a colorist. Like steadicam ops and 3d modelers, there's a point where doing it really well means it's pretty much all you do. My .02 anyway, but so much of what we do seems to work that way.
Given my needs and the fact much of what I work on has no budget for a colorist.....I'm going to get a monitor calibrator for my computer and external monitor, the two monitors that I use when editing. That said, is there any practical difference between a Spyder, Xrite or Colorvision calibrator?
SpyderSpyder is a color vision product (or at least was), I prefer Xrite even though they have been harder to work with since they bought their only real competition (Gretag). Either one seems to do a decent job, so price may be your guide. The biggest difference happens when you get up into the Xrite spectrophotometer (i1), huge jump in price though. If you work in Premiere, they might send video out through the monitor profile, but I don't think any of the other editors will use it. I mention Premiere because Photoshop has been work with transforming image color space to monitor color space through generic or custom profiles for years, so I would hope they carried it into video.