which production monitor?.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
I'm trying to decide between the JVC tm-910su 9" color monitor (15 lbs) and the JVC tm-h1375su 13" color monitor (29 lbs). I will be using it both for production and post (along with 2 computer monitors). Most of my production will be long interviews, so the extra weight of the 13" won't be as much of an issue. I will have some run and gun, but can't see using even the 9" for that. I'm sure there will be situations where I'd wish the 13" (if I get it) was half the weight. On the other hand, the 13" is 750 lines of resolution vs. 280 for the 9", and $430 vs $595 for the smaller monitor. BTW, can anyone recommend a good primer on lines of res? I'm confused on how the image is translated when there is a difference in # of lines between the cam/tape and monitor.
Thanks,
Adam
 
Re: which production monitor?.

[quote author=adam lubkin link=board=lighting;num=1074957989;start=0#0 date=01/24/04 at 07:26:29BTW, can anyone recommend a good primer on lines of res?  I'm confused on how the image is translated when there is a difference in # of lines between the cam/tape and monitor.
Thanks,
Adam[/quote]

More lines of res = better. The DVX records 540 lines of resolution, so you want a monitor that will deliver at least that much. A 280-line monitor will not be able to display the DVX picture sharply enough to guarantee accurate focusing, etc.

As for monitors, JVC is not the best-regarded brand (some people refer to them as the "Junk Video Company"). And the monitors you're discussing are P22 phosphors, whereas the broadcast standard is SMPTE-C phosphors. P22 is a consumer phosphor, brighter and more like a television, vs. the reliable industry-standard SMPTE-C.

However, price will be a big factor. A comparable SMPTE-C monitor is going to be at least double the cost.

Between the two you've mentioned, the 13" is probably the better monitor for most circumstances. The higher resolution and larger picture size may be more useful to you than the 9" main benefit, which is the ability to be battery-powered. Disappointing that the 13" doesn't offer a blue-only switch, but you can fake that with a sheet of blue gel.

The Panasonic BT-H1390Y is the real deal, but it's 3x the price of the JVC. You'd be better off with the JVC than with a standard consumer TV set, but it's not a "real" production monitor, per se. Also look at the Sony PVM-14L1, it's basically a glorified trinitron TV but directly competitive to the JVC 13".
 
Re: which production monitor?.

Hmm...very interesting. Maybe I'll just use a small tv until I can afford a better grade of monitor.

My confusion on lines of res has to do with how, for instance, the 540 lines of the dvx100 are shown on a monitor with 750 lines, since as far as I can see there's no direct relationship between 540 and 750. Please understand that I am totally ignorant of how monitors work.

Thanks for the info, Barry.
 
Re: which production monitor?.

Lines of resolution is a very tricky subject to understand, and involves more than just a digital-to-analog conversion. Especially since NTSC televisions have 525 scan lines -- so how can they display 750 lines of resolution???

It has to do with the concept of "TV Lines" of resolution. TV Lines aren't the # of vertical pixels -- they're the number of horizontal samples that are possible WITHIN A GIVEN SQUARE PATCH that's measured based off the vertical. Huh? I know, I know, it's tricky...

TV Lines of resolution are measured in a square box. TV's aren't square, so "TV Lines" are actually not a representation of all that a given monitor is capable of displaying. But, it goes like this: the DVX can capture 720 x 480. The shape of the video is 4:3. In order to get a square patch, we have to subsample the horizontal to get a 3:3 box. So, since the TV is 4:3, we have to use 3/4 of the horizontal measurement, which gives us 540. Therefore, because the DVX is capable of resolving individual black and white pixels on all 720 pixels across on a line, and since the proper square subsection of the horizontal (in proportion to the vertical) would be 540, then we can say that the DV format is capable of a maximum resolution of 540 TV lines. And the DVX meets that maximum.

So, how does that reflect back on a monitor? Beats me. Seems that a monitor with a maximum of 525 scan lines (which is all they can have, since that's NTSC standard) could deliver a maximum of about 700 lines of resolution. But it flat out says 750 on it... someone else (IAL? MichaelP? Dashwood? Jarred?) will have to clear this one up. Suffice it to say, the more lines of resolution, the more clearly you'll be able to see your picture. As long as you're getting 500+ lines you should be okay.

And a better grade of monitor is always worth waiting for. "Buy the best, and you'll only cry once."
 
Re: which production monitor?.

It is kinda confusing, but a 700 line monitor will be sharper and more detailed than a 500 line monitor, Even though there are only 483 visable lines in NTSC. This is due to depth of modulation, its pretty hard to explain but the best way I can describe it is by using an analogy of a digital camera. If you take a 640x480 photo with a 1 megapixel camera, you get the full pixel count, but if you take a 640x480 photo with a 3 megapixel camera with the same optics, you get a sharper more detailed 640x480 image because the pixels are tighter.
 
Re: which production monitor?.

i like to think of it like changing the resolution on your computor monitor.. your not changing the number of actual pixels that the monitor has , and can display, but your still upping the resolution. if you loaded a 800x600 texture in a basic program, between 640x480 and 1024x768 screen resolutions youl noctice a huge differece in how detailed and sharp things can appear.

... now barry, youve already surpassed my current knowledge in the feild of production monitors ..lol but speaking of appearance, i would say that a ntsc monitor may be able to resolve an image with the "appearance" of 750 lines, but as to whether or not there actually is 750 lines..you got me. but if our eyes percieve it as such, i suppose such a claim could be made with some sort of reasoning. but then again so many stats are slightly fudged to make products seem better. like every monitor the says it has a ..lets say 20" screen and actually only measures 19.1 " diagonal. they are almost all like that.. perhaps if we pulled the front plastic cover off, the monitor would actually be 20", but for all practical reasoning, the monitor is really only 19.1" cause thats all you can see. perhaps its something like that.. maybe the monitor board actually resolves 750 lines, but screenwise it only displays 700 or so.. who knows.

"Buy the best, and you'll only cry once." ..that is so true..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top