Benefit of Expensive LCDs?
 

Can someone explain why expensive LCDs are needed for editing, such as for Broadcast, DVD or Web?

I spent the money and bought an Eizo CG243W ($2400) and a Panny BT-LH1710W ($2900). I use the Eizo as my main editing monitor and the Panny is connected to my EX1 while recording, and eventually to a Kona card. With the Eizo next to my Dell Ultrasharp LCD, I can see part of the reason why the Eizo should be used - because the Eizo has a far greater dynamic range. The Dell crushes blacks and clips highlights whereas the Eizo beautifully displays them.

I commonly see people say that their video looks good on their HDTV and since their delivery is DVD, that is all they need. However, Hollywood does not use a simple HDTV for re-grading for DVD delivery.

I guess what I am trying to get at is how do I explain why expensive monitors should be used.

It really depends on what you're doing. The reason Hollywood DVDs use high quality monitors is because they duplicate 100,000+ copies of a title. So they want to get it right, and the economy of scale makes sense for them to spend a little extra doing that. However, if you are making a DVD or web video for a couple hundred people to watch you have to ask yourself, is my client better served by me charging more for high end equipment.

There is no single answer to these things.

Steve,

I think the answer to your question is actually contained in the word MONITOR.

The difference between a "tv" or a "screen" or a "viewer" and an actual MONITOR is that you're using the latter device to make JUDGEMENTS about a variety of aspects of a picture. And in order to make such judgements, you need the device to reproduce the signal MORE ACCURATELY than a common TV or video screen.

The funny thing about the whole process is that if you start with a proper video signal, there won't be very much difference between any of the above. The picture on a TV set - and the picture on a MONITOR might be very close. And in fact, the TV set might even look BETTER!

It's common for TV manufacturers to make their consumer sets look overly bright, or overly colorful compared to the actual signals being sent to them knowing that setting their products that way will help them stand out in a TV dealers show room.

But those same attributes are DEATH to a real monitor. If there's a problem with the phase of a signal after it's edited and it's skewing too far into either the green or magenta space, YOU NEED TO SEE THAT. If the color is too weak OR too strong iYOU NEED TO SEE THAT.

A monitor isn't a TV. It's a MEASUREMENT DEVICE. It needs to be calibrated. It needs to be reliable. And you have to learn how to use it to see problems in your picture or you will NEVER be able to reliably turn out professional quality video work. PERIOD.

Bill, thank you for the great comment. This is exactly what I was looking for.

Have you calibrated your Dell, even with a cheapie calibrator?

Following the other comments, I'll add that expensive monitors usually have better electronics that do not produce an audible buzz as well as display consistent color from corner to corner and show less noise in the dark values.