So I finally got an HD monitor for my edit rig and for field work.

I can't stress enough how much better a real CRT makes HD100 footage look...or conversely, how unkind a high-res computer LCD is to the camera. I suppose one could make an argument that most people buying HD for their living rooms are buying LCDs or plasmas, but somehow that seems to be different.

In a related question, the monitor I bought only takes 1080i, not 720p. The 1080i upconvert on the camera works ONLY for tape playback, not live output. Is there a reasonably priced converter anybody knows of?

(720p into the monitor works, but is shifted to the right about 10-20%. Black/grey bar on left, clipped image on right. Maybe there's a timing adjustment I can use internally?)

Details, Nate! Make, model, price?

I got a Sony PHM-14M8U, an older 14" model, but mine is in brand new shape. I paid around $1200 for it...the guy that sold me mine has another one on Ebay right now.

Also, a place called KP Video in NYC has 2 of them used for $800/piece...but I'm sure they'd be $100 to ship and who knows what shape they're in.

Resolution is stupid good. For 720p source material, it looks almost pixel-for-pixel (but I'm sure it comes up a little short of that).

Next, the Decklink HD Pro!

That's great getting somo information about some accesssoires for the HD100 and HD editing. I have to wait at least two weeks more to get a 101 because Spain is a little bit slow. Meanwhile I was thinking in buying the DELL W1900, a HDready television. Here in Europe some tests said it would be great for editing. Any opinions?

Markus

My feeling is that for HD editing you can't go wrong with a 23" Apple Cinema display. Having just finished editing an DVCPRO HD movie on one, including color correction on it, I'm finding that it doesn't lie, and that when you play back the edited material on HD projectors etc. what you saw is what you actually get.
The last I read on CRT's there was strong opinion that they just are not capable of fully resolving HD resolutiion, even the expensive ones, and that this is the "dirty little secret" in the HD world. On the cinema display you get true one for one pixel resolution, especially if you can afford the addition of an HDLink box. (which I can't right now).
The Sony PHM-14M8U CRT you mention only has 600 lines of resolution in 16:9 mode for instance, and though I'm sure it's very good, I think I would spend the few hundred dollars more on a cinema display for HD editing. My personal impression has been that the CRT's tend to "enhance" the HD and soften it in many cases, which gives you a false impression.

There's a Dell monitor which is supposed to be as good or better than the Apple cinema display and have componente IN to boot. I forgot the model number. I'm not sure if it's the W1900 Markus mentioned, as that one seems to be a TV.

I already know that the CRT I have doesn't show the full resolution. It does show enough though that I can see focus. Viewing things pixel-for-pixel on an LCD doesn't really show me anything except focus problems and MPEG artifacts. I have a Dell 2405 at the office that I bought for finishing an HDV project...it doesn't do your footage any favors.

A CRT also gives me a gold-standard reference for exposure...only after shooting repeatedly over weeks and weeks and then viewing my footage on my previous Sony 14", did I ever get a handle on how to expose properly using the DVX's LCD screen. I haven't had a proper display I can just view HD100 tapes on to judge those things.

Ideally, I'd have both an LCD and the CRT running in Final Cut I suppose. But as a shooter, having a good, stable reference viewing device to be able to use OUTSIDE my edit rig is paramount.

So Nate, do you think a good SD CRT is better than a Dell2405 or W1900 for field (critical focus/color/exposure/lighting set up) and editing(color correction etc) when using a HD100?

So Nate, do you think a good SD CRT is better than a Dell2405 or W1900 for field (critical focus/color/exposure/lighting set up) and editing(color correction etc) when using a HD100?

Hrm. Good question. Supposedly the colorspace when shooting HD is modified when sent out the composite output as SD, so I'd be careful and do some tests.

Before I got the CRT, I'd look at clips played back on my Apple 20" and say to myself "I dunno how this could be TOO far off"...but I played the same clip simultaneously on my cinema display and from tape on the CRT, and yes, there were most definitely things off. Mostly in the blacks...they'd go green on the LCD but go warm on the CRT. The most important part I think maybe is the fact it's just plain hard to second guess the LCD as to what it's going to look like elsewhere. With the CRT you have a lifetime of CRT watching experience to make guesses.

So I guess in short, yeah, I guess I'd take a good SD monitor over the Dell 2405.

[edit: an SD CRT is only going to be good for exposure and color. It will not help you a lot with focus.]

Nate, I was wondering. The Apple LCD monitors have 350 to 1 contrast ratio, while the Dell has 700 to1. Do you think that would make a difference when viewing HD content?

Hrm. Good question. Supposedly the colorspace when shooting HD is modified when sent out the composite output as SD, so I'd be careful and do some tests.
[edit: an SD CRT is only going to be good for exposure and color. It will not help you a lot with focus.]


The reason I asked is because your new monitor was said to have 600 lines. That's SD resolution more than HD I think. While the Dells go all the way up to real HD resolution.
Also, you don't need to use the composite. You can use the componente to the SD monitor.

The reason I asked is because your new monitor was said to have 600 lines. That's SD resolution more than HD I think. While the Dells go all the way up to real HD resolution.
Also, you don't need to use the composite. You can use the componente to the SD monitor.

This is kinda where book knowledge vs. real experience becomes an issue. If you saw the image on this 14" monitor, there would be no way you'd mistake it for SD. Don't be so quick to dismiss it by the numbers.

Viewing a res chart shot on the HD100 on both displays, the CRT is only smoothing over the last 10% of resolution from the camera; more than enough to see focus problems.

I have been using both the Dell 24" and the Sony 14" for editing, I want to see exactly what it would look like on progressive and interlaced display, in the beginning I was using Sony 14" mainly for color correction and look for interlaced artifacts, but I'm getting to the point I don't even turn it on anymore, I got the Dell adjust very accurate now using blue gelatin gel since it doesn't have a blue gun only mode, the thing about the Dell is it will show you everything, if your footage is crap it will looks very bad, but if your footage is good it will look very very awsome.

I have been using both the Dell 24" and the Sony 14" for editing


Which Sony, Khoi?

There's a Dell monitor which is supposed to be as good or better than the Apple cinema display and have componente IN to boot. I forgot the model number. I'm not sure if it's the W1900 Markus mentioned, as that one seems to be a TV.

The Dell you're thinking of (I believe) is the 2405FPW... it's the same one that I think I remember reading that Lucas was using on the set of the last two SW movies.

I wonder what would be best though. The 2405 is a PC monitor and the W1900 is a TV with HD resolution.

I also heard one of the Envision models give very good results and they are very affordable.

About the Dell, if Lucas really used them, so I think they are up to the task.

About the Dell, if Lucas really used them, so I think they are up to the task.

Lucas is a director, not a director of photography. He's watching performances, not exposure. On a shoot that big, there are multiple monitors scattered about, each one appropriate for the job of the person who's watching it.

I GUARANTEE there was a CRT on set for the D.P. to look at.

Also, I have a Dell 2405 at the office. It's about the same as the cinema display I have, of course, but bigger. Also, the component input is sketchy and introduce moving magenta and green noise into the image very badly. A known defect I could get a replacement for, but I read a horror story of another 2405 user trying to get a replacement from Dell...it took him weeks.

Trying to judge exposure by what appears on a reference monitor during a shoot is a very bad idea IMHO. You need to have a Waveform monitor hooked up to the camera at all times for HD, and if you can't afford that, use your Zebras. These tools, if used correctly, do not lie. The reference monitor will lie for a multitude of reasons, it could be set up incorrectly (especially prevelant with CRT's) or the ambient light shining on it may distort your impressions, making it an unreliable tool for exposure decisions.
There are some small HD LCD monitors that have built-in Waveform monitors that you can rent for the day, (for example the Panasonic BT-LH900 8.4" monitor) and it's worth every penny to have that up on the screen at all times. The Waveform monitor will save your ass.

Trying to judge exposure by what appears on a reference monitor during a shoot is a very bad idea IMHO.

I use zebras too. But the LCD on the camera is so bad for brightness and contrast that just using zebras is lacking too. Having a CRT and a waveform (aka a "real" HD engineering station) is obviously best.

Is everybody here really coming down on CRTs? Every HD shoot I've either been on or witnessed has had one on set. While going back and forth with posts on this thread today, I've been tweaking the camera live on my monitor, and FINALLY getting some images I'm really stoked on...something that wasn't working when using an NTSC monitor to play with settings.

I had one when I shot F700 for a month, and I can barely imagine NOT having it for a real shoot with real money.

Why is everybody coming down on using a CRTs? Every HD shoot I've either been on or witnessed has had one on set.

Maybe times are just changing Nate. If a LCD is sharp enough, which they are, it's good for focus. If there are people doing color correction on Apple Cine displays, the LCDs are good enough to judge color on set. if they are good enough to judge color and are sharp enough, you should be able to judge exposure with them plus your zebras. Just all suppositions, based on what has been said.

If people are interested in the issue of CRT versus LCD for HD they might want to read these articles, which are quite interesting:

http://www.uemedia.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=8033&printer=1

http://www.ecinemasys.com/products/edp100/edp100_lcd_vs_crt.htm

A quote from the second article.....

"For HD camera operators this signals also points out a serious problem with CRT's: You cannot use them for cricital focus, no matter how large and expensive they might be. They simply cannot display a true HD signal."

...I'm not saying I agree with everything in these articles but they are informative reading.

Something the discussion is ignoring is using LUTs for LCDs...the idea of modifying the signal to the LCD so it will display more accurately.

I think it's clear this will be the future. Sony is doing it with their Lume series, etc etc. If a company like eCinema Systems or Sony is claiming superiority with their system, rest assured their claims depend on some sort of color management system. You don't get this plugging your Z1 into the back of a Dell via component!

I think something else the discussion is ignoring is there is something intangible about viewing on a CRT as opposed to a LCD. I (and you!) have an entire lifetime of experience to draw from when it comes to them. If I color correct on a professional level CRT, then I know what it will look like on Grandma's tv set in Albuquerque. Not because my monitor is so amazingly accurate, but more because it's a known quantity. I already know my project won't look anything like it does on my monitor, but I can make reasonably accurate guesses about how it will look.

So far trying to do the same on a LCD has been a let down. The blacks on my Apple LCD are different than the blacks on my Dell at work; there's no way to calibrate either without going into ICC profiles. And so on and so forth. I can make either look amazing through the blue gel, but start looking at images and there's still differences...I could never get a handle on what I really had on tape. Then there's the quality issue of the Dell's component inputs.

Believe me, I was sorting my options too, convinced I was going to have to go with an LCD. I didn't want one, but I'm in the same boat as most of you funds-wise (i.e. can't afford a $3000 monitor). There's a lot of used HD monitors out there if you know where to look. Sony's been making them in quantity for 15 years...the older ones are out there. Mine was made in 1999, but brand new...at a stellar price.

(p.s. I fudged what I paid for mine in my post because I didn't want the guy to get badgered on the one he's trying to sell for $1300. I got it for $900, only a tiny bit more than a Dell)

Sort of the same thing here Nate. I got used to color correcting HD on a blue balanced Sony HS94P Xbrite. This is the same stock monitor for Sony's Xpri system (I later found out). I've never seen an LCD more closly emulate the phosphors of a CRT. It really doesn't matter what you pick as long as you get used to how the display handles colors and what to expect. I always validate against the waveform and vector.

When I first started using the Sony HS94P Xbrite a year ago, I'd take projects burned to DVD to places like Circuit City or Bust Buy which had alot of TV's and checked my results. The Circuit City was very nice in that they let me put finished content on their DVD player that pumped signal out to 40 or 50 TV's at once. Anyway, I found that I could trust my readings and what I was seeing on the Sony.

So what you write, I've found to be true. Once you know your monitor then CC becomes easier and you can trust what you see.

Yes, yes! An accurate monitor isn't the most important part. A monitor you know, and know what it does to your signal IS.

So far I haven't figured out just what it is that LCDs are doing to signals I know and love (old videos I've made and seen on a zillion different displays). Maybe that's just what I'm going to have to do eventually as LCDs come into play more...view old material that I KNOW what looks like on LCDs.

I suppose somebody just getting into this (CC work, shooting) could start fresh with LCDs, and get to know and love them just like I know, love, and trust certain types of CRTs.

"Which Sony, Khoi?"

Nate, it's a pvm14l4, it is SD but since I deliver my final product on SD widescreen dvd, I use it to check for color and interlace artifacts that I might have missed since I'm editing in HD with the Dell, but now I pretty much knows the Dell so I don't hardly turn it on anymore, I'm using Edius NX so I can easily switch from HD project to SD with a mouse click.

If I color correct on a professional level CRT, then I know what it will look like on Grandma's tv set in Albuquerque.
Well, very true. However, the world is moving to LCDs and eventually even that grandma will have one. Lots of people are buying them and we may as well start seeing what they will see on their incorrecly set up LCDs. Speaking of incorrectly set up, I am yet to see a TV in an average house that's set up properly...:-) Or a movie projector at a multiplex...

We have 3 monitors in our HD suite, JVC DTV 19" HD CRT, Apple Cinema display with HD Link and Panasonic 42" HD Plasma. First display I ALWAYS look at is the JVC, it certainly shows focus issues where sometimes the Apple Display does not.

It's scary how, even when set up correctly, how different pictures look on the three types of monitor!

I'd love the JVC 1910. That seems to be the one HD CRT that size that's not over $5k.

And yes, it IS scary how you can think something is close to accurate, and then get it next to something else and find out it's not.

I use zebras too. But the LCD on the camera is so bad for brightness and contrast that just using zebras is lacking too. Having a CRT and a waveform (aka a "real" HD engineering station) is obviously best.

When I first recorded at +18dB with the lens cap-on with an HD100 -- looking at the LCD there was a real difference between the left and right sides -- the "split-screen problem." Casually, I also noted the LCD was not calibrated -- Black Level was about 2 -stops to high.

When I watched the test on calibrated monitors -- the split-screen effect was gone! Unfortunately, it is almost always the case that camcorders' LCDs do not have complete calibration adjustments. So they are useless. Likewise, most color VFs. Thankfully, the HD100 VF has both Black and White Level controls.

Zerbra's are useless in making adjustments that relete to shadow detail. You need a calibrated monitor not affected by ambient light -- the HD100 VF works well -- and, ideally, a WF monitor. (A WFM really need to be built-in.)

Why waste microcode on CineFrame modes -- and not have all the LVD/VF adjustments?

I CAN't double post -- so you all should be aware I'm doing a daily micro-review of the HD100 as I explore the camcorder at:

http://www.gyhduser.com/

In "Day 1" I explain WHY the split-screen problem affects the HD100. Turns-out running a high-res, progressive CCD at 60Hz is a REALLY difficult problem the SMALLER the chip because of heat dissapation limitations. To get speed you need to increase voltage, which increases current, which increases heat. A fascinating story -- one which echos Apple's choice of Intel.

I 100% agree with Nate on the CRT v LCD equation. On CRT's we see true blacks and that is by far the most important factor, we are talking contrast ratios above 20,000:1 on a decent CRT.

BY contrast (ahem excuse the pun) some of the LCD's mentioned in this thread can manage only 350:1 and 700:1. This manifests as burnt out highlights, muddy blacks and a lack of smooth transition between light and dark. However you can check focus and composition on them. It really comes down to whether you intend your final output to be film, in which case I'd go for CRT over LCD every time.

Anyway my $0.02.

I am yet to see a TV in an average house that's set up properly...:-) Or a movie projector at a multiplex...

Hope there's no projectionists here - they pride themselves on technical know-how and I think they might just take offence at that!

Jiri - are you saying your eyes are better than the professional setup gear they use at cinema? Or are you just saying that the print quality on a lot of films is lousy - we get a lot of used prints over in Australia (I'd agree with that)?

The Sony PHM-14M8U CRT you mention only has 600 lines of resolution in 16:9 mode.

Paul, TV lines on CRTs are measured in a horizontal area equal to the vertical measurement -- so 600 lines on a 16:9 monitor would resolve slightly over 1000 lines horizontally.

Many people are hopping up and down about cheap LCD monitors, I haven't seen a single one under $1500 that looks right, period.

Jiri - are you saying your eyes are better than the professional setup gear they use at cinema? Or are you just saying that the print quality on a lot of films is lousy - we get a lot of used prints over in Australia (I'd agree with that)?
No, no, I don't claim my eyes being better than the gear, it's just that often the multiplexes are automated and unsupervised and as a result the images look lausy. The other day I saw a movie that was supposed to be anamorphic and they run it without the anamorphic adaptor - squeezed! And no operator to be found. As for the setup, it's nice to have the gear as long as the operators are trained in using it.

Paul, TV lines on CRTs are measured in a horizontal area equal to the vertical measurement -- so 600 lines on a 16:9 monitor would resolve slightly over 1000 lines horizontally.

Many people are hopping up and down about cheap LCD monitors, I haven't seen a single one under $1500 that looks right, period.

The advertised pitch on my CRT is .25, the pitch on my 20" ACD is .258.

Even though the CRT doesn't show ALL the resolution recorded, it's dang close. Close enough I can see my biggest focus bugaboo, the iris diffraction.

No, no, I don't claim my eyes being better than the gear, it's just that often the multiplexes are automated and unsupervised and as a result the images look lausy. The other day I saw a movie that was supposed to be anamorphic and they run it without the anamorphic adaptor - squeezed! And no operator to be found. As for the setup, it's nice to have the gear as long as the operators are trained in using it.

Just having some fun Jiri - I put myself through a year at Uni ushering at a cinema complex, then scored a job with the cinema company in advertising. Anyway met a few projectionists (admittedly most of them old school), and technically they were great. In Aus I think the unions put a stop to too much automation..

Putting a movie up without the anamorphic lens is inexcusable and I hope the manager gave you a book of free tickets or something.

Well, John, I was there with my wife and I didn't want to make a big fuss about it...so, yes we got a pair of free tickets. Young kids, what can you ask for, the manager was about 24...

Well, John, I was there with my wife and I didn't want to make a big fuss about it...so, yes we got a pair of free tickets. Young kids, what can you ask for, the manager was about 24...

Poor show indeed. When I saw Bewitched, I complained about the quality of the print (not to mention the focus on some of the shots - can't really blame the cinema for that) - grainy, dirty and unacceptable. The manager gave me 3 x double passes which I considered fair recompense.

[QUOTE=Nate Weaver]So I finally got an HD monitor for my edit rig and for field work.

I can't stress enough how much better a real CRT makes HD100 footage look...or conversely, how unkind a high-res computer LCD is to the camera. I suppose one could make an argument that most people buying HD for their living rooms are buying LCDs or plasmas, but somehow that seems to be different.

In a related question, the monitor I bought only takes 1080i, not 720p. The 1080i upconvert on the camera works ONLY for tape playback, not live output. Is there a reasonably priced converter anybody knows of?

(720p into the monitor works, but is shifted to the right about 10-20%. Black/grey bar on left, clipped image on right. Maybe there's a timing adjustment I can use internally?)

Just thought I 'd let everyone know what I use with my Edius NX board and HD100, for anyone editing/shooting on a skinny budget.
I have a Samsung SyncMaster 730mw. http://product.samsung.com/cgi-bin/nabc/product/b2c_product_detail.jsp?prod_id=MH17WS It has a lot of unwanted stuff like TV/radio tuner but does have the following: Component :Composite: RGB: Another set of RCA audio in: DVI(HDCP): DVI/PC in audio: is 1280/768 resolution and cost me UK£350. Usually about the same in US dollars (You guys really have it good on price!)
I am not trechnically minded so I do not know how it stacks up that way but it gives a true (IMHO) HD reproduction through the Component inputs. Enough for me to work with anyway. The only down side is that you cannot set up colour bars in the same way you could with a CRT monitor.
I use it only in post but could be OK on location if you have power supply ( it is free standing)

Cheers

Tony

The single biggest issue between CRT and LCD, *especially* when considering HDV footage from something like the Z1, is the interlaced nature of the footage.

Only CRTs are interlaced. An LCD monitor will either throw away half the fields, resulting in a soft image (half the veritical rez), or the wildly more expensive ones will do a proper deinterlace which only chucks away a quarter of the rez. Either way, you ain't seeing what the camera recorded, and the footage may be better than you think - but only when displayed on a CRT.

This is where products like the HDLink can be useful - the very fancy hardware is there to sort out fields and LUTs and the like, plus all the squeezing and zooming required to get from the native rez to the screen rez.

IMHO, an editor needs a crt like a cameraman needs a tripod.

But if only editors had CRTs, who realistic would that be. BTW, decent projectors don't throw away any rez. They convert 60i to 60p and just play back the frames twice as fast. There's no rez lost at all, and remember 60i only has 70% of the vertical rez of 60p due to filtering.

Graeme

But if only editors had CRTs, how realistic would that be

:-D

You caught me wearing the wrong hat today!

And you make a good point about HIGH QUALITY projectors, which - like the good LCD screens with special hardware - cost a lot of money. Lots and lots of money. Far more money than a JVC HD CRT monitor.

If it's for shooting, how about the latest version of DVrack? I believe they've got an LCD LUT control so you can sort of tune up the laptop's screen to give you a little more of a clue, AND you get a waveform monitor too.

Only CRTs are interlaced.
AFAIK CRT's don't have to be interlaced - CRT projectors aren't, are they? Technically I think CRT's need special circuitry to display interlaced images, and there's no reason why they can't scan the whole screen in a single progressive frame.

CRT computer monitors scan in a progrssive fashion, but unfortunately they do not use the right phosphours for TV.

Sure CRTs can be progressive, but their characteristics make them the most suitable type for interlaced display.

Graeme

I 100% agree with Nate on the CRT v LCD equation. On CRT's we see true blacks and that is by far the most important factor, we are talking contrast ratios above 20,000:1 on a decent CRT.

BY contrast (ahem excuse the pun) some of the LCD's mentioned in this thread can manage only 350:1 and 700:1. This manifests as burnt out highlights, muddy blacks and a lack of smooth transition between light and dark. However you can check focus and composition on them. It really comes down to whether you intend your final output to be film, in which case I'd go for CRT over LCD every time.

Anyway my $0.02.

I would agree. I'm working on a HD large screen project and needed to view material at at least 720p and wanted 1080p. I considered the Dell and other LCDs but contrast and response times were a real concern. Unfornunately, a CRT that fully resolves 1080p lines and displays it nicely being fed 24fps from AE.is not an option that I've found at any reasonable price if at all (never could find one of the $5K plus HD monitors locally to view.

1080p projecters start at $20k and go up (Sony does have a new "low cost model" at $10k coming in a couple of months.

My "budget" solution was to keep my $600 Calibrated NEC CRT computer monitor, my $500 JVC Broadcast monitor (resolve around 600 lines) and add a Panasonic AE900U LCD projector as my second PC monitor (on a A/B switch to conserve the bulb). Native 720p, amazing contrast that's measured at around 1800:1 but uses faster than frame rate Dynamic Iris to boost to contrast to 5000:1 or so.

Black levels, with the right screen, are very good (not CRT deep) but shadow detail is outstanding. Image looks stunning. Got a projector for $2200 and screen for $500.

Plus you can pick up from the editing bay and drop in the living room for great Home Theater.

A thought to consider in the LCD/CRT debate, put forth by our own DSE, is unless you are shooting for theatrical release, most of the final audience who will see HD footage as HD, be it broadcast or DVD, will be watching on LCD panel or Plasma display TVs rather than CRTs. Thus when colour correcting, etc, what you see when editing and previewing on an LCD panel is going to be closer to what the audience sees than if you used a CRT.

A thought to consider in the LCD/CRT debate, put forth by our own DSE, is unless you are shooting for theatrical release, most of the final audience who will see HD footage as HD, be it broadcast or DVD, will be watching on LCD panel or Plasma display TVs rather than CRTs. Thus when colour correcting, etc, what you see when editing and previewing on an LCD panel is going to be closer to what the audience sees than if you used a CRT.

True, but given the great variance in LCD and Plasma panels contrast and color balance I would not rely solely on LCD for CC.

I'll stick with the CRTs. Even if a particular users LCD is not in spec, they are trained or familiar with the look and feel of their display as is. Therefore, as long as I stay in spec during post, the view will look the same according to what they are used to seeing. After all, that's why we have a spec in the first place.

Pete