I'm new to freelancing and have my own post equipment and software and now trying organise a colour grading monitor but because i'm short of funds i'm wondering if a standard SANYO TV monitor no more than 15 years old 50/60hz and 79watts is worth having if i have to fork out $500 to buy a graphics card just so i can hook it up to my over 3 year old power MAC G5 because it only has 1 DVI input. Is it better than no monitor? Because i'm really keen to colour grade. Cheers.
Re: colour grading by walter biscardi on May 19, 2008 at 3:29:37 am
[Laurence McDonald]"i'm short of funds i'm wondering if a standard SANYO TV monitor no more than 15 years old 50/60hz and 79watts is worth having i"
Not in my opinion.
[Laurence McDonald]"if i have to fork out $500 to buy a graphics card just so i can hook it up to my over 3 year old power MAC G5"
You don't connect a TV to a graphics card, you connect it to a proper video card like he AJA Kona series.
[Laurence McDonald]"Is it better than no monitor? Because i'm really keen to colour grade. Cheers."
You cannot color grade using Color's preview display. You need to have a proper video monitor connected via a video output card like the AJA Kona series.
My current favorite monitors are the TV-Logic LCD HD displays.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.
Re: colour grading by Dylan Reeve on May 20, 2008 at 9:41:51 pm
[Laurence McDonald]"Is it better than no monitor?"
Well, no, not really.
TVs, especially modern ones, are full of all sorts of weird colour control electronics and AGC circuits. What you see is not what you get. Between the TV and your computer monitor neither version of what you see will be 'right' and both will be very different. Without a baseline reference from a trusted source it's more or less impossible to judge what's really happening in the picture.
Also the AGC in a TV presents a big problem in matching two shots, as the TV tries to do that itself, more or less fighting with your efforts in Color.
There is a benefit in having a TV you can watch your grade on, in that it will give you some idea of how a consumer TV may display your end product, but you can't make judgments and grading decisions (and you really don't want clients trying to).
A computer monitor, while often not accurate is at least generally consistent.
Re: colour grading by Joseph Owens on May 21, 2008 at 6:28:21 pm
"A computer monitor, while often not accurate is at least generally consistent. "
Safe reply, and saves argument, but the truth is that computer monitors are built to display text, nice and sharp and contrasty, and have as many work-arounds built into them to make the picture look "good". More consistent, true, you can be guaranteed that what you're looking at is wrong, no adherence or reference to SMPTE/EBU phosphor reproduction, but at least they don't have all the feedback circuits continually adjusting the pic to compensate for the CRT. You don't want a monitor that "looks good", when its the truth you're after. What was the name of that Greek guy who used to wander the streets of Athens with a lantern looking for completely truthful man? Odds on the success rate?
Re: colour grading by Dylan Reeve on May 21, 2008 at 9:18:41 pm
I guess my thought with that is that you can 'get used to' the way your computer monitor renders things. Even with a broadcast monitor I can get a decent idea of where I am at by looking at the preview on my computer monitor. I think if I absolutely had to I could get a reasonable result with just that (and software scopes) but I don't think the same is true of most TVs (although some which allow you to switch off all their AGC can be reasonable).
