Here, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you're shooting events for a client, then in my opinion, you owe that client a correct image. Broadcast monitors don't have to be expensive; they can be reasonably inexpensive.
They also don't have to be large, but they also shouldn't be small. Anything smaller than 12" or so, you can't see details, and maybe you're missing something. Maybe that title isn't sitting right against the roses, or maybe that soccer kid's shorts are sitting a little too high. These days, if a client has a better monitor than you....you are risking a lot. And with a lot of families now owning a high end plasma or maybe an LCD, and you're monitoring on a 300 line TV from Best Buy, you might get a phone call. I'd be surprised if you don't.
I find this thread really funny/ironic in a way. In the wedding forums, people are constantly looking for ways to save bucks on production gear *except* for their monitors, because they know the monitor is important. Here, it's folks wanting to be more pro, arguing that your window to the final product is something that can be compromised.
Do you need a 1000 or 800 line monitor for events? I sure don't think so. Do you need better than a 300 line monitor for events? I surely think so. There's a lot of room for compromise.
The question is, why should I use a monitor instead of a television. I gave a list of why. I probably shouldn't have prefaced it as a response to other posts. There are a lot of reasons why a cheap TV won't stand up in a paying client situation. I think I listed most of them fairly articulately and without passion or opinion.
Even broadcasters check their work (usually) on a low end TV, just to know what the worst their image is going to look like. But setting the standard on what the worst will look like vs what the best you can make it look like, seems a little self defeating.
But...that's just my opinion. If you're happy with your television, then there is no reason to change, right?

"Rednroll, you're an audio guy... do you mix on little 3" Soundblaster computer speakers? Do you add a bunch of bottom end to your mixes to compensate for those folks that will be listening on a transistor radio?"

To answer your question John, No I don't. The difference is that I can explain "WHY" with backing facts as to why I don't, because I've educated myself through indebt research and experience and then asked myself the questions prior to purchasing that equipment, "Why do I use this equipment?" I can further explain the limitations of not having this equipment and things you need to consider to overcome those limitations. So in doing this type of research it also makes me realize the weaknesses of not using this type of equipment and how to overcome that equipment's limitations if I don't have this type of equipment available to me and then I can compensate for it in my workflow if necessary. I can give useful information in either case, if a user asks a question like, "I only have 3" SB speakers to work with, how can I can achieve professional results?" You obviously can't do the same, because the only advice you have posted is that you have to have a professional monitor to do professional work. So although, I don't use 3" sound blaster speakers in my setup, you bet your bippy if that's the only thing I could afford, I can overcome many of the limitations of using those 3" SB speakers to still get professional results. That's the difference John, maybe someday you'll realize that, but I highly doubt it because, talking to you is like clapping with one hand. So far the only thing you've proven to me is that you're not a professional like you proclaim, because a true professional knows how to overcome equipment limitations if necessary because he truly understands those limitations. You don't possess this type of knowledge, BillyBoy has demonstrated through his advice that he does. I'm sure BillyBoy would agree, given the choice of using a professional monitor versus a standard monitor, he would choose the professional monitor......If Joe Smoe comes in here and his current work needs doesn't justify him paying a high dollar amount for a professional monitor, then we can count on his useful advice in informing that user the differences between a professional monitor and a standard monitor. Are you grasping the differences yet or do I need to type slower for you?

Broadcast monitors don't have to be expensive; they can be reasonably inexpensive.
==========================
Which ones do you recommend in the reasonably inexpensive category Doug?

John

Thank you Spot!!!! Now there are some useful facts John which supports the use of a professional monitor and what we need to consider if we don't have one available to us. That is a sign of a true professional with backing knowledge and experience and knowing why they use a professional monitor and if they had to offer advice on not having one available.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=319818&is=REG

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=302342&is=REG

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=319818&is=REG

are three that came up in a quickie search. The last one has an SDI option, which is surprising for a sub 1K monitor.
You can also buy used, IF you know you're dealing with a professional shop that certifies calibration and offers a warranty. Otherwise, avoid them, because once monitors start to go...they're more or less gone.

The models above are not much more than a good television will cost.

I know I said I wouldn't but there is simply too much missinformation floating around to let it pass which gives the wrong impression. Lets try to keep it cordial if we have to revist the topic that won't die.

"I do know, as does anyone who's compared them side to side, that the image quality of a television shifts tremendously over the course of a day's use whereas a production monitor hits its stride after about 20 mins."

Myth. Unless maybe you're talking about one of those motel room TV's you seem to find yourself staring at.

You're not suppose to be looking at "image quality" to check hue or levels. A properly calibrated inexpensive TV can be calibrated to the manufacturer's specs and PAL or NTSC settings just as the so-called professional monitors can. Side by side of course the picture quality of a set that costs $1,500 or more will be better than a set that cost $150, but that isn't what you suppose to be looking for, ie image quality, you're doing COLOR CORRECTION and levels. ALL sets need to warm up to hit their stride. The reality of any electronic equipment is when you first turn it on the components need to reach operating temperature. That's why my tutorials and every tutorial I even seen on the topic tells you to wait 20-30 minutes before attempting any calibration. A high priced set can drift just as much as a cheaper set. Parts fail. Capacitors, resistors drift from their values. Side by side, been there done that, a properly calibrated cheap set CAN SHOW the same levels, hues as one costing $10,000. The difference is the picture tube. I hope if I invest ten times the money or more I would be looking at a sharper picture.

"-Televisions don't have underscan, which is critical for production monitoring and field monitoring. You also can't see flagging on a television, because it's out of the field of view. You need underscan to see flagging. "

Guess what... a monitor is a television minus the tuner. That's your primary difference. If anyone is such a crappy videographer that they need to look on an external monitor to tell something is going to get cut off because its too close to top/bottom or sides or in the underscan area then I suggest anyone that dumb is in the wrong line of work.

"Televisions cannot be calibrated as accurately as a production monitor, they don't have the same controls. (some do, but you might as well buy a production monitor for the cost)"

Another myth. The type of "calibration" often mentioned here in the forum is do a quick, color bars or attach some USB device, whatever, which is only one step above the manual method I explain in my tutorials.

REAL calibration requires expensive complicated test equipment, considerable experience to do it right and lots and lots of practice to learn how and time, like a hour at least. How many here know how, (I do) raise your hand.

In a old thread I explained how I did it and compared results to an expensive monitor also properly calibrated using the same expensive test equipment. Interesting reading. The result, no preceivable difference. Again, remember, we're not talking sharpness of picture. That's just a red herring to what's being discussed. We're setting proper color balance and levels.

"-Televisions rarely have more than 400 lines of horizontal resolution. Broadcast monitors rarely have less than 600. You also get EBU phosphors in a broadcast monitor, you don't in a television. "

Times are changing. Interesting, many here have gotten a certain HP 1900x1200 monitor to use as their external monitor. If I remember correctly the model in question isn't marketed as a "professional broadcast monitor", its marketed as a premium COMPUTER monitor. So, are the people that use this model less professional then those still using a clumsy "broadcast monitor" in some tin case?

True, commerical televisions have different phosphors and many in fact most TV's have extra controls so you can fiddle with flesh tones, or set a tint you like better. Hint: They also have controls to shut such things off.

"-EBU phosphors are formulated to provide sharper pictures that aren't as bright."

An admission that using a "broadcast monitor" doesn't give you the same color space your end user sees. I often wonder why the people that claim to be so professional manage to adjust to something your intended target never sees. Must be lots of "broadcast monitors" sitting in people's homes. Odd, I haven't see one.

"-You don't get options for SDI input on a television, or at least I've yet to see one, but most broadcast monitors either have SDI or an optional card for SDI."

I can't plug my toaster into my television either, not ever my coffee maker.

"-Most televisions, but not all, have plastic cabinets. They are not metal like a production monitor. All production monitors (that I'm familiar with) are metal-cased, for the purpose of shielding from interference."

The shielding is INSIDE the case. Geez. Nothing worse that a little knowledge. When I built my Heathkit TV many years ago it came in an optional wood cabinet, not metal. It also had heavy copper plating surrouding much of the internal parts. Spot, one of the most interference causing things on your desk is your keyboard. I haven't seen one yet that was metal. Next are speakers. Are yours metal?

"-I've never seen a television with blue gun; almost all broadcast monitors do. -"

Then you haven't seen many. Again, my Heathkit came with a blue gun switch, I've seen others TV's, even some fairly inexpensive ones that have blue gun. Trust me, it has limited value.

"There might be a television that allows for external sync; most broadcast monitors either allow this, or have an option to allow this for additional cost."
Of course, you can always use a piece of Rosco 64 gel."

This may come as a shock... ANY TV can be hooked up to feed it a variety of external signals to aid in calibration.

"-Professional monitors have very robust degaussing circuitry. Televisions merely wipe the magnetism from the screen."

You're stuck in the 60's. Only a CRT type TV/monitors need degaussing . Again, if you must, go to any larger TV/electronics store and ask for a degaussing ring. Kind of cool vibrations as you hold it in your hand and move it about.

"-Televisions have a higher convergence error than broadcast monitors, but this is becoming much less of an issue. "

Not exactly right. The larger the screen the larger the area REGARDLESS how much the set costs. Its a matter of physics. As screen size increase the electron beams need to be deflected more to reach the corners. So-called flat screens are better, but not perfect. There is no such thing as a perfectly converged CRT TV/monitor. Period. Either the center will be a little off or the sides will be. Not a problem with LCD or Plasma.

"-Broadcast monitors all use Type C phosphors or they can't say they're SMPTE standard. Televisions don't. It's expensive, and unnecessary, and also not useful for the home/consumer environment, simply because most people prefer brighter screens, and they don't watch TV in standardized 5000- 6500k environments. The environment is variable, and therefore the image needs to be brighter."

So called broadcast monitors use a netural phosphor. Commerical tv's favor phosphors that produce warmer skin tones. The rest of what you said is basically gibbirish and didn't really say anything. The color temp what you call environment, has been deliberately fiddled with by TV manufacturers to fit the color space. This post is already too long to get into specifcs.

"-Most televisons can't switch between 16:9 and 4:3. Most broadcast monitors do."

That's no longer true either. For the last several years most new TV sales are wide screen. All LCD and Plasma, so called wide screen sets can switch between 16:9 and 4:3. Again, not the issue. The width of the picture has nothing to do with making color correction or level changes.

"-Most televisions can't provide RGB or even Y/C inputs. Most broadcast monitors do."

Same response as above. Most newer sets do have a variety of multiple inputs. Really another red herring. If we're discussing Vegas, I thought that's what this forum is about... then Sony recommends you output via firewire. Most devices, be they a digital camera with pass through or a A/D convertor like the popular Canopus line support composite, S video and component output. Bringing up RGB or Y/C has noting to due with the subject at hand.

"These are all reasons why you need a broadcast monitor IF your work product is for clients, for airing, or for anywhere else other than your family and friends. "

"...we don't say "I like the skin tones to be more red" or the "grass to be more green" in a broadcast monitor. We want it to be 100% of what the camera caught, and as close to a 'standard' as the broadcast will allow it to be when it hits the air or cable".

Explain what a "standard" skintone is =====>

The whole point of color/level correction is because we don't shoot prestine footage with our cameras. We put on the wrong filter, or forget to set a switch or the lighting just isn't right or a dozen other things. Sure, we need to have some basis to judge if colors are what they are suppose to be, that levels aren't too dark or too bright. But like the doctor that says the operation was a success, but the patient died isn't the ideal I'm after.

If I obsess over meeting specs, if I puff out my chest because I spent 5k on some monitor I may think I'm more "professional" then the next guy, but if the consumer sees a DVD I made and its a little too dark or too bright when he plays it on HIS tv explaining I made it following strict guidelines and using a fancy monitor to check it will still result in a unhappy customer, so fudging it a bit, sometimes, if necessary for the type of client I'm doing the job for maybe isn't that bad. It fact is may be pretty smart.

"So, keep arguing about it all you want, but as I and a few others have said time and again; you owe your client the best, most accurate image possible, because they're paying you for it."

See above. The customer is indeed paying for it. Giving a choice between pleasing myself and my customer, I'll please the customer. Afterall that's what I'm in business for. Why are you?

"Does this mean you can't do video without spending a fortune on a monitor? No."

Well glad to see you finally once admitted it. The point that you need to be reminded of again is not everyone here does broadcast projects. The tone that I've pointed out over and over is a few deliberately or not come across as superior because oh don't you know I have a professional monitor, I have a better camera, blah, blah, blah. Such talk isn't helpful. It sends the wrong message. It creates noise.

Maybe I'm just old school. I always thought that older more experienced people that frequent this type of forum do so to HELP those that may have not got as far down the road. If I discover a method or procedure I think may help SOME people then I'm happy to share it. If more people would do that and drop all the pretence, all the boasting, all the self promoting, then maybe this forum would even be better. Just a thought.

"I wonder if we'll still be having this same lame (and ridiculous) argument in a year and a half, when LCD's will be the primary monitoring source for HD, as HD starts to really take hold on the world? Nah....when that time comes, we'll probably be arguing over color profiles. (which are better, the free ones, or the ones you buy from Spyder or similar) ((tongue in cheek here))

I wonder if the same people that always "argue" with me will ever get off their high horses and just act like one of the guys instead of pretending their comments are the only ones that matter. (tongue in cheek)

BillyBoy, you still haven't answered my question so I'll try one more time.

Have you ever worked on a broadcast-level shoot?
To clarify, I mean programming, either a commercial or a program, that has aired on a television show at the national level?

Mike

Well, I've used both - and not very "good" monitors at that. But I promise you this - that the "pro" monitor is going to give you a more accurate picture every time. This is just per my experience - I can't tell you why, I can only tell you that it is. Even on sub $300 monitors it's better than a TV (assuming that you aren't talking about some high priced T.V. - in which case you could probably shell out for a Monitor that's more than $300) - in my experience. I'm not suggesting that you buy a monitor if you don't need it, but HEY - if you're looking into buying a TV to work on (it's a writeoff afterall) I'd put out a little more to get a "pro" monitor - worth a couple hundred more to me.

This is just in my experience - and I realize that the use of a T.V. means that you don't have to buy a monitor.

Dave

Mike, this isn't some inquisition where you get to play the role of inquisitor and act as some prosecutor. Regardless how I answer some here would attempt to use what I said just to start another argument or they simply wouldn't believe me. I'm not here to sell anything. I'm not here to brag. Enough already do that. I'm here to simply help. Period.

Some like what I say in this forum, others for sure at times don't. That's how it is. If what you're really asking is have I been successful, the answer probably can be answered by informing you I retired from the rat race at 41. That was 18 years ago. You should be as lucky... or smart enough to do the same. Good luck!

I think I've kept out of this "repeating" thread ever since they started to appear.

I thought I didn't know enough and it was way beyond my technical knowledge to add anything of consequence - save from the point of view of economy.

But all that has changed now. I have changed and have been making more and more "paid-for" projects. I wont get into the broadcast debate, but I will attempt to introduce another aspect - which often gets submerged under the weight of a vast pool of technical competence hereabouts - and that is the value of pro-monitors for improving my creativity with digital video.

I have recognised my own visual acuity and finesse has been heightened with the introduction of my £320 JVC 15" >750 line pro monitor. I can now "see" much more of the detail of my videos using this monitor. I can now pursue a whole lot more detail and "tease-out" far more quality than I had been used to with my 2nd-hand Hitachi. Oh yes Colour Correction is a cinch now AND my chroma keying is far far superior. I can get a much better understanding of my typography and graphics with this monitor. This in turn pushes me further to experiment with more subtleties and superior concepts than I did with the Hitachi.

Bottom line here is that I don't just use my promon for only setting Broadcast values, I also primarily use to assist me to explore far more which Vegas can offer than before. And that, for me, is where I get to express myself and feed my creativity. It was only yesterday I did something that made me exclaim as to what I'd just done with Vegas and seeing it on this pro-mon. It was something very simple, seeing a subtle colour gradient change behind a rolling white text statement. This I would NOT have been obvious or seen when I was working on that Hitachi TV.

. .and yes I would now not CC without it. Never - ever!

Grazie

BillyBoy, I 'm not trying to "play the role of inquisitor and act as some prosecutor." I'm merely asking a simple question.

Have you ever worked on a a televison commercial or program that has aired at the national level?

Mike

Grazie, thank you for putting a different spin on things :-)
Much appreciated. I'm glad that you're making more & more use of your monitor - and getting paid to do so too!!
As you (and several others) have pointed out, a decent monitor doesn't have to be expensive. I have 4 of the exact same JVC monitors at work in student edit suites (wasn't I the one who recommended it to you originally?) and remain very happy with them. They were also less than half the price of a comparable Sony ($675 vs. $1,700 - Canadian dollars, BTW).

Mike

Is there a benefit of having a higher res monitor than your cam gives you per a res chart? (IE - DVX100A can get as high as about 500 or 550 or something like that I think but if I have a monitor that's higher than that - am I going to see much of a difference?)

Just curious.

Dave

Dave, I personally think you will. When I'm on a shoot with my 750 line resolution monitor, I know my shot is focused properly and that the scene is lit and white balanced properly. With the monitor my department was using, it was anybody's guess. Also, my 50+ yr. old (near sighted and astigmatism) eyes need all the help they can get :-)

Mike

Going the other way, if your monitor has a lower res than your camera, you can get more moire artifacts and twinklies showing up, especially if your source is progressive scan like an XL2. I spent several hours trying to track down a 25p image problem, and was totally put on the wrong track due to the artifacts that I saw on my Sony TV. Switching to a high res monitor cleared things up right away, and allowed me to see where the problem really was.

Richard Hunter

BB and DSE both mention something that shouldn't be overlooked, resolution. I picked up a cheap 2nd hand broadcast monitor that I had repaired by Sony. Has it made my products vastly better, not really.
But I can finally see how good a good camera with good glass looks, I can finally tell exactly where my focus was set, I can even see the depth of field. Before all that information was lost in the low res of the TV I was using.
All we're mostly argueing about are standards, does it matter of you make a CD for you and your mates and the level is 6dB low, not really they'll just turn the volume up, does it matter if the color balance or levels on your home movie DVD is a bit off, not really, as BB pointed out they'll just adjust their set, come to think of it the average TV is so for off why bother anyway.
If that's all you aspire to then anything goes, if you're happy with it who is anyone to criticise your work. But put it out in the public arena and there's a whole world of grief waiting for you.
Here's the thing, no matter how far off the average TV is or where the volume is set on your CD player, if the vision levels or color balance or audio levels suddenly jump when they cut to your product they'll notice. Even if all the skin tones that they see are green but yours are blue, they'll sure as hell notice that. We'll all happily watch/listen to some pretty aweful stuff before we notice, it's when there's a jump in what we're seeing or hearing that we notice.
Bob.

You were doing fine Bob until you said "If that's all you aspire to then anything goes." Such poorly considered comments are why I jump into these types of theads. Deliberately or not, some people sometimes draw a line in the sand and suggest step over this line by doing, X, Y, Z and you too can become more "professional" don't, and I can almost hear the snickering

Such comments and I DO find them insulting, ignore what I've said. If those critical of what I said would have bothered to read the two tutorials I wrote on the topic (accessible on my newer Flash site) maybe there would be less misunderstanding.

The thing that bothers me in this forum and its palpable, is the often present undercurrent in some threads where some perhaps unknowingly pick words that imply they're more professional than the next guy because they have or do what others don't. That's a albatross who's tug is pulling this forum down. That's a shame.

Thanks for posting that, Richard. Using a TV/monitor that has lower resolution also hides all sorts of things. And those things can later come back to bite you in the butt.
Mike, as far as whether someone has or hasn't done a broadcast shoot/edit, or whether they've ever put out anything for national or international distribution apparently doesn't have to be a qualifier in order to make "professional" statements to those that are aspiring to great vid. I think what we're seeing here is the "armchair coach" kind of thing. Never put on a jersey, never been on a football field, never written a play or executed a lineup change, but knows more about football than anyone on the field.

It's one thing to suggest that if you can't afford or really need a production or broadcast monitor, then you likely don't need one. I think that's accurate to some degree, because if you can't afford it, you likely don't have paying customers.
It's quite another to boldly (and ignorantly) suggest that the only difference between a broadcast/production monitor and a television from Walmart or Best Buy is the lack of a tuner and an abundance of marketing hype. That's a pretty cavalier statement. And a somewhat dangerous one, IMO.
Hopefully anyone reading this thread sees your words, the words of Grazie, and others that have moved up to a mid or high level monitor, and found the difference, and understand the importance of accurately seeing what's in their images.

I want to thank all those who responded to my original question. And what a spirited exchange of Ideas....whew!...Thank you all again.
Best Regards,
Skip Stewart

Grazie, thanks very much for your input!
A monitor must be very useful when using Paint Shop Pro I gather.
Very much appreciated that straightforward "review".

Mario

"I think what we're seeing here is the "armchair coach" kind of thing. Never put on a jersey, never been on a football field, never written a play or executed a lineup change, but knows more about football than anyone on the field."

As Ronnie Reagan used to say, "there you go again"

What we're seeing here is the same up tight, I'm better than you "professionals" trying to get people to belive they are more professional becasue they keep telling us they are.

The coach analogy isn't totally lost and actually damn funny considering its Douglas saying it. Because everyone knows Douglas is the ultimate arm chair coach. Never went to law school, isn't an attorney, never defended anybody in a court of law, yet you'll see Douglas pontificating legal opinions almost daily in this fourm.

Never went to law school, isn't an attorney, never defended anybody in a court of law,
Actually, that's not accurate, BB. I've defended myself and another Plaintiff pro se in a copyright legal battle, all the while knowing the old saw about a fool for a lawyer and client.

We prevailed.

I'm comfortable admitting what things I don't know much about, BB, and am not in the least afraid to learn or ask. I'll take at least 50 hours a year of additional education at a school, tradeshow conference, or special event training. At least 10 hours a year of that are legal-related. Have you attended any schooling for video, audio, or computer technology in the past 5 years?
I've never claimed to be an attorney. If others here don't feel they benefit from my hundreds of mistakes that have led me to some fairly solid bits of knowledge, fine. Have the forum tell me so. I'll quit responding to copyright questions.