Recommended LCDs for HDV editing

totally lost wrote on 9/7/2006, 4:31 PM
I realize some of you are snickering immediately because some would say LCDs aren't worth a damn when it comes to accurate monitoring. With that said, I agree. I'm using a dual monitor set up with a 20" Sony CRT 1600 x 1200 @ 100 HZ.

I want to get a decent LCD without breaking the bank ($400 budget). As far as I know there is nothing out there at 19" - 20" doing 1920 x 1080. The best resolution I can find in those size screen is 1680 x 1050. Thus far this is all I can find http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824138061

The card I am using is Geforce 7900GT 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI E x16.

Am I totally lost and mis-guided by being caught up in resolution specs? Is there anything decent that can do 1920 x 1080 in my price range? Do I need to go to a larger screen size to do 1920 x 1080? Should i just get another CRT? I'm clueless! Aghhh!

I am recording in HD, editing in HD, archiving in HD and for the time being planning to down sample to Flash using Sorenson or On2, haven't decided which one yet. Just to clarify final output will be to the web. My goal is to have an accurate reference point to "master'" content for the web. Can you tell I am an audio guy by my lingo? ; )

Please set me straight.

Thank you ahead of time!

Comments

Yoyodyne wrote on 9/7/2006, 4:51 PM
Well Dell has a 24 incher - it used to be the 2405 but now it's something else (2407 I think?) that is pretty popular. It may not be perfect but for the price it's pretty decent, unfortunately I think it's around $800 bucks.

$400 dollars is pretty low for accurate monitoring of HD - wish I had more info
totally lost wrote on 9/7/2006, 5:09 PM
If I can't go the full monty and drop the nessacary $$$ to get what's "right". What would be the best compromise? Ok, maybe I can go to $500.
farss wrote on 9/7/2006, 5:30 PM
Sorry really nothing out there.
24inch is the smallest size that does 1080, the Dell 2407 is great value although far from a great monitor. I bought one and despite the banding issues I'm happy with it for the price. The next step up quality wise is several times the price for less 'features' but a better image.

Bob.
epirb wrote on 9/7/2006, 5:47 PM
I have both a 2407 Dell and a Samsung 24 (forget the model) while the Samsung has better adjustment features the Dell was cheaper samsung about 8 months ago 1400.00 the Dell was closer to 800.00 . What I did like about the dell is its integral multi card reader, the Samsung has a remote that makes adusting much easier. (I hate the bouncing around the buttons to adj the Dell like on most monitors PIA. you can also adust the display scaling better on the Samsung.
I am thinking of getting one of thise calibrators Spot recently got and caling both screens (have four monitors, on two PCI SLI cards though not tied together, each card has a 24" monitor and a 19")
I am hoping that way I can call the card to the 24's dont really care about the 19"s cals just hold undock'd windows in Vegas.)
But will wait till i see how it all come together with V7
totally lost wrote on 9/7/2006, 6:21 PM
Ok, point taken... I'm screwed! lol!

So what are the opinions on 19", 20" 20.1", 22" LCD @ 1680 x 1050.

What's the best one for under $500? Please someone point me in the right direction.
MH_Stevens wrote on 9/7/2006, 8:08 PM
If you don't want the Dell which is the budget standard then just about anything else lower is equal to the task. You can't monitor HDV exactly with less than an HDTV monitor but any old TV set will do if you are not to critical. There are some decent old style big and heavy CRT Tv out there that give a fine picture.

I edit HDTV often using just one corner of my Dell and if you use the aid of scopes and experience you can do a decent (not pro) job without the full resolution.
totally lost wrote on 9/7/2006, 9:46 PM
"but any old TV set will do if you are not to critical. There are some decent old style big and heavy CRT Tv out there that give a fine picture."

Does CRT TV have more reslolution than my Sony at 1600 x 1200?
So are you bacally saying I should go with another 1600 x 1200 CRT? Please keep in mind I am prepping files for the Flash on the web and the end result will go on the insane combination of different CRT's AND soon to be more prominet (if not already) LCD web audience. I realize by not having a true microscopic reference all bets are off. However, as far as i know I am not going to do much better than 1600 x 1200 with a CRT. Of course there are different levels of quality CRT. Is there a "reference" CRT that is within reach?
Would I hook it it up via composite?

If I go with a 1680 x 1050 what kind of artifacts should I expect when the picture is shrunk down? Same with the artifacts cause when using a 1600 x 1200 CRT?

Thank you sooo much for entertaining my questions. Of course I am not hearing what I want to, but the truth sometimes hurts! ; )

I really need the best advice in order to do the job as best i can with the given budget.

MH_Stevens wrote on 9/7/2006, 10:10 PM
If you are rendering down to the low resolution of Flash I don't think you have a problem or a need for any more monitors. Shooting for the small screen is more about composition and clean contrast and an un-busy final result. I don't see monitor resolution when you will end up with 320x250 or the like is an issue.

Remember when you shrink down to these small sizes the picture always looks better but the information presented to the viewer must be kept to what is necessary and waste no bandwidth.

A good example is titling. Its not the resolution or the font but more than three words in a line and it can't be read as its so small.

Yoyodyne wrote on 9/8/2006, 12:15 AM
Yea, what MH Stevens said. There are a few "reference" LCD monitors out there but I think they cost about as much as a car. If you are compressing this stuff for web delivery you should be fine with what you have.
NickHope wrote on 9/8/2006, 12:46 AM
Saw a very nice Benq 20" 1680 x 1050 monitor in Bangkok the other day and much cheaper than a 24" 1080 monitor. Might be worth a look.