BillyBoy,

>You don't need an expensive broadcast monitor...... I've used a 12 inch Sharp for a couple years now and the results I've got are excellent. <

How do you KNOW your results are excellent without a properly calibrated reference monitor?

Gary Kleiner

Gary, Billyboy has produced some excellent tutorials on how to set up your monitor properly, so you can view the results of your work accurately. Not sure of his web page at the moment, but he has produced some amazing tutorials that are very worth reading about.

dave

By playing the same files on a computer connected to A BROADCAST MONITOR and comparing the two results. Side by side.

Duh!

Let you in on a little secret. Sherry and Cooking Sherry are the SAME exact wine, made from the same batch of grapes. The only difference is the label that gets slapped on the bottle. The producer (yes, many years ago I worked for one of the biggest) can and does get away with charging anywhere from 5 to 50% or more, knowing full well the snob apeal will draw a certain amount of clueless customers, thinking they are getting something "better" simply because they foolishly thinking paying a premium results in a premium product.

Now what's the difference between so-called "broadcast" NTSC monitor and a off the shelf consumer TV? Mostly nothing. Oh the shock of it. One probable difference is in consumer grade TV's the resistors are likely all 10% maybe a few 5% tolerance. I would assume in a "broadcast" quality TV the resistors are 1-2% tolerance and it probably has a better power supply and perhaps and few refined circuits and surely a few more things to adjust, (mess up) maybe a better quality picture tube.

Does that make it a better monitor?

Sorry no is does not. The parts assuming 1% resistors would be subject to lest drift which really only matters during warm up. Once a consumer grade set is 'warmed up' ie turned on for twenty minutes or so all the componets have stabilized, so at that point very little difference.

The key is PROPERLY calibrated. You can properly calibrate a consumer grade TV so that its output is very close to a so-called broadcast monitor. In other words a poorly calibrated 'broadcast' monitor is no better, actually worse that a properly calibrated consumer grade TV.

Besides... how many people reading this have access to the equipment necessary or the skill to "properly calibrate" any TV? Hint... even so-called professionals claiming they know how unless they do all the steps (takes at least a couple hours) are doing it correctly? You don't. So unless YOU, meaning yourself know how and YOU do it, then its a leap of faith.

And if you're going to say you had it "calibrated" by some professional you better also say they did it on site, because if they didn't then sorry, just the normal shaking and handing getting it back to you could be enough to throw it out of alignment (convergience- ie alignment of CRT's guns hitting the picture tube correctly) assuming a typical CRT picture tube.

I was wondering if anyone could add their input on a lower grade consumer TV versus maybe a Sony Trinitron or Sharp TV? Right now i have an old (maybe late 89') 10" Sears TV that ive calibrated using the tutorials (it even has that really cool 80's wood paneling)Things look fine to me but i dont have access to various higher end consumer models to compare. I never received any compliants about the color or picture, but that doesnt mean that there isnt a problem.

So my question, since you generally color correct and adjust the picture to the lowest common denominator (this case my little ol Roebuck) am i doing my work a disservice by using this TV monitor? WOuld i be better off getting a newer tv to do color correction?

I would recommend getting a copy of Video Essentials DVD (if you can still find it) and use it to calibrate your TV. It has all the test patterns you need and instructions for doing it. Be sure to have the TV on for at least 30 minutes before making adjustments for all the circuits to settle down.

As for the comment about resistor values, the majority of consumer TVs have 5% resistors and some 1%, depending on the circuit. Also, the 1% is variation from one resistor to the next, not necessarily the value change during warm up. BUT, his point is valid. They are probably built to tighter tolerances (we only design/manufacturer consumer grade here).

All televisions as they age lose their ability to properly show a "bright" picture due to components slowly failing in the high voltage section and the gradual and expected detoration of the picture tube. If and its a BIG if... you can still properly obtain a good white and black point by checking and adjusting every few months to counter any developing problems then even a 10-12 year old TV may still be suitable, but for sure it won't be capable of showing the same quality of picture as one that's two or three years old.

It really boils down to what you're doing. If you only have yourself to please no problem. I replace the TV I use as an external monitor about every three years. Another reason to use a cheap TV since an expensive NTSC monitor will detoriate at roughly the same rate. Spending a hundred dollars or so every 2-3 years is no big deal. Spending upwards of a thousand or so for an expensive monitor is.

About my Calibration tutorial...

It wasn't designed or meant to replace what can be done IF you have access to and know how to use lab equipment. If you want to try something better than the tutorial, there are several DVD's out that include many other test patterns and a more detailed process.

The point I hope I made with the tutorials is the average Joe six pack has a television that isn't calibrated properly with likely both the brightness and contrast cranked way up beyond NTSC standards. I'll assume its the same in the PAL world. The result of that made worse by also cranking up the sharpenss/focus control thinking that helps to get a clearer picture results in a "bad" overall picture that they've just gotten used to because they rarely if ever viewed a television that was properly calibrated, most saying its too dark.

Of course you have to take the real world into consideration and apply a fudge factor.

I have to disagree with the Professional monitors being just as good as TV's statement. I use Professional monitors at work and I notice a BIG diffrence between those and the tv I have at home. Anyways, that is not why I am posting. I just wanted to let anyone know that is looking to get a cheap TV to use as a monitor, go to Circuit City, I just picked up a Apex 13" color TV for $65, works great as a second TV, or a preview monitor for those who can't afford a professional one. Yes, I use this as my preview monitor at home since I can't afford a professional monitor either :)

So what i could gather from everyones post is that maybe i should invest in a new 13" TV, but i dont have to go out and drop $200 on a Trinitron in order to obtain decent results. I was just at Best Buy and it did seem like a huge difference in price from a Daewoo 13" versus a Toshiba or Sony. Not necessarily picture quality since none of their TVs seemed to be calibrated in any fashion.

I almost get the impression that if you dont have access to special equipment that you will never obtain a properly configured/ calibrated TV.

As long as we're beating this topic to death, the important thing to remember is regardless if you get a 'regular' TV or a monitor, be sure if you go with the second choice that it truly is a NTSC monitor and not just another 'regular' computer monitor or you'll accomplish nothing. I assume (can someone confirm?) its the same in the PAL world. The whole point of the exercise it to see colors and levels as they will appear on a TV which are different than they appear on any 'regular' computer monitor.

What you can do in a pinch to get an idea of what's being talking about if you don't have an external monitor and you do have Adobe's Photoshop, look for a little utility called Adobe gamma loader. With it you can mimic TV color on your single computer monitor. Also many newer graphic cards allow more or less the same thing. May be some option under the advanced tab and something called color management. You'll probably have to hit a add button and if you get that far several optional profiles may come up or at lease be on the graphic card CD.


WARNING.... doing this will for sure change the colors/tempature in Kelvin and brightness. Because it is very different than what you are use to seeing on a computer monitor it will look odd, but it will give you an idea of the differences colors are seen on different devices, like a computer monitor verses a TV screen. Save your original settings so you can go back.

"I almost get the impression that if you dont have access to special equipment that you will never obtain a properly configured/ calibrated TV"

The equipment isn't that special, but expensive (hundreds, for good used, close to a grand for half way decent new) for a good set of basic tools that unless you have other interests will be rarely used for anything else. That really isn't the issue either. It takes practice, lots of it, to understand what should be done, in what order and how to use the equipment properly.

Getting "proper" configuration is easy enough, even without equipment. Trying to get perfect convergience for example is a fool's project. If you get the center of the screen perfectly aligned then the corners will be slightly off or the reverse happens. To a lessor exten these days, but still not possible totally.

I don't want to create the impress having perfect configuration is necessary. It isn't. And like I said you can't really anyway. With test equipment you can get a nudge closer... if you know what you're doing. The main thing is try to get the black and white point as close to NTSC or PAL standards as you can, which you can do without any fancy equipment. My only purpose in all this chest beating is few people obsessed with video editing like I guess we are (wink) know what a "good" picture is suppose to look like on a television and to compensate, they just crank the brightness and contrast way up beyond the optiomal values which results in blowing out the highlights and shadows.

I have no doubt that a professional monitor will deliver a more "calibrated" image than a cheapo TV set. However, even a cheap TV set will give a MUCH better idea of the final results than the PC image alone.

Also, if you watch regular TV over that monitor (and perhaps a couple of DVDs) then you know what regular images should look like on that set. With a few exceptions, those images coming across a modern cable system are pretty good. After watching your video and noting what it looks like on the histogram scope, you can get an idea of what, if any, correction to make.

Too much is being made of "calibrated". Next time the president requests air time and his speech is carried live on dozens of channels at the same time flip through them. Notice the wide differences in hue, levels?

How can that be if supposedly all the crews have 'properly calibrated' monitors and before going on air adjust to color bars?

Think about it.

>Now what's the difference between so-called "broadcast" NTSC monitor and a off the shelf consumer TV? Mostly nothing.<

As someone who has used broadcast monitors for a couple of decades as well as being a "regular" person who watches TV, shops at Wal-Mart, etc. I assure you there is a large difference.

More importantly, besides the advantages of underscan, blue gun only, etc, TV sets have circuits that adjust for certain signal problems, and have automatic circuits that control gain, contrast, and saturation. Broadcast monitors adjust nothing because the idea is to give you an accurate image, not a pleasing one.

If you are doing video as a hobby, then yes, a decent TV is fine. For any professional, a broadcast monitor should be one of the first investments made.

Gary

Still missing the point...

I would hope a "broadcast" NTSC monitor costing maybe ten times as much as a "regular" TV would result in a "better" looking picture on its screen. It can not and does not guarantee you'll have a "properly" calibrated image. In this sense the use of "accurate" is subjective, wrongly assuming an expensive "broadcast" NTSC monitor won't or doesn't suffer from the same ills that cause any television to drift off of specs over time. Its simply the nature of the beast.

Maybe you Gary or someone else would like to take a stab at explaining why supposed TV broadcast "professionals" in the situation I suggested, broadcasting a live TV presidential speech of course using expensive so-called accurate and properly calibrated broadcast monitors to check their camera output and I would hope prior to broadcast using color bars to broadcast a legal NTSC signal end up broadcasting a very diffent looking picture of the SAME event.

Gary,

I'm with you 100%. A professional monitor is absolutely essential if you are doing any sort of "professional" work. As you say, there are VAST differences between consumer TV's and broadcast monitors.

Nevertheless, if you are using either a consumer or "professional" monitor, it MUST be calibrated. Fortunately, it isn't that difficult to do, all you need is a color bar video source, a piece of blue gel and the following instructions:

Color Bars and how to use them

John

(BillyBoy, assuming all the calibrations are made, from white/black balance, levels and such on the camera, all the way through the entire broadcast chain to the transmitter or cable head-end, then you might be able to expect your "presidential speech" to look quite similar on the various TV networks. However, most calibrations must be performed by humans and some humans, even at the broadcast network level, are simply too lazy or incompetent to do it.)

Well Duh... doesn't that more or less prove what I've been saying then? It isn't that you shouldn't attempt to adjust as best you can, rather WHAT sense if any it makes to use very expensive equipment when much cheaper gets the job done.

The real issue is the HUMAN factor. Not if you have a $2,000 "broadcast" quality monitor or use some Kmart TV as your external monitor. For you see all the work YOU or anyone doing video work paying careful attention to specs, calibratation, color balance, white and black points still must face the fact that if as John says "However, most calibrations must be performed by humans and some humans, even at the broadcast network level, are simply too lazy or incompetent to do it." then investing in a expensive broadcast monitor for such purposes knowing full well most people aren't viewing your work on a properly calibrated television, WHY would you invest the money when you can get at least 99% of the result for 10% of the price in equipment?

Maybe I'm just a cheapskate, or maybe I rather spend the money elsewhere. <wink>

Scroll up and read my first comments again. I some time back did compare side by side the results were no tanigable difference. You can if you like blow a wad of cash but for some to create the impression you're not professional if you don't have a broadcast NTSC monitor or use expensive lab equiptment to do calibration and adjustments in my view, they're just blowing smoke and engaging in the oldest human emotion of all, proping up their ego for a decision they made to justify the expense.

The whole string of conversation reminded me of the early days when Vegas was the new kid in town , while Premiere was established with the BIG Boys.(Costing thousands of $$$)

I particularly remembered Vegas as being 'labelled' a TOY! whenever it was mentioned in the NLE arena. Then, Premiere was the BIG Boys in-thing, can't live without it.

BUT being a user of Vegas, I was already doing what Premiere can do, if not more, at a tiny fraction of the cost.

And Now, what happen? Vegas is light years ahead, .......... (But this is another story. ...)

Which brings me back to this conversation about the monitors or TV, whatever that was said should be sufficient.(BillyBoy, you are the Man!)

I think at the end of the day, what matters is the end product & I'm only referring to user at home in general, having T.V sets.

Whatever Great Productions media; DVD. VCD DV playback, ....etc. that arrives at a home will most likey be played on a T.V. set & This is the end product I'm talking about.

You can have great playback on any Professional monitors BUT when It look lousy on a T.V. sets, All would be lost. (There could be the possiblity that The T.V. wasn't calibrated or aging, whatever)

Kinda make sense to use the ordinary STANDARD T.V. set as a final check, right?

So, Professional Monitors (Costing a BOMB; Premiere) or Ordinary T.V. Sets (eee, Vegas, kinda cheapskate)?

I guess it's up to individual's pocket.

Bye

Regards

I use three consumer-grade TVs (27" Sony XBR, 24" Sony Vega, and 13" Panasonic Pro-Line) to review my amateur movies. They react differently to high-contrast scenes, strong skin tones, and such -- even though I've used Billy Boy's XLNT tutorials (and Avia's video-testing DVD) to adjust them. Their automatic circuits, as mentioned above, have impacts that I would never be able to predict if I used a pro monitor. I try to adjust Color Curves until everything looks OK on all three sets.

I recently captured a snapshot from each cable TV channel, and analyzed them with V4's eyedropper tool and histogram graph. It appears that pro TV shows avoid using deep-deep blacks, but will occasionally exceed the bright-white limit (235 IRE in the U.S.). So I'm taking the same approach.

Brandon's Dad

A couple of simple observations, at least to me.

1. Does that old Sear TV have a S-Video connection or RCA inputs that you can use with your camera pass thru? If not then it does not matter.

2. Every TV displays the picture a little different.

3. I would think that the final output is going to be viewed on a normal TV. I would care mostly what it's going to look like on that unless your project output is going to be viewed on a monitor by professionals.

IMHO

Have a good day!

Only one LONG comment, here, since I already have my setup, but thought I'd like to see what others thought of my findings.

I experimented with several things, broadcast monitors, Trinitrons of various makes, flat-screens versus less expensive curved ones, etc. Fortunately, here at the university, I had access to just about anything I could want.

My findings come down to this. Putting several monitors/tvs/etc., close together often causes problems.

Buy what you can, but make sure it has a metal case. Several of the ones I tried with plastic cases gave off so much electro-magnetic radiation that it affected every other monitor on the table (4, total, in my case). These things are close together. They should be shielded to reduce interference. I ended up with all metal cases on the TV and NTSC monitor, but couldn't get a metal cased CRT. These metal cases helped a LOT. However, I was still getting headaches of the kind I used to get when, years ago, I was using old-fashioned interlaced computer monitors at high-resolution. It was caused by a VERY nearly impossible to see jitter (giggle), and the eyes would get worn out trying to focus on something that was jittery but not quite visible under normal conditions.

My last experimental step was to insert grounded copper plated steel sheets between each and every monitor. That helped, too. They no longer giggle. Do NOT ground them through the same electrical socket that the monitors are plugged into. Make sure they are independently grounded. My ground wire runs from the several plates, out the window and attaches to a 6 foot copper grounding pole I picked up as trash at a demolition site. No more headaches. I mean it literally, I kept getting head aches from all the nearly invisible jitter on the too-close-together screens until I put in the grounding plates. Stable as a rock, now.

how do you use that real estate? What windows do you place where and what is on your 2nd screen?

Two monitors have the desktop spread across them, preview screen on one, timeline and rest on the other. One is a TV set, the other is a broadcast NTSC monitor. They form a 2 x 2 cube from head on. Built a matrix (postoffice box looking setup) and set them each in a separate hole so that they don't actually touch and I can slide each out without upsetting the others. Nice setup. However, I am about to decide that it would allow me to work easier if they were all on the same level, in spite of the desk spread. It is easier to look side to side than up and down. Less crick in the neck sort of thing.

Hello,

I have V4 and a 19" monitor and a Radeon 9700 Pro video card. I would like to set up the preview to display on a secondary 15" monitor. Is this possible with that video card or do I have to purchase as secondary card for dual support in Windows XP? My other option is to purchase a 12" TV. What would be the setup with that configuration.

Thanks for your help.
Rob