what should I look for in a monitor

jaym01 · #1 (**permalink**) 02-04-2007, 02:52 AM

I'm finally upgrading my crappy old bog standard monitor for video editing (on a PC). Other than size (I thought I'd go for the biggest I can afford), any opinions on what I should look for? Specifically: I understand Mac monitors are quite good, are they worth the price? Is DVI essential? Apart from resolution, are there any other requirements for editing HD I should take into account? What are minimums in terms of contrast, ratio, brightness and response time? and are companies' dead pixel policies still an issue as they were a few years back? Grateful for any information or thoughts, and sincere apologies for what are undoubtedly some dumb questions.

Mark W · #2 (**permalink**) 02-04-2007, 11:56 AM

For the desktop I think resoloution is the most important, this is why i am still using CRTs, I cant afford tfts that can run at 1600x1200.

For monitoring video I am not sure what to advise but I think I am right in saying that a crt monitor is better in this respect. TFTs I have used dont seem to display black and near black very well.

But tbh no computer screen really shows video very well, lots of people also have a tv or a video monitor for thier preview screen, this method should give a better impression of how the video will look for real on a tv.

I keep meaning to set up some sort of monitor but I havent got round to it yet.

Best_OutRunner · #3 (**permalink**) 02-05-2007, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Mark W

But tbh no computer screen really shows video very well, lots of people also have a tv or a video monitor for thier preview screen, this method should give a better impression of how the video will look for real on a tv.

I keep meaning to set up some sort of monitor but I havent got round to it yet.

PC Monitors are far superior at displaying Video to Televions, the only reason it looks worse is because they're far superior.

The Flaws lie in the actual video material itself, they are hidden by the fact most TVs are not good enough to display them. E.g., flaws in compression of Chroma are hidden by CRT TVs as the colours bleed into eachother, however, if you were to watch the same signal played back on a HD TV through a HDMI or RGB connection, chances are you'd see the same flaws that are apparent on the PC monitor.

Another problem that can appear on PCs it having a buggy deinterlacing setup, pixel adaptive deinterlacers like those used in Cyberlink are ideal, but a lot of software just uses field by field display OR weaves each field together

Mark W · #4 (**permalink**) 02-06-2007, 06:16 PM

Televisions contain all sorts of ciruitry to improve the look of the picture, monitors dont, hence the need to see how the edit looks on a TV. If your film is to be distributed on dvd for tv viewing then you need to see how it will look on that format, that was my thinking.

Same as with audio monitors in a studio - sure you have the full bandwidth warts and all monitors but you will also often find smaller speakers that are more representative of what people will use to listen to the finished product.

Best_OutRunner · #5 (**permalink**) 02-06-2007, 07:56 PM

I see your point there, I'm very oldskool as far as TVs are concerned, I feed my TVs Digital or RGB signals, most good TVs don't re-process signals from these inputs (however Sony do, along with Phillips, and every other brand that rapes your image).

one thing that annoys me is the level of EE allot of TV manufacturers deem nessecary! Nothing worse than Halos! ARRGH

Mark W · #6 (**permalink**) 02-07-2007, 12:24 AM

I didnt know that about rgb and tvs. I know where you are coming from - I often wonder what my tv picture should look like - my tv has a gadzillion adjustments but just where 'flat' is is not clear. I would like my picture as close as poss to what the director / editor saw - but how do you achieve that? Test cards - bring em back I say.