HD Monitoring

ferrarofilms · Feb 22, 2009

I've been for a while trying to get an alternative to view HD video out of my McBook Pro-Final Cut Pro system, all of them too expensive. I have an Acer 22" DVI monitor and an Ikan 1080i monitor with component imput.
1-What is the difference between my Acer and an Apple Cinema Display?
2-Does Apple delivers HD signal?
3-Would it be a solution a DVI to HDMI cable and hook to a HDTV 1920x1080?
Boxes from Matrox, Aja and others are way out of my reach.
Thanks

bigbossbmb · Feb 22, 2009

ferrarofilms said:
1-What is the difference between my Acer and an Apple Cinema Display?

Is the Acer 1920x1200? I've never seen a 22" that is. All of the ones I've seen are 1680x1050. The Acer is probably a cheap TN panel or possibly an alright PVA. The ACD uses a higher quality IPS panel for better color accuracy/consistency.

ferrarofilms said:
2-Does Apple delivers HD signal?

This question doesn't quite make sense. Are you asking if the Cinema Display is accurate for HD signals?

ferrarofilms said:
3-Would it be a solution a DVI to HDMI cable and hook to a HDTV 1920x1080?

No, the signal coming out of the DVI port is not an accurate YUV signal. The Matrox MXO converts the signal to be accurate on the ACD by using a specific LUT.

ferrarofilms said:
Boxes from Matrox, Aja and others are way out of my reach.

These are necessary for accurate monitoring out of a MBP.

ppc_michael · Feb 22, 2009

ferrarofilms said:
3-Would it be a solution a DVI to HDMI cable and hook to a HDTV 1920x1080?

A DVI to HDMI cable does work to output an image to an HD monitor. I do that at home just so I have a large second monitor. However, as the person above me has said, it is not an accurate representation in terms of color and contrast, so you would not want to use it for color correction or anything like that, because once you broadcast it or play it back on a DVD, it will look different.

ferrarofilms · Feb 23, 2009

PPP_michael

Thanks, that is a more realistic approach. I always check by waveform-vectorscope. My final test is to copy to tape and watch the product on tape and on DVD.
Unfortunately those "broadcast standards" are long gone. Now you can see a lot of garbage in any TV channel, cable and others, especially in the so called "reality shows", the worse of the worse. One can still see in many documentaries a lot of shots not corrected, especially underwater.....
http://www.ferrarofilms.net

bigbossbmb · Feb 23, 2009

ferrarofilms said:
Unfortunately those "broadcast standards" are long gone. Now you can see a lot of garbage in any TV channel, cable and others, especially in the so called "reality shows", the worse of the worse. One can still see in many documentaries a lot of shots not corrected, especially underwater.....

Broadcast standards are still alive and well...

I work on reality shows and documentaries and we go through the same online editor for all of them. You might not think a shot is "corrected" but it has definitely been tweaked in post.

LethalWolfe · Feb 23, 2009

ferrarofilms said:
Thanks, that is a more realistic approach. I always check by waveform-vectorscope. My final test is to copy to tape and watch the product on tape and on DVD.
Unfortunately those "broadcast standards" are long gone. Now you can see a lot of garbage in any TV channel, cable and others, especially in the so called "reality shows", the worse of the worse. One can still see in many documentaries a lot of shots not corrected, especially underwater.....
http://www.ferrarofilms.net

It's a good thing you are standing up to fight the good fight and not letting your program sink to such low, low standards.

The objective nature of video scopes don't always jive w/the subjective nature of manipulating an image so while scopes will keep you legal they won't tell you if that shot at golden hour on the beach has the right amount of color saturation and contrast. It's kinda like recording audio w/o listening to the signal. Sure, the audio meters will tell you if your signal is in the mud or peaking but it won't tell you how good the audio sounds.

Lethal

ccuk · Feb 24, 2009

LethalWolfe said:
It's a good thing you are standing up to fight the good fight and not letting your program sink to such low, low standards.

The objective nature of video scopes don't always jive w/the subjective nature of manipulating an image so while scopes will keep you legal they won't tell you if that shot at golden hour on the beach has the right amount of color saturation and contrast. It's kinda like recording audio w/o listening to the signal. Sure, the audio meters will tell you if your signal is in the mud or peaking but it won't tell you how good the audio sounds.

Lethal

+1

ferrarofilms · Feb 24, 2009

The human eye and other details

There is a say among doctors when you are above 60: you can check all the PSA (prostatic antigen) you want and it can be as good as the standards call but nothing can match the finger of the Urologist.
Nothing can match the human eye or the ear regarding image and sound. I am pretty aware of this, having been doing videos for more than 30 years. First, if you do the footage as well, there is the first link of the chain, do it as good as you can to avoid many corrections and this is especially important when you do wildlife, where "actors" do their natural behavior in extreme conditions and not always what you wish, although their are much more predictable than man.
In a network or production company you can get the best of the best if you get enough business to pay for it. Wildlife is not precisely a good business, especially when networks only deal with half a dozen companies in the world and it is almost impossible to get in. This way, or you do what you like to do no matter the economic restrictions you have in your environment and/or Country or simply quit. I am one of those guys trying to fulfill a dream no matter the "environment" conditions are, trying to do the best job with the available tools.
Carlo Ferraro
A former University Professor

LethalWolfe · Feb 24, 2009

Everyone has to work w/in budget limitations and should strive to do the best they can given those limitations, which from your last post sounds like what you are trying to do. When you say things about the crappy quality of TV though, or that you have scopes so why do you need a proper monitoring solution it doesn't sound like you are trying to do your best. It sounds like you are trying to rationalize why you shouldn't have to do any better.

Lethal

Search

Search

HD Monitoring

ferrarofilms

macrumors member

bigbossbmb

macrumors 68000

ppc_michael

Guest

ferrarofilms

macrumors member

bigbossbmb

macrumors 68000

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3

ccuk

macrumors regular

ferrarofilms

macrumors member

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3

Our Staff