Best lcd monitor for video restoration

[buckethead]

I was walking past the pc monitors at my local mass mechandiser and saw Samsung and HP lcd displays in the 25 and 27 inch range and thought, hmmm.

I'm currently using a Viewsonic 17 inch display which is okay, but for color, brightness and contrast, I still need to burn a dvd-rw and play it on a 35 inch crt to make final judgements.

I'm using tmpgenc 4.0 express and virtualdubmod for color restoration.

If you could pick a specific manufacturer and model, which would be your personal choice, and why ?

Thanks guys and gals !! 8)

[sanlyn]

I was walking past the pc monitors at my local mass mechandiser and saw Samsung and HP lcd displays in the 25 and 27 inch range and thought, hmmm.

I'm currently using a Viewsonic 17 inch display which is okay, but for color, brightness and contrast, I still need to burn a dvd-rw and play it on a 35 inch crt to make final judgements.

I'm using tmpgenc 4.0 express and virtualdubmod for color restoration.

If you could pick a specific manufacturer and model, which would be your personal choice, and why ?

Thanks guys and gals !! 8)

The answer(s) to your question is really, really complicated. If you read online consumer reviews at Amazon, Newegg, etc., you'll see remarks such as "really bright and sharp" (meaning that by sRGB/D65 standards it's way too bright and uses phony edge enhancement) -- or "the color is great", a statement that has no meaning except, probably, that Red is oversaturated and the actual color temp is somewhere around 9000K (too blue for graphics work). Under those conditions, any color or black level adjustments you make to a video on that monitor will look very different on every TV set in the world, and it won't be pretty.

When it comes to "accuracy" in a computer display -- referring to color gamut (only vaguely related to the "number" of colors), contrast range, and adherence to any "official" display standard -- no LCD made today is as capable as a well-designed CRT. Any pro in the video processing industry will tell you this. Of course we all know that CRT's have disappeared, so we're kinda stuck with LCDs.

The typical computer LCD is inherently incapable of displaying color with any great degree of accuracy. The LCD's used by pro's are literally hand-tuned and thoroughly calibrated every few hours or so (I said every few hours, not every few days). Those monitors don't use the same front screen technology used in consumer monitors. They are capable of displaying different color gamuts (sRGB, rec.601, rec.709, etc.), and they cost $$thousands. Many photographers and specialty photo shops use less costly "pro-grade" LCD's priced at several hundred bucks and up from Dell or Samsung, but these are still calibrated often and use front panel materials such as S-PVA that you won't see in showrooms.

So here we are in the typical showroom or online shopping site. The typical consumer LCD in a showroom often displays demo videos designed to mask monitor shortcomings. Regardless of showroom demo's, here's what you'll soon discover about PC monitors after you've worked with video for a short time: (1) The Brightness and Contrast are set way, way too high. (2) The default color temp or color "tone" options seldom display D6500 correctly, even when the onscreen menu choice is clearly labeled "6500". (3) Blue is almost always elevated at the high end, with elevated red at the low end or across the midtones, giving you a lopsided color balance that will often be "reversed" when you see your video on an uncalibrated TV.

There's a lot more to it, but you might consider the above for starters. If you really wanna know more about what you're spending your money for, who makes decent LCDs and why some are "better", what the LCD specs really mean, how LCDs and TVs are calibrated, what color and contrast standards are in actual use that will get predictable and satisfactory results, then I suggest you start at this website in the UK:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/
It's not the end-all of LCD testing, but browse thru a few of the monitor reviews and you'll soon know a great deal more than you ever thought you would. The LCD that TFTcentral and many others recommend currently is the Dell 2408WF wide-screen series -- be warned, they sell for $500-$800. You don't have to spend that much, but TFTcentral's articles will at least leave you better informed about what to look for. I have other recommendations, but more on that in a minute. . .

TFTcentral also has some monitor calibration software revews. You'll find these to be real eye-openers.

Another website that's handy for LCD reviews (though they don't update too often) is http://www.consumersearch.com/lcd-monitors . A bonus on this site are the right-hand info panels that lead you to many other review sites.

LCD reviewers often refer to "calibration" for monitors. Save yourself a lot of grief; don't try using your eyeballs to calibrate an LCD. It doesn't work. Period. Don't use the tv calibration DVD's that some recommend, and don't use the THX setup videos found on many DVD's. They don't work either. Some recommend the Spyder2 or even Spyder3 (pricey) colorimeter/software bundles, but my experience with Spyders is that they're too far off-spec. The XRite/EyeOne Display2 and even Display2/LT from about $135-up are excellent for calibrating PC monitors, and the meters can also be used to get a decent calibration from your TV. If you think this seems expensive, consider that pro's spend 10 times that much (and up) for their colorimeters, which have to be replaced or recalibrated annually. So you're getting off cheap with XRite or the EyeOne.

I'm also inviting you to go to this web page whose intimidating title is "GREYSCALE & COLOUR CALIBRATION FOR DUMMIES":
http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10457
This tutorial, which takes a while to get thru, deals with tv and projector displays. But the calibration principles are the same for PC monitors, which are calibrated along the same lines. Unfortunately a PC monitor doesn't have the image adjustments found on many tv's, and many of those controls are accessed only in programming code; but Xrite or Spyder automated PC software does indeed perform a similar job on monitors within 10 or 15 minutes. The DUMMIES site has information that can be extremely useful in training your eye to know what "correct" color and contrast are really about.

When looking at monitor manufacturer's specs, the only one you can really trust is the processor speed. 8ms or lower is OK for video, 5ms or 2ms is better. Anything over 8ms will result in blurring and motion trails. The brightness range is usually stated as 300 or 500 or so, though after calibration a PC monitor's ideal brightness would be around 120cd/m. Anything higher is too bright and will look too dark on a tv.

Stated contrast ratios for monitors and tv's are someone's fantasy, and none can compete with a good CRT. If a PC monitor can hit at least a 700:1 real-life contrast ratio, you're in the ballpark. Many OEM's give hallucinatory contrast ratios of 2000:1 or higher. Remember that they get this figure by turning the monitor off in a completely dark environment and then turning it on to its highest brightness and contrast settings. At that rate, even a 75-watt light bulb would give you a 1000:1 real-life contrast ratio from a few feet away!

A monitor should at least have a contrast and brightness adjustment. Many have Color or Color Tone (Warm, Normal, etc) and Gamma settings, none of which have any particular meaning. The Xrite/Display 2 (not the cheaper "LT" version) is highly flexible and will let you set your monitor to a more usable brightness and contrast level. With Xrite don't worry about the color temperature; Xrite will set it properly for you, and it will be pretty damn close to the D6500 spec. As I said, you can also use the colorimeter to calibrate your tv, even if it doesn't have what is called a detailed Color Management System (CMS). Samsung and LG tv's usually have such controls; Sony and Panasonic don't. You use the colorimeter with free calibration software called HCFR, which is explained fully on the DUMMIES site.

Some PC monitors have "RGB" or "User" RGB controls. These are seldom useful and are usually best left at their default or middle values. You can try them if you want, but the reason they don't work well is because they don't adjust RGB colors evenly; the RGB color curves tend to be more and more bowl-shaped, meaning they are elevated at the dark and bright end -- another mis-calibration that can drive you nuts. It's best to leave individual RGB adjustment to your calibration software, which can do a decent job on most monitors. I even used XRite to get decent color out of an absurdly cheap $85 Acer LCD. The darn thing has no shadow detail, but at least people stopped turning cherry-purple red in photos.

Calibration software will create a monitor color profile (.icm file) that's loaded on boot-up. Often you will see the display snap into calibration shortly after your desktop appears. Much of the video processing software you read about in this forum actually does use those .icm profiles in their preview windows. VirtualDub, most VirtualDub filters, AviSYnth when viewed thru VDub, Photoshop, PaintShopPro, TMPGenc encoders and most TMPGenc MPEG editors (but not their DVD Author), and many other graphics programs do recognize the .icm profiles. Most media players don't, including Windows MediaPlayer and PowerDVD. However, newer PowerDVD editions have a configuration menu that at least lets you alter the color balance, which is almost always necessary with PowerDVD. ATI's media players apparently don't recognize any monitor profile other than generic sRGB; ATI has an "overlay" adjustment that works, but only with their own players. nVidia graphics chips are noted for their black-level problems; I have never been satisfied with the image I got from nVidia cards.

Some PC monitors (HP, Samsung) come with free calibration software. In a pinch these are helpful, though you're still trying to eyeball corrections and they're limited. But it's better than nothing.

Stay away from the lowest price points on PC monitors. The midrange around $300 to $800 for 22 to 25-inchers are usually decent. Remember that on a monitor much bigger than your Viewsonic 17 you're likely to see rasterization effects and slower video speeds. If you come down a notch or two in size, you'll spend less and get better. Avoid paying extra for multiple USB inputs or built-in speakers, etc.; they won't make your videos look any better. Also, avoid automatic or "dynamic contrast" features that can't be turned off; these features will drive you batty in short order if they can't be disabled. Many monitors come with connections for DVI or analog AVG. Take my word for it: stick with analog AVG. Digital DVI can be pretty primitive, and they almost always slow you down and/or create digital artifacts you don't wanna look at.

The cables that come in the box with monitors are actually pretty decent. You don't need a $250 video cable, especially if you're going to calibrate your monitor anyway. Expensive stuff like Monster wire doesn't meet display cable impedance specs (yes, they do have impedance and frequency response specs for that!) and, consequently, tends to induce visible chroma noise and glare into one or more of the colors. I have seen those effects on the BetterCables silver-plated cables. Silver plating does nothing for monitor cable, whether analog or digital. In fact, it generates disturbances attributed to something called "skin effect" along copper wire, which often results in subtle ghosting and highlight blooming.

Midpriced Samsungs and higher-priced Dell UltraSharps usually offer decent performance. Samsung seems to be more favored. Currently a Dell S2409W (not the UltraSharp line) is being offered, but many video enthusiastists have posted complaints about it. Most of the displays on higher-priced Dells are made by Samsung, some are made by LG. HP and Viewsonic are variable; reliability issues have recently plagued these brands, so check user reviews for quality issues. NEC is another variable, you have to check each model. There are other brands sold at Newegg.com that you won't find in stores; some of them offer decent performance, though most of the reviews are by gamers who have little interest in display accuracy. You might even find a decent Acer around. Avoid store brands (e.g., Dynex) or AOC (yuck!) Just about any monitor can be calibrated with a Spyder2 or XRite/EyeOne, even a laptop (Yes!, and it looks pretty good).

My mouth is watering for an S-PVA or better display panel for their more accurate color and contrast, but most of them are too slow for video work. And all of them are way beyond my budget (Sony has a nice one for $8000). The typical monitor uses a "TN" panel, infamous for their narrow viewing angle and color problems, but the better TN monitors avoid or ameliorate many of these issues.

Since the death of my Sony Trinitron CRT's a few years back (sniffle!) I've gone through all this LCD rigamarole and ended up with two LCD monitors, a Samsung 731B ($175) and a 731BF ($250). Neither are perfect. The cheaper 731B actually has cleaner color and neutral grays (a clean "gray" is the primary requisite for good color, believe it or not). I tried using Samsung's supplied adjustment software; it was okay, but far from what I wanted. I then tried the Spyder2 product: better, but my corrected videos looked green on tv. I finally used the XRite/EyeOne Display2 package. Voila! About as good as you can get in a relatively cheap LCD.

I'd say HP, Samsung, and Dell UltraSharp are your best bets. From what I hear and read from others, HP and Samsung have a usable calibration add-on on their installation CD's. Out of the box they all tend to be adjusted for showroom use, which is disastrous for video work. But these brands tend to use display panels and circuitry with enough adjustment leeway to allow for a usable calibration. I myself was amazed at what the EyeOne Display2 software was able to achieve with my cheapo Samsung 17-inchers and other Samsungs and HPs that I've calibrated fror some of my PC customers.

Should you decide to work with an uncalibrated monitor and an uncalibrated tv, in short order you'll be burning the midnight oil, scouring geek websites and trying to figure out what went wrong. Don't take my word for this. There are many posts here and at www.avsforum.com that discuss display problems ad infinitum. While you do have to spend a little $$ and do some research, it's probably easier than I've described here.

[Xpenguin17]

Or to make his long-ass post more concise: LCDs are garbage. They suck balls, all of them. You're better off buying a plasma, or LEP screens which are likely not available in your town, or would cost a shitload and die within the next year.

Also, it's summer and plasmas get really frigging hot so you better keep your distance from the screen or have an AC installed as it's likely you'll further heat up the hell you dwell in, otherwise known as your room.

[edDV]

When color accuracy is important I always check with both calibrated LCD-TV and interlace CRT monitors*. The computer monitor is very difficult to calibrate for ITU-Rec 601 or 709 video. I'm trying to get acceptable not perfect color balance. My experience is you can adjust levels on either but fine white balance usually differs and results in compromise. Interlace and filter artifacts show more clearly on the interlace CRT.

It is important that all "auto" correction modes are turned off on the monitors during calibration and while making these color balance adjustments.

BTW, a waveform monitor helps indentify video levels issues and gets you close. Then the video monitors are used to observe subtile contrast and color issues.

http://broadcastengineering.com/test_measurement/broadcast_monitors_video_801/


*Im using a Samsung 4665 LED-TV and a Sony PVM series CRT. If my budget could take it, I'd be using broadcast calibrated LCD (e.g. Marshall, Ikegami, Sony) and BVM CRT monitors.

[sanlyn]

Or to make his long-ass post more concise: LCDs are garbage.

In a nutshell, Xpensguin17, you and I are of the same mind when it comes to LCD's.
I miss my Trinitrons (sniffle).

[sanlyn]

*Im using a Samsung 4665 LED-TV and a Sony PVM series CRT. If my budget could take it, I'd be using broadcast calibrated LCD (e.g. Marshall, Ikegami, Sony) and BVM CRT monitors.

EdDV, I'm sickeningly envious! If I had $8K I'd have made it disappear immediately for a lovely Sony. I still run out to my father-in-law's to check VhS-to-DVD transfers on a 15-year old 20-inch Hitachi CRT I gave him 6 years ago (calibrated for me, btw, by a tech at WLIW-TV in New York). Shucks, now he won't give it back !!!!

But thank the saints for things like EyeOne and other such toys, at least many of us can afford them, and they make a huge difference with the average LCD. But, then, it won't make one into a Samsung 4665. Don't have an extra one lying around that you don't use any more, do ya?

[Soopafresh]

Very interesting thread. For lower end use, Dell used to carry the 2209WA Ultra Sharp 22" E-IPS monitors for $180 which were quite good for color accuracy. Color calibration and temperature was easy to configure. Bought some for work and they've been very good. Display controls are the best I've ever used.

The exciting news comes from NEC, which just announced a 23" 1920x1080 e-ips monitor for $379

http://www.displayblog.com/2009/08/05/nec-multisync-ea231wmi-23-inch-1080p-ips-lcd-mon...h-displayport/

[edDV]

*Im using a Samsung 4665 LED-TV and a Sony PVM series CRT. If my budget could take it, I'd be using broadcast calibrated LCD (e.g. Marshall, Ikegami, Sony) and BVM CRT monitors.

EdDV, I'm sickeningly envious! If I had $8K I'd have made it disappear immediately for a lovely Sony. I still run out to my father-in-law's to check VhS-to-DVD transfers on a 15-year old 20-inch Hitachi CRT I gave him 6 years ago (calibrated for me, btw, by a tech at WLIW-TV in New York). Shucks, now he won't give it back !!!!

But thank the saints for things like EyeOne and other such toys, at least many of us can afford them, and they make a huge difference with the average LCD. But, then, it won't make one into a Samsung 4665. Don't have an extra one lying around that you don't use any more, do ya?

$8000 no, I shop Craigslist and EBay. More like $3000 for both then, half that now. Prices drop fast.

OP asked for "best" and I didn't even go there. Think over $20k.

Before I had to upgrade, the same principles applied for my $700 (then) Philips HD Ready CRT and the best I could get from a Viewsonic LCD.

[Video Head]

CRT's are power-hungry, heavy, use components that destroy the environment, cause global warming, are bright, fast and colourific.

I think most people should own and watch LCD or Plasma screens. The rest of us should keep a CRT hidden away from prying eyes so that we can see video the way it was meant to be...

[buckethead]

Wow. You guys are the best. It sounds like an Xrite Eye-One or the like might be an excellent starting point no matter what monitor I decide on.
Sanlyn : I didn't find your reply overly long in the least. That's a lot of terrific insight in a single post.

[sanlyn]

Wow. You guys are the best. It sounds like an Xrite Eye-One or the like might be an excellent starting point no matter what monitor I decide on.
Sanlyn : I didn't find your reply overly long in the least. That's a lot of terrific insight in a single post.

Thankee
Well, maybe a little long. Just thought I'd try to save you folks some trouble.

Calibration meters and software are well worth the price, and easy to use on PC monitors (calibrating a tv is a different story, tho. Have coffee and snacks within reach). Even a budget monitor will look better afterwards. Just don't get a clunker. Some of the cheapies can't be calibrated, period, they don't have the luminance range or color capability to begin with.

[lordsmurf]

I use an LG LCD from about 4 years ago that has very accurate color, saturation, white/black balance, and gamma. It has very slightly magenta shift, but only by a marginal amount. I can compensate for it with my eyes, keeping it in mind when doing work. Final output is tested on some higher-end CRT and LCD equipment.

Most consumer televisions butcher the video anyway, so seeking perfection is more or less a waste of time anyhow. Only do that if you're creating content that will be viewed primarily of known to-spec output devices.

I actually find Samsung to be one of the most miserable choices in either television or computer, for color calibration and quality in general.

I do have a current Acer 22" that gives surprisingly decent quality out of the box (with a preset setting). A few more tweaks gets it closer to acceptable calibration, I was surprised!

[rallymax]

Can you recommend the cheapest calibration software package that is of value to use. I would _really_ like to have a .icm for my screens.

[sanlyn]

Can you recommend the cheapest calibration software package that is of value to use. I would _really_ like to have a .icm for my screens.

I know many people get economically desperate and buy a Spyder2. Believe me, my experience with three Spyder's and many user posts predicts that you'll end up getting frustrated and buying something better. Spyder2 is by Colorvision (they promise to help calibrate your printer, too. Don't believe it). Spyder2 is sold all over the 'net, and at Amazon. But I'd recommend the best budget colorimeter/calibration package out there: The Gretag/MacBeth iMatch with the EyeOne Display/LT colorimeter. I used it until I burned it up on countless monitors and tv's, finally replaced it with the EyeOne Display/2 ($50 more). Many do quite well with the LT, and you can even get some pricey (or even free) pro tv calibration software that accepts it.

The Display/2 and the LT are pretty much the same hardware, but the pricier D2 gives you more calibration choices. If you go with the LT, and you're using a typical LCD, turn your brightness down about 30% to 40%. The LT checks your Contrast for you, but not brightness which should be around 120 instead of the usual 300 or 400 default. The LT does give you a color temp choice of 6500K for video and graphics. Both meters let you set Red-Green-Blue values, but don't do it (this works on CRT's, but NOT on LCD's). Leave R, G and B at default and let the meter do the rest.

Many sell the Xrite package (including newegg.com), but I'd get it from Amazon's decent discount. The D2 = $200, the LT = $141 or so (Free shipping on both). Might sell slightly cheaper somewhere (not by much), but stick with reputable vendors. If anything goes wrong, Amazon will make good on it.

D2:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000JLO31M/ref=pd_luc_mri?%5Fencoding=UT...X0DER&v=glance
LT:
http://www.amazon.com/Xrite-EODLT-X-Rite-Eye-One-Display/dp/B000CR78CE/ref=sr_1_4?ie=U...9681943&sr=8-4

J&R in Manhattan sells it for $140, but after NY tax and shipping you won't save anything.
http://www.jr.com/eyeone-display-lt/pe/GMA_EODL/

The Spyder2 was tested by tftCentreal. Here is the "conclusions" page on that test:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/spyder2express.htm

Test of the EyeOne Display/2 (similar to the LT except for software) is here:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eye_one_display2.htm

The next step up from the D2 starts at around $600.

[rallymax]

thanks sanlyn!

[Xpenguin17]

Or to make his long-ass post more concise: LCDs are garbage.

In a nutshell, Xpensguin17, you and I are of the same mind when it comes to LCD's.
I miss my Trinitrons (sniffle).

I still have my high quality Compaq CRT and they're still for sale in my area. But I'm on medication and doc says I gotta stay away from sunlight and CRTs.

On a related note, there are new "thin-tube" CRTs that are small and low-power like LCDs but the bastards are prone to having moire and all kinds of weird artifacts so they suck as much as an LCD in a nutshell. You just gotta decide what's more annoying.

[sanlyn]

I actually find Samsung to be one of the most miserable choices in either television or computer, for color calibration and quality in general.

I agree. I got those old Samsungs at closeout prices -- really, really cheap, nowhere near retail. I didn't like 'em at first and found them impossible to calibrate by eye with the menus. After I learned to use a colorimeter, I discovered the problem: the RGB and luminance curves at all menu settings on these critters are completely wacky, no matter what you do. My EyeOne and software was the only solution that smoothed out the RGB and saturation levels.

As for Samsung tv's, I agree again. Samsung does give you an extensive color management system (over 30 image controls). You need a colorimeter and something like HCFR or Calman to use them properly. The controls are tricky as hell and require time + the patience of St. Francis. I'd love it if Sony or Panasonic had more facilities for image correction, even in their cryptic service menus, but they just don't exist. LG tv's give you a little more to work with, but I haven't found an LG that can play 4:3 or SD properly.

Yes, I've seen some Acer monitors that gave surprisingly good results after calibration. I'm thinking of finding a good Acer to use as a spare or to even replace a Samsung, but good 4:3 monitors are getting hard to find. My ATI 9600XT AIW won't work with wide-screens.

[JohnnyMalaria]

@sanlyn - yours is one of the best posts I've seen in a long while. Great read.

I *hate* LCDs. I'm using an old NEC CRT right now. At home, I watch TV on an old Trinitron CRT. HD LCDs look like crap. My PC at home uses a Trinitron CRT and I dangle a pucker studio monitor (yes, Trinitron) of the second output so I can drag video onto the secondary display and see it exactly how it should be. That little 'Blue Only' button and built-in color bars generator work wonders.

I fear the day my trusty Sony TV croaks and I have to go to Best Buy etc to get an artifact-infested pile-o-crap.

[sanlyn]

@sanlyn - yours is one of the best posts I've seen in a long while. Great read.

Thank you, sir.

I *hate* LCDs.

Ditto.
The guy who concocted the idea of making video displays out of those evil little jellybeans has to be the greatest con artist in history.

[lordsmurf]

My Sony television has such an array of options to tweak color and quality that it more than doubles what is available on a Samsung or anything else.

[sanlyn]

My Sony television has such an array of options to tweak color and quality that it more than doubles what is available on a Samsung or anything else.

I dunno, lordsmurf, I'll have to take your word on that. When I had to replace my CRT with a godawful digital job the only advanced controls I saw on most tv's were in their service menus, and with some brands (Panny) I'd need a full-time oscilloscope in my living room. Typical user-accessible controls on a Samsung that you don't see on most tv's are White Balance (Red-Offset, Green-Offset, Blue-Offset, Red-Gain, Green-Gain, Blue-Gain), Colorspace settings for Custom colorspaces where you can tweak CIE placement for SD, HD, RGB and luma levels with 3 Red-Green-Blue component adjustments each for primaries (Red, Green, Blue) and secondaries (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow), so counting just the grayscale and colorspace controls alone, that's 24 color controls. Add the extensive service menus and the usual Tint/Mode/ColorTemp, and you have nearly 100 settings.

And to think a tv tech with a signal generator calibrated by old CRT in 30 minutes, and it was so close to spec all I ever had to touch was bright + contrast for a few stations. Amazing, how uncontrollable these digital nightmares can be. You'd think lines of resolution was the only thing that mattered in an image, even when the colors on most 1080p's look like crap most of the time.

[themaster1]

My LG flatron LCD rocks: 3 years old 'n counting, working 8 hours/day ,360 days/year
no sign of fatigue. I used specials bars to calibrate it, there was no real need though but i guess if i had more tools like a oscilloscope 'n such i would find something that need a tweak. Anyways, my eyes are happy with it.

[sanlyn]

My LG flatron LCD rocks:
my eyes are happy with it.

If your eyes are happy with it, you're ahead of many others. I don't know what you mean by "special bars" or by "calibrate", but many LG LCDs have RGB adjustments beyond the generic Color and Tint controls, neither of which are very useful. The red push in most LG's is about 20%, which is rather drastic and can often be corrected in the service menu (not really safe to go there!) or on LG's that have a Red contrast control. There are thousands of posts about calibrating LG's on www.avsforum.com . Most owners there would use a colorimeter, 10% gray and 75% color patches, and HCFR or Calman to calibrate any tv. If you have some real $$$ to spare, you could pick up a nice color generator for $1K or so, but that's beyond the means or expertise of most of us.

Even with extreme and painstaking calibration with instruments, the output still doesn't match my deceased Toshiba and Sony CRT's or my ancient 40-pound Hitachi 20". I even saw one $4500 LCD fed thru a RadianceXD processor; impressive, but there's only so much you can get from an LCD. This is another way of my saying that IMHO unless HDTV technology undergoes a quantum leap, there's no way I'll be "happy" with an LCD.

[Video Head]

The flat screen's major downfall is its ability (or inability) to show black. Black should not be grey. Contrast is very important.

I have a Hotronic black burst generator that generates SMPTE color bars and test patterns. Most flat screens I have tested with it cannot display black. The common answer to that is that television in general is based on bright, fast moving images that fool the brain...NTSC is not about quality, it is about quantity. True, in an era of displays that claim resolution and speed are the only factors to consider. But a frame that is black on film should be black on a display. No different than a musical piece that has a dramatic moment of silence. It should be silent on an audio system...hiss is not silence.

Consumers are sheep. They do what they are told to do by their TV's and the bright, fast moving images they see on them...

[edDV]

I assure you, video producers and engineers back to the 50's made a major effort to produce video with proper black, white and linearity. A properly adjusted CRT TV shows that SD broadcast is still very good, cable varies but most LCD flat panel displays are way off for standard definition analog or MPeg unless adjusted carefully.

HD video is mostly digital from camera to TV so is mostly electronically correct but the LCD display still has difficulty achieving full black without tricks like dynamic contrast.

[sanlyn]

The flat screen's major downfall is its ability (or inability) to show black. Black should not be grey.

True, but with LCD's it's even worse than you describe. A true "black" has two major components, luma and actual hue. Loosely you could refer to luma as brightness, or lack of it when it comes to black. LCD's are slowly getting better at displaying darkness, if you will; look at the black side panels on a 4:3 program and they're much darker than in older models, even if they're not as "dark" as on better technology.

The other problem with LCD's is that by design and materials the RGB grayscale is usually a mess, even on the best sets. An NTSC IRE-0 very dark gray (RGB16) can "look" black if its RGB value was displayed as R-16 G-16 B-16, or something close to it. But to make LCD's look brighter in showrooms, Green is elevated, Red saturation is pushed, and/or you get Sony's trademark neon-blue effect. Thus black is seldom "black"; it's very dark olive green, indigo, or navy blue. It's often said that on even the best LCD, several colors you'll never see are black, white, or any shade of gray. Not only is the brightness level nonlinear, but the color curves are even worse.

NTSC is not about quality, it is about quantity.

I think EdDV's remark about how engineers try to get it right is correct. But you're right when referring to the way current HDTV's are designed to reproduce the basically sound NTSC standards by distorting the display of them -- thus making it impossible for a display to maintain NTSC requirements. BTW, most people think NTSC "died" with digital video and HD. Not so. The image standards for SD and HD might be different in some respects, but they're still NTSC all the way. Many complaints about NTSC stem not from the image standards, but from the way certain equipment (cheap CRT's and VHS, for example) failed to process them properly.

Consumers are sheep. They do what they are told to do by their TV's and the bright, fast moving images they see on them...

Consumers have always loved bad gear. I still see remarks by Mitsubishi CRT owners who just "love" the "gorgeous" color on those sets, which uniformly had Red push to the hilt and gamma that was surely well below zero. In a BestBuy showroom recently I saw a customer nod in approval when the salesman said, "This set has the best Reds I've ever seen." My reply was that I preferred a tv that worked with all three colors, not just one, a remark that confused the hell out of both of them. The set looked atrocious; onscreen Oprah was clearly a vibrant purple, a red chair on the set was bleeding profusely all over the place, and all the ladies had hair with blue roots. I'm certain the studio engineers didn't do that on purpose, or Oprah would have screamed bloody murder at the way she looked on the studio monitors. Even I, who for years was pleased with my high-end VCR's despite their shortcomings, was glad to see digital DVD. NTSC digital imaging is a vast improvement. It's a damn shame HDTV's are designed to screw it up so thoroughly.

As for restoring video, trying to do so on an LCD is an exercise in pure frustration. Even with a well-calibrated LCD monitor that shows surprisingly clean black and grays, I have to keep reminding myself what my corrections would look like on my departed Trinitron. Sometimes in desperation I encode a video and drive 35 miles to check it on the 20" Hitachi CRT I gave away 8 years ago when I got my bigger CRT (also now departed ) . I'm surprised I can get so close to halfway convincing contrast and flesh tones. But I know I couldn't accomplish even that much had I never seen what a well-designed analog display could do.

The supreme irony is that all digital a/v devices are analog in the end. A digital TV or CD player eventually must convert the digital source to analog so your eyes and ears can detect it. Your senses are all analog devices; they can't do a damn thing with 0' and 1's.

[ronnylov]

What do you think about the new Dell UltraSharp U2410?
It is a wide gamut monitor but it does have factory calibrated sRGB mode as well as Adobe gamma mode. Since it is factory calibrated I may not need to buy a calibrator? I want to use it for video editing purposes mainly but the "wide gamut" thing is worrying me. But people seem to report that sRGB mode works well.

I can buy it here in Sweden now fpr 4995 SEK, which would equal 700 USD. But this is with Swedish tax on the price. It should sell for 500 USD in USA I guess, if it were available...

http://www.cnet.com.au/dell-ultrasharp-u2410-339298064.htm

[dphirschler]

As far as color and levels are concerned, THE best LCD I ever used was a Viewsonic 17". Viewsonics tend to run high in price, but for a good reason. However, I currently own an Acer X223w and I love it. You can find them for around $150. But you will have to set it after you get it connected. It came out of the box way too bright.


Darryl

[sanlyn]

What do you think about the new Dell UltraSharp U2410?
It is a wide gamut monitor but it does have factory calibrated sRGB mode as well as Adobe gamma mode. Since it is factory calibrated I may not need to buy a calibrator? I want to use it for video editing purposes mainly but the "wide gamut" thing is worrying me. But people seem to report that sRGB mode works well.

I can buy it here in Sweden now fpr 4995 SEK, which would equal 700 USD. But this is with Swedish tax on the price. It should sell for 500 USD in USA I guess, if it were available...

http://www.cnet.com.au/dell-ultrasharp-u2410-339298064.htm

The HP L2475w ($500 USD) reportedly has the same display panel, though image options differ. The U2410 might sell in the US for about the same, but the 'net reports that Dell is waiting for a substantial stock of its earlier 24's to clear the shelves before selling it in North America.

The wide gamut is not a good idea for color accuracy, but the Dell has other options. All PC monitors operate "normally" within an sRGB CIE colorspace. The older Adobe-sRGB can also be used, but keep in mind that the Adobe standard was designed for matching print media and CRTs.

If you're going to get a PVA or IPS display, you're wasting time and $$$ trying to calibrate by eye, and no one in their right mind would trust factory calibration anyway. The review link you posted (thank you) states that the U2410 is adjusted to within a Delta-E of "less than 5". In practise Delta-E should less than 3 -- the magic number 3 is the level at which color errors become obvious to us humans. CNET does get credit for even mentioning Delta-E in the first place, but their report should also note any criss-cross patterns on the RGB grayscale -- if Blue is elevated at the bottom but lowered in the brights, Blue could still be within "under 5" across the spectrum but colors would look visibly "off", especially in flesh tones. Still, a non-TN display has better accuracy across the board, in general.

My only problem with wide-screen sets is that my capture cards only support 4:3 -- I'd have to build another WinXP PC (sorry, but Vista will not cut the mustard!) just for a newer high-quality PCie card, which raises the effective cost of the monitor beyond my means. The "new" wide-screen PC could be used for editing, but not for capture -- today's PCI capture cards are no quality match for the old AGP's. Some pro-grade capture cards have PCI mounts, but they cost well over 4-digit figures.

Were it not for the expense of building a PC to handle wide-screen monitors, and the fact that my display space is limited to 20", I would have purchased the older Dell or HP 24's a long time ago.

[The_Doman]

My only problem with wide-screen sets is that my capture cards only support 4:3 -- I'd have to build another WinXP PC (sorry, but Vista will not cut the mustard!) just for a newer high-quality PCie card, which raises the effective cost of the monitor beyond my means. The "new" wide-screen PC could be used for editing, but not for capture -- today's PCI capture cards are no quality match for the old AGP's. Some pro-grade capture cards have PCI mounts, but they cost well over 4-digit figures.

I am not sure what kind of capture cards you are talking here, HD capture cards maybe?

I capture here 16:9 anamorph video with my old Hauppauge PVR 150 card and the software which use also has no support for 16:9.
But as long the card captures the complete image it is no problem, you can set the desired aspect ratio afterwards with any decent editing program.

Personally i have mixed feelings using widescreen monitors on the PC.