Cant get a ntsc monitor but........

If i buy a flat lcd that is native 16:9, when i open fcp will it force my 3:2 or 4:3 TL to stretch to fit or will i get pillar box?


If you guys were about to spend about $250ish on a 20-24 inch monitor, accessed via fw8 to cam then cam to monitor, Which would you prefer to see?

4:3 which will show letter box when viewing a 16:9 seq
or 16:9 which will could show pillars or stretch when viewing 3:2 and 4:3 seq

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

If you're looking for accurate previews to check your work, an LCD monitor won't work. You need a broadcast NTSC monitor that can display interlacing (and that you can calibrate) to get an accurate preview. Have you checked eBay or Craigslist for used CRTs? You may be able to find one for a little more than what the LCD will cost you.

JK

_______________________________________
SCQT! Self-contained QuickTime ? pass it on!

why do you want to monitor on an LCD? lets talk about what you wanna do - THEN we can give you better advice...

There are HD broadcast monitors available. I've seen some of them around, but I'm still working in a largely SD world. Do HD broadcast monitors display interlacing like CRTs?

Not LCD ones.

well, i would like to be able to see more of what the fileds are doing and have a more standardized color view. I have been mostly happy with the results i get now. However i have noticed saturation and contrast differences between different end user viewing options.

i.e. saturation is rich on an hd tv and in places where i left some super whites they are way over blown.
on a crt 4:3 tv i have less saturation ( still good looking ) and the contrast is lovely. What's even crazier is that the crt 4/3 tv is 37" and my monitor is a 15" crt tv and the 37" always delivers within 10% of what i expected.

Its just that more tvs and becoming lcds and i get fluctuating results from lcd to lcd. This could be because of user settings on the tv.

the other thing is that i here crt and think 'cather ray tube' which my monitor is. So it confuses me about what is the difference betweenst what i have and a crt monitor.

I can see interlaced lines on it when i look for it but i cant tell or see what fields are there. ( this could be because i dont know how to recognize the fields ).

I found a calibration tutorial last night and tried it on my monitor. my contrast was good but with a dark blue gel tripled over my eyes i could not get the non blue lines to appear black. I could still somewhat tell that the magenta was sorta red and the green was still kinda distinguishable. The yellow and green were nearly ( within 10% ) the same, and the magenta line was almost black.

the tutorial showed that i would only see the black and blue with a gel to my eyes. They suggested that i double the gel i trippled it.

here is the link to the tutorial. >>> [www.videouniversity.com]

most of my output is 60% web and 40% dvd. My web video is fine. My dvds are decent or maybe slightly above decent.

i am using a daewoo dtq 13v1fc / color tv vhf + uhf / 120v~, 60hz, 55w

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Quote
the other thing is that i here crt and think 'cather ray tube' which my monitor is. So it confuses me about what is the difference betweenst what i have and a crt monitor.

uh, im not sure i follow what you just said but what youre talking about, in both cases - is the same "CRT". the CRT part of both broadcast and consumer monitors is technically the same animal. its just whats inside the box driving the signal that matters

BTW the term youre looking for is CATHODE ray tube.

anyway. EVERY consumer display (CRT and LDC and plasma, projector - whatever...) is going to be skewed stylistically to one degree or another. your best bet (if youre on a budget) is to find an affordable broadcast reference monitor on the likes of ebay or craigslist. i looked last night and there are a variety ranging from $100 to $1000.

i have a little sony PVM8042 that switches between 16:9 and 4:3. its small (8" but it gives me a good enough idea of whats going on without chewing up my desk. i paid about $800 for it 5 years or so ago. they go for around $500 or so second hand.

Doesn't that method of calibrating to color bars only work on CRT broadcast monitors?

And I'm curious, how do you guys check interlacing issues on HD formats, if you're monitoring off an LCD monitor? Or do you guys color grade footage off a CRT?

i am not sure it was my first time. However according to the tutorial its for crts with or without blue only. This gives me the impression that it can work on consumer crts.

the more i think about it, the more i say that i dont really need a pro monitor rights now. The results i am getting are pretty good. I just have a habit of chasing quality output. and it this monitor is getting me acceptable results then i guess i can wait till my next upgrade budget to form. I mean if i am gonna get one maybe i should wait to get one at a higher more durable price point. I saw one for $699 ( JVC TMH1700GU Color Monitor ) that was cool looking and if i wait a month or so i can get it.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

JC:
I've tried the folded blue gel technique, and it pales in comparison to having a monitor with a BLUE ONLY setting. That's the feature you're trying to emulate with the gel, which turns the color bars to grayscale for proper calibrating. When you upgrade to a new monitor, be sure you get one with the Blue Only setting for accurate calibration. And if it can switch between 4:3 and 16:9 you won't have the aspect ratio problem you were worrying about.

Strypes:
I think most folks are doing color-critical HD work on CRTs, which are mostly found at the big production houses because they (and the cards needed to output to them) are so expensive. If you're independent it's just cheaper to rent time in one of those rooms. But the CRTs are slowly going away, and everybody's scrambling to come up with an LCD solution that's just as accurate (but they still won't be cheap!) The Matrox MXO is an interesting option that so far has produced good results for me, and is the cheapest LCD-based HD monitoring solution.

HTH,
JK

_______________________________________
SCQT! Self-contained QuickTime ? pass it on!

Actually, what i'm really wondering about, especially since i'm in an SD world, but i see myself doing more HD work in the near future...

If LCDs cannot display interlaced, why is there an interlaced HD standard? And also, how do you check interlacing if all you have is a HD broadcast mon (which i presume is LCD)?

LCDs can display interlaced. LCD TVs display interlaced, as some HD content is 1080i. LCD computer monitors, by their nature, display progressively (since computer signals are not interlaced). That's why previewing to your monitor doesn't work, even if you have interlaced footage. And there are HD Broadcast monitors that are glass CRTs: BVMd20

_______________________________________
SCQT! Self-contained QuickTime ? pass it on!

thats exactly what i was going to tell you in my earlier post (actually typed it but deleted it)

unless youre doing work where you need to meet specific criteria (like going to broadcast) or youre doing color critical work. you dont really "NEED" a proper broadcast reference monitor. as long as it look right on your monitor, on your consumer TV and in your browser - youre gonna be safe enough.

dont get me wrong. they are invaluable in certain situations. but for your mentioned delivery mediums. its not crucial.

>unless youre doing work where you need to meet specific criteria (like going to broadcast)
>or youre doing color critical work. you dont really "NEED" a proper broadcast reference
>monitor.

I absolutely agree with this. For offline edits, including some that i worked on, I'm fine editing with a consumer TV hooked up to a dv deck/camera. And the benefits of this, is that you can get a massive consumer TV (which is cheaper compared to a broadcast monitor). Of course, when you're doing finishing, nothing beats having a calibrated broadcast monitor.

The alternative to not having a broadcast monitor, is similar to mixing sound. Compare the colors between 2 or 3 different displays that are decently color calibrated and find a good middle ground.

thanx as a simple slight side question: If i have 16:9 footage a chop the sides of for 4:3. Then crop the top and bottom of that shot to appear to be 16:9 on/inside of a 4:3 screen. What aspect ratio would i have?

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

16:9, with the sides cropped off to make it 4:3... then cropped top and bottom to make it a 16:9... why in the world would you want to do something like that? Next to that, how are you going to explain to your DOP that you intend to do something like that, not to mention the all-important editor who will ask why in the world do you want to waste precious pixels in that manner?

I am the editor/dop/dp/keygrip/writer/GC and i make a hell of a smothered steak.

I have 4 angles only one is 16:9 thru all of my test, the best thing for me to do to with this footage is to use a widescreen matte on the 43 then shrink and crop the 16:9.

i was just wanting to know if that was some sort of other aspect ratio that i should be aware of.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"