How Do I See the True Image in 2nd Monitor

i have a 69 dollar 15" Daewoo tv hooked in as a second monitor. i did this because i wanted to be able to view my project as it would look on a regular old tv while i was editing. i just hooked it up last week. for some reason i feel like it is showing me a >slightly< brighter version of what i see in fcp. is there some settings i need to do to make sure that what i am seeing is the true image that i will see when played on a regular run of the mill TV?

Differences i have notice with the playback on tv.

in fcp the dv seems to be of the same texture as lets say maybe pulp fiction, but not as rich

after i edit and author, the playback on the tv seems to be more like lets say the local news broadcast
i want to see the source material how it would playback on that second monitor.
any tips would be wonderful pre-thanx

Hi,

the more "true" image will be on your tv monitor even though colors will be not the real colors with this consumer monitor, but there will be a small device for consumer monitors next month from colorvision to make the best out of your TV. It's based on an idea I got while using their calibration tools for my computer monitors. Unfortunately it's "Windows" only: [www.colorvision.com]
Never rely on your computer monitor if you doing somehow professional video editing.
I would love to give you some advice how to setup a computer monitor in regards of dislpaying the right gamma for each codec, but I haven't found any solution since 2 years except using a professional broadcast monitor. I put a screenshot on the web to make it more clear. One of the movies is way to bright for video - guess which one.
[www.spherico.de]
i don't how to setup a poll, but I would be really interested in the result, if somebody will do it. BTW both version where used one for the film print one for the video.

Regards
Andreas

the one on the right

so your saying that i can do nuthing but buy a monitor that wil require my first born child to be sacrificed at 2%.
there has to be something to at least make it closer to a basic color tv. they wouldnt put that otion there if it were no way to see a greater difference. they only made macs so that we could edit what else could they be for:-)

......s...o...s...!!

"there has to be something to at least make it closer to a basic color tv."

There is none! No such animal as basic color tv.

TV's are made to "play" with the signal and provide a overall "good" image. Ever walked through a TV section of an electronics store and noticed all the variance in color from one to the other? That is why it is stated over and over again that to judge your end result properly you need an NTSC monitor, not a tv to work with. And using an NTSC monitor it has to be calibrated properly, otherwise you don't really see what its going to look like.

Look for a used one on ebay.

Good luck!

Kevin

Hi,

Unfortunately I can't help you and I can't change QT or the OS, the only thing I can tell you is to use a GOOD external monitor.

I don't give the answer on the brighter movie now, let's wait what the others say. Looks a bit cynical but even the answer wouldn't help you - maybe if we got many answers and many trials, somebody from Apple will agree that there is a problem and put it into the new top ten for the next version.
I will forward this thread to some people at Apple. I started this discussion 2 years ago with Apple and it turned out that I (and a big broadcast company) were the only people making this kind of experience. I do not blame Apple - the teams do not have all the equipment which is there in real life.

What Kevin says is totally true (even though any monitor or tv in the US is NTSC) and as I said colors on consumer monitors never will match - but gamma would match way better even with a consumer monitor and a reasonable DA converter.

Andreas

allll righty then, its just like the mpeg 2 codec not being great for text graphics. i get it apple doesnt make a do all machine but a do alot and improving machine. i am at least seeing it in a lower colser to real format. i guess i will just have ta get use to what eye see and thru experience learn some technic on output values.

thanks anyway u guys i just wanted to no if it was possible. i guess ill just have ta close fcp now and get over it with a protools session and some really good liquer with bad singing.

swing lo sweet chariot:-)

A $69 TV is the worse one to choose too. Sorry...but cheap in, cheap out. A good Sony would give you decent results.

If you aren't going to broadcast the stuff you edit, or sell it. If it is simply a hobby or low rent indy film...then a good TV is all you really need. The Pro monitors should only be considered if you are being paid to edit and deliver a high quality BROADCAST product...or DVD sale item...

Hi Corbett,

The TRUE image for video monitoring are using waveform monitor and vector scope. Please try to understand how they work. The software edition of them that come with the FCP are the good reference for all kind of video work.

Like myself, I don't have money to buy the BTW class of monitor for home use but I do have a second hand Tektronix 2205 oscilloscope always linked with the video output. Its only cost about a US$100.

Good Luck,
Antonio Hui

"in fcp the dv seems to be of the same texture as lets say maybe pulp fiction, but not as rich
after i edit and author, the playback on the tv seems to be more like lets say the local news broadcast"

one big difference is the TV is interlaced, FCP is not.
30 images a second (FCP) looks more like 24 fps film than 60 images a second (TV, video, local news)
de-interlacing helps.

and adjusting your levels with the 2 way colour corector, for instance will get you some of that richness back.

"so your saying that i can do nuthing but buy a monitor that wil require my first born child to be sacrificed at 2%"

you can pick up small broadcast monitors for around $500 these days, i believe from B+H

nick