One thing that I didn't comment on in the video, but can make a big difference on a display is what kind of processing the monitor does on the image. A good quality display will only do enough processing to make sure it is displaying the signal coming in as accurately as possible. With consumer televisions, and even some computer monitors, the processing that is done straight out of the box can really reduce image fidelity quite dramatically. The quality of the scaling varies wildly... ideally if a monitor has to do any scaling it's doing it in integer multiples of the original image -- so a 1920x1080 image can be displayed just fine on a 3840x2160 monitor. The reverse is true to some extent too, but if you're working in UHD you really should be using a proper UHD monitor. What you definitely want to avoid is monitors whose native resolution isn't 1920x1080 or 3840x2160. These days nearly all consumer televisions under 42 inches are roughly 720p... but it's often even worse than that, with the panel having a native resolution of something like 1366x768, so even 720p has to be scaled. And the scalers in budget televisions are pretty much awful. Too many times I've seen televisions and monitors that just completely destroy any detail in the image. You also have to watch out for sharpness (or detail) controls. If set too low, it actually softens the image, making it blurry. If it is set too high, the monitor adds additional false detail which actually makes the image look worse, emphasizing noise and adding ringing to edges. The perfect setting varies by model, but it's usually lower than you think it should be. Televisions almost always overdo this. And some models don't let you adjust the setting low enough to remove processing errors. On many televisions that are out there, they also will do frame interpolation to give additional smoothness to the motion in an image. This should really be avoided at all costs. There is no way to know what your image actually looks like when a TV is basically recreating what it thinks the image should look like rather than what it actually looks like. This processing also adds additional latency. This is a bad feature that should just die. Noise reduction is also best turned off if you can. Color (or Saturation) controls do have a proper setting, but without some calibration equipment it's impossible to dial in just by eye. Likewise with Tint or Hue controls. Most televisions, if they have any control over white balance at all, are usually limited to a couple of presets. If a display doesn't have a 6500K setting, the white balance is probably wrong and your perception of colors will be off. Most televisions have overscan turned on from the factory. And while most do let you turn that off, it's often buried in the menus and called something other than overscan. Look for "Just scan" or something similar. Not only does overscanning cut off the edges of your image, it also introduces scaling artifacts. Bottom line is, budget televisions should absolutely be avoided. And most budget computer monitors should also be avoided. They aren't doing you any favors in helping you to see what's going on with your production. And in many cases they'll "lie" to you about what is going on, leaving you in a situation where you make bad decisions about what needs to be adjusted. There are televisions out there that can do a decent job, but you'll be spending good money on them, and you'll have to be willing to take time to tweak all of their settings if you want the most accurate and faithful image you can get. If a television has a Filmmaker mode, you can start with that, but it's only that -- just a start. Televisions are designed to provide a "wow" factor for consumers, which usually means overly exaggerated colors, contrast, and sharpness, and other processing designed to catch the eye rather than accurately represent the signal they're being fed. In my opinion, and it's just that, aside from a handful of higher-end options, consumer televisions make poor production monitors. Computer monitors tend to do much better at that job. The least expensive line of televisions I've seen that can produce a picture with any degree of accuracy are the LG OLED models. They're fantastic, and can be adjusted to produce an extremely accurate image, but at a starting price of roughly $1000 for a 42 inch, they are expensive, and still need to be calibrated before you get the best image they're capable of delivering.
Great info thanks. Its just like speakers. Some are designed with an EQ curve to make music “Sound Better”. Some are close to flat and those should be used as Recording Studio Monitors so that you hear an accurate representation of the sound so you can mix your songs properly.
Love the line: when working for others, you never know what you're gonna get. I think that should be a whole video topic. The stories we all could tell. It might actually be fun, especially if done from a technical standpoint.
ProArt displays are indeed impressive, and very adaptive to use cases. I had no idea on the Adobe promo, so thank you. I had assumed it was only for new users, like more promos.
It's absolutely available to existing Adobe Creative Cloud users. It can be applied twice per Asus account, for up to 6 months for free. A heck of a deal!
Very useful info, Doug! Great video. I've been using just a little Blackmagic 7" Video Assist for mobile monitor which is annoying since it's such a small display (and expensive). That ASUS monitor supporting 100% sRGB/REC709 is really good! Most monitors don't support 100%! Thanks for sharing about the Adobe CC subscription. Absolutely worth it. Do you have a link to the decimator you use? That's a super useful device! Really appreciate you sharing how you pack and carry your equipment. That fly pack you show off sometimes is sweet and it's cool to see a monitor bag that can carry 2 displays. Very cool! I have struggled trying to transport equipment in the past... its such a massive pain. It's the part I dread so much. lol
Your inside studio is sure looking good Doug! Great exposure and lighting here. (sorry if I missed this from months ago... but just really stood out today!)
The Sony Trimaster EL is def a wicked monitor. I have one where I work and it is gorgeous. The ASUS looks capable, but I really need a monitor with the “blue only” feature so that I can calibrate with smpte bars in the field. Having said that, I’m going to get the ASUS and run some test signals through it, and see if it will work for me. Used Sony’s should be carefully scrutinized for burn-in!
the assus proArt color reproduction is so perfect, I can see a color shift for the LG monitor, If I get the 4k 27inches of the ProArt, I am buying it. I am actually going to change my monitor but 27inches 4k will be my go.
The LG does look amazing in person too... nearly as good as the ProArt. It has a slight magenta shift to it, but it's easy to dial out using the built-in adjustments. The effect of the color shift is quite exaggerated here. It's more-or-less not possible to evaluate monitor performance on camera. Make sure whatever you get has a native pixel resolution of 1920 or 3840 wide native. Other resolutions require scaling and it's virtually impossible to assess resolution and focus.
Looks like letting the video feed repeat by placing the monitor in frame like this could be one way to check color accuracy or am I thinking wrong here? It should display the color that is captured and in the ideal case the camera would capture the same color again, and over again. 🙂
If the camera used was producing a 100% perfect reproduction of the scene, the exposure was matched perfectly to the monitor brightness, there wasn't any other light falling on the screen, the screen didn't have any internal reflections, both targetted the same color space, the subpixels in the monitor were arranged the same as and lined up perfectly with the photosites on the camera sensor, the wavelength response of the camera sensor's RGB subpixels matched perfectly with the output curve of the screen, etc. etc. you might have a prayer at getting in the ballpark. But there are just too many variables in the mix to really even use it as a rough guide. The fact that the ProArt matched as well as it did here is more of a coincidence than any kind of indicator that the monitor is outputting a very accurate image. Just as one very simplified example... if, for example, a camera intentionally underexposed the midtones, but the monitor overemphasized the midtones, the two would cancel each other out, and it would appear in the recording as even and consistent, even though neither was technically accurate. It just meant that the two were doing opposite things. Every camera manufacturer dials in their own special sauce on how to render the final image, and none of them target a 100% faithful recreation of the source. Sony, for example, intentionally tends to overemphasize reds and yellows in their cameras. And some product lines do it more than, or at least differently than, others even within a single manufacturer. And in this case, I have a picture profile running on the cameras which emphasizes certain hues and intensities and brightness and detail levels. It's nowhere near a "flat" response... It has been intentionally tweaked to provide a pleasing look with higher than normal contrast and rolled off highlights just to name two aspects of what that processing is doing. On top of that, every camera sensor and monitor have different response/output curves for RGB subpixels. And it doesn't help that different color standards (Rec. 709, Rec. 2020, DCI-P3, etc.) themselves have different definitions for where those wavelengths should even peak in the first place. Rec.709 puts red at And the shape (falloff) around those peaks isn't defined by the standards and will vary from monitor to monitor and camera to camera. And those differences could be very pronounced in the way that a camera renders a particular color output by a monitor. Rec 709 puts red at 700 nm or (0.640, 0.330) in xy space, but 2020 puts it at 630 nm or xy (0.708, 0.292). A camera designed for HDR is going to target the latter while a monitor designed primarily for SDR in 709 will target the former. The colors, while both called red, are going to be different. This is diving into the weeds more than maybe I should, but bottom line is that seeing what appears to be an accurate image on a recording doesn't really tell you much of anything about the quality of the display (or camera). All it tells you is that the characteristics of the camera and display are well balanced. Not necessarily accurate, just well matched.
Here's a rank amateur (with a Marketing degree) opinion, FWIW: I suspect most clients have no clue what format they want. Does a typical client even know the difference between 1080p 60FPS and 720i 24FPS? Does he or she care? Flexibility and accuracy have their place, but when you make a video for a client the key is to make people's skin tones look flattering, and if there's a product involved, get the item and package colors pretty close to right. The rest doesn't much matter. A system that makes a client think he or she and/or the product looks good is way better than one that's dead-on accurate. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but in any case I've helped your algorithm.
People may not know the terminology, but they usually do recognize that the different formats "look" different. I usually do steer people in some direction, but there is always that one client that knows exactly what they want, whether you agree with them or not.
@@djp_video That sounds about right. Most of my client experience comes from logistics, but the principles are the same. Making clients happy sometimes means "steering" them (I like that perspective) in the direction that will produce the result they want, regardless of what they need. It often isn't very well expressed, so we have to read between the lines a bit to get to the right solution.
I'd been running into the exact same issue with monitors not supporting 24 or 30fps, thanks so much for this. If someone needs a really inexpensive option, Vizio has a 24" TV for around $99 that has a lot of color and gamma adjustments and takes a wide range of frame rates. Not as good as the ASUS I'm sure, but half the cost if not doing critical color work. Thanks for all you do Doug.
There are some TVs out there that do okay. But I've found that, especially for lower-end models, the image quality can be quite poor... either overly sharpened or blurry... underscan is on by default and is often hard to disable. Plus nearly all TVs under 42 inches these days are 720p only.
Hey Dough, Love your video great details, and very informative as usual! Does the ASUS ProArt Display PA278CV 27" 16:9 Adaptive-Sync QHD IPS Monitor and the ASUS ProArt Display PA278CV 27" 16:9 Adaptive-Sync QHD IPS Monitor models have the same features as the 24” you mentioned? Just in a large size, and with one model with HDR?
Hi Doug thank you for all the wonderful information you provide to us. A couple of questions. Why would I choose to use the display port versus an HDMI port.
There are a number of advantages, but I'll try to summarize... To start with, it was designed primarily for use with computers, whereas HDMI was designed primarily for video sources. Evidence of, and restrictions imposed by, this history for each is easy to see in the features and DNA of each. DisplayPort, at least on Windows PCs, let you connect and daisy chain multiple monitors off of one port on the computer, as long as the monitors have DisplayPort outputs to pass the signal on to the next device. This feature is called Multi-Stream Transport (MST) and can simplify cabling and can allow more monitors to be used than a computer has ports for. (MacOS doesn't support it, though.) It's (slightly) more robust on longer cables. And I'd say it's more robust in general. Easier (and cheaper) conversion to other display signal types like VGA, especially analog signals. DisplayPort usually supports higher resolutions and higher frame rates than HDMI of a similar generation. As a general rule, DisplayPort seems to be more future-proof and forward-looking. Support for adaptive sync for gamers is more widespread and has a wider range of refresh rates. Support for uncommon (not UHD/HD) resolutions and frame rates is more widespread and more consistent. No licensing fees for manufacturers, so it's cheaper to implement. The full-size connector locks in place so it doesn't work its way loose. Passive DisplayPort support on USB-C connectors is slightly more common than HDMI; it's nearly ubiquitous. DisplayPort is broadly considered the "native" video signal type for USB-C ports, though most manufacturers also support HDMI on USB-C as well. DisplayPort connectors are more common on computer graphics cards. They'll usually have one HDMI port, but most of the time all of the remaining ports are DisplayPort. In the end, if you're connecting a computer, DisplayPort might be more reliable. But it is generally limited to computing devices and isn't commonly found on other consumer electronics or professional video products.
Good timing. A few day ago, Ty Turner from FlashFilm Academy had a short saying to not use inexpensive Production monitors. It was a short so a lot of information was left out and no monitors were suggested. He did mention SMALL HD. I have been very interested in finding a good monitor to use as Multi-View. I need to check color accuracy because I am matching color between Canon and Blackmagic. I was considering the BenQ DesignVue PD2705UA 4K 350Nit 10Bit 99% Rec 709 Anti Glare Matte. (Specs never seem to show supported frame rates on the larger monitors). Your Thoughts?
I haven't used that particular model before, But BenQ is a quality brand and I trust that the claims they make on their website are accurate. They're better known for their projectors, but based on their track record there, I don't doubt that they have monitors which are excellent. Unfortunately, the only way I've found to know for sure if a given monitor supports a particular resolution and/or frame rate is to buy one and try it. The technical specifications either omit this information entirely, or it's just flat out wrong. In the case of the ProArt I demoed here, the website claims it only goes down to 48 fps. Clearly that's not true; it goes much lower than that. I have found that 4K monitors, particularly those that are not at the bottom of a product line where the manufacturer cuts corners (*cough* Samsung, *cough* Dell), are much more likely to support the less common frame rates. On most HD models, that's one of the first things to go when a manufacturer is figuring out ways to cut costs.
How is the image retention on these monitors? We have several Acer, ASUS, and LG monitors that all have pretty bad image retention if left on a high contrast image for even a minute. I believe they are all IPS panels. And they are not any of these models.
So far I've only used the Asus for video content (as opposed to being used for a computer) and I haven't noticed any issues there. I've recently added its bigger 27" brother to the computer I use all day every day, so if there are issues there I should see them pretty soon. So far, so good. I've been using this and other models from LG for years and I've never seen any signs of image retention on them. I've had three of this particular model on my daily driver PC for many months, and even using high contrast themes, I've never noticed any retention issues.
Hi Doug, Thanks for the video. Do you have any more videos on monitoring for live broadcasting? Is it just an eye test or should I be using scopes etc? Currently we are just using cheap Roku tvs attached to our atem. From what you were saying that’s not a great plan for success? Thanks
I haven't really covered monitors in much detail. If you want to be sure that your exposure, colors, dynamic range, etc. are correct, you really should be using a calibrated monitor. Televisions can't be relied on to give you any kind of meaningful idea of what the image actually looks like -- they're almost always tuned to provide the most dynamic (punchy and exciting) image to uninformed consumers and to hide the flaws of the panels being used. So TVs end up giving you an image with far too much contrast, far too much saturation, sharpness that is way too high (which leads to unwanted false detail being added to the image), a very high likelihood of the image being scaled improperly, in many cases fake & interpolated frames being added and all of the other resulting issues that come from that, among many other issues. Even computer monitors will give you a more accurate view of what's going on. The Asus ProArt monitors mentioned in this video are a really good start at getting a decent quality image, but if you really want to see an accurate representation of the video signal, there's no substitute for a calibrated broadcast (or even color grade) monitor. A good quality scope is also essential if you want your image to be high quality. Well, at least two scopes anyway -- a vectorscope and waveform monitor at a minimum, but parades are also useful too, along with false color. I did a brief video on scopes. ua-cam.com/video/AHZZmOdIKi8/v-deo.html
The Amazon links should work for Europe. But I have a hard time keeping some of the Affiliate accounts open in Europe due to not meeting minimum thresholds for activity.
One thing that I didn't comment on in the video, but can make a big difference on a display is what kind of processing the monitor does on the image. A good quality display will only do enough processing to make sure it is displaying the signal coming in as accurately as possible.
With consumer televisions, and even some computer monitors, the processing that is done straight out of the box can really reduce image fidelity quite dramatically. The quality of the scaling varies wildly... ideally if a monitor has to do any scaling it's doing it in integer multiples of the original image -- so a 1920x1080 image can be displayed just fine on a 3840x2160 monitor. The reverse is true to some extent too, but if you're working in UHD you really should be using a proper UHD monitor.
What you definitely want to avoid is monitors whose native resolution isn't 1920x1080 or 3840x2160. These days nearly all consumer televisions under 42 inches are roughly 720p... but it's often even worse than that, with the panel having a native resolution of something like 1366x768, so even 720p has to be scaled. And the scalers in budget televisions are pretty much awful. Too many times I've seen televisions and monitors that just completely destroy any detail in the image.
You also have to watch out for sharpness (or detail) controls. If set too low, it actually softens the image, making it blurry. If it is set too high, the monitor adds additional false detail which actually makes the image look worse, emphasizing noise and adding ringing to edges. The perfect setting varies by model, but it's usually lower than you think it should be. Televisions almost always overdo this. And some models don't let you adjust the setting low enough to remove processing errors.
On many televisions that are out there, they also will do frame interpolation to give additional smoothness to the motion in an image. This should really be avoided at all costs. There is no way to know what your image actually looks like when a TV is basically recreating what it thinks the image should look like rather than what it actually looks like. This processing also adds additional latency. This is a bad feature that should just die.
Noise reduction is also best turned off if you can.
Color (or Saturation) controls do have a proper setting, but without some calibration equipment it's impossible to dial in just by eye. Likewise with Tint or Hue controls.
Most televisions, if they have any control over white balance at all, are usually limited to a couple of presets. If a display doesn't have a 6500K setting, the white balance is probably wrong and your perception of colors will be off.
Most televisions have overscan turned on from the factory. And while most do let you turn that off, it's often buried in the menus and called something other than overscan. Look for "Just scan" or something similar. Not only does overscanning cut off the edges of your image, it also introduces scaling artifacts.
Bottom line is, budget televisions should absolutely be avoided. And most budget computer monitors should also be avoided. They aren't doing you any favors in helping you to see what's going on with your production. And in many cases they'll "lie" to you about what is going on, leaving you in a situation where you make bad decisions about what needs to be adjusted.
There are televisions out there that can do a decent job, but you'll be spending good money on them, and you'll have to be willing to take time to tweak all of their settings if you want the most accurate and faithful image you can get. If a television has a Filmmaker mode, you can start with that, but it's only that -- just a start. Televisions are designed to provide a "wow" factor for consumers, which usually means overly exaggerated colors, contrast, and sharpness, and other processing designed to catch the eye rather than accurately represent the signal they're being fed.
In my opinion, and it's just that, aside from a handful of higher-end options, consumer televisions make poor production monitors. Computer monitors tend to do much better at that job. The least expensive line of televisions I've seen that can produce a picture with any degree of accuracy are the LG OLED models. They're fantastic, and can be adjusted to produce an extremely accurate image, but at a starting price of roughly $1000 for a 42 inch, they are expensive, and still need to be calibrated before you get the best image they're capable of delivering.
Great info thanks. Its just like speakers. Some are designed with an EQ curve to make music “Sound Better”. Some are close to flat and those should be used as Recording Studio Monitors so that you hear an accurate representation of the sound so you can mix your songs properly.
Love the line: when working for others, you never know what you're gonna get. I think that should be a whole video topic. The stories we all could tell. It might actually be fun, especially if done from a technical standpoint.
ProArt displays are indeed impressive, and very adaptive to use cases. I had no idea on the Adobe promo, so thank you. I had assumed it was only for new users, like more promos.
It's absolutely available to existing Adobe Creative Cloud users. It can be applied twice per Asus account, for up to 6 months for free. A heck of a deal!
Very useful info, Doug! Great video.
I've been using just a little Blackmagic 7" Video Assist for mobile monitor which is annoying since it's such a small display (and expensive). That ASUS monitor supporting 100% sRGB/REC709 is really good! Most monitors don't support 100%! Thanks for sharing about the Adobe CC subscription. Absolutely worth it.
Do you have a link to the decimator you use? That's a super useful device!
Really appreciate you sharing how you pack and carry your equipment. That fly pack you show off sometimes is sweet and it's cool to see a monitor bag that can carry 2 displays. Very cool! I have struggled trying to transport equipment in the past... its such a massive pain. It's the part I dread so much. lol
Here's that Decimator.... amzn.to/4byR5y8
@@djp_video thank you sir!
Your inside studio is sure looking good Doug! Great exposure and lighting here. (sorry if I missed this from months ago... but just really stood out today!)
Thanks!
I've made some significant tweaks to it since the last time I shot a video there. The main lighting actually changed quite a bit.
The Sony Trimaster EL is def a wicked monitor. I have one where I work and it is gorgeous. The ASUS looks capable, but I really need a monitor with the “blue only” feature so that I can calibrate with smpte bars in the field. Having said that, I’m going to get the ASUS and run some test signals through it, and see if it will work for me. Used Sony’s should be carefully scrutinized for burn-in!
the assus proArt color reproduction is so perfect, I can see a color shift for the LG monitor, If I get the 4k 27inches of the ProArt, I am buying it. I am actually going to change my monitor but 27inches 4k will be my go.
The LG does look amazing in person too... nearly as good as the ProArt. It has a slight magenta shift to it, but it's easy to dial out using the built-in adjustments. The effect of the color shift is quite exaggerated here.
It's more-or-less not possible to evaluate monitor performance on camera.
Make sure whatever you get has a native pixel resolution of 1920 or 3840 wide native. Other resolutions require scaling and it's virtually impossible to assess resolution and focus.
Looks like letting the video feed repeat by placing the monitor in frame like this could be one way to check color accuracy or am I thinking wrong here? It should display the color that is captured and in the ideal case the camera would capture the same color again, and over again. 🙂
If the camera used was producing a 100% perfect reproduction of the scene, the exposure was matched perfectly to the monitor brightness, there wasn't any other light falling on the screen, the screen didn't have any internal reflections, both targetted the same color space, the subpixels in the monitor were arranged the same as and lined up perfectly with the photosites on the camera sensor, the wavelength response of the camera sensor's RGB subpixels matched perfectly with the output curve of the screen, etc. etc. you might have a prayer at getting in the ballpark. But there are just too many variables in the mix to really even use it as a rough guide. The fact that the ProArt matched as well as it did here is more of a coincidence than any kind of indicator that the monitor is outputting a very accurate image.
Just as one very simplified example... if, for example, a camera intentionally underexposed the midtones, but the monitor overemphasized the midtones, the two would cancel each other out, and it would appear in the recording as even and consistent, even though neither was technically accurate. It just meant that the two were doing opposite things.
Every camera manufacturer dials in their own special sauce on how to render the final image, and none of them target a 100% faithful recreation of the source. Sony, for example, intentionally tends to overemphasize reds and yellows in their cameras. And some product lines do it more than, or at least differently than, others even within a single manufacturer.
And in this case, I have a picture profile running on the cameras which emphasizes certain hues and intensities and brightness and detail levels. It's nowhere near a "flat" response... It has been intentionally tweaked to provide a pleasing look with higher than normal contrast and rolled off highlights just to name two aspects of what that processing is doing.
On top of that, every camera sensor and monitor have different response/output curves for RGB subpixels. And it doesn't help that different color standards (Rec. 709, Rec. 2020, DCI-P3, etc.) themselves have different definitions for where those wavelengths should even peak in the first place. Rec.709 puts red at And the shape (falloff) around those peaks isn't defined by the standards and will vary from monitor to monitor and camera to camera. And those differences could be very pronounced in the way that a camera renders a particular color output by a monitor. Rec 709 puts red at 700 nm or (0.640, 0.330) in xy space, but 2020 puts it at 630 nm or xy (0.708, 0.292). A camera designed for HDR is going to target the latter while a monitor designed primarily for SDR in 709 will target the former. The colors, while both called red, are going to be different.
This is diving into the weeds more than maybe I should, but bottom line is that seeing what appears to be an accurate image on a recording doesn't really tell you much of anything about the quality of the display (or camera). All it tells you is that the characteristics of the camera and display are well balanced. Not necessarily accurate, just well matched.
@@djp_videoI agree. Ideal case is probably not reachable.
colors look great. this is something I need to do for my setup.
Here's a rank amateur (with a Marketing degree) opinion, FWIW: I suspect most clients have no clue what format they want. Does a typical client even know the difference between 1080p 60FPS and 720i 24FPS? Does he or she care? Flexibility and accuracy have their place, but when you make a video for a client the key is to make people's skin tones look flattering, and if there's a product involved, get the item and package colors pretty close to right. The rest doesn't much matter. A system that makes a client think he or she and/or the product looks good is way better than one that's dead-on accurate. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but in any case I've helped your algorithm.
People may not know the terminology, but they usually do recognize that the different formats "look" different. I usually do steer people in some direction, but there is always that one client that knows exactly what they want, whether you agree with them or not.
@@djp_video That sounds about right. Most of my client experience comes from logistics, but the principles are the same. Making clients happy sometimes means "steering" them (I like that perspective) in the direction that will produce the result they want, regardless of what they need. It often isn't very well expressed, so we have to read between the lines a bit to get to the right solution.
I'd been running into the exact same issue with monitors not supporting 24 or 30fps, thanks so much for this. If someone needs a really inexpensive option, Vizio has a 24" TV for around $99 that has a lot of color and gamma adjustments and takes a wide range of frame rates. Not as good as the ASUS I'm sure, but half the cost if not doing critical color work. Thanks for all you do Doug.
There are some TVs out there that do okay. But I've found that, especially for lower-end models, the image quality can be quite poor... either overly sharpened or blurry... underscan is on by default and is often hard to disable. Plus nearly all TVs under 42 inches these days are 720p only.
Thanks a lot for sharing!
The ASUS PA247CV is on sale on a limited time deal on Amazon right now for $119.99
It's slow shipping not 2 day but still a good deal.
B&H has a similar deal and it is in stock for immediate shipping, at least at the time that I'm writing this.
Lg C2 oled has 10ms of input lag.
Hey Dough, Love your video great details, and very informative as usual!
Does the ASUS ProArt Display PA278CV 27" 16:9 Adaptive-Sync QHD IPS Monitor and the ASUS ProArt Display PA278CV 27" 16:9 Adaptive-Sync QHD IPS Monitor models have the same features as the 24” you mentioned? Just in a large size, and with one model with HDR?
Yes.
Hi Doug thank you for all the wonderful information you provide to us. A couple of questions. Why would I choose to use the display port versus an HDMI port.
There are a number of advantages, but I'll try to summarize...
To start with, it was designed primarily for use with computers, whereas HDMI was designed primarily for video sources. Evidence of, and restrictions imposed by, this history for each is easy to see in the features and DNA of each.
DisplayPort, at least on Windows PCs, let you connect and daisy chain multiple monitors off of one port on the computer, as long as the monitors have DisplayPort outputs to pass the signal on to the next device. This feature is called Multi-Stream Transport (MST) and can simplify cabling and can allow more monitors to be used than a computer has ports for. (MacOS doesn't support it, though.)
It's (slightly) more robust on longer cables. And I'd say it's more robust in general.
Easier (and cheaper) conversion to other display signal types like VGA, especially analog signals.
DisplayPort usually supports higher resolutions and higher frame rates than HDMI of a similar generation. As a general rule, DisplayPort seems to be more future-proof and forward-looking.
Support for adaptive sync for gamers is more widespread and has a wider range of refresh rates.
Support for uncommon (not UHD/HD) resolutions and frame rates is more widespread and more consistent.
No licensing fees for manufacturers, so it's cheaper to implement.
The full-size connector locks in place so it doesn't work its way loose.
Passive DisplayPort support on USB-C connectors is slightly more common than HDMI; it's nearly ubiquitous. DisplayPort is broadly considered the "native" video signal type for USB-C ports, though most manufacturers also support HDMI on USB-C as well.
DisplayPort connectors are more common on computer graphics cards. They'll usually have one HDMI port, but most of the time all of the remaining ports are DisplayPort.
In the end, if you're connecting a computer, DisplayPort might be more reliable. But it is generally limited to computing devices and isn't commonly found on other consumer electronics or professional video products.
Hey Doug I've been following you for a while now and was wondering if you will be a Infocomm 2024 this year?
I will not be.
Good timing. A few day ago, Ty Turner from FlashFilm Academy had a short saying to not use inexpensive Production monitors. It was a short so a lot of information was left out and no monitors were suggested. He did mention SMALL HD. I have been very interested in finding a good monitor to use as Multi-View. I need to check color accuracy because I am matching color between Canon and Blackmagic. I was considering the BenQ DesignVue PD2705UA
4K 350Nit 10Bit 99% Rec 709 Anti Glare Matte. (Specs never seem to show supported frame rates on the larger monitors). Your Thoughts?
I haven't used that particular model before, But BenQ is a quality brand and I trust that the claims they make on their website are accurate. They're better known for their projectors, but based on their track record there, I don't doubt that they have monitors which are excellent.
Unfortunately, the only way I've found to know for sure if a given monitor supports a particular resolution and/or frame rate is to buy one and try it. The technical specifications either omit this information entirely, or it's just flat out wrong. In the case of the ProArt I demoed here, the website claims it only goes down to 48 fps. Clearly that's not true; it goes much lower than that.
I have found that 4K monitors, particularly those that are not at the bottom of a product line where the manufacturer cuts corners (*cough* Samsung, *cough* Dell), are much more likely to support the less common frame rates. On most HD models, that's one of the first things to go when a manufacturer is figuring out ways to cut costs.
How is the image retention on these monitors? We have several Acer, ASUS, and LG monitors that all have pretty bad image retention if left on a high contrast image for even a minute. I believe they are all IPS panels. And they are not any of these models.
So far I've only used the Asus for video content (as opposed to being used for a computer) and I haven't noticed any issues there. I've recently added its bigger 27" brother to the computer I use all day every day, so if there are issues there I should see them pretty soon. So far, so good.
I've been using this and other models from LG for years and I've never seen any signs of image retention on them. I've had three of this particular model on my daily driver PC for many months, and even using high contrast themes, I've never noticed any retention issues.
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the video. Do you have any more videos on monitoring for live broadcasting? Is it just an eye test or should I be using scopes etc? Currently we are just using cheap Roku tvs attached to our atem. From what you were saying that’s not a great plan for success?
Thanks
I haven't really covered monitors in much detail.
If you want to be sure that your exposure, colors, dynamic range, etc. are correct, you really should be using a calibrated monitor. Televisions can't be relied on to give you any kind of meaningful idea of what the image actually looks like -- they're almost always tuned to provide the most dynamic (punchy and exciting) image to uninformed consumers and to hide the flaws of the panels being used. So TVs end up giving you an image with far too much contrast, far too much saturation, sharpness that is way too high (which leads to unwanted false detail being added to the image), a very high likelihood of the image being scaled improperly, in many cases fake & interpolated frames being added and all of the other resulting issues that come from that, among many other issues. Even computer monitors will give you a more accurate view of what's going on. The Asus ProArt monitors mentioned in this video are a really good start at getting a decent quality image, but if you really want to see an accurate representation of the video signal, there's no substitute for a calibrated broadcast (or even color grade) monitor.
A good quality scope is also essential if you want your image to be high quality. Well, at least two scopes anyway -- a vectorscope and waveform monitor at a minimum, but parades are also useful too, along with false color. I did a brief video on scopes. ua-cam.com/video/AHZZmOdIKi8/v-deo.html
@@djp_video thanks for the reply. Ill watch the video on scopes
will you be attending InfoComm Las Vegas in a few weeks? If you have a meetup?
I haven't planned on it. I was just at NAB and don't feel a strong need to do another show just yet.
Hey Doug, consider also using affiliate Links for us european people ;)
The Amazon links should work for Europe. But I have a hard time keeping some of the Affiliate accounts open in Europe due to not meeting minimum thresholds for activity.