Frage von ennui:
Hello, and thanks for this inexhaustible source of video information.
Here's my problem:
At the moment I cut with a Canopus DV RT2 Real-Time Card and Premiere 6.5 s.einem PC. Preview of Y / C on video monitor. If everything, and it always means "never change a running system", but I am now about to look out for a new monitor. In perspective, I will at least in 1, 2 synonymous years working in / with HD and want to buy me some time appropriate Camera (; rather what with intra-frame compression than AVCHD). Before that, however, are synonymous with some SD projects.
I would therefore like to be in the future the same functionality in HD (; real-time preview on monitor, quick color corrections without possible recompression, etc.). And I would like to continue to work with a tube monitor, because of LCD, I'm not so convinced, moreover, the final results are anticipated over the next 1, 2 years be shown either as a projection, or even CRT displays, then usually synonymous nor at 4:3.
The following questions:
One dealer suggested to monitor the JVC DT-V1710CG with SDI expansion card. Tube, HD, discontinued model. To do this, it would take probably a newer cut / output card, and (a new editing software, and a new PC, etc.). There are packages with Edius, and a map which claims to be synonymous SDI. Were there still other ways, a real-time HD previews from the PC to an HD-capable (; tube) monitor to get? There are indeed synonymous even HDMI, and (the analog component signal, RGB?) As alternatives, if I understood correctly, and the various Edius Map packages then have some time synonymous SDI, HDMI and partly synonymous. The monitor in the proposed configuration, but would take only (SDI, and composite, but apparently no Y / C?), Which seems to me the most expensive - is it absolutely necessary (for my purposes, preview, image evaluation, monitor on desk )? How do the various quality systems, advantages, disadvantages? If one of these differences really, on a monitor of this format? What alternatives are there for my other purposes? Were there other HD-Röhrenmonitore/Konfigurationen that would possibly cheaper?
And if not, is there now LCD monitors in terms of image quality (; color fidelity, dynamic range, Picture impression) with an ordinary CRT monitor are comparable / confused? Would this possibly be still an alternative, and my concern unwarranted?
And finally: Is 16:9 only in HD? 16:9 is standard, sure, but 4:3 is therefore completely obsolete?
Thanks in advance for any answers ...
Antwort von actvideo:
4:3 continues to slip more into the hinterland and 16:9 is the future and "Yes!" - Hd is always 16:9.
If you want to show HD on a monitor in order to assess the image quality you need not just a simple SDI card, but an HD-SDI - map - for example, of Decklink p. 1000 ®
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/decklinkhdextreme/
We use Decklink card for our Final Cut Pro systems.
As a monitor, I would still advise you rather synonymous to a CRT monitor. We have HD-SDI-capable LCD monitor here, and I think the pers synonymous not so really perfect. Sure, the picture already looks very good, but the trained eye recognizes immediately a difference to the tube.
You'll also have you be aware, this is an HD picture compared to SD-Picture 4x as big. If you mean your HD images to SD farbkorrigierst it can happen that you miss out on important and Deteil Feinzechnungen in SD because they so easily because of the smaller image synonymous smaller, or are not represented at all.
See here: http://www.hennek-homepage.de/video/HD-Picture-SD-Picture.htm
Greeting
Jones
www.actvideo.de
Antwort von WideScreen:
1. Not so true. It is synonymous pure SDI cards for around 400 euros of Decklink.
2. You write: "... in addition to predict the final results will be shown the next 1, 2 years: either as a projection, or just CRT displays, usually synonymous then still in 4:3."
That can not be. If you are working in HD that be no 4zu3 tube, because the HD is probably less. Otherwise, you could indeed be synonymous in SD? Admit, as a reference Röh is even better. Besides the new BVM of Sony, but are somewhat high in price. When DT V1710CG I can only say that the picture is really quite good, especially with the price. One must not forget the SDI or HDSDI is a professional standard and it is rather less broadcast monitors with HDMI.
But if you change only in 1 to 2 years, please, I would think only begin there, because until then, has once again done a great deal. : (;
For real-time capabilities are not so great in HD, as you're used to from SD, not synonymous with the apple core with 8 .... : (;
Antwort von actvideo:
We of the LMD2450 LCDs s.unseren Final Cut - systems. The picture is really very good, but the good old tube is (;) nor better.
Sure Decklink cards gibts for 400 euros - so I know exactly the cards do not synonymous. But I doubt that a 400 euro Decklink HD-SDI out 2x's.
Greeting
Jones
www.actvideo.de
Antwort von WideScreen:
But I doubt that a 400 euro Decklink HD-SDI out 2x's.
Of which was synonymous never speak, that is to have 2, right?
Antwort von ennui:
4:3 continues to slip more into the hinterland and 16:9 is the future and "Yes!" - Hd is always 16:9. Ok - thought it would perhaps special compatibility modes. But I always find something bold, such as an industrial technology impresses here is an aesthetic decision, which had been the first choice. Not everyone wants to shoot films or theatrical nature documentaries, not everyone wants the direction of movies. And yes, the format itself exerts a great influence on picture composition, 4:3 even went more towards Stillimage or painting. Not without reason had originally decided views in favor (; discussion of the time) would be very interesting.
As a monitor, I would still advise you rather synonymous to a CRT monitor. We have HD-SDI-capable LCD monitor here, and I think the pers synonymous not so really perfect. Sure, the picture already looks very good, but the trained eye recognizes immediately a difference to the tube. I've now heard several times, and it seems to me synonymous in this way. But I have taken personally did not have "good" LCD Monitor inspected. I only know of LCD TVs, and there was worse than even the best of my humble Panasonic tube - sluggish, mumpfig, perhaps tw. sharper when scaled, but it is precisely what is technically quite different, and it shows. But then who buys all the (; tw. Very expensive) LCD reference monitors and displays? If, perhaps on the application.
You'll also have you be aware, this is an HD picture compared to SD-Picture 4x as big. If you mean your HD images to SD farbkorrigierst it can happen that you miss out on important and Deteil Feinzechnungen in SD because they so easily because of the smaller image synonymous smaller, or are not represented at all.
See here: http://www.hennek-homepage.de/video/HD-Picture-SD-Picture.htm Thanks, this info, I had just searched. Last Entscheidungsstand was here rather that to me personally for my needs "runterskaliert to SD on tube" is sufficient to evaluate color, detail and dannn cut, and then the HKD_Video will already be ok. And then focus more on a PC monitor or exported with individual frames. But that is an argument, except that one of the great resolution so synonymous'll go and see ...
Greeting
Antwort von ennui:
2. You write: "... in addition to predict the final results will be shown the next 1, 2 years: either as a projection, or just CRT displays, usually synonymous then still in 4:3."
That can not be. If you are working in HD that be no 4zu3 tube, because the HD is probably less. Otherwise, you could indeed be synonymous in SD? That's my problem - at the moment I still remain synonymous with SD, usweil usually still, or remain, 4:3-Video monitors are used for presentation. Ideally, because I like so s.besten. Sometimes, however, synonymous projected, of DVD, Beta tape, DV tape, Digibeta etc, if not movie copy. Blu-ray and sowas but still very rare. With projections in direct comparison for the first time I was dissatisfied with the SD resolution, higher in Comparison with.
And if I now want to buy a new monitor, then of course for the future. First thought, HD-tubes were not at it, or just s.10.000 euro, but which does not seem to be, then this is now really an option. But in any case, with 1, 2 years ago, where I just cut, or synonymous, SD. The said JVC HD monitor is now merely a composite input, no Y / C Sun And suddenly there is HD-SDI in space, and a component option gibts so synonymous with the (: what would it?), And I wonder whether all this is not too large. In 3 years I am well pleased at the moment, I wonder das And suddenly instead of CVBS Y / C SD?
Antwort von actvideo:
Well, that certainly is not cheap. An HD tube for DV editing is in no way comparable with a full-HD LCD telly.
In between, a world away ...
https: / / pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-criticalevaluationmonitors/product-BVMA20F1U /
Greeting
Jones
Antwort von Berntromp:
naja 16:9 now has nothing to do with one aufoktuiertem video format.
Well, not quite.
16:9 Now comes even closer views s.das natural approach seeing.
It is seen more as a question: why was 4:3 introduced?
Antwort von ennui:
Yes, like the natural look is here taken as an argument: I think, but not at! Approximated in the movies, perhaps, where the format comes from quasi-yes. Movies was originally synonymous 4:3, widescreen, and then a new feature such as sound or color. On a TV, anyway occupies only a small part of the visual field, I think it's rubbish. 4:3 corresponds to the golden section, and is particularly of her harmonious proportions.
And there is just a matter of what content you want to show it. A western in a desert landscape to advantage of widescreen. I want to complete filming a cathedral or a tree, rather it is still annoying. It has this very Movies aesthetics: right and left of the image center is still very much up and not down. Ok as an option, as the sole format but not as a hit, in my eyes.
Antwort von robbie:
Everyone is free, with horizontal or vertical black / white / dotted beams from 16:9 or 4:3 for the format you want to make magic.
S.sich television is already so complex that even the difference between 4:3 and 16:9 in this forum about 10000 different problems brings with itself.
So, are we glad that it at HD 16:9 nut there.
Antwort von WideScreen:
Ok - thought it would perhaps special compatibility modes. But I always find something bold, such as an industrial technology impresses here is an aesthetic decision, which had been the first choice. Not everyone wants to shoot films or theatrical nature documentaries, not everyone wants the direction of movies. And yes, the format itself exerts a great influence on picture composition, 4:3 even went more towards Stillimage or painting. Not without reason had originally decided views in favor (; discussion of the time) would be very interesting
Greeting Previously, the tubes were not possible because you could not build a glass flask in these extreme proportions. Therefore, the first tubes were synonymous still very hurt, not to implode. therefore synonymous 4:3 what is already the spherical shape is more like than 16:9. So it has nothing to do with it, which they did not want that wide.
Apart from that, forcing you is not felt that you verwedenst that wide, you can work remains to 4:3. With support beams. But who wants that? I've been waiting on it for years, that the square format is finally gone. Widescreen is much more enstpricht hamon and the viewing habits, because the eye perceives more in width than in height. One must learn to stop these new images. So difficult is it indeed does not synonymous.
Antwort von ksr:
Well said! I like widescreen synonymous - that you prefer widescreen, but is pretty much out of your name:)
This note is not allowed:
I've been waiting on it for years, that the square format is finally gone. 16:9 is too square ...
What always amazed me by the way, is that Stanley Kubrick has preferably 4:3 ...
Antwort von WideScreen:
Oh, right. I did not mean square, but square. (and it is not quite, I know ... but almost:))
