-
Thinking about “viewing accurate color, or at least gamma in FCP” post replies
Hello all, I’ve followed the thread re: “viewing accurate color, or at least gamma in FCP”, and it made me wonder about my own workflow and gear, specific to color correction…and the following occured to me:
Since CRT-based monitors *and TV sets* are quickly being phased out, and digital projectors are appearing more & more in theaters and seem poised to become the standard playback technology, if we continue using technology we’ve been using (crt-based monitors), instead of technology actually being used by our clients (and consumers)…to watch our cc’d media…why is that still deemed the “best” workflow?
IOW, we’re all correcting media files to look good when viewed on “old” technology that’s being phased out, and (shortly) won’t even be used by our own clients (and more importantly, consumers).
The word -futile, comes to mind; if we use a specific technology (crt’s)…for various reasons…all of them good (i.e., -to see maximum shadow/highlight detail and maximum color accuracy)…still, in the end, clients & consumers won’t even be able to see this level of quality anymore on their new LCD & plasma TV sets?
I know SED’s may end up becoming “THE” solution, but the original poster started me thinking about just how critical it makes sense to be, and what the poster inferred from his question, -that getting 85-90% of the way there, might just be “good enough”…for now, because that’s the limit of quality viewable on LCD’s & Plasma sets.
As many of us probably are, I’m a perfectionist, so absolute quality matters, absolutely, to me…and being a curmudgeon, I’ll not soon change my opinion or standards.
But that may be what the poster was really asking; and I find myself asking the same question as I ponder spending another $1200 on a 200-pound crt-based Sony KD-34XBR970 TV set… for client viewing.
Is anyone else having these thoughts too, or am I alone in trying to save a few bucks?
-
3 Replies
-
[Kevin Schumacher] “Is anyone else having these thoughts too, or am I alone in trying to save a few bucks?”
As the original poster, I thought I should say how these concerns came to me.
I’m a cinematographer, and not a professional editor. I use FCP for creating sample reels for DVD and web streaming. Also recently, I shot a couple of small pictures that required that I color correct myself, rather than at a professional post facility. While not a professional colorist, I’ve transferred my Photoshop expertise to the moving image and am quite comfortable with it. Through Photoshop I’ve learned that it is quite possible to color correct for many different outputs on a properly calibrated and profiled computer display, hence my musings in the thread.
Kevin has brought out some good points in his post about the type of viewing device now used by the people who watch our work as the CRT fades into history.
As I went through the color grading of these recent projects it became very apparent to me that what looks wonderful on a professional CRT does not always look so good on other display technologies.
Two fundamental observations:
1. Professional CRT displays hide, or rather, do not easily reveal image noise and digital artifacts that become very obvious on other displays, especially LCDs and LCD projectors.
2. Dark images that look rich and satisfying on a Professional CRT can look like mud on an LCD where the black level is a dark gray at it’s best. Also highly saturated colors that look wonderful on the CRT can look clipped and artificial on an LCD as well.
I’ve learned this looking at footage shown on $3000+ large screen HD consumer displays. And it does effect how I color correct (and light and expose) images now. I’ve learned to avoid making a scene dark for CRT display unless there is a significant highlight in the frame to give the illusion of darkness, and ironically, avoid lightening scenes in post because it exaggerates the noise and digital artifacts to excess on LCD monitors. I think this has mostly to do with the light colored blacks in the LCD not hiding this stuff the way it was on the professional CRT. Plus, the LCD’s are sharper and show the noisy stuff more. Not to mention the image “enhancement” circuits that are on by default on consumer displays.
Until such time as the typical audience display catches up with the good ol’ Professional CRT, I’m also looking at an LCD for color correction and, for other practical reasons, on the set when shooting HD.
-
The situation with consumer CRT TV’s isn’t much different. We grade at 6500K while most of the TV’s are set much cooler, around 8000. I guess it is better to grade to some standard than to grade to no standard.
-
It’s a tough time to be a colorist! True CRT’s are being phased out on a “new products” basis, but I’ll bet the VAST majority of broadcast/cable viewers are still looking at them. One needs to color correct for the type of monitor that the project is going to be seen on… so for now broadcast should be CRT”s I’d think. Or both… come up with a “happy medium”? When you see a 50% adoption of LCD or Plasmas, then things might change (but even they don’t display the same signal the same). There’s still a problem though with shelf life… if the project is likely to live for years (like a doc that History Channels’ going to run for a decade, you might think differently about it.
Course, there’s always that problem of the viewer’s own setup for the monitor he’s using… could be anywhere… I think US consumers like to watch TV with too much color and too much brightness in general… but I don’t think we should be color correcting for this. They LIKE it that way (as odd as it sounds).
Now that I’ve confused everyone, including me… I really don’t think it matters as much as all that. LCD’s from Sony or Panasonic’s new 26″ HD LCD monitor are probably close enough to hit that happy medium…
I’d love a professional colorist to put in a couple of cents here.
Jerry
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up