Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Forums Broadcasting Why External Monitoring?

  • Why External Monitoring?

     Amir Qureshi updated 10 years, 10 months ago 6 Members · 10 Posts
  • Eric Harnden

    November 6, 2009 at 8:35 pm

    Where can I learn about WHY I would need to do external monitoring?

    In other words, why do I need to buy a box (like a Matrox or Blackmagic or AJA) and an external monitor?

    I don’t get why I need to do that.

    I mean, why can’t I just add another Radeon video card and use another computer monitor?

    I’ve heard that some monitors (computer ones) are “great” to monitor with.

    Now, consider I don’t know how to “calibrate” either (That’s my next learning step) but can’t I just calibrate any computer monitor or TV or HD monitor or blahblahblah monitor and be fine?

    Is it just for “Broadcast” issues and quality that I need to use an external monitor? Are there different outputs that need different monitoring adjustments?

    What if I’m going to film?

    I would like specific answers but if you can just point me to some good sites/pages to learn more about this, that would be great!


  • Joey Burnham

    November 6, 2009 at 9:51 pm

    Short answer: Things look very different on a computer monitor than on a broadcast. If you want to work blind it’s up to you.
    Computers are progressive, NTSC is not. Major color/gamma shifts in HD as well.

  • Andrew Kimery

    November 6, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    If you do a search in the Apple Color forum here you’ll find a lot of talk about proper monitoring. Basically, NLE software doesn’t generate a b’cast accurate images inside the GUI, computer GFX cards don’t send out b’cast accurate signals, and computer monitors aren’t designed to properly display NTSC, PAL, SECAM, and/or ATSC video signals.


    3.2GHz 8-core, FCP 6.0.4, 10.5.5
    Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (6.8.1)

  • Eric Harnden

    November 6, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    Okay, it’s starting to make sense….

  • Joey Burnham

    November 6, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    trust us, If we didn’t need to spend at least 3k on a monitor we wouldnt!

  • Eric Harnden

    November 6, 2009 at 11:35 pm

    So really it’s just if you’re going to TV? What about film? How’s that work? Is that why they have DI/color correcting sessions?

  • Shane Ross

    November 7, 2009 at 1:53 am

    [Eric Harnden] “So really it’s just if you’re going to TV?”


    [Eric Harnden] “What about film?”

    A computer monitor doesn’t compare to projected film at all! The same thing applies for film…same monitors.

    [Eric Harnden] “Is that why they have DI/color correcting sessions?”

    DI is just ONLINE…just getting things high res. Color correction is a separate thing. And yes, Broadcast TV and Feature Films alike have this. I’m gonna have to talk to you about this next time we have pizza…


    Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def

  • Eric Harnden

    November 7, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    Something tells me you would! 😉

  • Bob Zelin

    November 8, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    I recently setup a system with a Kona LHi, and was discussing the difference between uncompressed and ProRes422HQ. The client ultimately decided to work in DV.

    If the picture on your computer screen looks “pretty damn good to me”, then there is nothing to discuss. If clients think that DV25 looks “just as good as uncompressed video” – well, if they are paying you, you just shut up and say “thanks for the money”. Sometimes, I think that there are definate negatives about staring at video screens for 30 years. Maybe most of us are wrong- maybe DV25 (and the image you get on a $179 DVI monitor) is “good enough”, and “looks pretty good”.

    Bob Zelin

  • Amir Qureshi

    November 9, 2009 at 1:15 am


    thats classic Bob…

Viewing 1 - 10 of 10 posts

Log in to reply.

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy