color accurate/grading monitor for editing

[Deleted member 234478]

im kind of confused regarding this for video editing. as a pro stills phhotographer, I have never calibrated my screen. I used the internal OS calibration. its always minor differences andit never matters since 1-people cant tell what proper color is and people dont care and the eye will adjust to any color cast or weird color in any image you may show them. notice how when you view one image the first time, it may get one reaction. view it again after 1 minute, you adjust to it and think its ok? the eye adjusts things to middle level.

2- theres too many differences between the different screens that what I see on mine most certainly wont look correct on anything they may view it on. and hardly anyone uses a device with "accurate" colors. even my own laptop and phone and 2 other screens they all look different. even between the 3 cameras I use, the color science is different since nikon has changed them over the years/models. you can easily tell. people dont care if theres differences. if you show them 1 image blue color casr with 6000K and the same shot with 3500Kelvin theyll notice but it wont even bother the person.

makes no sense to calibrate imo. for me I just buy a decent brand, decent specs and tune it with OSD to the target I like. I know from prints how the images look from the camera and with editing I know how to edit based on feedback/experience over the years. I also worked in a film lab developing and printing for some time, so I can see color differences easily

so my question is for video editing and davinci resolve and color grading. was directed that a color grading level monitor is tons of money.

1-why is it different then any other monitor you can get? I understand that some show the spectrum more correctly then others but still, video color grading is nowhere near as important as stills. with video there is motion and audio that disorientates the mind vsstills where there is more time to judge image by image.

2-yes, I feel that there should be a good level monitor but I feel getting something decent would do the job just as well as one costing twice as much.

my point is why is it so crucial when a decent screen that has decently accurate color levels/gamut wouldnt do the job?

adding to all this what I say that it wont matter how accurate your screen is, that almost certainly, the persons viewing screen will be so off yours it makes no difference if its "off" by a smidge. I feel its diminishing retrurns on an expesnive screen and one that has decent reviews will suffice.

maybe im missing something here?

 

[ir_cow]

I'm going to hurt your head a little and maybe it will also give you clarity. Hot take; Color grading is only as good as the targeted output.

While I don't deal with color accuracy in video, the same concept applies to print (which I do). If you changing the colors of the original captured white-balance, it is necessary to know what the white-balance shift will do so it doesn't make the colors look wacky. ie, if you "cool" or "warm" the image. For print If you work with HDR or 10-bit images, the color range is much greater and easy to clip into colors that are impossible to print. Also the rip software will crush those colors back into a colorspace that the printer can do. This applies to video can your final playback color space will most likely be different.

So while working in a high color range is great, if you final source is trash, all that work is wasted and actually can make things look worse. So work in the color space you will always view the final product in and that will save you a lot of headaches.

 

[Deleted member 234478]

you cant hurt my head. I have too many rocks inside hahaha again, I worked in a film labs for some time, I know about color very well. I also developed BW prints by hand for years.

if one knows about color and you can see on the screen vs what your picture should be different, you adjust the screen. I know what my cameras can do and can expect of them. I know my screens are fine. I did not buy expensive screens. I know by wedding album prints I do the final result if I need adjustments. but with so many different screens on the other side , I have seen images look so far off what it looks like for me.

I think so long as on my side I can get it out as Id like, having the most color accurate and most expensive screen doesnt matter

for instance, I have many different phones. and I can see a huge difference in how they display colors. some are over saturated (oled vs ips), some flatter, some too much contrast. and kelvin of screen are way off of 5500k. most are 6000 and up. and these are the clients that see the image

I feel as long as ayou get a decent monitor that can do rec709 and srgb, you can tweak it a bit as you need the final way, edit video/stills with your experience and itll be fine out of your hands. theres so much diffeences from out of your hands, that it doesnt matter if the screen isnt top level. I say get it in the ballpark area and youre fine. half the screens out there who will view your stuff is trash and cant come close to our screens so it wont matter.

an ex friend whos a videographer and editor. he always sent me video for feedback as I paid attention to color. he did a shot a promo video for 2 young newbie dj out in the field. the colors in some of the scenes were off and he kept going off with color balance. I asked him to do the online color blind test. he had color blindness. how the hel someone whos an editor can be an editor. oh well.

oh, btw, I photographed my sisters daughter grad pictures. I sent her the images. I went over a week later and we looked over the pictures on the living room tv. looked off vs my pc screen. and then i checked my moms phone, also looked different.

we are "calibrated" and aware of the colors on the pc and the results on prints but outside, it will look so different and you have no control so it doesnt matter if its a bit warmer/color, more or less contrast. it doesnt matter. I know how the prints are when its all said and done, but on screens, doesnt matter.

get it in the ballpark knowing your gear is good enough to do it. outside it doesnt matter. youll get 1000 different variations. you dont need the best, you need good enough and make sure to see prints are similar to the camera/screen. and that ive done enough of.

 

[ir_cow]

Getting a Rec709 monitor and calibrate to Delta 2 is good enough, but that means your limited to SDR color space and can't work or master anything in HDR.

Also don't forget that room viewing lighting can deceive your eyes. Just like that gold/blue dress thing people couldn't agree upon.

 

[Onasi]

Seconding @ir_cow, get a decent monitor, nothing fancy required, some simple calibration tool and DisplayCAL. That should be more than enough for your needs. Of course, if you want the absolute best you go for NEC or Eizo professional line with screens capable of self-calibration, but that way lie several grand price tags.

 

[nomdeplume]

In the digital age I would trust your abilities mentioned and simply use a monitor that appeals to your senses. This is the difference between pro and amateur work. At the pro level innate sense and near guesstimation lose out to exacting and methodical.

Especially if the only place your work is viewed is on monitor in use. Otherwise try finding a decade old pro monitor with built in colorimeter. I personally would do whatever you are happier with and figure anything but astronomical budget and time investment on new goods is going fall short.

 

[ir_cow]

Use to be really expensive to get a good monitor with 99% RGB colorspace. Now pretty much any OLED is already out the box really close and for IPS, just get a $100 colormeter to calibrate it. A quick and funny story is that while working in pre-press, I was the only one that noticed that everyones monitor was different in color. Asked for the color meter...yeah they didn't have one. Luckily, "we" weren't suppose to check colors and all the Pantone colors was converted to RGB, which than turned into CMYK during the rip. Sales was wondering why the customers were complaining about colors.. So if a multi-million dollar print place doesn't use it, you will be fine with the basic of calibration and be better off.

 

[Deleted member 234478]

Seconding @ir_cow, get a decent monitor, nothing fancy required, some simple calibration tool and DisplayCAL. That should be more than enough for your needs. Of course, if you want the absolute best you go for NEC or Eizo professional line with screens capable of self-calibration, but that way lie several grand price tags.

yes, exactly what my first post said. when I asked in a video editing forum, they said, "a color grading monitor is too expensive to invest in" since I said I was looking for an inexpensive decent color grading monitor. I believe get a decent monitor , make a few test prints to see youre in the ballpark and youll be ok.


saw this guy who gave some options for decent color grading monitors

not too expensive at $200 for the art or gigabyte 27" options.

I think my friend has a color calibrator actually I may ask to borrow for an initial setup. hes crazy though. he said he calibrates his very often and I told him it doesnt matter complete accuracy but just get correct getting

Seconding @ir_cow, get a decent monitor, nothing fancy required, some simple calibration tool and DisplayCAL. That should be more than enough for your needs. Of course, if you want the absolute best you go for NEC or Eizo professional line with screens capable of self-calibration, but that way lie several grand price tags

yes I remember my friend got an eizo years back. I also make sure to take multiple breaks. the eye judgments gets off course after some time. and I try to edit in certain times only. I should get monitor hoods, at least clear up the faint flare/glare, even though its matte screens, there can be some

 

[ir_cow]

What a "Professional" should use and what is actually used are two different things . I remember working with someone in a TV station that used a hood or glare, flare, etc and swore the colors where always wrong without it. Another people that believed Apple products are already "calibrated". Could it be the booth lights just maybe??

 

[nomdeplume]

I think my friend has a color calibrator actually I may ask to borrow for an initial setup. hes crazy though. he said he calibrates his very often and I told him it doesnt matter complete accuracy but just get correct getting

It probably varies how large of changes occur in an OSD set-and-forget scenario for a given monitor, not model. It is a given if you exactingly force a profile using third party software the monitor will require recalibration to sustain calibration because those values will change in time.

As I said, whichever is better for you.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I think calibration matters most when you’re doing physical prints, since the output of the print isn’t going to change. Of course, you need a good printer as well to guarantee that the print matches the color output. Otherwise you are right, what people see digitally is going to depend entirely on their display, which you have no control over. Ambient conditions also affect the viewing experience, which is why we have things like True Tone displays which adapt WB to ambient. In a world of harsh LED lighting and smartphones of varying quality, it’s really a nightmare to guarantee a good viewing experience.

The sucky part is even a calibrated monitor changes over time as wear sets in. You have to have the tool and recalibrate occasionally.

That said, I bought two Asus ProArt displays for home use. They are supposedly calibrated right out of the factory, yet they don’t seem to have the same WB. Still, I like the monitors, but the results vary. I’ve always just played it safe and not messed with WB much. I shoot Fuji-X, so I will use the in-camera recipes to get different looks, and I edit with CaptureOne.

 

[Bill_Bright]

If you only deal with images presented on a monitor or TV, color accuracy is not that important AS LONG AS the displayed images still look "natural" and pleasing to the eye. If, for example, the human flesh looks green or the grass looks blue, that's a problem.

The bigger issue, as suggested above, is when the photo goes to print - either for hanging on the wall or to be published in a magazine or advertising flyer. Then there are two basic calibration techniques. (1) You calibrate the monitor and the printer to industry standards or (2) you calibrate the monitor with the printer. Most monitors, even budget models, allow for some adjustments. Many printers, on the other hand, do not. HP has their DesignJet series, but I believe their cheapest model is still $700.

Oh, BTW, consistently accurate color printing is also dependent on the inks - and consistent ink can only be achieved by using genuine inks from the printer maker. The paper matters too.

 

[Deleted member 234478]

youre 100% correct. I think we are all on the same page more or less. I use the same supplier for the albums I print and enlargments. I have had prints that came looking a bit odd and they recalibrated their machine and redid the prints. slight color cast that the client would not notice or would probably think its one of the ugly "trendy" color presets where theres a shift in colors like an old film roll etc. or those ugly muted color presets. I keep my work timeless and classy. simple clean and timeless.

but I constantly check prints of albums and enlargements I ordered to make sure its within the ballpark of tolerance. if one is doing fine art prints, I think its another level up and its more critical but I never had 1 client who said the prints had a cyan or magenta color cast they wanted changed. they simply dont see the differences. its too minute. unless I pointed it out, it wont matter. they would think its my "creative" editing interpretation or "preset" I used.

I say, get in the ballpark of what it needs to look like, understand the colors and outcome going out and then out of your hands is out of your control with the outside world and clients. I think IR-Cow was saying is do the best on your side as can be. set a good base for the colors/accuracy on your side.

I have no control on the device and the quality or conditions of the displays the outside world views the image. I just do what i can on my side. I have 3 phones on my desk now. all look so different. and notice that most people dont view the images on quality monitors we invest it. it is what it is.

bottom line is that most images/video can be tweaked if needed so not a big deal.