Ask Mike Most Anything

[Elsie N]

I had hoped someone who knows Mike personally would start this thread because they would be able to list his accomplishments and give those of us who only know him from this forum, a better idea of where he is coming from with his answers. He did agree to do this forum thread when he answered a poster on another thread:

i'd be willing to do it provided people don't expect answers within minutes or even hours, as I work all day and don't have a lot of ability to be spending time here. As for David, well, David and I are pretty good friends and i've actually tried to model my on line behavior on his to some degree. I haven't always succeeded....

I thought about titling the thread "Ask Mike Most Anything (about workflow), but that would have been using only part of his knowledge base because as someone who works deep within the industry, he knows many things that go beyond workflow.

To the newbie, I do not know if he will "suffer fools", like you and me. If you have thick skin, ask your question. The Q & A will find it's own level and even if we do not get our questions answered to our satisfaction, then maybe someone more knowledgeable will strike up the conversation that gets us going in the right direction.

 

[Elsie N]

1st question and this may be way below your pay grade.

Mike, I want to go all digital from camera to exhibition for a low-budget festival movie. No VFX work, and except for some fill lights I will be shooting using only available light (outside daytime for the most part... some twilight). I'm a jack of all trades and a master of none, but I have confidence that I will be able to do my own post work via Redcine and Adobe CS5.5 and output to a digital format that most Festivals would accept. I would welcome any thoughts on pros and cons of this undertaking.

 

[Elsie N]

...as someone who a few years ago also advocated a film targeted path, I would say that a number of things have happened that have changed my mind. First, color science has improved considerably, both on Red's side and on the side of labs and vendors such as Cinespace that has allowed for an inverse LUT approach for the film deliverable to be a practical and sensible path. In addition, on the practical side, film is not the primary delivery target going forward, particularly in North America, but in other parts of the world as well. So the need for the film version to be the model for all other versions is not what it used to be.

Now, on the subject of exactly what is different, well, even in the early days of digital cinema cameras we struggled with trying to fake those images into a film color pallette, because they just aren't the same. So we would use a film print preview LUT, and take the original video targeted images and use a transform to put them into "quasi Cineon" space, at least as far as the values themselves are concerned. But the colors never really worked, and we were faced with having to clean up a lot of things - cyan in the lowlights, artificial feeling flesh tones, pink highlights, that sort of thing. We were also forced to accept a film knee and shoulder that would minimize some highlights and low end detail that we actually had in the digital version, which helped the film print (which retained those highlights and lowlights because it is recorded without the preview LUT) but really hurt the digital deliverables. More importantly - and I'm speaking as a colorist now - the constant use of secondary correction to clean up the color anomalies I already mentioned has the immediate effect of destroying a lot of color purity. By that, I'm referring to the colors that result when the original colors are allowed to stand on their own and the delicate balance of all colors in the scene is based on an overall change of balance, much like the printer lights in a film lab. When you don't go in and change individual hues, saturations, and the like, the original colors are maintained and separation is achieved. This leads to more apparent detail, more apparent sharpness, more apparent depth, and more purity of color across the brightness spectrum. This is all a very long winded way of saying that the image looks richer. Now, even in past years, this was always apparent, but because of the dominance of film in the distribution chain, as well as a relative immaturity of inverse LUTs, we were compelled to go with film as the primary deliverable target. That is no longer the case. Nor is it the case that film is the only acceptable and/or most desirable look for modern motion pictures and genres. I feel that if anything has become apparent in the last 2 years or so, it's that film has a look that is the product of its components - chemistry, silver halide crystals, a negative-to-IP-to-print process, and other things. And digital cameras have their own look - similar, but different, and different from each other, just as film stocks are subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) different from each other. And one doesn't have to look like the other, especially when one (film) is becoming less and less prevalent, and the other (digital) is becoming more prevalent and is clearly the primary target going forward.

For a digitally captured production to look its best, to look like it was intended to look, and to get the most out of the camera being used, a pure digital path is a much better way to achieve that. If one feels that film is the only acceptable aesthetic, or even the most desirable one, then one should try to find a way to shoot film. Manipulating digitally captured images in a rather destructive way in order to fake it is not, to my mind, a productive exercise, especially in a world in which film is not the future. But that's only one opinion


This was posted by MMost in another thread and is what prompted this thread.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I actually have a question, which is about transcoding for TV work. I remember that you (Mike) said something to the effect that since most TV shows are still being edited on AVID's, there is a transcoding step involved even when shooting ProRes on an Alexa, but is there a time or cost difference in terms of transcoding from 4K HD R3D files to whatever deliverables are needed for TV post versus transcoding from ProRes to, again, whatever is needed for TV post? All the delivery formats get a bit confusing. In the end, are most TV shows finishing to a 24P HDCAM-SR tape master, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4? Color-corrected to Rec.709?

 

[John Edwards]

Hi Mike and David,

Firstly, An honor to have you here and have this opportunity, thank you, I'm a big fan of your work and process.

I'm a colorist and I have a few questions for you about the RED workflows you have used with your colourists/DI ;

- Have you always graded directly from RED R3D files or have you ever worked from DPX (log) files converted from the RED RAW files?
- If you worked from 'RED' DPX, do you know what log settings were used in the conversion (Redlog, PDlog685 etc), and what LUT's were used in the grading chain.
- Did you ever monitor your RED-shot footage with a print-LUT applied or was it all P3 until you went to print and did tests?
- Who is your favourite post-supervisor and DI supervisor and why?

THANK YOU!

Thank you!

 

[M Most]

1st question and this may be way below your pay grade.

Mike, I want to go all digital from camera to exhibition for a low-budget festival movie. No VFX work, and except for some fill lights I will be shooting using only available light (outside daytime for the most part... some twilight). I'm a jack of all trades and a master of none, but I have confidence that I will be able to do my own post work via Redcine and Adobe CS5.5 and output to a digital format that most Festivals would accept. I would welcome any thoughts on pros and cons of this undertaking.

Well, one thing I would definitely recommend is some sort of proper viewing monitor, because without that, you can't really have any confidence that anything you do will look the way you want it to in a festival screening. There is nothing wrong with a DIY approach, in fact, at least in theory, there is really no quality difference between desktop tools and "high end" tools. However, there is often a serious difference in the monitoring of the intended result. As long as you have some reasonable assurance that what you're seeing and hearing is what the audience at the festival screening is going to see and hear, you should be fine. Everything beyond that is just workflow specifics. So make sure you set yourself up with proper monitoring and let me know how it goes.

 

[M Most]

I actually have a question, which is about transcoding for TV work. I remember that you (Mike) said something to the effect that since most TV shows are still being edited on AVID's, there is a transcoding step involved even when shooting ProRes on an Alexa, but is there a time or cost difference in terms of transcoding from 4K HD R3D files to whatever deliverables are needed for TV post versus transcoding from ProRes to, again, whatever is needed for TV post? All the delivery formats get a bit confusing. In the end, are most TV shows finishing to a 24P HDCAM-SR tape master, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4? Color-corrected to Rec.709?

The files that are usually needed are Avid MXF files (usually 1920x1080, DNxHD36), as the vast majority of TV shows are cut on Avid. The time to transcode varies because of different dailies approaches. Some shows do a direct transfer through a single LUT and leave it at that, although I know of a number of shows that have tried that and ultimately abandoned it because they were seeing too many inconsistencies during editorial and found that distracting when viewing cuts. Others have a DIT assign LUTs on a per scene or per shot basis and then have the DIT create the daily deliverables, although in "high end" network level series, this is not usually the case. A variation on that approach is to have the DIT create LUTs (or full color corrections), but have the processing done at a back end facility, which is the approach taken by FotoKem in L.A. and Bling in Canada. And many, if not most, shows still go through a "traditional" dailies workflow in which the files are sent to a facility and the material goes through the hands of a colorist in a traditional grading environment. All of these approaches work, but as you might suspect, they all "transcode" using different approaches, different equipment, and at different points in the process. In most cases, going from R3D to Avid MXF is not going to be much faster than real time given a single machine. Going from ProRes can often be a bit faster than that, but as you know, there is more to dailies than simply transcoding. There is color correction, double system sound synching, logging, renaming (usually the editors want scene and take, not file name), QC'ing the results, creating Avid bins, etc. All of those things have to be done regardless of what camera is being used, so the impact on the cost of the dailies process based on the camera should, at least in theory, be rather minimal. But in a facility model, many different approaches are used, some of which involve more people, and some of which involve more automation, and how those work flows are designed can and often does determine the cost factors.

As for finishing formats, nearly all network and cable shows these days are mastered to HDCam SR, usually at 23.976, some in 444, most in 422, it usually depends on the studio involved. Color correction is essentially always targeted to that environment (Rec709). Network delivery elements are usually HDCam SR at either 60i (for 1080i networks, such as CBS, NBC, USA, HBO, TNT, etc.) or 60p (for 720p networks such as ABC, Fox, ESPN, FX, etc.). As recently as last season there were still standard def deliveries in addition to HD for at least one network, but I believe this season is HD only for just about every network. There are, as with almost anything these days, variations. For instance, Warner Brothers wants shows that are shot on Red (they don't have very many at the moment, but they do have some) to be archived as 4K DPX files on LTO4 tape. We've already supplied that on a number of shows for them (3 seasons of Southland, the first season of Shameless, and the last 6 episodes of ER). And we're finally seeing the beginning of file based deliveries in specific areas (TNT promo gets ProRes files, for instance). That's a trend I believe will continue.

 

[M Most]

I'm a colorist and I have a few questions for you about the RED workflows you have used with your colourists/DI ;

- Have you always graded directly from RED R3D files or have you ever worked from DPX (log) files converted from the RED RAW files?

I've done both, but the majority of the time I've had the opportunity to work directly from the R3d files, so it's something I'm used to.

If you worked from 'RED' DPX, do you know what log settings were used in the conversion (Redlog, PDlog685 etc), and what LUT's were used in the grading chain.

That has changed as Red's color science has changed. At first, I usually used Rec709 gamma and Camera RGB color, because that yielded the most neutral starting point, and in the early days of Red, that was an advantage. When Redspace appeared, I tried it, but usually found that the Redspace gamma was a bit too "pushy," so I stayed with Rec709 gamma but adopted Redspace for the color matrix. RedGamma was a good improvement, much less harsh than Redspace, so a lot of productions started using that for monitoring and I adopted that when it was appropriate, but continued to use Rec709 gamma when it was more appropriate. Last year, for instance, I was doing the grading on both The Gates and Covert Affairs. On The Gates, I used Rec709 gamma almost exclusively because it was a dark show and looked better without the "push" that Redgamma provided. Covert Affairs, on the other hand, was a show that required brightness (after all, it is on USA, the "Blue Sky Network..."), and so Redgamma was a much better starting point, and was also what the cinematographer (Jamie Barber, an old friend) was using for monitoring. Soon after Covert's season ended, Redgamma2 was released, which I probably would have preferred if it had been available. This year, the situation has changed again with RedlogFilm and the Redcolor color matrix variants. I primarily work on a Baselight these days, and Baselight happens to have a very well developed tool set for working with log formats (it was originally designed primarily for film DI work, which is almost always done in Cineon log space). So for me, the combination of RedlogFilm, Redcolor (I prefer it over Redcolor2 for most of my work, but your mileage may vary), and a log based color grading system has proven to be a vast improvement over anything I had even a year ago. I recently did the pilot for the SyFy show "Alphas" using that approach, and the show Memphis Beat is essentially done that way as well (it's converted to DPX files for grading on a Lustre, but it's converted to that using RedlogFilm and Redcolor).

One thing about working with Red material is that you have to keep up. You have to be willing to embrace constant change, be willing to experiment, and be willing to customize your approach for different material depending on the nature of the images and where they're going. That's true of any format, but it's especially true with Red, as they move very quickly and that can be a bit maddening if you don't keep up. But if you do, it can be rather interesting and exciting. I've always chosen the latter.

- Did you ever monitor your RED-shot footage with a print-LUT applied or was it all P3 until you went to print and did tests?

I've done it both ways, and once again, it has been an evolution. A few years ago, any Red DI work I did went through a film targeted path (i.e., viewed through a print preview LUT) because it was the best way to ensure that what I was seeing was what the print would look like. More recently - i.e., the last 2-3 years - it's been in a P3 environment because inverse LUT color science has improved immensely, and because the digital deliverables (DCP, and all video formats) have taken on a greater importance. And that's a good thing, because as I stated in another thread, you get a "purer" result by staying in the digital space and accepting the images and their colorimetry for what they are rather than try to force them to look like another medium.

Who is your favourite post-supervisor and DI supervisor and why?

The one that understands the process and trusts that I do too. :001_cool:

 

[Bruce Allen]

Mike, I'd love to know: if you were in RED's shoes, what would you prioritize?

You're one of the RED's best friends - because you like RED productions and understand all of the new RED magic - but also deal with the pragmatic realities of the (sometimes entrenched and curmudgeonly, but also sometimes just very sensible) industry. How can RED help you win over all of the other folks ? Or should they just double down on image quality and value and eventually the haters will come around to the RED way because it is so far ahead in price / performance?

Keep the focus on R3D grading... or offer an Alexa-like onboard ProRes / DNxHD workflow as well? What would you work on most in future sensors / imaging pipelines - Colorimetry? Latitude? Sensitivity? Medium Format? Frame rate? Price? And how about that 4K laser projector and RedRay?

I'd also love to hear what you think Blackmagic, AJA, Avid and Adobe should be doing. Though if they were smart, they'd ask you privately of course! Maybe they have! I don't want to drag this thread into some kind of religious format war, so please feel free to disregard

Thanks again for all of your thousands of wonderful posts and good advice.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Harcharan Singh]

LUT

LUT

Hi Mike,
This is a great post..
We are using Assimilate Scratch for grading and following RECOLOR2 and REDFILMLOG for grading with a film LUT applied. The 3D LUT has been made by profiling the HP dreamcolor monitor and then making LUT depending on the stock it will be printed .
Do you also use a print LUT when using REDCOLOR@ and REDLOGFILM or should we grade on HP monitor color space of P3 and use an inverse LUT?
Thanks
Harcharan

 

[M Most]

Mike, I'd love to know: if you were in RED's shoes, what would you prioritize?

Good question. Read on.

How can RED help you win over all of the other folks ? Or should they just double down on image quality and value and eventually the haters will come around to the RED way because it is so far ahead in price / performance?

First off, I don't use terms like "haters" because at the level of the industry I'm usually working with, decisions like camera choices have little to do with emotion and a lot to do with needs, be they practical, physical, or financial. Now, that said, in the network/cable level television industry in which I spend most of my time, what Red sees as its biggest strength is, ironically, probably its single biggest Achilles heel, and that's their devotion to constant change. In the television business, stability is usually what's desired, and that's one of the reasons for the current dominance of the Alexa in my world. I have my own issues with Arri's choice of Apple ProRes as a standard recording codec, but one of the things it does bring to the table is stability over a wide range of software and for an extended length of time. With each revision of camera firmware and the SDK, Red often breaks what was already out there with the promise of an improved iteration. And that's usually been the case, each new release has been somehow better than the next. But the television business is about making a series of shows that need some commonality in terms of the work path and formats used over a period of many months, something that the rapid pace of change with Red doesn't really serve very well. The ease with which the ProRes files can be played and viewed on just about any computer that isn't based on Linux, using nothing more than Quicktime Player, gives a perception of simplicity and stability that is very appealing to those who just want things to work. They really don't want to hear about debayering, RAW, or anything else. So if I were to offer an opinion on what prevented Red from wider acceptance in the television community, it's probably that something else came along that seemed to have some of the same advantages in terms of flexibility (grading from LogC is quite simple, and bears a great resemblance to grading from RedlogFilm), but appeared more stable and simpler, as well as producing images that cameramen happened to like for aesthetic reasons I won't get into. If Red wants to regain footing in the television market, I would say they need to slow down a bit (which is not really in their DNA), emphasize stability, and offer a recording module that can record accepted, standard HD formats that can be encoded using RedlogFilm and a selected color matrix (Redcolor, Redcolor2) even if it seems a step backwards to them. The on board RAW recording can remain, and those files can be used when blowups and repositions are desired since those derive great benefit from the higher resolution. But whether they believe in it or not, what the television market wants is great images, simplicity, stability, and files that are already in the format they use. You don't see Arri really pushing ArriRAW in the television market because they understand that what ArriRAW brings to the table is much more significant in the feature market. Red doesn't seem to make that distinction, and although I kind of admire their unbending devotion to 4K and RAW, it's also what's keeping them out of a market that's pretty significant, certainly in terms of visibility.

Keep the focus on R3D grading... or offer an Alexa-like onboard ProRes / DNxHD workflow as well?

I think I just answered that. Serves me right for going off on tangents....

What would you work on most in future sensors / imaging pipelines - Colorimetry? Latitude? Sensitivity? Medium Format? Frame rate? Price? And how about that 4K laser projector and RedRay?

A lot of that is going to be as an answer to competition, and not necessarily to things that are needed by the industry. Sensors will improve in all of the areas you mention as a matter of course. The numbers game is going to constantly be played. Today it's Red at 5K, tomorrow it will be Sony at 8K, then ....???? Red at 10K? At some point it stops being about real improvement and starts being about numbers, but I hope it's not just about that. As for a projector, I think there are probably better things for Red to spend their time on, but I'm not Jim, and I'm not their product manager. Personally, I'd like to see them innovate in things like the supporting software, because I think the current metaphor for things like color correction could stand a serious update. I've discussed a number of ideas for that privately with Jim, but there has to be a development agenda for both their current and future products, and at the moment, that agenda seems to point elsewhere. RedRay has had perhaps the longest gestation period of any codec in history, and it's still not released. I'm not really going to prognosticate as to its near or long term relevance, time will tell on that. Personally, I'd like to see a single minded dedication to the cameras and what they produce, and leave the distribution to others, but that doesn't seem to be Red's way. So what I think doesn't really matter, but I do think if they move into other product areas, it shouldn't happen until they finish what they currently have on their plate.

I'd also love to hear what you think Blackmagic, AJA, Avid and Adobe should be doing.

I would start by saying that I think all of those companies are doing a lot of things right, and they're all doing it in ways that both complement and extend their existing products, a very wise approach. Blackmagic has really impressed me with their handling of the DaVinci line, something I was concerned about when the purchase was first announced, and even more concerned about when the pricing structure was revealed. But to my surprise and amazement, they have done exactly what they said they were going to do in terms of stabilizing, improving, and modernizing Resolve, so more power to them. AJA continues to innovate and they do it while maintaining a very high level of quality and reliability, something to be admired. Avid and Adobe are both seizing the opportunity afforded by the unexpected stumble of Apple in the pro editing market, and I'm glad to see that. In terms of what I think they should be doing, I think Blackmagic and AJA should continue doing exactly what they're already doing. For Avid, I'd like to see some specific things, such as simpler, more open, and more reliable relinking of non-native formats by allowing various criteria rather than the predefined fields that MC insists on at the moment. I'd also like to see resolution independence, which probably means killing DS, but so be it. They are already moving towards an open API for third party hardware, and that's something I really applaud. With Adobe, I've long been a user of Photoshop and After Effects, and those programs are being constantly improved. As for Premiere Pro, well, it doesn't really have significant presence in my world and so I really can't offer an informed opinion. They seem to be doing things right, though, as a lot of people here and elsewhere seem to be singing their praises.

 

[M Most]

We are using Assimilate Scratch for grading and following RECOLOR2 and REDFILMLOG for grading with a film LUT applied. The 3D LUT has been made by profiling the HP dreamcolor monitor and then making LUT depending on the stock it will be printed .
Do you also use a print LUT when using REDCOLOR@ and REDLOGFILM or should we grade on HP monitor color space of P3 and use an inverse LUT?

As I discussed earlier, I've largely abandoned the film targeted DI approach, but I'm not going to tell you that you can't work that way. If you prefer the results you get by going that route, by all means continue to go that route. As for the monitor, one of the problems with trying to emulate P3 on a monitor is that the 2.6 gamma and overall brightness levels used in the P3 specification are based on dark room viewing conditions, those you'd find in a projection theater. Since calibration usually means that the exact values called for by the specification are used, it creates a mismatch between the large screen/dark room conditions that the specification was designed for, and the small screen/not-quite-so-dark room conditions you're probably viewing it in. The P3 white point and chromaticity can be emulated, but the projection based viewing conditions cannot, so what you're seeing is not really an accurate portrayal of what you're trying to see. If you're using a monitor, you should be setting up conditions that are appropriate to a small screen, light emitting device, and that would probably mean Rec709 (whose brightness and white point are more appropriate to those conditions). You can use properly designed LUT's to get you to P3 based on the decisions you make, but without a projection environment, the display of P3 primaries, white point, and brightness level is really not getting you much. But if you really want to work that way, turn the lights off and get the viewing environment pretty dark so that your eyes can at least begin to judge the image they're being presented with in a somewhat accurate way.

 

[paulherrin]

maybe this is a silly question... but with what ideas in mind does one go about creating a look for a film or a spot, or even a single shot? how do you go about creative grading?

 

[Harcharan Singh]

but without a projection environment, the display of P3 primaries, white point, and brightness level is really not getting you much

Hi,

So can we go for any DLA projector such as JVC DLA series with HDMI output?

Thanks

Harcharan

 

[M Most]

maybe this is a silly question... but with what ideas in mind does one go about creating a look for a film or a spot, or even a single shot? how do you go about creative grading?

I can only speak for myself on that subject, because every colorist has their own process. In my case, I have always worked under the assumption that creative direction comes primarily from the cinematographer and the director. In the best case scenario, you're working with either one or both of them in a collaborative situation, and in the "best of the best" scenario, they give you direction in a very similar manner to directing actors, by telling you the emotional intent of the shot or scene, how it fits into the story, any story points that need to be punctuated visually, and any time of day feelings they want to enhance. Sometimes they give you something specific, which is fine, but I find that the colorist's creative contribution is often elevated when he is treated as a collaborative contributor to the process. I can't really say that there are any rules in any of this, other than latching on to what is in front of you and trying to see the nuances that would benefit from either less or more subtlety. For instance, if a scene is lit from light streaming through a window, you might want to enhance that by using an area isolation (aka Power Windown in DaVinci parlance..), some diffusion, playing with the saturation in the lit area, etc. Color is a more specific thing, and any time something is radically changed from the original photography, it needs to be done with the support of the creative team and with the emotional line of the piece maintained. In trying to enhance images, I usually try to bring out separation and depth. What I mean by that is to avoid color "washes" unless they're intentional, and separate objects in the shot by playing with contrast and getting the color balance just right so that the objects take on their original colors, which in the real world are almost always subtlety different. Separating those objects gives the image depth. And I'm not talking about the kind of depth that stereoscopic 3D creates, I'm talking about photographic depth, which to me is much more artistic, much more pleasing, and much more emotionally involving. So I guess what I'm saying is that there are some basic approaches, but since the colorist is not usually the creator of the images, "creative grading" is usually a collaborative process done with an emotionally motivated goal, not just playing with colors until you see something interesting.

 

[M Most]

Hi,

So can we go for any DLA projector such as JVC DLA series with HDMI output?

I wouldn't say "any" projector, but if you want to work in a P3 environment, you need to be able to set it up to properly display that color space at the proper gamma and brightness. You can achieve that with LUTs to some degree, but you're better off with a projector that has been designed to contain P3 within its projectable gamut. The DILA projectors are OK, and are particularly nice for Rec709 work, but the P3 color space was specifically designed around DLP technology, so you might want to keep that in mind.

 

[Chris Parker]

I actually have a question, which is about transcoding for TV work. I remember that you (Mike) said something to the effect that since most TV shows are still being edited on AVID's, there is a transcoding step involved even when shooting ProRes on an Alexa, but is there a time or cost difference in terms of transcoding from 4K HD R3D files to whatever deliverables are needed for TV post versus transcoding from ProRes to, again, whatever is needed for TV post? All the delivery formats get a bit confusing. In the end, are most TV shows finishing to a 24P HDCAM-SR tape master, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4? Color-corrected to Rec.709?

David,

On all the TV series we are handling dailies for, whether capturing .r3d or ProRes as the in-camera master, the process is very similar. Although AVID will have you believe that cutting native ProRes is easy, when dealing with tight deadlines of the high end TV world, it is not practical, and a transcode into DNxHD 36 is the norm (or ProRes Proxy for Final Cut based editorial departments). The time and cost is pretty much the same either way for the production.

And for the record, great thread!!

 

[mikeburton]

Hi Mike,

Was wondering if you could share some of your favorite monitoring options, LCD's, Plasma's, CRT's, projectors etc? For example, if you were to build your own studio right now from the ground up, what would be your preference and why? I know this is a loaded question but I'm sure its one that many would be interested to hear. Thanks in advance.

 

[M Most]

Hi Mike,

Was wondering if you could share some of your favorite monitoring options, LCD's, Plasma's, CRT's, projectors etc? For example, if you were to build your own studio right now from the ground up, what would be your preference and why? I know this is a loaded question but I'm sure its one that many would be interested to hear. Thanks in advance.

I really like projection for a number of reasons. The image is big (nice for my old tired eyes), the dark room with a large screen allows for a good deal of bounce back, which creates a kind of natural ambient light that I find comfortable, and most of all, DLP Cinema projectors are probably the single most stable, consistent monitoring devices we've ever had. But not everything belongs in a DI theater, so for television work, that's usually not an option. CRT's are still the most accurate without presenting other problems, and the facility that I work in now has 24 inch CRT's in most of the grading rooms, in addition to a plasma (either 42" or 50" depending on the size of the room). The plasmas are considered client monitors, but they are well matched to the CRT's. The problem with plasmas is that they tend to show severe banding during picture fades, and they sometimes display strange artifacts, like smearing on certain colors. While far from perfect, they're still pretty good, and the off axis performance (i.e., viewing angle width) is excellent, easily the best of all flat screen technologies short of OLED. I used to really dislike LCD's, but I find myself warming up the better ones as a substitute for the CRT in a small screen size that's color accurate. Both the Dreamcolor and the Flanders units are pretty good in terms of color accuracy and off axis performance, but as with all LCD's, the apparent black level is often dependent on the ambient light in the viewing environment. If that's set up correctly, those two monitors can be very accurate, and pretty comfortable to use as a primary display.

If I were to build something today that was intended for television work, I might consider having a Flanders or Dreamcolor LCD along with a plasma that would serve as both a secondary display for me, and a client monitor for, well, clients. OLED displays are coming and becoming more affordable and a bit larger, so in the future I would likely look at replacing the LCD with OLED as a primary display for television work. And if budget was really tight, the plasma alone could easily do the job in most cases. For a DI theater, it would be DLP Cinema, hands down. NEC, Christie, and Barco all make great projectors for that purpose.

 

[Luis Otero]

Hi,

So can we go for any DLA projector such as JVC DLA series with HDMI output?

Thanks

Harcharan

The best thing is to have your projector set to normal setting. Then profile it, and LUTs will take you to any colorspace you need (P3, Rec.709, sRGB, etc.).