Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

diff between the BTLH1760 & BTLH1700 Pansonic monitors

I wonder if the 17" models across the board suffer a bit from off axis. Even the TV Logic monitors in the 17" version suffer from color shifts off axis. The 24" does not have the same problem. I've also found the blacks can be reproduced pretty well with their ND glass filters, although reflection does go up, so you have to set up your room and the lighting well to avoid it.

Guess there are a lot of compromises in the sub $25K range of monitors. Just have to set your budget and get the best monitor you can afford based on direct comparisons, and not specs in a brochure.
 
Mitch Gross -Maybe it was the unit you received. I just walked over to our display floor to compare again. The 1760 was definitely better off axis, including vertical.

Hi Mitch

Then can you then please have Abel send us one that works properly next time :-)
The one we received was clearly worse off axis. Confirmed by numerous peoples. Happy to look at it again.

Loving the new Wevi CamWaveHD so far. Beautiful picture.

Best
John

Chater Camera
San Francisco
 
macville said:
I've found that when I put the JVC next to a Panny, the blacks were richer (may not be the case with the new Panny).
Click to expand...
I always find this to be a trap. The richer blacks always look better to the untrained eye(clients etc.) However for professional viewing/lighting I always feel like I'm losing shadow detail in exchange for deeper glossy blacks. Which I'm interested in seeing into of course. It's kind of like the glossy vs matte MacBook Pro screens and the recommendations apple makes if you are doing image work....Matte.
 
What 3D Lut does inside Panny monitor since its hard coded ?
 
HOLLYWOOD SCHMOLLYWOOD said:
I always find this to be a trap. The richer blacks always look better to the untrained eye(clients etc.) However for professional viewing/lighting I always feel like I'm losing shadow detail in exchange for deeper glossy blacks. Which I'm interested in seeing into of course. It's kind of like the glossy vs matte MacBook Pro screens and the recommendations apple makes if you are doing image work....Matte.
Click to expand...

Well when we talking which one is better, you'll need reference. I will get eval unit and see which one of them come close to Sony CRT. It looks like both doesnt have ND in front.
 
ccamera said:
Mitch Gross -Maybe it was the unit you received. I just walked over to our display floor to compare again. The 1760 was definitely better off axis, including vertical.

Hi Mitch

Then can you then please have Abel send us one that works properly next time :-)
The one we received was clearly worse off axis. Confirmed by numerous peoples. Happy to look at it again.

Loving the new Wevi CamWaveHD so far. Beautiful picture.

Best
John

Chater Camera
San Francisco
Click to expand...

Somehow I knew this would be coming as soon as I responded... ;-)

Glad you like the WEVI. We're going to put some in rental as well. A great solution at a great price point.


Yes everyone, Chater Camera is a long-time client of Abel Cine Tech.
 
No lag as it is uncompressed. Or at least the lag is so minimal as to be a non-issue. I have not yet tested it on a RED but it is an HD-SDI system so should work fine. It physically mounts between the battery and the battery plate, which means that you would probably lose you battery data in the camera.
 
From what I saw at NAB:

Panasonic was demo'ing the 120hz refresh rate versus a Sony monitor.
Side note: the Sony monitor looked like crap, probably because of the way it was setup; the image was blurrier... I'm guessing because it was fed a 720p and there was blurriness introduced by the scaling; 1920x1080 monitors are going to be sharper than the Panasonics unless you are dealing with 720p. In which case the monitors will have the same resolution if you get the 1920x1080 to display the 720p with a 1:1 pixel mapping.

Back to the whole 120hz thing.
What the monitor will do is display a black frame, then the picture, then the black frame, then the next frame of picture, etc. etc. The backlight is on the entire time (turning it off during the black frame period doesn't work).

To my eyes, it does reduce the blurry motion but it also makes bright highlight on a dark background flickery on camera movement. So it's like two steps forwards, two steps sideways, two steps backwards IMO. Less blurry motion, flicker for certain situations, lower black level. All three effects are subtle. I don't see BFI as being a huge boost in image quality... I'm not very excited about it.

2- JVC:
The 24" has better blacks and viewing angle than the 17" from what I saw. The 24" is definitely the monitor to get for studio monitoring. I don't understand the bitching about viewing angle unless talking about the 17". JVC has made some LCDs with terrible viewing angle... the 24" DT is not one of them.

3- Black level:
Adding ND only gives the appearance of deeper blacks due to surround effects.
http://www.broadcastreferencemonitors.com/understanding/black-level.htm

Matte surfaces on a LCD can lower the black level somewhat... same ideas as matte versus glossy on Macs. Personally, I lean towards glossy... is it that hard to angle away any nasty reflections? In studio you can definitely do that.

4- LCD technology is changing so fast that I don't think you can make generalizations about a manufacturer... you really have to be specific about the models (and these change fairly often).

e.g. the ecinema DCM23 was introduced at $16,500 (or 17.5k) and is not much better than the newer 24" JVC DT-V24L1DU at a fraction of the price... so I think it goes to show how fast things change. DV Mag has a review that puts the JVC better than the DCM23. And eCinema has since come out with the DPX, which does >15:000 contrast ratio (I've seen it... it does real black; field emission, CRT = not quite real black). So things change really fast.

5- In my opinion... I don't see monitors that don't do 1920x1080 as being a good buy if you want something for studio monitoring (field monitoring is a different story). Not only do you not get 1920x1080 resolution, there are scaling artifacts on top of that.
http://www.broadcastreferencemonitors.com/scaling-artifacts/scaling-artifacts.htm

If you need to deal with computer-generated imagery, then the scaling artifacts will be especially bad. With CG (e.g. broadcast design, pan/scan images, 3-D CGI) you have to watch out for aliasing... but if your monitor introduces aliasing (due to scaling) then that's not good.

6- IMO, it's worth getting a demo of the monitors in question and not rely on what people (...like me ;)...) say. This way you can figure out of the monitor does odd stuff that won't ever show up on the spec sheet.
 
Rivai said:
Well when we talking which one is better, you'll need reference. I will get eval unit and see which one of them come close to Sony CRT. It looks like both doesnt have ND in front.
Click to expand...

Well neither are a CRT but shadow detail is shadow detail. In which one can you see something in the shadows that you can't see in the other?

Not sure what you mean by ND in the front.
 
ND filter is to mimic the appearance of CRT monitor basically it gives better black reproduction and overall look close to CRT. It's an extra layer in front of the screen. high-end LCD like cinemage has this, it's part of the secret why cinemage can stand itself so well to CRT, but of course you still suffer from viewing angle. I think the only one who claimed LCD that can replace CRT is DPX series from e-cinema, a lot of review and reseller i asked, said the black is blacker than CRT, but that makes me wonder because CRT is defacto standard in kine house especially.

Point taken about the shadow details. Seem panasonic is a better deal.
 
it's part of the secret why cinemage can stand itself so well to CRT
Click to expand...
To me, I wasn't impressed that much by the image quality of the Cinemage (though I only saw it on the NAB tradeshow floor, which is a terrible place to judge things). It does gradients very well (didn't spot anything wrong with it), but it's still a 1000:1 monitor and there was something funky looking about the motion portrayal (not sure what the issue is but it looked wrong to me).
It looks like a decent monitor... but so did the JVC at a fraction the price. And the ecinema DPX does real black so I would find it difficult to get excited about the cinemage. The cinemage didn't look significantly better than the JVC. Not that it's a bad monitor, but IMO it's sandwiched in a bad place.

said the black is blacker than CRT, but that makes me wonder because CRT is defacto standard in kine house especially.
Click to expand...
To my eyes, the CRT is like looking through a soft focus filter almost. There are "halos" around where the highlights are... if you engage the 16:9 feature, you can see that the glow spills into the black areas.

Another way to demonstrate things to yourself would be to flash a square of white on/off on the screen, and block that part of the screen with your hand or another object. You'll see that the glow spreads to the other half of the screen.

On bright scenes, the blacks on the CRT are comparable to that of a LCD. This is how Sony can make their BVM-L look like their CRT... they look very similar when you aren't showing dark scenes. But if you have black going to the monitor... one has a glow in the dark look to it.

2- Remember that LCDs used to really suck. Have you seen an early Sony Luma? Wacky colors, poor blacks, not 1920x1080, and one model I've used even has burn-in (it goes away). That's why the CRT has been the de facto standard.

I think the only one who claimed LCD that can replace CRT is DPX series from e-cinema
Click to expand...
Hmm, doesn't Sony claim this? ;)
 
A little off subject, but, does anyone have any suggestions on a good monitor that supports HD-SDI that is good quality but cheaper than the panasonic monitors. The 1700 is around $16K new right? If there are any cheaper versions, are they of proper color, but more importantly, exposure calibration?

Thanks
 
I don't believe the 1700 is anywhere near $16K. You can likely find a street price on B&H's excellent website.

I'd look at trying to get demos of the 24" JVC DT (the model with HD-SDI; $3.5K ish) and the eCinema FX24 (more expensive). They looked the most promising from what I saw at NAB. If you're also looking for waveform monitor + vectorscope, I might also look at Astro Design. (The quality of the waveform might differ, as it might not look at every pixel and might not be engineered correctly. I've not looked at the quality of the waveform monitor in LCDs, but you absolutely see this in software scopes.) I don't know much about Astro Design as they are a Japanese company + language barriers. They have English-speaking resellers.

Here is my list of broadcast monitor manufacturers (<--click the link).
 
You could buy a small stack of 1700 monitors for that much!
 
Mitch Gross said:
You could buy a small stack of 1700 monitors for that much!
Click to expand...

lol, thanks. I don't know where I heard that price then. Maybe that was a prototype price way back. Thanks for the info. Sorry to intrude on the subject of this thread.

Tanner
 
Anyone have the contrast ratios for the Panasonic 1700 and 1760?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top