HDR monitoring on set
|
Unsure if this belongs here or in general or somewhere else, it’s a question about HDR, but about hardware. I’m having a hard time finding any good information about available onset HDR monitors, large and small. I see SmallHD has a range of monitors with good NIT output and what they call HDR preview, but I’ve not had any good experiences with SmallHD monitors before, especially not the colours. Maybe they just need calibration? I’ve read Art Adams’ guide to HDR, where he talks about the Canon ones, so I’ll have a look at those. Anyone tried any other monitors and willing to share? -- John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen Cinematographer Oslo, Norway
|
|
|
|
Art Adams <art.cml.only@...>
I'm not sure there's an inexpensive option right now. I've seen the SmallHDs and so far I'm not a fan.
|
|
|
|
Doesn’t have to be inexpensive, I’m just not seeing many options at all :) BTW, thanks for a great article! I’m looking into the Canon-stuff, but I’m also looking to see if there’s anything I could have onboard or close to camera as well. I know viewing conditions will be an issue, but I’m betting many situations would allow me to control that somewhat anyway. -- John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen FNF Cinematographer Oslo, Norway
|
|
|
|
Francesco Scazzosi
You wanna go for Sony BVM-X300 It’s a color critical panel but it’s so expensive and so heavy for on-set monitoring . Or Bvme 171 by Sony . it’s less expensive and easy to move / carry but the image area isn’t big enough to judge contrast / focus etc . so at the moment we are expecting a 24.5 panel with an affordable price and a good weight/quality balance . Ty
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 09:39, John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen FNF <post@...> wrote:
-- Francesco Scazzosi - Digital Imaging Technician - Mobile +393494346032 Mail francescoscazzosi@... Skype - franzsca Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3815841/
|
|
|
|
Geoff Boyle
There's almost no point. The viewing conditions on set may well let you see the brighter values but you will see no difference in the shadow detail unless you're in a total blackout and are wearing dark clothes! A burka is a good idea.
That said I loved the Canon 24".
Cheers --
From: <cml-raw-log-hdr@groups.io> on behalf of Francesco Scazzosi <francescoscazzosi@...>
Doesn’t have to be inexpensive, I’m just not seeing many options at all
|
|
|
|
I’m using a Sekonic 758 that I calibrated to the Arri Alexa to help judge where the light falls, and I’m grading test footage to help develop even more specific profiles for the Sekonic. I understand that viewing conditions will be an issue for an HDR display, I just have a hard time accepting that it will have no value at all. I could put a color critical monster like the Sony at the DIT station, but that would be for checking footage at the end of the day – I’m still hoping to find something I could have on set that would aid me some. Rental house has the Canon and the SmallHD for me to test by the end of the week. --
|
|
|
|
Art Adams <art.cml.only@...>
I'm hearing talk of being able to use high end consumer displays using a converter box of some sort. When I wrote that article a while back that wasn't possible... something about camera outputs not implementing the proper HDMI handshake for HDR so the monitor wouldn't recognize that. I've heard rumors that such a thing exists now. It wouldn't be good for hyper critical viewing but might be okay if you want a rough sense of how your lighting and exposure will impact the viewer. I haven't paid attention to this much since I wrote that article, as HDR is not taking off as quickly as I'd like in my market, but the other issue is that you can't properly evaluate all your highlight information as a 1,000 nit display will clip at ~5 stops over middle gray, and a full seven stops over middle gray will require a 4,000 nit monitor which doesn't exist in an easily portable form (and is extremely power hungry). There's no standard for highlight roll off until the final display comes into play, at which point you're either dealing with Dolby's algorithm (the best so far) or some manufacturer's idea of what it should be for their sets. There's no standard. Pay attention to how each monitor shows you highlight information beyond its range and make sure that its implementation makes sense to you.
|
|
|
|
Tom Tcimpidis
We used a number of them for the Amazon Rose Parade live 4K HDR stream I worked on and I was generally impressed. We were in a live mobile production truck so size, weight and ambient light were not an issue.
For those who are interested, it was ten Sony 4300 cameras in Slog-3; with simultaneous HDR conversion and Rec 709 conversion using a raft of the new AJA FS-HDR units with Colorfront technology…
>>> You wanna go for Sony BVM-X300
Tom L.A. Vidiot
|
|
|
|
Matt Gorrie
Atomos probably make the cheapest HDR monitors at the moment. They have a 19" monitor called the Sumo. The main disadvantage that I see for those, is the highly reflective touch screen, which can make viewing tough on location (nothing worse than having your own sweaty face staring back at you in the monitor!).
|
|
|
|
Francesco Scazzosi
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 14:36, John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen FNF <post@...> wrote:
-- Francesco Scazzosi - Digital Imaging Technician - Mobile +393494346032 Mail francescoscazzosi@... Skype - franzsca Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3815841/
|
|
|
|
Adam Wilt
I'm hearing talk of being able to use high end consumer displays using a converter box of some sort. When I wrote that article a while back that wasn’t possible... something about camera outputs not implementing the proper HDMI handshake for HDR so the monitor wouldn't recognize that. FWIW my Sony X900E works pretty well for HLG or HDR10. You can force it to interpret the HDMI signal as 709, HLG, or HDR10 if the input isn’t properly flagged (a $2000 GH5 sends the HLG status flag whereas the $7500 EVA1 doesn’t: go figure!). Adam Wilt technical services: consulting / coding / camerawork Vancouver WA USA (no, not that Vancouver, the other one)
|
|
|
|
Geoff Boyle
It will help with the highlights but the shadows will not be seen.
Try the Canon.
Cheers --
From: <cml-raw-log-hdr@groups.io> on behalf of John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen FNF <post@...>
I understand that viewing conditions will be an issue for an HDR display, I just have a hard time accepting that it will have no value at all.
|
|
|
|
Fahnon
I'm also looking for something affordable to monitor HDR (although grading is more important to me). My paying clients don't care about HDR (yet), so I really need it for my personal work, which means I'm not spending big bucks on whatever I end up with. My preliminary research led me to the Sony, which is clearly rental only if you're an individual. So I'll wait. Whoever gets a product out that is decent and within financial reach will make a LOT of money. I'm betting Blackmagic will do it... Makes a lot of sense for them considering their positioning with Resolve.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:
--
|
|
|
|
Keith Putnam
Should we not fall back on the maxim that monitoring a good SDR image will allow us to be pretty confident that we have the range we need to create a good HDR image? There is basically no chance that whatever the camera's native HDR output LUT is will match our intentions for the final HDR grade. Creating a pleasing HDR master requires proper post, and monitoring an HDR image that looks nothing like what you want it to ultimately look like is useless. There are plenty of ways to ensure you're retaining sufficient highlight and shadow information in your recorded image which don't require looking at an inaccurate HDR viewing LUT (scopes, checking the Log, etc.) Now, this assumes that one hasn't created their own custom HDR viewing LUT which is as close as one could get to their desired master contrast range and wants to view *that* on set. In that case, well... Geoff is still right. Keith Putnam Local 600 DIT New York City
|
|
|
|
Art Adams <art.cml.only@...>
If one checks for shadow detail, keeps the noise down in the blacks, and is aware that highlights brighter than a properly exposed piece of white paper enters the realm of HDR and should be used judiciously, I think one can be very successful without using an HDR monitor. The big trick is to know that the brighter the highlights are the smaller they should probably be, due to not wanting to overwhelm the viewer and also preventing the TV from clamping down. I think it helps to use a real HDR monitor to get a sense of what hurts and what doesn't, but after that I'd think you can use a meter and do pretty well. The one thing I don't like hearing is "It'll all be taken care of in post." That's the best way to annoy a DP. :) At the same time, a fair amount of the work will be done there, but there are things that can be done to lock in intent. When I spoke to Dolby for my articles they said they spend more time windowing and darkening practicals and removing lights from windows than anything else.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I’m discussing this with a colorist here who I hope to bring onto the show, he’s also mostly concerned about us controlling highlights and being very conscious about large bright areas. In a way I like this aspect of HDR, it’s almost like in the film days. I’m young, but old enough to remember, and I always still use a (calibrated) light meter. It sort of becomes more of an exercise when you can light with your meter and your knowledge (based on tests) about how the sensor reacts, and the onset monitor is more of a «preview», just like the old video taps :) I guess what will happen soon is that we will get HDR VR-headsets to wear, that way you’ll have a controlled environment. And next after that they will transfer pan/tilt data from your neck into your gimbal, so you can «look around». In the end every camera will be on a gimbal on a drone, and we will be operating in haptic suits straight out of Ready Player One :D --
|
|
|