Dell 2716D: "The new standard in precise color coverage"

What you guys think?

http://www1.la.dell.com/vc/en/corp/peri ... tor&s=corp

come on man, it's not even 4k, let alone 8k

It's also a computer monitor and they have a tendency to not accept signals below 50Hz and also to not like interlaced signals, so if you were thinking of using it as a grading screen you may have issues trying to feed it anything with a frame rate below 50 or interlaced. You'd need to find a manual and see what feed it will accept

Only factory calibration? Not enough!

I use the earlier Dell 2713 (2560x1550), and while it's very good as a GUI monitor, no way is it even in the ballpark of Rec709. It has all the standard problems IPS displays, inconsistent panels, hot spots in the corners, off-angle issues, and so on. I think it's great as a $900 GUI display, but no way is it good enough for mastering.

Real mastering displays are at a whole 'nother level. It's the difference between a fast Chevy and a Formula 1 race car: each does essentially the same thing, but there's a price to pay when you need to go to this kind of extreme. $2000 buys you a bare minimum mastering display, and you'd have to triple that for a big 40" or 50" display. And for OLED it'll be more. If you demand HDR and Rec2020, then you have to add a zero and go beyond $30,000. This is not for the faint of heart.

It's also a computer monitor and they have a tendency to not accept signals below 50Hz and also to not like interlaced signals, so if you were thinking of using it as a grading screen you may have issues trying to feed it anything with a frame rate below 50 or interlaced. You'd need to find a manual and see what feed it will accept

Adam, its 60Hz (like many nowadays). Come on, guys. Do you even visit the page to see what its said to offer BEFORE posting your thoughts?

I use the earlier Dell 2713 (2560x1550), and while it's very good as a GUI monitor, no way is it even in the ballpark of Rec709. It has all the standard problems IPS displays, inconsistent panels, hot spots in the corners, off-angle issues, and so on. I think it's great as a $900 GUI display, but no way is it good enough for mastering.

Real mastering displays are at a whole 'nother level. It's the difference between a fast Chevy and a Formula 1 race car: each does essentially the same thing, but there's a price to pay when you need to go to this kind of extreme. $2000 buys you a bare minimum mastering display, and you'd have to triple that for a big 40" or 50" display. And for OLED it'll be more. If you demand HDR and Rec2020, then you have to add a zero and go beyond $30,000. This is not for the faint of heart.

Marc, the 2713 is an... old display and with very different tech. You can´t compare both, not even close. The 2716D (and the 2516D) offers color spaces emulation like 100% Adobe RGB, 100% Rec 709 and 98% DCI-P3 (which got me very excited). I read a review where they said it pretty much covers all these color spaces just as promised. Of course you cant expect ANY product to perform the same as other 20 times more expensive, but for the specs, it looks like a promising monitor and should give us decent feedback for serious work. But, I´m not experient on the matter so... leave it to you, guys.

It's also a computer monitor and they have a tendency to not accept signals below 50Hz and also to not like interlaced signals, so if you were thinking of using it as a grading screen you may have issues trying to feed it anything with a frame rate below 50 or interlaced. You'd need to find a manual and see what feed it will accept

Adam, its 60Hz (like many nowadays). Come on, guys. Do you even visit the page to see what its said to offer BEFORE posting your thoughts?

Did you actually read what I posted? As you didn't say what you wanted to use the monitor for I gave reason to check the specs if you wanted to use it as a grading screen, but you obviously didn't bother to read that part, and yes I did go to the website but it gives no specifications on what resolutions and frame rates it will accept which is why I suggested reading the manual to see what it will work with.

Hey, man, calm down. I didnt mean to offend you or anybody. If I sounded harsh, I'm sorry, that was not my intention.

What you guys think?

After actually visiting the site, and reading the corporate literature and tech specs, seems like it would be fine for UI, semi-critical photography and might be okay for pro-sumer work if you also bought the calibration device and developed display LUTs for ballparking a match to a color-critical grade display. Might take away some of the client-in-the-room ambiguity and confusion between your grade monitor and the UI.

It will not be able to match black/contrast performance with OLED.

jPo

It's decent monitor like many others. Panels are getting better and better, so you have more and more options and prices is going down. It will suite many situations, but it's not model for high-end grading companies.
I would still buy Eizo instead of Dell (if money allows) mainly due to Eizo processing and special panel uniformity technology.

https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/dell-up2716d/

Looks good, but panel is only 8bit+FRC, so not native 10bit panel.
I like thin bezel and plain look. It doesn't seams to use any special coating/filters to minimise IPS glare.
Alost 600£, so for 250 more you have LG, which is proper 4K DCI resolution and also has very good panel- real 10bit with 98% P3 gamut. Up to you

Andrew, I googled a bit about the LG 31MU97. The 10bit is said to be true 10bit but nothing really sure. And, aside the higher resolution and larger size, it seems a no better display, pratically the same features and benefits, but its double the price. Would be good to have a decent comparison between both. And I'm very confident both would be pretty much enought for a good color grading monitor. But as I said earlier, I'm not that experienced to say for sure.

Yes, they are similar displays, but one is 4K another not. LG is 10bit panel, it's not like they lie about it.
It uses 31"WS LG.Display AH-IPS (LM310UH1) panel:

http://www.panelook.com/LM310UH1-SLA1_L ... 20260.html

I had LG for tests and it's ok, but with typical IPS glare. More expensive monitors EIZO, NEC has special filters/coating to minimize it.
If you don't need 4K than you may get Dell. LG is one of the "best cheap" options, specially when you need 4K DCI resolution.

Dell does support 50-75Hz refresh rates, so this is good, as you can have native refresh for all source fps (with oversampling) if your software enforces proper refresh depending on the source/project (like eg. Flame does).

Marc, the 2713 is an... old display and with very different tech. You can´t compare both, not even close. The 2716D (and the 2516D) offers color spaces emulation like 100% Adobe RGB, 100% Rec 709 and 98% DCI-P3 (which got me very excited). I read a review where they said it pretty much covers all these color spaces just as promised. Of course you cant expect ANY product to perform the same as other 20 times more expensive, but for the specs, it looks like a promising monitor and should give us decent feedback for serious work. But, I´m not experient on the matter so... leave it to you, guys.

Ah, well, Davinci Resolve performs at par with things 20 times more expensive, or so I thought! Was I wrong?

Ah, well, Davinci Resolve performs at par with things 20 times more expensive, or so I thought! Was I wrong?

You know a color correction software that costs 20x more than Resolve?

Baselight?

Baselight?

+ Nucoda and Mystika with Precision panel, Pablo with Neo panel...

Marc, the 2713 is an... old display and with very different tech. You can´t compare both, not even close. The 2716D (and the 2516D) offers color spaces emulation like 100% Adobe RGB, 100% Rec 709 and 98% DCI-P3 (which got me very excited). I read a review where they said it pretty much covers all these color spaces just as promised. Of course you cant expect ANY product to perform the same as other 20 times more expensive, but for the specs, it looks like a promising monitor and should give us decent feedback for serious work. But, I´m not experient on the matter so... leave it to you, guys.

Ah, well, Davinci Resolve performs at par with things 20 times more expensive, or so I thought! Was I wrong?

yea i think you are wrong...
- Baselight and Nucoda's color tools are a good sized step beyond what is on offer in Resolve, their surfaces are as well.
- Mystika and Pablo's color tools also offer tools that do not exist in Resolve and add intergrted finishing.
-Flame and Luster combined offer tools that do not exist in Resolve either and although neeeding a round trip, are very soild finishing / gradeing tools.

But if you do not need these tools, or are not comfortable working with them, then Resolve will get a great job done in the right hands, but on par with them.. no.... it''s missing real log gradeing for starting place in the list of things that do not have parity.... but that list can go on for a while, quite a while...

Baselight?

+ Nucoda and Mystika with Precision panel, Pablo with Neo panel...

Ahahahahaha
With the panel/surface doesnt count. Buuut, following this logic, so does the Dell and the LG put you close enough where you need to be for professional work as does Resolve.

Baselight?

+ Nucoda and Mystika with Precision panel, Pablo with Neo panel...

Ahahahahaha
With the panel/surface doesnt count. Buuut, following this logic, so does the Dell and the LG put you close enough where you need to be for professional work as does Resolve.

if you don't have a panel is like having a racing car and drive it with a toothpick....

good like with that.

professional environment have panels and the difference between any of the small panels and the big iron will translate in more work done per hours, hence more money.

can I grade with keyboard and mouse? yes I can, but. ..
I will reply to this question with: can you write with your left foot? yes you can, although badly, but certainly you don't want to do that in a 1000$ per hour bay with a client breathing down your neck.

I bought it, the color is good. But the black level is not good. Mine had a ton back panel light leaks. It was awesome the first day I got it and then the panel leak started to occur. I got rid of it and bought a flanders

Baselight?

Just about 10 times more as of last week according to the invoice I got. Or.. Did I score a really good deal on it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just about 10 times more as of last week according to the invoice I got. Or.. Did I score a really good deal on it?

I bet a sixth-generation Baselight 8 with a Blackboard 2 would cost well over $200K, even without storage.

But I can't imagine a Baselight owner taking a Dell display seriously as a grading monitor. Great for the GUI; awful for color.

It's not like it's awful for color. Any proof to say it? Just because it's Dell or non-broadcast?
Rec.709 is piece of cake these days for many panels. In terms of Rec.709 accuracy it may be as good as any other broadcast monitor (or better than some cheap broadcast). It's more about whole package- gamut, black levels, backlight, uniformity, calibration, input support, etc etc. These monitors are still rather made for "still" than for video. They are tweaked bit differently.
For example Dolby monitor is not using anything out of this world- it's based on panel from very well known maker (best units are chosen) and as for today this panel is few years old. Don't assume that Dolby is doing something impossible. Dolby doesn't make panels- they have to take what others have (like Eizo or NEC etc.). This is the reason why you have no 4K Dolby model- there is not a single "good enough" panel out there (except Sony OLED, but they are not going to share it with Dolby). Dolby has for example very advanced backlight system, but it's not free of problems neither. Other than this, Dolby monitor is at least 50% a "brand component" and the rest is "good technology".

Person who is buying it not going to work with Baselight and not going to work on 100M$ productions.

It's not like it's awful for color. Any proof to say it? Just because it's Dell or non-broadcast?
Rec.709 is piece of cake these days for many panels. In terms of Rec.709 accuracy it may be as good as any other broadcast monitor (or better than some cheap broadcast). It's more about whole package- gamut, black levels, backlight, uniformity, calibration, input support, etc etc. These monitors are still rather made for "still" than for video. They are tweaked bit differently.
For example Dolby monitor is not using anything out of this world- it's based on panel from very well known maker (best units are chosen) and as for today this panel is few years old. Don't assume that Dolby is doing something impossible. Dolby doesn't make panels- they have to take what other have (like Eizo or NEC etc.). This is the reason why you have no 4K Dolby model- there is not a single "good enough" panel out there (except Sony OLED, but they are not going to share it with Dolby). Dolby has for example very advanced backlight system, but it's not free of problems neither. Other than this Dolby monitor is at least 50% a "brand component" and the rest is "good technology".

Person who is buying it not going to work with Baselight and not going to work on 100M$ productions.

+1

I think technology is (always) evolving and we need to be careful not to be stuck to some ways of doing things so we get outdated. I dont recall another model from Dell specifically made for video editing and color precision or with that specs. Dell is a strong brand and if they launch a model for precise color, gamut coverage, lut calibration and stuff, what we usually need/look for our work, it pretty much should do what it was intended for. Let me give 2 examples.

1 - Today one can make quality music/mixes at home using the correct gear (not the most expensive or top of the line). Of course at a good and big sized studio you will have a better structure and experienced professionals but as a hardware side, you can do almost the same thing in your home studio, record quality music with decent mics, decent audio monitors, decent software and a computer. Some interfaces along with software are doing things you could only do with big, separate and stacked hardware for each effect you wanted to add. Same with photography. Today, anyone can buy a DSLR and start taking wonderful pictures and edit them on a regular computer. The limiting factor now is only the talent.

2 - How long ago the BMCC was launched? 3, 4 years? By then, who would dare to think it could be used on a hollywood movie? Even as a crash cam or B cam? A year before that you couldnt even conceive a 2.000 Obama$ camera could make to the big budget movies. The cheapest option one could think was RED. Of course a RED or an Alexa are better tools but cost at least 20 times more. Are they 20 times better? Today we know the gap is not that big and it is not far behind.

Why similar things couldnt happen to display monitors? For the specs, these new monitors put us where we need to be.

You can compare aples to aples and say the more expensive has this and that, the cheapper has not this or that... BMCC has flaws compared to the Alexa? Sure it has. But if, lets say, Scorcese had shot Wolf of Wall Street in the same conditions, same crew and everthing, only swapping the camera for a BMCC and never told you that, you wouldnt notice the difference or think about "what camera did he use".

It's not like it's awful for color. Any proof to say it? Just because it's Dell or non-broadcast?
Rec.709 is piece of cake these days for many panels. In terms of Rec.709 accuracy it may be as good as any other broadcast monitor (or better than some cheap broadcast). It's more about whole package- gamut, black levels, backlight, uniformity, calibration, input support, etc etc. These monitors are still rather made for "still" than for video. They are tweaked bit differently.
For example Dolby monitor is not using anything out of this world- it's based on panel from very well known maker (best units are chosen) and as for today this panel is few years old. Don't assume that Dolby is doing something impossible. Dolby doesn't make panels- they have to take what other have (like Eizo or NEC etc.). This is the reason why you have no 4K Dolby model- there is not a single "good enough" panel out there (except Sony OLED, but they are not going to share it with Dolby). Dolby has for example very advanced backlight system, but it's not free of problems neither. Other than this Dolby monitor is at least 50% a "brand component" and the rest is "good technology".

Person who is buying it not going to work with Baselight and not going to work on 100M$ productions.

+1

I think technology is (always) evolving and we need to be careful not to be stuck to some ways of doing things so we get outdated. I dont recall another model from Dell specifically made for video editing and color precision or with that specs. Dell is a strong brand and if they launch a model for precise color, gamut coverage, lut calibration and stuff, what we usually need/look for our work, it pretty much should do what it was intended for. Let me give 2 examples.

1 - Today one can make quality music/mixes at home using the correct gear (not the most expensive or top of the line). Of course at a good and big sized studio you will have a better structure and experienced professionals but as a hardware side, you can do almost the same thing in your home studio, record quality music with decent mics, decent audio monitors, decent software and a computer. Some interfaces along with software are doing things you could only do with big, separate and stacked hardware for each effect you wanted to add. Same with photography. Today, anyone can buy a DSLR and start taking wonderful pictures and edit them on a regular computer. The limiting factor now is only the talent.

2 - How long ago the BMCC was launched? 3, 4 years? By then, who would dare to think it could be used on a hollywood movie? Even as a crash cam or B cam? A year before that you couldnt even conceive a 2.000 Obama$ camera could make to the big budget movies. The cheapest option one could think was RED. Of course a RED or an Alexa are better tools but cost at least 20 times more. Are they 20 times better? Today we know the gap is not that big and it is not far behind.

Why similar things couldnt happen to display monitors? For the specs, these new monitors put us where we need to be.

You can compare aples to aples and say the more expensive has this and that, the cheapper has not this or that... BMCC has flaws compared to the Alexa? Sure it has. But if, lets say, Scorcese had shot Wolf of Wall Street in the same conditions, same crew and everthing, only swapping the camera for a BMCC and never told you that, you wouldnt notice the difference or think about "what camera did he use".

+2

You guys said it!

We grade with monitors, which are supposed to be standards. We have also graded with monitors, which are Dell and 2711 as GUI. The difference? Negligible, mostly psychological, as colour is psychological too, and you see same colour differently with different mindsets.

Check Resolve manual carefully. It's possible to grade on GUI monitor, provided you calibrate your GUI monitor. And you can actually calibrate Dells to Rec 709 2.4 gamma.

Check a film called Ludo. http://www.fantasiafestival.com/2015/en/films-schedule/298/ludo Opening film at Fantasia.

A no budget film, yet that works. And graded on Dell GUI. Looks the same, projected on DCP.

Ahahahahaha
With the panel/surface doesnt count. Buuut, following this logic, so does the Dell and the LG put you close enough where you need to be for professional work as does Resolve.

if you don't have a panel is like having a racing car and drive it with a toothpick....

good like with that.

professional environment have panels and the difference between any of the small panels and the big iron will translate in more work done per hours, hence more money.

can I grade with keyboard and mouse? yes I can, but. ..
I will reply to this question with: can you write with your left foot? yes you can, although badly, but certainly you don't want to do that in a 1000$ per hour bay with a client breathing down your neck.

Walter, just a reminder to Aesop's tales. Finally it was the tortoise which won the race. Don't know who was using the toothpick though -- the hare or the tortoise!

Few people think Indie, and films are not always about clients breathing down their necks. Some people breathe films themselves, and they are not clients, they are artistes, and don't they have have a right to breathe?

My take is that it doesn't work out much cheaper to get the Dell or the LG compared to a Flanders monitor *once you count in the extra costs*, especially if you want to go SDI.

Sure, you can use a PC monitor and get reasonable results, if you spend the time and money calibrating them and know where the problems are so you don't inadvertantly try to correct out colour issues that are actually the monitor.

We got a 2716D in last week. The shadow areas are the big problems, we can't adjust the green out of them properly, the corners are bad for uniformity and it doesn't track well. The LG fares considerably better, but again, your mileage might vary as they aren't going through the same stringent checks that the FSI monitors do for example. You also don't get SDI input, scopes, proper LUT capability, interlace support, variable frame-rate input, free probe and monitor recalibration *at any time* from the manufacturer etc. etc. that you get with an FSI monitor.

Sure, you could use one of these and do a reasonable job, especially for lower budget productions, or for learning the software - but in the scheme of things, the monitor isn't the expensive part of your business, so to me it makes sense to save up a little more and get a monitor that is designed for the task at hand, or get a smaller monitor to save some $$, and have something that is reliable, that you can trust fully and that you or your client will never need to question.

Check a film called Ludo. http://www.fantasiafestival.com/2015/en/films-schedule/298/ludo Opening film at Fantasia.

A no budget film, yet that works. And graded on Dell GUI. Looks the same, projected on DCP.

i have not seen the finished film, but i have a thought.... i did grade a trailer for "LUDO" as a favor to the filmmaker who is a friend, for a show shot on a 7D it looked really darned amazing... i thought it was excelent work by the DP under what sounds like very trying conditions... the look was substaintialy in camera from the start.

I was a bit too costly for the producer's tho, so that film went elsewhere to be graded... not the first time that's happened

interesting film tho, the trailer does not touch on the themes and idea's.. going for the shock value of some of the images... but overall looks very similar to what i did.. great minds think alike, or the DP got it in camera...

Dermot, the filmmaker Q is a friend of mine too, for a long time. In fact, his office is just a few blocks away from my studio in Kolkata, that probably brought the film here. Since it was a no-budget film we collaborated as we have done on many Indie films.

The film actually used two cameras -- one 7D and one 5DIII. Two different settings in two cameras, that was the real challenge. But Q knew what he wanted and that made things easier. I have seen your trailer and that was given to us as a reference. I would like to thank you for that. If the film looks similar to its trailer, it's because of you!

I bet a sixth-generation Baselight 8 with a Blackboard 2 would cost well over $200K...

And Resolve panel is $28,500 at B&H, so just about five times more if you build a station for $10,000. I was just pointing out Baselight is not that much more like 20 times. That's all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

can you write with your left foot?

Actually, I can write with my left foot, and it's no less legible than writing with my hands.

Of course, that probably says something about my handwriting...

can you write with your left foot?

Actually, I can write with my left foot, and it's no less legible than writing with my hands.

Of course, that probably says something about my handwriting...

lol....

Since we're talking about monitors you can trust, perhaps this is a good place for me to ask.

I don't do video production for a living and have only been at it for a few years. My delivery target is always Vimeo / YouTube, and it's typically just creativity for the enjoyment of it. In other words, at this point I'm just an amateur. However, that may not be the case forever.

I'm slowly upgrading my capabilities as time goes on, but I'm still working on computer monitors for both UI and grading. While I don't stress too much over this if it looks acceptable on the web across a dozen or so devices, like anyone else I'm always trying to improve my art.

The times I've poked around looking at SDI monitors they seem to be in the range of several thousand dollars. That's really not much for a working production house, but for a non-paying environment it's significant. Is there a way to get into the game with something you can trust that's at more of an entry level / prosumer price range?

While my Google-fu is acceptably strong, this is an area where I don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about, so it's difficult to assess the products that would be workable. You guys got any recommendations?

the bare minimum, could be the mini monitor display, 150$ and a consumer tv that you can calibrated in the ballpark, i have a 32"500$ Sony consumer monitor fire my training machine.

i pick Sony because i can easily disable all j the enhancements, hey in the 709 space and the settings for rgb white and black, you can get to about 95% there.

So, unlike computer monitors, there are some TVs that can be calibrated to an acceptable range? That's worth knowing, thanks.

A few hundred bucks isn't much of a stretch, but a few grand runs into competition from other needs. If I was still married, I suspect that competition would be fierce.

That's the point, yes, many TVs these days can be set about right for Rec 709 if you dig deep enough into their menus. Recent models even claim Rec 2020, but where is the content…

Cheap computer screens rely on calibration in the computer itself, but that's circumvented by the I/O device (for good reasons). Computer monitors with hardware calibration are more expensive than TVs.

At work I have an Eizo CG 318, an excellent monitor in true 4K (not only UHD-TV), self calibrating to the point.

But at home I have a Samsung TV connected via HDMI to a BM Mini Monitor. I set it up to quite acceptable precision by dragging it to work one day and putting them side-by-side. While not perfect, I got quite close.

Close enough to not make me redo all the work if I tried something at home.

We got a 2716D in last week. The shadow areas are the big problems, we can't adjust the green out of them properly, the corners are bad for uniformity and it doesn't track well.

Panel consistency is a big problem, and I agree that accurate colorimetry and good black detail are huge, huge problems for many monitors. The Eizo's CG line is about the least-expensive display line that I can think of that will basically work, provided they're calibrated and provided you sit right in front of them. But they wouldn't be my first choice.

Not a single consumer TV covers P3 fully (but good models are above 90%), so claims for Rec.2020 are pure pr and not true at all. Not a single grading monitor covers Rec.2020 neither.

So, unlike computer monitors, there are some TVs that can be calibrated to an acceptable range?

we should no mix up software and hardware calibration!
using software calibration and display profiles on your computer can not be seen as full fledged replacement of the later one.
but handling the hardware calibration management of your monitor is another field of troubles. ASFAK there is only one manufacturer out there (NEC), that offers necessary control software for linux too. thats why the gap between simple software calibration and those types of more professional corrected color rendition, that can only recalibrated by the manufactures or by very expensive external tools, may look unpleasant wide.

Close enough to not make me redo all the work if I tried something at home.

And that's an important consideration. I do some of my best work in my robe and bunny slippers.

So, unlike computer monitors, there are some TVs that can be calibrated to an acceptable range?

using software calibration and display profiles on your computer can not be seen as full fledged replacement of the later one.

I haven't even tried fooling with mine. My understanding is that you really can't trust computer monitors at all, but some TVs per above could be set up so that they're close enough for rock and roll.

I haven't even tried fooling with mine. My understanding is that you really can't trust computer monitors at all, but some TVs per above could be set up so that they're close enough for rock and roll.

Consumer TVs are "close enough" for learning purposes, or youtube. I have a mini-monitor/Samsung setup at home, and it's a passable approximation of a correctly calibrated rec 709 monitor. But there's no way to bring it into full spec, at least not with the consumer-accessible controls.

You wouldn't want to use this monitor for meeting broadcast or DCP standards or if you needed to pass the footage on to others for more work, because there's no way of knowing that they'll see what you see.

using software calibration and display profiles on your computer can not be seen as full fledged replacement of the later one.

I haven't even tried fooling with mine. My understanding is that you really can't trust computer monitors at all, but some TVs per above could be set up so that they're close enough for rock and roll.

i do not share this faith in tv sets. in most cases i wouldn't expect better results as for moderate computer monitors.

using a calibration device is very useful and recommendable in both cases. beside the better color rendition of customized profiles dispcalGUI will report more objective measurements about the strengths and weaknesses of your actual device. sure, you have to take this results with a grain of salt too. affordable color sensors usually aren't that great. but it's better then guessing and set to much trust into brand names.

if you want to use external scopes or any other external studio equipment, software calibration can not be seen as a solution for obvious reasons, but it's definitely better that nothing in other cases.

Martin,

In my case, where I'm still at the amateur stage and targeting Vimeo / YouTube exclusively as my distribution points, do you feel that I could get equally "close enough for rock and roll" results from my 24 inch Acer computer monitors as I could using a breakout box attached to a TV?

I haven't looked into trying to calibrate the computer monitors because I've heard that it's a fool's errand and not worth the effort. However, if the end result of a properly adjusted computer monitor is equivalent to the box / TV method, then there's no reason to spend the additional money until I reach a point where delivering to pro standards is a part of my reality. But at that point, of course, I'd want to invest in pro monitors.

If you can in fact get equivalent results to a TV with a computer monitor, how would I go about configuring the latter?

In my case, where I'm still at the amateur stage and targeting Vimeo / YouTube exclusively as my distribution points, do you feel that I could get equally "close enough for rock and roll" results from my 24 inch Acer computer monitors as I could using a breakout box attached to a TV?

nobody should expect perfect results out of usual consumer hardware, but you can optimize the color rendition to some degree. it's hard to say if the colors on your tv set or on your computer monitor will get closer at the end, but using a simple calibration device like the xrite i1Display Pro or ColorMunki Display you can find it out easily.

a well trained professional colourist like walter volpatto will be much more sensible to unsatisfying colors and can get much closer to acceptable results without help from measuring tools for cheating. but for ordinary mortals like us, it's an invaluable relief.

I haven't looked into trying to calibrate the computer monitors because I've heard that it's a fool's errand and not worth the effort. However, if the end result of a properly adjusted computer monitor is equivalent to the box / TV method, then there's no reason to spend the additional money until I reach a point where delivering to pro standards is a part of my reality. But at that point, of course, I'd want to invest in pro monitors.

i would say, it's worth the money! all your computer work (photo editing, video players etc.) will benefit from it.

calibrating the computer monitors is quite easy. it's much more challenging to correct monitors behind the breakout box. most software that comes with calibration devices isn't able to handle this kind of tasks. but the free dispcalGUI works with most color sensors and can be used to measure and calibrate even monitors connected by dedicated BMD hardware controlled by davinci resolve.

Great stuff Martin, thanks.

Being among the mere mortals, I'm all for cheating whenever possible.

don't get me wrong, even the tv at home is calibrated with professional probes as good as it could

don't get me wrong, even the tv at home is calibrated with professional probes as good as it could

that's what i expected!

it's simply the way how it should be done...