Color calibrated workflow?

Following. I've asked this question of many colorists and they all assure me that an I/O device is necessary. It makes logical sense that if your graphics card is sending a signal that is 5% to the right that calibration would push it back 5% to the left and...balanced.

It doesn't help that the 1080 clean feed I/O (UltraStudio 3G) is just $150 but if you want 4k you have to pay for a monitor, inputs, extra outputs and a housing...nothing that is needed but that you have to pay for anyways. Just rubs me wrong. I've been trying to circumvent this with a Decklink 4k mini and a Sonnet external pcie chassis but it just isn't working.

You are right - an IO device, like an UltraStudio Monitor, isn't "very" expensive. However, switching from my workflow (software calibration with Calibrite Studio) to an IO device, I would need (as the monitor itself isn't calibrated) an additional LUT Box or another monitor with integrated hardware calibration - what in the end makes it expensive.
So in the end I'd like to really understand the difference between the two methods to justify expenses for another monitor + IO device.

Best
Christian

It is all built on an assumption that OS randomly changes the output on random times. Give this assumption some thought in the side context of digital print proofing where no-one is using IO boxes, what a bunch of morons doing absolutely random work... Ofcourse having a clear path is beneficial, but it depends on what one needs to do and whether one understands what is being done. The amount of people who still think that calibration makes two pieces of footage match on the same monitor is so high I doubt they understand any of what they preach.

Now, I'm not saying IO boxes aren't necessary, what I'm saying is that "OS makes colors totally random" is about as accurate as saying "macs just work".

It is all built on an assumption that OS randomly changes the output on random times.

I don't think that's it.

The goal of an I/O is to remove variables from the signal path that could alter the image. Not so much that they will randomly change themselves.

When all those variables are removed, then you know you're seeing the image as it really is. That's a good thing.

For broadcast or theatrical purposes, you'd want a dedicated output device -- assuming your monitoring is accurate enough to display that signal with fidelity. But consumer calibration equipment used by the untrained on consumer monitors in home or office settings is unlikely to meet that standard. You don't in fact know what the program "really" looks like.

In informal tests, the "clean feed" option available in Studio was indistinguishable from Decklink output, so maybe that will suffice for your purposes, in a passably well calibrated system. If nothing else, take joy in the knowledge that nobody watching the material will have an accurately calibrated monitor or an uncorrupted video processing chain either.

As John says, for broadcast and theatrical you need a display that you can trust and that means a dedicated output device to a professionally calibrated monitor.
As a hobbyist I use Video Clean Feed on a calibrated Eizo monitor with excellent results. I use a Datacolor SpyderX Pro colorimeter and Eizo's own calibration software, the calibration being saved to the monitor itself.

Thank you very much for your replies! That makes sense - so to summarize: An IO device makes it easier to get to a "real" calibrated workflow, but for a hobbyist like me, a color calibrated monitor with Video Clean Feed might be enough.

For the ones who visit this thread later on: I firstly posted it in the section "PostProduction". Some admin seem to have moved it here - but missed the original question which isn't part of the discussion anymore. This question is available here: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=189570

Thanks again,
Christian