The Great Daylight Monitor Shootout

[Imran Naqvi]

Hmmm that pdf says it's a 10 incher.

 

 

(Though I'm not usually one to complain about having an extra 2 inches)

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

And now this:

 

The Transvideo 10 inch 1,000 NIT

 

 

10"? That's too big especially if it doesn't have the ability to shrink the image

[chris fawcett]

10"? That's too big especially if it doesn't have the ability to shrink the image

Except that some people like it. I'm with you, though. I don't want an image so big I have to scan it.

 

All the best,

 

Chris

[David Allen Grove]

I don't know that if you would have to really scan the image... maybe at first but I think your eye/mind would probably adjust to the different size monitor after time.

 

I think the bigger issue might be bumping into things more often or fitting into smaller spaces on cramped sets?

[chris fawcett]

Hi Dave,

 

The fovea, the central portion of the retina, accounts for 50% of the visual acuity of the whole eye. It's only an arc of 2 degrees, so you really do have to scan to take in anything but a small image—the image quality falls off sharply outside of this area. Fortunately, we are very aware of motion in the entire visual field, but detail is almost completely lacking. The detail we think we see continuously is filled in by the brain. Try this: get someone to select a playing card at random, now stand 2 paces from them, look them directly in the eyes, and ask them to reveal the card at arm's length, then draw it slowly towards their face. You won't even know what colour the card is until it's really close. Have them move it out again to arm's length, and you know exactly what colour and what card it is. Your visual cortex literally fills in the blanks.

 

My feeling is that this affects how we view monitors. If your vision is reasonably good, you can take in everything on a small monitor at a glance.

 

To your main point, I agree completely.

 

My 2 degrees :)

 

Chris

[Sydney Seeber]

I'll just velcro my Macbook down there. With 13 inches, I can facebook everyone at the same time

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Hi Dave,

 

The fovea, the central portion of the retina, accounts for 50% of the visual acuity of the whole eye. It's only an arc of 2 degrees, so you really do have to scan to take in anything but a small image—the image quality falls off sharply outside of this area. Fortunately, we are very aware of motion in the entire visual field, but detail is almost completely lacking. The detail we think we see continuously is filled in by the brain. Try this: get someone to select a playing card at random, now stand 2 paces from them, look them directly in the eyes, and ask them to reveal the card at arm's length, then draw it slowly towards their face. You won't even know what colour the card is until it's really close. Have them move it out again to arm's length, and you know exactly what colour and what card it is. Your visual cortex literally fills in the blanks.

 

My feeling is that this affects how we view monitors. If your vision is reasonably good, you can take in everything on a small monitor at a glance.

 

 

DING! Excellent post. This is why there are times I zoom my TB-6 DOWN in size.

 

10" is simply too big. You HAVE to scan a monitor this size, no getting past that.

[Nikolay Kerezov]

I was thinking about the wind .....a little kitesurfing would be OK after a hard day at work.

[chris fawcett]

The fovea, the central portion of the retina, accounts for 50% of the visual acuity of the whole eye. It's only an arc of 2 degrees, so you really do have to scan to take in anything but a small image—the image quality falls off sharply outside of this area. Fortunately, we are very aware of motion in the entire visual field, but detail is almost completely lacking. The detail we think we see continuously is filled in by the brain. Try this: get someone to select a playing card at random, now stand 2 paces from them, look them directly in the eyes, and ask them to reveal the card at arm's length, then draw it slowly towards their face. You won't even know what colour the card is until it's really close. Have them move it out again to arm's length, and you know exactly what colour and what card it is. Your visual cortex literally fills in the blanks.

 

My feeling is that this affects how we view monitors. If your vision is reasonably good, you can take in everything on a small monitor at a glance.

To follow this up, here's an interesting demonstration of the limits our visual awareness:

[Robert Starling SOC]

The few times I've demoed the Tiffen HD UltraBright I've found the image wonderfully bright but a little large to cover without scanning. 7" seems to be the max I can deal with visually.

 

Robert

[RonBaldwin]

7" seems to be the max I can deal with visually.

 

I feel the same way (one reason I liked the Marshal 6.5 lcd at the shootout). Like Eric, I sometimes zoom the tb-6 out as well.

[Jerry Holway]

One of the reasons I like the 8.4" monitor is being able to see the details at the edges; what's in and what's out... something I found more difficult to do in the old green and white days (even with the biggest green screens). The fact that the screen face is further out (vs. the same config for a heavier, green screen monitor) means that I can still take in the whole image, and at my age, without glasses (the green screen was getting too close near the end).

 

Maybe it's just me, but with a regular camera's optical system (or, ugh, video viewfinder), I'm still scanning the edges constantly, focused on headroom or footroom or just locking down the image... so I'm right at home with the bigger color monitor.

 

I remember liking very much the 6" (?) Transvideo cinemonitor, (don't remember the model, but a long time ago) but it wasn't bright enough for real outdoor viewing - unlike the present ones.

 

BTW, it took about 30 seconds to get used to the first truly daylight viewable, 1400 nit, 8.4" monitor when it first became available. 10" would be interesting to try, especially in a 16x9 format. Maybe I'd say that was too big....

 

Jerry

[William Demeritt]

I'll just velcro my Macbook down there. With 13 inches, I can facebook everyone at the same time

 

Tilt the screen up, and you can even shoot some footage of your hand on the gimbal with the built in iSight!

[John E Fry]

Hi all,

 

So, (after reading through this whole discussion more than once!) is there a clear winner in each price bracket?

 

Sub $1000 (£600)

$1000 - $3000 (£600 - £1800)

$3000 - $6000 (£1800 - £3600)

Over $6000

 

Best value for best price basically from those of you who have seen a few different models. I have a Flyer that needs a new monitor (some numpty bashed it in Mumbai!) so that would be the most immediate need for me, but having used the excellent Tiffen HD Ultrabrite2 I'm also really interested to hear if you guys think it is the best value for the price.

 

Cheers!

 

 

John

[Charles Papert]

With the limited ability to reposition batteries and monitor on the Flyer, John, I'd think you might want to be careful about using a heavier monitor on the Flyer.

 

That said:

 

Under $1000, there are some HD options but none daylight viewable. Probably best to stick with a good anti-reflective coated monitor like the stock Flyer has (you can get a replacement from Tiffen of course). I've heard a couple people talk about this unit but haven't seen one in the wild yet.

 

Under $3000, Marshall has some options worth looking at, including their transflective 6.5" for $2100.

 

Under $6000, I have the Nebtek Solar 7 and the image is great (it's currently in the mid 3's but when the framelines and level sensor become available in the near future, it will be closer to 4K).

 

Above $6K, Transvideo makes a great product.