HDMI output vs. Monitor output on a laptop in regards to pictures and calibration

[Ernicus]

So....in my last thread about monitor calibration on a laptop...a suggestion was made to get a monitor since getting a new pc is really not an option.

Well, we have a 53" LCD tv and my laptop has HDMI outputs on it. So I hooked up laptop to it to view my pics and compare. Whoa. Huge difference. I assume most of it is that the tv settings are jacked around with...but there is a huge difference between what I see on the TV vs the laptop.

So. I kinda have two questions.

Firstly, is there a difference with HDMI output and Monitor output in terms of a more accurate display? Does it go through some fancy processing within the HDMI settings? I am really not too savvy with this stuff, other than how to hook it up to watch movies. lol.

Secondly, if I want to use the tv...will the calibrators you buy for monitors work on the tv? In todays world, it seems that most tv's are monitors anyway basically so my initial thinking is yes. Just wanted to see if any of you pro's know if it's a good route to use.

Thanks.

 

[Garbz]

The differences are that monitors are designed to faithfully reproduce output. TV's are designed to bedazzle it's viewers. HDMI vs DVI? It all depends on your graphics card and drivers. My older ATI card had horrendous HDMI output. Eventually I figured out it was because the output was 16-239 not 0-255. It also applied saturation. I found a setting on my TV that I could change to make it more compatible but while the results looked good both my graphics card and my TV were screwing with the colours on the way so my dynamic range was quite a bit poorer.

Will a calibrator work? Sure from a technology point of view yes. A TV and a monitor are similar devices. However from a practical point of view it depends on how much of the consumer garbage you can turn off on the TV. I've seen TVs which couldn't even properly display a 1pixel grid pattern due to non-user configurable sharpness controls being turned up too high. My current TV has the option to play with it but when looking at the LCD test images LCD monitor test images I got the most accurate reproduction with sharpness set at 41% which doesn't give me a hell of a lot of confidence that the TV is faithfully reproducing the signal I give it.

The other problem is by the time you're done setting up things the way you like you may not think too highly of the quality of your movies any more. It really is best if you find yourself a cheap IPS monitor to purchase.

 

[morganza]

The differences are that monitors are designed to faithfully reproduce output. TV's are designed to bedazzle it's viewers. HDMI vs DVI? It all depends on your graphics card and drivers. My older ATI card had horrendous HDMI output. Eventually I figured out it was because the output was 16-239 not 0-255. It also applied saturation. I found a setting on my TV that I could change to make it more compatible but while the results looked good both my graphics card and my TV were screwing with the colours on the way so my dynamic range was quite a bit poorer.

Will a calibrator work? Sure from a technology point of view yes. A TV and a monitor are similar devices. However from a practical point of view it depends on how much of the consumer garbage you can turn off on the TV. I've seen TVs which couldn't even properly display a 1pixel grid pattern due to non-user configurable sharpness controls being turned up too high. My current TV has the option to play with it but when looking at the LCD test images LCD monitor test images I got the most accurate reproduction with sharpness set at 41% which doesn't give me a hell of a lot of confidence that the TV is faithfully reproducing the signal I give it.

The other problem is by the time you're done setting up things the way you like you may not think too highly of the quality of your movies any more. It really is best if you find yourself a cheap IPS monitor to purchase.

This gentleman is correct.

 

[EDL]

I understand the technical sides of this, but allow me to indulge a little here and bring up a point that I've wondered about concerning calibrated monitors. I wonder if this delves into the same realm that audiophiles deal with when spending huge sums of money on stereo equipment that costs as much as my house...all in the name of reproducing the music "realistically".

I question the realism because frankly, if you were not present in the studio and heard the music being performed live for the recording, how do you know what it's supposed to sound like? Let's add to that the fact that every human ear (and eye) hears (and sees) things differently than the next ear or eye. What I mean is, how do I know that the green I see is the same green you see?

Add post processing is PS and the end result can be anything the creator wishes, so how do we know what is displayed on a monitor really reproduces what the original subject looked like to begin with?

I understand calibration does play an important role for printing. It is important that what gets printed comes out looking like what you see on your monitor, that much does make the most sense, but for viewing alone, how important is it really?

I can tweak a photo so it looks good on my monitor, to me. How good is that going to look on everyone else's? Even if everyone in the world had the exact same monitor, set exactly the same, how many people are going to see, and agree on the look of my photo?

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying calibrating a monitor or seeking one that is capable of high levels of display/calibration is bad or wrong, but other than for printing purposes, what does it serve?

 

[cgipson1]

I understand the technical sides of this, but allow me to indulge a little here and bring up a point that I've wondered about concerning calibrated monitors. I wonder if this delves into the same realm that audiophiles deal with when spending huge sums of money on stereo equipment that costs as much as my house...all in the name of reproducing the music "realistically".

I question the realism because frankly, if you were not present in the studio and heard the music being performed live for the recording, how do you know what it's supposed to sound like? Let's add to that the fact that every human ear (and eye) hears (and sees) things differently than the next ear or eye. What I mean is, how do I know that the green I see is the same green you see?

Add post processing is PS and the end result can be anything the creator wishes, so how do we know what is displayed on a monitor really reproduces what the original subject looked like to begin with?

I understand calibration does play an important role for printing. It is important that what gets printed comes out looking like what you see on your monitor, that much does make the most sense, but for viewing alone, how important is it really?

I can tweak a photo so it looks good on my monitor, to me. How good is that going to look on everyone else's? Even if everyone in the world had the exact same monitor, set exactly the same, how many people are going to see, and agree on the look of my photo?

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying calibrating a monitor or seeking one that is capable of high levels of display/calibration is bad or wrong, but other than for printing purposes, what does it serve?

The main purpose of calibration (other than printing) is to allow a wide variety of monitors to display exactly the same image you see on your "Calibrated" monitor (as long as the monitor is of a quality to be calibrated to a standard level). If you post a photo from your Uncalibrated monitor that is way off, and I view it on my Calibrated monitor... it will most likely look terrible to me, and my C&C will be about how "OFF" the color and exposure is. Most monitors are setup from the factory to produce a viewable image... if anyone tweaks their monitor much based on personal taste, then image from that monitor will look terrible on the majority of monitors (calibrated or not).

Anyone serious about photography should calibrate... as it allows one to more accurately judge how well you are doing right OOC,also.. as well as letting others see what you see!

Does that help?

 

[Ernicus]

Main point of my questions as of late dealing with monitors and calibation is due to receiving back prints from lab that didn't look like what I have on my computer, not so much how other people view them on their pc's. I don't want to waste hours of prep on a picture for someone only to order a print and it drops and they hate it 'cause it doesn't look like what I showed them.

thanks for the info, great responses. Looks like I'll just use the tv for what it is for..for fun and showing things in the living room and look to purchase a real monitor. ;-)

 

[cgipson1]

Main point of my questions as of late dealing with monitors and calibation is due to receiving back prints from lab that didn't look like what I have on my computer, not so much how other people view them on their pc's. I don't want to waste hours of prep on a picture for someone only to order a print and it drops and they hate it 'cause it doesn't look like what I showed them.

thanks for the info, great responses. Looks like I'll just use the tv for what it is for..for fun and showing things in the living room and look to purchase a real monitor. ;-)

Recommended! And since I didn't address your original post.. no, HDMI TV would be difficult or impossible to calibrate for print output. Calibration and knowing how to send a print to the lab (Format, Color Profile, etc...some vary in requirements) will greatly enhance your prints.

 

[table1349]

Also keep in mind, with the right calibration device and the right flat screen tv. You can calibrate you monitor, printer if you do your own printing AND you TV. Amazing how nice the picture is on our Sony Flat screen after I hardware calibrated it.

 

[Garbz]

I wonder if this delves into the same realm that audiophiles deal with when spending huge sums of money on stereo equipment that costs as much as my house...all in the name of reproducing the music "realistically".

I question the realism because frankly, if you were not present in the studio and heard the music being performed live for the recording, how do you know what it's supposed to sound like? Let's add to that the fact that every human ear (and eye) hears (and sees) things differently than the next ear or eye. What I mean is, how do I know that the green I see is the same green you see?

You're looking at this from the wrong point of view. The audiophile is the geek at the end wanting to hear the recording as the person mastering it intended. To him realism is still subjective but ultimately also measured in terms of harmonic distortion and dB vs frequency. This is the same as a person who doesn't take photos but consumes media yet has a IPS screen with a calibrator. They want to see things as they were intended and in the highest possible quality.

The typical end user will not see your picture properly. Actually some of them may think your image downright sucks but the fault will be entirely at their end. I have a friend who is similar, he comes over listens to my hifi (B&W 800 series speakers and some $10k worth of gear behind it) and their first reaction is "it lacks bass". Yeah no kidding it lacks bass, but then real life also lacks bass compared to his ear-drum-bleeding inducing system. The point is he will buy what he thinks is good and damn the end result. This will be the person who buys a TV with the saturation turned to 100, the sharpness all the way up, and that horrendous dynamic contrast enhancement to help with his eyestrain.

HOWEVER!

We are photographers. Our role is not as the consumer of media, but rather the master of the media. You should no more prepare a photograph on a screen which displays colours incorrectly as you should prepare a multi-track master recording on a boom box. If you have no reference to what is correct then how is it supposed to be right down the line ever? As for what is "correct", that's entirely why we use calibrators. It doesn't matter if you don't see green the same way I do, it doesn't even matter if you are colourblind, what matters is that you in the mastering stage, in the process of moving images between programs, between computers, and perhaps even between different mediums (digital and print), that you get consistent results.