Monoprice 32in 4K IPS monitor 1 DP 1.2, 1 HDMI 2.0, 2 HDMI 1.4 $300 for a limited time . Reg $399 FS before tax

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

madbrain

Active Member
Jan 5, 2019
212
44
28
In video there is almost no reason to use more than 150Mbps AVC HD or 150Mbps HEVC UHD. RAW should only be used for photos.
Actually, RAW is beneficial in video for the same reasons as in photos. If you video is underexposed or overexposed, having more bits of color information will allow you to tweak it in post. 8 bits per color channel, as found in standard video and photo, just isn't enough to make those adjustments, as information may have been discarded that can't be recovered later.
 

bob_dvb

Active Member
Sep 7, 2018
214
116
43
Not quite London
www.orbit.me.uk
Actually, RAW is beneficial in video for the same reasons as in photos. If you video is underexposed or overexposed, having more bits of color information will allow you to tweak it in post. 8 bits per color channel, as found in standard video and photo, just isn't enough to make those adjustments, as information may have been discarded that can't be recovered later.
Fixing in post is rarely a good thing, it's better to get it right in the camera first time. But the reality is that most people won't be opening Resolve to grade the shots and very few people I know (I work as a video specialist for a major international broadcaster) would shoot RAW. You can do enough with AVC and the economy makes it worthwhile.
 

madbrain

Active Member
Jan 5, 2019
212
44
28
Fixing in post is rarely a good thing, it's better to get it right in the camera first time. But the reality is that most people won't be opening Resolve to grade the shots and very few people I know (I work as a video specialist for a major international broadcaster) would shoot RAW. You can do enough with AVC and the economy makes it worthwhile.
As a pro, I'm sure you can get the exposure right or close enough in the first place that you don't ever have to adjust by +/- 3-5 stops . But if that's ever the case, you won't be able to adjust it without RAW. Perhaps it's more likely the non-pro user is going to need it to do this than pro user.
I have certainly seen cameras do strange things with auto-exposure over the years. I shoot all my photos in RAW for this reason. I shoot a lot at night and/or indoors, and I make a lot of adjustments in post on those shots I use Lightroom to do adjustments for photos. If I had a camera that supported RAW, I'm not sure what software I would use. But I really wish I had RAW footage for many videos I have shot before.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bob_dvb

bob_dvb

Active Member
Sep 7, 2018
214
116
43
Not quite London
www.orbit.me.uk
As a pro, I'm sure you can get the exposure right or close enough in the first place that you don't ever have to adjust by +/- 3-5 stops . But if that's ever the case, you won't be able to adjust it without RAW. Perhaps it's more likely the non-pro user is going to need it to do this than pro user.
I have certainly seen cameras do strange things with auto-exposure over the years. I shoot all my photos in RAW for this reason. I shoot a lot at night and/or indoors, and I make a lot of adjustments in post on those shots I use Lightroom to do adjustments for photos. If I had a camera that supported RAW, I'm not sure what software I would use. But I really wish I had RAW footage for many videos I have shot before.
.
In professional use you almost never use auto exposure, that's only for circumstances where you have little control over what's happening and that's a risk you take. Even in high end cinematography it's common to use J2K instead of RAW.

That being said RED has Redcode which uses lightweight wavelet compression which is close to lossless, but then you're spending 20k on a camera. Apple has ProRes RAW but again it's just 10:1 compression, not lossless. They both allow much more latitude in FCP or Resolve. But our professional workflows are mostly DNxHD or AVCi 100/150 because its economic. If you have a 4:2:2 10-bit 150Mbps source you can still do quite a bit.

Most of the time it's about the videography more than the photography!
 

wildpig1234

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2016
2,198
443
83
49
4k 43 inch TV for $220...

you only get 60 hz...

Chris
sometimes a 43 inch is too big to sit on a regular desk. also no DP input for most of the tv. also the tv stand is not adjustable in numerous degree of freedom like this monitor stand.

I am using one of these right and i can tell you that a 43 inch 4k tv is not a substitution for a lot of scenario.
 

KC8FLB

Member
Aug 12, 2018
71
55
18
sometimes a 43 inch is too big to sit on a regular desk. also no DP input for most of the tv. also the tv stand is not adjustable in numerous degree of freedom like this monitor stand.

I am using one of these right and i can tell you that a 43 inch 4k tv is not a substitution for a lot of scenario.
for multiple windows/browsers open on a single display 40-43 inch monitor is perfect. It’s literally four 20-21” 1080p monitors “glued” together. I use four 1080p application’s, one in each quadrant for most of my work. Much more efficient than a multiple monitor setup.

If you are only going to have one application open or use for high end gaming 32 inch single or a couple/multiple monitors are better.

Four applications split on a 32” monitor is like four 16” 1080p monitors. Too small for many use cases.

background:
I have a cheap 43” 4K TCL (database and data processing, always have 4 applications, one in each quadrant) my 13 year old son has a 40” 4K Samsung (virtual school and gaming) and we just got my wife a Sony 43” x800 4K (database work plus heavy Microsoft teams/email work all day) beautiful picture/text

I spent years tweaking multiple 3-4 monitors on my desks in various orientations and on various armatures

when you start getting to the point of having/needing 3 or more desktop monitors, 40-43” 4K become very practical/efficient. No bezels or wasted space. Maximized usable pixels in your vision.
 
Last edited:

rafale77

Member
Sep 28, 2020
89
36
18
Been using my LG 43" 4K monitor (not TV) for a couple of years now. It was only $499 back then not regretting it one bit. It is an awesome home office monitor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KC8FLB