Why do studios use reference displays and Monitors.

[artemiskiss...]

Studios spend hundereds of thousands on 'flat' reference displays, like the one's shown in today's LTT video. But no consumer is likely to own one so what's the point? And yes, I undertsand that the diversity of displays in the market means it's hard to find a common ground, but surely the answer cannot be to just use the dullest option instead, right? Why have a mediocre grading for all rather than a good colour grading for most. How about just employing someone who conducts mass surveys and finds out a median display quality to be used as a reference. What I mean is, why can't i just survey the volumes of TVs and monitors sold through consumer analytics companies, then determine their parameters like colour levels, saturation, brightness and contrast, find a median for each parameter (color saturations, hues, brighness and contrast etc.) and then just adjust your videos to those metrics. 

I am a researcher who works with insects, and I record tons of individual insect flights. Now, analysing them, I will set my filters such that they filter out outlier data points and keep data which represents a majority of the flight behaviour. If I didn't do that and didn't apply filters in order to account for every unique and isolated flight behavciour, I wouldn't have any coherent data at all. So I am applying the same logic to the question above. Looking for a constructive discussion as opposed to condescending comments please. 

[da na]

Studio gear has a completely flat profile. Studio headphones have as flat of an EQ as possible. And studio monitors have the most accurate colors known to the Pantone overlords.

Perfect colors might look bland, a flat EQ might sound dull - but if video is edited or images are touched up on an imperfect display, the colors will look even more off on most people's monitors.

Say a film studio edits a movie on an imprecise monitor with 10% lower contrast and 4% higher red levels than what should be displayed. Those are godawful specs but they're easy numbers to make a point. If the movie was made to look good at low contrast and high red levels, watching it on a relatively balanced display would suck - and a screen with darker contrast and higher red levels would make it even worse. 

 

Basically, you want the deviation from exact colors or frequencies to be as close to zero as possible, thus minimizing the difference between less precise consumer-grade TVs, monitors, etc.

[Thaldor]

The thing is in the word "reference". The point isn't to have median value, the point is to have exact and set value that will be globally the same with every other device required to show that same value.

Instead of calculating median flight path from the flights, it's a made ideal flight path to which every flight is compared to. Except in case of image and sound the ideal happens to be pretty boring and bland because humans are odd and like a bit more saturation and contrast to make the image more captivating, bit more bass and treble to make the music sound more alive and bigger and so if the image/music is good on the reference gear, it will be great on the consumer gear.

[xg32]

15 hours ago, artemiskiss... said:

I am a researcher who works with insects, and I record tons of individual insect flights. Now, analysing them, I will set my filters such that they filter out outlier data points and keep data which represents a majority of the flight behaviour. If I didn't do that and didn't apply filters in order to account for every unique and isolated flight behavciour, I wouldn't have any coherent data at all. So I am applying the same logic to the question above. Looking for a constructive discussion as opposed to condescending comments please. 

if you wanna look at colors of insects as accurately as possible, you'd want one of those reference monitors. Similar logic apply to filmmaking, creative intent. The reference material has to be as accurate as possible so everything that comes after would be closer too, nobody wants mario's hat to turn out another color, it can be different shades of red depending on the quality of the media, but at the end of the day it's still red.

 

However, as a consumer that's messed with 14bit and 16bit LUT so my games would look pretty, at the end of the day i don't care about accuracy, and you are right that most consumers don't.

 

if you see the displays in person, it's not dull at all.

 

[Stahlmann]

They need a display that completely lacks any and all picture processing that allows them to see the raw image. They cannot normalize the processing done on consumer TVs so they cannot use that to grade their work. A median of displays already using processing would mean we're looking at double processing. Also, they have these additional analyzing picture modes that shows them exactly how bright every pixel on the screen is to make sure the content aligns with their creative intent.

 

For a consumer $20K seems like an exorbitant price to pay for that, but as far as production equipment goes, this really isn't that outlandisch.

[Doobeedoo]

Just no, that's not how it works, that would make things worse. Others already explained it enough. Those displays are also expensive not just because of better panel it slef, but also special chip, controls on monitor which add a ton of expense that are not needed for consumers. 

So we'd 'only' the great panel from these monitors sans the custom chip and ports etc. But that would still cost a lot more than current best consumer displays since it is made to be the best and consumer displays have a much lower price that is acceptable on the market. 

[dogelition]

10 hours ago, da na said:

a flat EQ might sound dull

Note that people generally prefer speakers with an (anechoically) flat frequency response. Quoting researcher Floyd Toole here:

Quote

What has been found over several decades of conscientious investigation and publication is:
(a) in double blind tests in normally reflective rooms (different ones over the years) listeners give the highest ratings to loudspeakers that measure essentially flat and smooth on axis, and at least smooth off axis in an anechoic chamber or functional equivalent. What they are recognizing and responding favorably to is the absence of resonances - i.e. neutrality.

(headphones are a different can of worms and never target a flat raw frequency response)

 

11 hours ago, artemiskiss... said:

And yes, I undertsand that the diversity of displays in the market means it's hard to find a common ground, but surely the answer cannot be to just use the dullest option instead, right?

There is nothing dull about reference displays. There are standards (BT.709 for SDR, BT.2100 for HDR) that basically define how RGB signals should be mapped to display output. The goal of a reference display is to track these standards as accurately as possible, within physical limitations (as neither the full gamut nor luminance of HDR can be achieved with any current display technology). Any reasonably good modern TV has a mode that at least attempts to display colors according to these standards, instead of oversaturating and overbrightening everything to look "better". So the only way you're getting a close match between what a colorist in Hollywood sees on their display and what you see on your TV at home is by following these standards. Of course, if your own subjective preference is to have a picture that is more saturated or bright than intended, then you can tweak your TV's settings as you like instead.

 

Also, more people have accurate displays than you'd think. As tested in this video, iPhones actually have incredibly accurate displays that rival reference monitors.