Video Editing: Single Widescreen or Dual Widescreen?

[Diversecity106]

What do you video editors prefer? One big screen or dual monitors.

I vote BOTH! I have a 22" wide screen and a 17" 4:3. I'm sure I'll go to 2 22" wide-screens as 4:3 dies out completely.

[Steve G.]

Originally Posted by Tim Eason

I vote BOTH! I have a 22" wide screen and a 17" 4:3. I'm sure I'll go to 2 22" wide-screens as 4:3 dies out completely.

Great minds think alike I also, like Tim, have both a 23" widescreen as my main, then a 19" 4:3 for secondary purposes and video playback.
I am too, like Tim, planning on getting a widecreen as my second screen sometime in the near future.

But if you don't have the choice of getting both....get a single large widescreen - Why, becuase in video editing it's nice to have as long a track as possible without a break in the middle - if it were graphics design I would vote for 2 smaller ones. But for video, I would get one widescreen (preferably a 23") so in the future if you want, you have the option of getting a second screen.

[AlexH237]

I have two 19" 4:3 monitors and a 15" video monitor which adobe premiere sends a live preview to. The two monitors are nice because when right next to each other its like one really big one (except for the break in between the two). I attached a screengrab of my workspace in premiere, it doesn't show it in the picture, but the first screen ends at the end the effects controls panel and the second one beginnings at the beginning of the source monitor (having a long timeline is helpful because you can zoom in a lot but still see everything).

If you do not have a video monitor I recommend getting one. The colors are WAY different on a TV then the computer. You can do this by getting an analog capture card with outputs or do it the way I do by telling you editing software to send a live preview out the computer via DV, have you camcorder convert it from DV to S-Video and plug that into your TV.

EDIT: Upload as attachment and trying to upload to MXC didn't work. You get the idea though.

By the way, if you are using two or more monitors I highly recommend UltraMon. It's a great program for controlling multiple monitors. I've been using it for years.

[[Admin] PHugger]

Some of the opinions expressed sound logical, but when you start to do the math they make less sense.

The resolution is all important, that and your preference for viewing windows the same shape as your monitor.

All we are interested in here is the Native Resolution.
Most large format widescreen LCDs are 1680x1050 (trying to get close to that 1080 standard)
My large format 4:3 display does 1600x1200 natively
Your Widescreen display only does 80 more pixels in the horizontal and 150 less in the vertical. I could watch video at almost the exact same resolution and aspect ratio you do, but I watch very little video on my PC. Most things I do are oriented vertically (editing text for example) and this is where I value extra space. Running dual displays will allow me to extend the window across monitors if I simply wanted it wider. Widescreen introduces some issues - some games and other programs just don't work that way - check first. Of course if you like watching video on a 'tiny' 20" screen, then WS is probably for you.




PCH

[kbob]

Does it have to be only two?

I've been running three for a while now, with the third actually being an hdtv, using the vga input on the tv and running it at 1366 x 768. I also have an s-video feed running through it from the second output on my second video card, so I can quickly test a video through it.

It really is relative. TVs for the average family in Japan are generally smaller because they have smaller houses -- and smaller living rooms -- so they sit closer to the TV. A giant TV would be like sitting in the front row of a movie theater -- and no one likes that. Looking at my new 22" widescreen monitor from 3 feet away is just as good for me as looking at my 52" Widescreen from 8 feet away. And then there's my "'night, 'night" portable DVD player with a 10" screen which is just fine from 2 feet away.

I've been a dual monitor guy since the time it was supported by Windows, so that's not an issue for me. But here is the cold, hard fact -- The 4:3 aspect ratio's days are numbered. There WILL come a day when anything at 4:3 will be as hard to find as an 8-track player.

I'm doing my new seminars in 16:9 and my recommendation is going to be for ALL churches starting out to try to go 16:9. It's just part of our world now. I used to use 2 screens and 2 projectors in my seminars, but with the 16:9 setup I won't need to. In the first edition of my book the 16:9 issue was in the appendices. In the second edition it will a main part of the book. Everything on the DVD will be in 16:9 also.

Back to the subject of video editing, I really do think the real estate of a 22" 16:9 over a 17" 4:9 is well worth it. I love being able to spread out all of my toolboxes without having to go to my second screen (but it's there if I want it). And you could perceivably have several aspect ratio monitors hooked up to the same computer -- 16:9, 4:3, 9:16....

Big topic.

[Steve G.]

Originally Posted by Tim Eason

It really is relative. TVs for the average family in Japan are generally smaller because they have smaller houses -- and smaller living rooms -- so they sit closer to the TV. A giant TV would be like sitting in the front row of a movie theater -- and no one likes that. Looking at my new 22" widescreen monitor from 3 feet away is just as good for me as looking at my 52" Widescreen from 8 feet away. And then there's my "'night, 'night" portable DVD player with a 10" screen which is just fine from 2 feet away.

I've been a dual monitor guy since the time it was supported by Windows, so that's not an issue for me. But here is the cold, hard fact -- The 4:3 aspect ratio's days are numbered. There WILL come a day when anything at 4:3 will be as hard to find as an 8-track player.

I'm doing my new seminars in 16:9 and my recommendation is going to be for ALL churches starting out to try to go 16:9. It's just part of our world now. I used to use 2 screens and 2 projectors in my seminars, but with the 16:9 setup I won't need to. In the first edition of my book the 16:9 issue was in the appendices. In the second edition it will a main part of the book. Everything on the DVD will be in 16:9 also.

Back to the subject of video editing, I really do think the real estate of a 22" 16:9 over a 17" 4:9 is well worth it. I love being able to spread out all of my toolboxes without having to go to my second screen (but it's there if I want it). And you could perceivably have several aspect ratio monitors hooked up to the same computer -- 16:9, 4:3, 9:16....

Big topic.

I agree with Tim, He's right on the bullet!

[[Admin] PHugger]

Originally Posted by Tim Eason

The 4:3 aspect ratio's days are numbered. There WILL come a day when anything at 4:3 will be as hard to find as an 8-track player.

I completely agree for video and projection, but weren't we talking about computer monitors? As long as we still have paper, longer vertical formats will always remain popular for PCs. Didn't the 4:3 format originate with photo sizes? There are far more business users of 4:3 screens than there are WS business users. Wouldn't you agree that businesses will drive this 4:3 display market to a greater extent than media professionals?

Originally Posted by Tim Eason

Back to the subject of video editing, I really do think the real estate of a 22" 16:9 over a 17" 4:9 is well worth it. I love being able to spread out all of my toolboxes without having to go to my second screen (but it's there if I want it). And you could perceivably have several aspect ratio monitors hooked up to the same computer -- 16:9, 4:3, 9:16....

Your new monitor has a native resolution of 1680x1050 or 1.76 megapixels
My 4:3 monitor has a native resolution of 1600x1200 or 1.92 megapixels
The widescreen monitor actually has less total real estate than the 4:3
I don't understand - unless they make it higher resolution, it won't have any more real estate - it's just a different shape that fits widescreen format videos better than a 4:3 screen. Simply making the screen bigger doesn't generate more resolution real estate, it just displays bigger pixels.

If you are comparing a 17" at 1024x768 (0.7megapixels) or 1280x960 (1.2megapixels) then I agree it's a great improvement with much more real estate. This comes back to the original question (what is better WS or 4:3) and my original response (it depends on what resolution are you talking about). Higher resolution is much better than lower resolution regardless of your aspect ratio. I'm betting that this is the highest resolution display you have ever owned.....(c8




PCH

[Diversecity106]

I don't have alot of time to respond to everyone's posts. But thank you for your insights! I ended buying one the new samsung 19inch widescreens...I don't have the model number off the top of my head! It is really nice though!

Originally Posted by PHugger

I completely agree for video and projection, but weren't we talking about computer monitors? As long as we still have paper, longer vertical formats will always remain popular for PCs. Didn't the 4:3 format originate with photo sizes? There are far more business users of 4:3 screens than there are WS business users. Wouldn't you agree that businesses will drive this 4:3 display market to a greater extent than media professionals?

I can't answer that without seeing empirical data, but based on my observations in the consumer market (and just walking the isles of Best Buy, Walmart or Target) I honestly believe that the 4:3 aspect ratio will die completly before you know it, so why go 4:3? In most stores 16:9 outnumbers 4:3 in TVs, notebook computers and... computer monitors. The consumer market is bigger than the business market. The definition of a "media professional" is getting more skewed by the week. Just about every generation (boomers, X, Y) are getting into media creation in one way or another -- and who wants to do their work in 4:3 when 16:9 is all the rage (and here to stay)? It just makes sense that since HD programming will soon be law, the fact that movies have been filmed in 16:9 for decades, and you won't even be able to buy a 4:3 TV within the next few years, that 4:3 computer monitors will die as well. As I said, the majority of the computer products available today are 16:9. As far as wanting more vertical real estate, you can always turn your WS into a 9:16 monitor and a 22" WS would blow away a 17" 4:3 (I know, I know -- depending on your resolution). Just another note on the business market -- tablet PCs and convertibles just haven't taken off and a lot of them are 16:9/9:16. So, I guess to answer your question, I think the business/corporate world is going to have to follow the consumer market... and turn their monitors on their side if they don't like it .

I understand the rest of your post and know all about native resolutions, etc. I'll admit my training comes from the projection world and not the monitor world. No, this isn't the highest resolution display that I've owned; but if I had to choose between my 17" 4:3 at 1600x1200 next to a 17" or even 15" at 1280x960 as opposed to my new 22" 16:9 at 1680x1050 next to a 15" or 17" 4:3 (man, my head is spinning now!) {breath} I'd take.... TWO 22" 16:9 monitors at 1680x1050! So, I guess my original response stays the same.

Numbers aside -- there is reality and there is perceived reality. While I try to be logical and I am smart enough to understand the differences, I perceive my 22" 16:9 at 1680x1050 to be bigger than my 17" 4:3 at 1600x1200. Maybe because it's a higher quality monitor. I don't know; but perception wins in this case.

Back to the original question -- again. If you are editing video -- be you a media pro, a consumer or in the corporate world -- it's my opinion that a 16:9 display (or two) would be the best option because it's the direction that the whole world is moving toward and you will need to see your work in the world standard.

So, see Tim for aspect ratio -- See Peter for resolution.