Canon’s New DP-V3120 4K Reference Display Delivers Unprecedented HDR Capabilities

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,285
193
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
While being fascinated about all the great stuff for video and photo one question rises:
Where are movies like the 1974 Chinatown which provide gorgeous photography, top sound besides top acting and story? What does all the High DR, Surround/Atmos really help?
Maybe it is just simpler to achieve the same technical quality and there is no more drive to do top acting inside big stories?
 

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
1,967
125
While being fascinated about all the great stuff for video and photo one question rises:
Where are movies like the 1974 Chinatown which provide gorgeous photography, top sound besides top acting and story? What does all the High DR, Surround/Atmos really help?
Maybe it is just simpler to achieve the same technical quality and there is no more drive to do top acting inside big stories?
Well, I think you nailed it there....with movies, more interested in big CGI effects, and hollywood doesn't want to take chances on 'new' movies, as they'd rather bet on supposed safe franchise films over and over.

Kinda how music today is just worse than previous years, even though the studio tech and magic are superior....sure they can auto tune everything, but yet, they seem to be more interested in a sexy artist, rather than someone that can actually write their own songs and play their own instruments.

LOL, look at most musicians of the 60s-70's before MTV hit....the classic big groups, they were some ugly mothers, but sure were talented.

OH well..I digress.
 

LDS

EOR R
Sep 14, 2012
1,578
152
What does all the High DR, Surround/Atmos really help?
First of all, let's remember this is not just for the Hollywood movie industry. There are several other sectors that like improved imaging technology. I was at a Pre-Raphaelites exhibition a few days ago, and if I had to shoot a documentary about that I would like to avoid NTSC "glorious" colors and resolution (and PAL too). The broadcasting business has its increased needs too. That said, technical improvements are orthogonal to artistic ones. Anyway, as long as Canon & C. sell imagind devices and not directors, actors and scriptwriters, it can't help in the latter field. Once they will start to sell robotic/AI ones, everything will change...
 

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
407
217
Adding to what has been said already, these monitors can work stand-alone. You get multiple inputs from multiple sources, and can switch and compare them without using a PC (although it can even be controlled from a remote system via an Ethernet connection), and have built-in tools for different tasks. It can apply LUTs to display RAW feeds. Moreover, they can display camera information transmitted over the SDI interfaces. That make them useful not only for editing, but while recording or broadcasting as well.

They could not be stylish like the Apple designs, but are built to be transported and used on-site.

What it lacks, anyway, and will doom Canon, is a $999 desk stand.
Well, for the difference in price, those extra features are coming at a very high cost, considering that apples is also 6k, and ever so slightly larger. The only thing here that’s better is the 2,000 brightness.
 

LDS

EOR R
Sep 14, 2012
1,578
152
those extra features are coming at a very high cost, considering that apples is also 6k
If you just look at the pixel count, sure. If you look at the workflow the two monitor enable, you can see the difference. The Apple monitor is a computer monitor - it's quite useless without a computer attached. The Canon does not need a computer and can process multiple input signals on the fly - so users can compare and adjust whatever they need and monitor *while* shooting or broadcasting. Think about broadcaster, who need to ensure a show look good enough on different receiving devices, from 4K HDR ones to older SD ones...

Did you look at the color space supported by both monitors?

About the price, why a 1DX costs $6000 or more, and not $1200 like an entry level FF? Same pixel count, or even lower, sometimes. Or why L lenses cost much more than their non-L counterparts? Why my 24/3.5 TS costs a lot more than the 24/2.8? The latter is faster!!! Why a video camera costs a lot more than a DSLR/ML with video capabilities?

Sure, you can always do an "Harry Film" and buy a consumer TV or PC monitor and hope to achieve the same result at a fraction of the price building some kind of Goldberg machine - you won't, while the system will be much more clumsier and unpredictable to work with.

Apple to oranges comparisons are useless. Apple is not interested in industry-specific devices, just like it doesn't make servers, you aren't going to compare the new MacPro with a Dell heavy duty server - and the latter can even cost more, even when it comes with just a Matrox G200 video card. Still you won't buy the latter unless you really need it. Specific systems for High Frequency Trading can be even crazier and more expensive, and will usually last a few months only. The gains usually offset any cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin