This IS the Avid L2: [Avid-L2] Re: Stuff I wish they'd fix

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

[Avid-L2] Re: Stuff I wish they'd fix

Every Marshall monitor I've seen at NAB etc... looks like crap. I doubt there scopes are much better but it beats nothing. I think I'd rather look at the waveform displays than their crappy picture. ;-)

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Spraker" <avid@...> wrote:
>
> Steve -
>
>
>
> Another alternative is the Marshall monitors with video & audio measurement
> built in - http://www.lcdracks.com/racks/DLW/
>
>
>
> Dave Spraker
>
>
> Western Rep | EditShare | Consulting | Sports Audio
>
> dave@... <mailto:dave@...>
> (503) 897-0250
>
>
>
> www.westernrep.com
>
> www.editshare.com <http://www.editshare.com/>
>
> www.spraker.tv <http://www.spraker.tv/>
>
>
>
> <https://www.vizify.com/es/50a32f618e76660002000521> See my vizify bio!
>
>
>
>
> From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Steve Hullfish
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4:36 PM
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Stuff I wish they'd fix
>
>
>
>
>
> I am about to publish a review on Ultrascopes on PVC. (www.provideocoaltion
> <http://www.provideocoaltion> ). I just checked out the SmartScope Duo that
> actually has the scope packaged in a nice little rack-mountable pair of
> LCDs. I agree with some of John's assessment. They are scopes. They are
> accurate. They do work. They have no customizability. There's no zooming.
> There's no gamut displays. I would definitely put them in the category of
> "you get what you pay for" when compared to a better - and much more
> expensive scope - like the Tektronix that I get paid to promote. If you have
> $7000 to spend on a waveform monitor and you do color correction and
> broadcast work that has to meet a certain level of QC, then you should not
> buy the UltraScopes. But if you want some form of external waveform monitor,
> you can only afford $1000 and you can make do with the basic RGB Parade and
> Vectorscope, then the UltraScope will do you fine. It is WAY better than
> internal scopes, especially on Avid, which has the worst internal scopes on
> the market, mostly because they don't update while you're making
> adjustments! What's the fricking point in having a waveform monitor if
> they're basically just for STILLS? Anyway, my review should be up on PVC
> shortly. I promise Philip that I won't use a provocative title. I'll stick
> with something more in keeping with his marketing sensibilities like "A
> theoretical evaluation of the Black Magic SmartScope Duo and their relevance
> to the evaluation of high frequency video signals and the analysis of proper
> gamut sensibilities within the confines of a broadcast environment in a
> post-SMPTE neo-classical definition of luminance, hue and saturation."
>
> Steve
>
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:15 PM, "johnrobmoore" <bigfish@...
> <mailto:bigfish%40pacbell.net> > wrote:
>
> > I've done shows with Ultrascopes. They are not my preference as they have
> limited options and the lack of I and Q vectors is a pain regardless of what
> the engineers might say. A simple addition that most other scopes have. The
> lack of updating that feature request speaks volumes to me as to how
> responsive Blackmagic is to user requests. I'm sure they listen but to not
> implement this simple addition after Ultrascope has been out this long isn't
> promising.
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> rusescu laurentiu <rusesculaurentiu@ <mailto:rusesculaurentiu@> >
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is Ultrascope good enough to asist CC in Avid?
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>