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

Oh come on Steve you can do better on the title:

SMARTSCOPE OR S***SCOPE YOU BE THE JUDGE

or for their pocket scope:

HEY IS THAT A SCOPE IN YOUR POCKET OR ARE YOU JUST GLAD TO QC ME?

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hullfish <steve4lists@...> wrote:
>
> I am about to publish a review on Ultrascopes on PVC. (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@...> 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, rusescu laurentiu <rusesculaurentiu@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is Ultrascope good enough to asist CC in Avid?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>