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

John,

You've been carrying those lines for years now, just waiting for an
occasion like this to use them, right?

;-)

Joe

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:

> 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]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]