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

John -

I think your assumptions about Marshall are outdated.

(Full disclosure, I rep Marshall in the Northwest but my opinions are my
own).

I would agree that back a few years Marshall product was aimed at the low
end. But I think now that they have a range of products that perform quite
nicely. Certainly the angle of view is better that you see from BMD.

The Orchid line is pretty decent and the feature set is very good
-http://www.lcdracks.com/racks/orchid-series/index.php.

Not to mention the fact that they are designed and assembled here in the US.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Drop me a note off line and I'll get
you a demo.

Dave Spraker

Western Rep | EditShare | Consulting | Sports Audio

<mailto:dave@spraker.tv> dave@spraker.tv
(503) 897-0250

www.westernrep.com

<http://www.editshare.com/> www.editshare.com

<http://www.spraker.tv/> 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
johnrobmoore
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 10:42 AM
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [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 <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dave
Spraker" <avid@... <mailto: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 <http://www.westernrep.com>
>
> www.editshare.com <http://www.editshare.com> <http://www.editshare.com/>
>
> www.spraker.tv <http://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%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of
> Steve Hullfish
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4:36 PM
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.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>
> <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@...%0b>
> <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>
<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]
>

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