Skip navigation

A Proper Monitoring Solution

Sep 9, 2011 6:01 PM

  Latest reply: Glitchdog, Dec 6, 2011 12:06 PM
Replies 1 2 3 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 22, 2011 9:27 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Win 7 , CS5.5xx

     

    Reluctantly.... I step into this  but in the interest of those that may not know or have yet to discover how to do so...much of what is being discussed (as per the list) is already possible in Premiere.

     

    I believe most of the list is covered already ..but I am not saying that there could not be improvements. 

     

    I am saying though , that  I am very satisfied with the way my monitoring is set up and I have no issues with consistency thru my workflows and pipelines  ie.Shoot>edit> post prod- cc , cgi & grade >broadcast / display.

     

    These workflows have been tested and calibrated (as well as by simply using the eyeometer.)

    1. Any graphics card with appropriate capabilities should work.

    2. Premiere Pro (and After Effects, Photoshop, Encore) need to tap directly into the video port on that graphics card, be it composite, component, S-video or HDMI.

    3. There is to be NO cloning or extending of the desktop.  If Adobe apps are closed, nothing is sent out of the port.

    4. For the Thumbnail and Source monitor, a signal matching the clip is to be sent to the video port on the card without alteration.  Ports that cannot handle such a signal will get black.  (i.e. Sending an HD signal to a composite port.)

    5. For the Program Monitor, a signal matching the Sequence Properties (resolution, frame rate, field order, PAR, etc.) must be sent to the video port on the card.  All scaling, deinterlacing, frame blending, pulldown insertion, etc. required to conform the footage in the sequence to the sequence settings must be done before sending the signal to the port, so that only a signal matching the sequence is output by the card, regardless of what's actually in the sequence.

     

    My set up permits excellent monitoring of sequence, program and source monitor plus the project bin previews.

    Does not use 3rd party hardware or CODECs.

     

    How:

     

    I use a two monitor set up using a single monitor for the Premiere GUI!

     

    My set up simply uses the 2nd monitor output from the card to a HQ HD monitor ( HP Dream Color or the Samsungs). The output is dedicated to monitoring.  It turns black/dark grey  if not monitoring from Premiere sources. 

    I can drag panes or windows to it should I choose to do so but monitoring will over lay them.  All monitors and audio are in synch.

     

    Different timelines playout as per the sequence settings to the 2nd monitor.

     

    My set up is similar to other facilties ( FCP, Flame, Color Resolve) that I regularly work at.  ie. Single monitor GUIs but they always rely on  3rd party hardware as well.  Premiere is  ahead in this respect IMHO but of course those facilties have additional hardware attached requiring different interfaces..

     

     

    Regards #3. I do not clone or extend the desktop at all nor do I need to. Its a simple Playback setting for any or all sequences in a Pemiere  project.

     

    Now this perfectly working solution may not suit those with small monitors that require 2 GUI monitors. 

    But...I do  find that a single large GUI is far more friendly to the mouse hand and most pros use shortcuts anyway (and also have larger monitor real estate as well).

     

    Be interesting to see where Adobe goes with this without 3rd party involvement.  I cant see what they can do without others  being involved.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jon-M-Spear
    969 posts
    Jan 27, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2011 4:11 AM   in reply to shooternz

    Congrats on the rugby shooternz.

     

     

    Great if that set-up works for you...

     

    ...but as I thinnk I've mentioned before, I don't want to use only one monitor for my editing app - I want two, shooternz. 

     

    I want the outputs from my GFX card to power my two editing monitors.  I want the third monitor to act as my preview/client monitor.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2011 8:14 AM   in reply to Jon-M-Spear

    JM-S, most professional editors working  alongside clients feel exactly the same way you do. I certainly do. Adobe could very well loose a lot of its use in large and small facilities if this isnt addressed right away.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2011 8:58 AM   in reply to lasvideo

    lasvideo and Jim-S - it sounds as though we're all saying the same thing.  My primary issue with Adobe is that if they're going to produce a product that is used by professionals, they really need to support it as a professional product.  With a consumer product you can get away with saying "we're a publicly held company and cannot comment on future releases" and all that.  But with the pros, as lasvideo points out, we have clients of our own that we have to keep happy, and that means being able to do what they want RIGHT NOW or at least be able to tell them "we expect this to be fixed in a month or so," not "we have no idea when or how or IF this is going to be fixed, so just be patient."  Clients don't have to be patient: they're paying.  They get to tell us what they want and we either make it happen or they find someone else.

     

    Adobe has a huge opportunity right now because Apple dropped the ball so badly with FCP.  Adobe can pick up part of that market along with Avid.  BUT it has to treat it differently from the consumer channel.  Failure to realize that is what drove so many Avid users to FCP years ago when Avid got a CEO from the consumer sector who had no idea how to deal with people who make their living from the product, and who deal in a high-stress, deadline-driven environment.

     

    To shooternz: the setup you describe is what I'm using: a single monitor for the Premiere GUI and a second monitor that JUST gets the sequence video output, full screen, and nothing else.  If you look at that full-screen display critically, though, you'll see a couple of things wrong.  First, even though the monitor resolution is 1920x1080 and you're playing a 1920x1080 sequence based on 1920x1080 camera originals, what appears in the monitor has jaggies that are consistent with dynamic rescaling.  Output that sequence to a file and play it full-screen on the same monitor via Windows Media Player or other such software and there are no jaggies.  Or for that matter play the camera original directly to the monitor and there are no jaggies.  They only appear when playing from Premiere.  So obviously the internal Premiere pipeline has some stuff going on and it appears to involve scaling the video down and back up again before sending it out the port.  Also, at least on my Sony HDMI monitor, the black level is raised when playing from Premiere compared to when playing the file directly from Windows Media Player.  This means that even the most basic color correction cannot be performed using the Premiere playback output because the levels are different from what will be seen when the resulting file is played.

     

    If what we were doing was for high-end broadcast, obviously we'd have higher end hardware with serial digital video outputs, broadcast-grade monitors and the like.  But at the moment we're outputting for the web and not working at a budget level that supports the higher-end hardware - though we ARE using an Adobe-spec'd NVIDIA card.  Despite that fact, it should be a given that what comes out of Premiere as a monitor output must be identical to what the resulting file will look like on playback.  That should really be a no-brainer and the fact that that is NOT currently the case should have everyone's attention at Adobe.

     

    Pete

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2011 10:24 AM   in reply to PeteGould

    No argument here Pete. Unfortunately Adobe has no control over what AJA, Matrox and BM does. They can assist, but that's about it. Some of your "vitriol" need to be communicated to those folks as well. At this point they really hold the key to external video hardware / software and how it interacts with PrP. FYI, did you know that most major NLE vendors (Avid, FCP, Adobe, Autodesk) all use AJA for their external video process? That may explain a lot.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2011 10:29 AM   in reply to lasvideo

    las,

     

    I have no problem at all tweaking the hardware manufacturers when it's warranted, but I'm not sure I understand how that's the issue here.  This is a two-port NVIDIA card where the first port is used for the Premiere GUI and the second is used for the video output.  If I play a file to that port via WMP it looks one way; if I play the same file to the same port from Premiere it looks another way.  From what I can see, that's the software, not the hardware.  Am I missing something?

     

    Pete

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2011 11:45 AM   in reply to PeteGould

    Sorry, my mistake. I incorrectly thought my issues were the same as yours      I use both feeds to 2 Apple Cinema monitors for software display. I rely on HD-SDI to feed my Panasonic engineering monitor with the Kona 3. On rereading your entry I see you have other concerns.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2011 4:26 PM   in reply to Jim Simon
    My set up simply uses the 2nd monitor output from the card

     

    This feature request is not geared towards a computer output, but a video output.  HDMI, Composite, Component, S-Video, SDI, whatever VIDEO output is on the card should work for signals that that port can normally handle.

     

    With this setup, you would not be able to drag anything over to the video monitor.  It's there strictly for video monitoring.  Windows would not 'manage' the signal in any way.  It would not be a VfW situation.  It would be a pure video signal as you'd get from a piece of video gear.

     

    I understand that already...and  know that it will continue to rely on 3rd party hardware just as it does of the moment. ie a card with a pure video output connection such as a Kona card.  How Adobe supports that hardware differently as per your feature request will be worth waiting for.  (Would anyone give up the Mercury advantage for it?)

     

    Note: Be interesting to see if the solution as requested comes with the promised Color Correction that Adobe are hinting at for the near future. Premiere does not take advantage of any control surfaces currently either....so they may have a double challenge to undertake.

     

    @J-MS.  I never ever feel compromised by a single large GUI and was quite willing to use that as my modus operandi so as I could  enable decent monitoring with Mercury enabled advantages.  Its a no-brainer to me without a degree of compromise.  Maybe too big a compromise for others such as your self but I dont actually understand why 2 GUIs are so vital these days.

     

    I do actually have the hardware option of using BM Decklink Card  but the compromise of using a BM codec is a real compromise I was not prepared to deal with. ie lack of  NVidia Cuda Mercury advantage. ( the card gathers dust on the shelf)

     

    I have client monitors as well as my own monitor.  Everyone is absolutely satisfied with the consistency across all the monitors and the subsequent follow thru to the monitors at other facilities we utilise.

     

    Yeah...it works for me and my clients without question.

     

    @Pete Gould

     

    Also, at least on my Sony HDMI monitor, the black level is raised when playing from Premiere compared to when playing the file directly from Windows Media Player.  This means that even the most basic color correction cannot be performed using the Premiere playback output because the levels are different from what will be seen when the resulting file is played. 

     

    If what we were doing was for high-end broadcast, obviously we'd have higher end hardware with serial digital video outputs, broadcast-grade monitors and the like.  But at the moment we're outputting for the web and not working at a budget level that supports the higher-end hardware - though we ARE using an Adobe-spec'd NVIDIA card.  Despite that fact, it should be a given that what comes out of Premiere as a monitor output must be identical to what the resulting file will look like on playback.  That should really be a no-brainer and the fact that that is NOT currently the case should have everyone's attention at Adobe.

     

    Pete...What you have written is not my experience...and my work is for high-end broadcast. Very fussy , demanding advertising clients and facilties that are uncompromisingly perfection driven by professionals! The levels are checked and follow thru my workflow and facilties outside my own.  We make effort  to test and check levels via bars and scopes.

     

    Black level issue - Calibrate your Sony maybe is a first step ..or get a better true monitor.  Jaggies...I dont have jaggies and we use the monitor for application and evaluation of graphics.

     

    Your second paragraph really identifies the issue you are having. Lack of hi spec monitoring gear.  You want the capability without the investment. It has always been very expensive to achieve calibrated monitoring and that has not changed.

     

    What I see in my suite is what I see when broadcast so I totally disagree with your last claim in your last sentence.

     

    You also seem to be asking for a output file that matches source in Premiere.  I guess that depends on what the output file is and as you mention web work..I suspect you are talking about encodes and transcodes. (hmmmmm! - high expectation and there are many factors involved - eg QT)

     

    Any how.. I look forward with interest to how Adobe responds and see what they come up with.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • joe bloe premiere
    4,391 posts
    Dec 6, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2011 4:51 PM   in reply to shooternz

    shooternz:

    Welcome back, man!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2011 4:56 PM   in reply to shooternz

    shooternz:

     

    Let's start this over because we have obviously gotten off on the wrong foot.  I have been a broadcast editor since the 1980s, spent several years as the chief engineer of a broadcast shop, and I've been a computer expert since I was building them from kits in the mid-1970s.  I know the issues, I know the monitoring equipment available, I know what I'm looking at, and no, this is not a case of someone making web video and complaining that for some strange reason it looks different from the source after they've compressed the daylights out of it.  I know we don't know each other and I know it's often difficult to ascertain operator error from product problem by reading someone's initial posts.  So as I said, let's start over and I will more precisely identify what I'm looking at.  And please don't take my frustration personally - I'm not yelling at you.  If we were sitting in a room together it would take ten seconds to know where we stand.  I get frustrated at the misunderstandings that happen from forum posts.

     

    Anyway: when I described this issue in another forum I was directed to this thread.  Perhaps it is something other than what I thought it was.  Let's figure it out together.

     

    The system here is based on an NVidia GeForce GTX 470 which as you know is a dual-output card.  One output feeds the GUI monitor on the edit desk; the other feeds the large wall-mounted Sony video monitor.

     

    Now, let's start with some pristine P2 video.  Open it in Windows Media Player and move it, in a window, into the Sony monitor.  While playing in the window the black level is higher than what it should be.  Maximize the WMP window so it fills the screen but still has a visible frame displayed and the black level remains elevated.  Click on the full-screen playback gadget at the lower right corner and not only does it go full-screen, the black level instantly snaps to the correct level (the level at which it was shot).  From these steps I hypothesize that this is not a monitor issue but either a Windows issue (different playback pipelines being used depending on whether playback occurs in a window or full-screen) or a display adapter hardware issue or perhaps a driver issue.  I primarily suspect Windows because either way the implication is that the video goes through a different path when displayed in a window than when displayed full-screen, and one is less accurate than the other.  Also, when displayed in a window there is a reduction in resolution, but this makes sense because the video is being dynamically rescaled to fit in the window, and the hardware probably doesn't have enough horsepower to do this at full resolution in real time.

     

    Okay, so now we know we can make that P2 video look perfect on the Sony monitor, just as it does on a broadcast monitor, by playing it full-screen, but not while playing it in a window.  With me so far?

     

    So now we go into Premiere and we import that same piece of P2-based 1920x1080, 30p video into a 1920x1080, 30p project.  And inside Premiere we go to Sequence->Sequence Settings->Playback Settings and set the External Device to our large wall-mounted Sony monitor so it plays the sequence full-screen.  When it plays, the black level is elevated in the same way as it is when playing via Windows Media Player in a window, and it shows the same reduction in resolution (you have to look closely to see this) that it does when Windows Media Player is playing it in a window and thus dynamically rescaling it.  But it is not in a window and it is playing at the dimensions of the source file, so no rescaling should be taking place.  And it's full-screen, not in a window.  Which makes me go "Hmmmmmmm???"

     

    To complete the exercise, we output this P2 clip to another P2 clip (or an AVCHD clip or whatever you want) that is the same dimensions, framerate, etc., as the source file.  Close out of Premiere and open that file in Windows Media Player, and take it full-screen on the same Sony monitor.  The black level will be the same as the source file; in other words, correct and unaltered.  And there will be no jaggies.  So this is PURELY a display issue; it has nothing to do with Premiere doing anything to the file.

     

    THAT'S what I'm seeing.  It has nothing to do with what monitoring equipment I'm using and it has nothing to do with the intended use of the material.  Premiere's full-screen output looks different than the output of video player software when outputting from the same HDMI port.

     

    Are we on the same page now?

     

    Pete

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2011 6:08 PM   in reply to PeteGould

    Pete...we are on the same page and I do understand your "test methodology and process" ... and also how you have arrived at your conclussion.

     

    I have never tried what you have because I have never seen a need or reason to do so.  ie. I have not experienced the issue of black level variability or jaggies in the situation you describe as your own.

     

    Something maybe worth looking at is..Premiere does allow a choice of "Preview" codecs in certain sequence types.  I am not at the studio so I cant check but from memory..P2 was one of them.

     

    Also worth noting is that Premiere does have internal pipelines for different parts of the application. eg playing out from the Project Window is lower res than the Program Monitor IMO and I am sure you are aware that Playback res can be set for the GUI monitors.  Never checked to see what impact that has on the second monitor because I am at FULL ..all the time.

     

    BTW : Pete - I am sure Jim will NOT be happy that we are discussing this  and diluting his thread!  Seems to me you are looking for a slightly different solution to what he is though. eg the way Premiere manages the media play back.

     

    I am only trying to contribute thoughts related to my own experince of Mointoring in Premiere.  I consider it "proper monitoring" but do not exclude the possibilty of improvements that may suit others requirements.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 24, 2011 4:59 AM   in reply to PeteGould

    Hi Pete,

     

    have you tried to change the settings in the Nvidia control panel>video>video color management (I'm working on a german PC, probably the translation is wrong)?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 24, 2011 10:14 AM   in reply to jojejo

    Feature request submitted.
    We need output to a monitor from adobe projects, not from a Matrox or similar card's codec based projects that compromise system stability. And not by extending the desktop but by sending out an NTSC or PAL signal, as from a video player device such as a Blu-ray player. Tweaking or calibrating the 2nd (or 3rd) monitor is not the issue here.

    May be CS6 will give us that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 24, 2011 12:04 PM   in reply to jojejo

    Hi jojejo,

     

    Changing the NVidia control panel settings doesn't do any good (and yes, I have experimented with it) because the issue is the DIFFERENCE between the two pipelines - full-screen versus displaying in a window - and the fact that the Premiere full-screen output to the second monitor appears to use the displaying-in-a-window pipeline, which degrades the signal not just in terms of levels but also resolution.  The NVidia controls can't really address that.

     

    I'd LOVE to see someone from Adobe come on the forum and explain the internals so we know what's actually going on when this problem is observed.

     

    Pete

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 24, 2011 1:35 PM   in reply to AsianOcean.com

    Feature request submitted.
    We need output to a monitor from adobe projects, not from a Matrox or similar card's codec based projects that compromise system stability. And not by extending the desktop but by sending out an NTSC or PAL signal, as from a video player device such as a Blu-ray player. Tweaking or calibrating the 2nd (or 3rd) monitor is not the issue here.

    May be CS6 will give us that.

     

    That of course requires hardware (plus additional software)... and no matter what magic Adobe does with their software  (CS6) ...Adobe does not make the hardware. Thats where the 3rd parties come in and they already have technology such as KONA Cards that do exactly what they are supposed to and what you want.ie output video signals from digital files.

     

    All facilities I use out of house use that technology succesfully but their reasons to use it are different to mine.  My suite workflows are all file based whereas they also have digital tape machines etc to accomodate.

     

     

    Just to clarify  something in my set up.  (Because I was asked in a PM and I see regular reference to " extending the desktop"  and "window" in the thread)

     

    I do not EXTEND the desktop or stretch a WINDOW  to cover the second monitor.  The Display setting option  sends the image to the entire second monitor without a WINDOW.  It can not be scaled (minimised/maximised) or altered (dragged/rfepostioned) at all.  It plays at the rez of the sequence.

     

    Put another way...none of my Premiere GUI extends onto the second monitor.  It is a default EDIT set up with minor customisation within the single Monitor.

     

    Note FWIW: In the Task bar at the bottom of my  WIN 7 screen.  There are always two application windows open when this set up is invoked.

     

    'Premiere - project pathname' and 'Monitor'.  (Premiere sits above the Monitor and they are obviously connected as applications)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 24, 2011 2:31 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Done.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jon-M-Spear
    969 posts
    Jan 27, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 24, 2011 11:53 PM   in reply to rexeve

    Shooternz is right - some form of hardware interface will be essential to connect an external monitor.

     

    I would be as happy as a pig in s**t if the solution involved something like the BM Intensity Pro that was so tightly integrated that it used the Adobe presets/codecs, and we could just forgot that it was there!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 25, 2011 1:38 AM   in reply to Jon-M-Spear

    Shooternz is right - some form of hardware interface will be essential to connect an external monitor.

     

     

    Not necessarily.  If one uses a workflow that is entirely digital file based you have no need of additional interface hardware for editing or monitoring.( apart from investing in high quality digital monitors)

     

    If you work fully or partly inside  an analogue realm..you will need the hardware that converts digital > analogue ....and vice versa and that will require 3rd party hardware with that capability.  That hardware exists but how Adobe  will decide to interface with  "old" technology is anyones guess.

     

    Adobe / Matrox / Blackmagic ---- history tells us its a path to dissapointment and I am certain  that no one will give up Adobe Mercury advantages for what already exists as "proper monitoring" within Premiere.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 25, 2011 1:58 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Sometimes I just WISH Adobe would just make the hardware and could just create it so it just worked.

     

    If they had full control over the hardware then there wouldn't be any reason for things not to work or reasons of drivers being outdated.

     

    Dont need the whole machine Adobe but maybe the graphics card would be great.

     

    Multi screen setups with client screens all showing correctly.

     

    GLenn

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jon-M-Spear
    969 posts
    Jan 27, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 25, 2011 2:01 AM   in reply to shooternz

    This is where you appear to contradict yourself, shooternz.  If not, you sure confuse the hell out of me. 

     

    In your last post, you said that output to an external monitor would require 3rd party hardware - and I agree. (still keeping to the 3-monitor metaphor).  I'm not interested in a 2-monitor soloution. I know how to implement it, and have dismissed it as being unsuitable for my workflow.

     

    I have a totally digital workflow  (Xdcam EX) and I take full advantage of MPE via the BM card.  Some people report MPE as not working with the BM card (mainly Mac users), but it works well on my Win 7 box.  I have other BM issues  with CS 5.5.1.  But I still do not see how a totally digital workflow negates the need for 3rd party hardware to output to a third monitor (even if it means a 2nd GFX card).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 25, 2011 1:00 PM   in reply to Jon-M-Spear

    This is where you appear to contradict yourself, shooternz.  If not, you sure confuse the hell out of me. 

     

    In your last post, you said that output to an external monitor would require 3rd party hardware - and I agree. (still keeping to the 3-monitor metaphor).  I'm not interested in a 2-monitor soloution. I know how to implement it, and have dismissed it as being unsuitable for my workflow.

     

    @J-MS:Sorry did not mean to confuse. 

     

    I should have included "two monitor"  setup using standard Graphics cards in my post. This manages a full digital file based workflow but does not suit everyones needs for what ever reason.

     

    In your own situation (specific 3 monitor absolute requirement)..there is no solution apart from  3rd party hardware.  ie. the issue for you and those requiring "video signals" to feed extra devices is a graphics card with all the particular connections and some coding from Adobe to utilise them. 

     

    Seems like you know that and have that sorted with the hardware you have anyway.   A pro set up and I am well pleased to hear that MPE works with it.  That should encourage others requiring "proper monitoring"  to do likewise.

     

    Out of simple curiosity about your workflow J-MS.. how does two GUI monitors fit in and what was the issue with a single GUI monitor when you tried it.

     

    Anyway...I am pretty much out on this topic.

     

    I do  look foward to developments Adobe may bring with the Color Suite when they release it and this thread is probably contributes  part to its development.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • joe bloe premiere
    4,391 posts
    Dec 6, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 26, 2011 2:19 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    What Jim said, except...

    I would be willing to spring for more hardware if there is fully native support in Premiere.

     

    (I know this is the one point on which we differ.)

    Who's it gonna be?
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 26, 2011 6:35 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Therein lies the current problem.  If you can drag something onto the second monitor, then Windows is managing it.  The nVidia display driver has some control here.  It's a VfW situation.  That is what we need to change.

     

     

    Jim - do you  realise that in the way I have my set up working...I have no means or ways  of dragging , minimising / maximising  etc  the image in the 2nd monitor .  It is fixed and centred in the 2nd monitor at the rez of the sequence and the source material when played from either Program or Source in the Premiere GUI.

     

    It is not a Window or a Pane. It is not an extension of the Premiere GUI. It has no borders or frames. It has no draggeable handles.

     

    If that is not clear I will try and find a way of showing you.  Maybe I could point a camera at the 2 monitor set up I use. 

     

    Actually I will take a photo of it right now and post it p shortly..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 26, 2011 7:11 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Yeah, I get that.  But if you can still drag other software to it, then Windows and the nVidia Control Center are involved.  That's not what is needed and wanted here.

     

    THIS is the new feature was want and need.  Essentially an AJA/BM/Matrox card without the expense of buying one, or the limitations of using their codecs.

     

     

     

    I see. You want a "feature" that is actually hardware... but its also free.

     

    Good luck with that feature request.

     

     

    Any how FWIW ...playback  from Program Monitor / Timeline

    P1010421sm.png

     

    Images playout same way from Source Monitor and the Project Bin Preview Window.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 26, 2011 7:12 PM   in reply to joe bloe premiere

    I am tempted to say that I will buy a Matrox (or BM or AJA) card if it is TOTALLY native to Adobe codecs, and NOT using thier codecs, but I am afraid, given my experience with Matrox cards (they did serve when they did), it is a dreadful thought. So Adobe has to manufacture or work with the manufacturer as in the case with CUDA/Mercury.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 27, 2011 2:43 AM   in reply to shooternz

    Shooternz, can you explain with a little more details how you set up your two monitor solution. I guess you use the fullscreen playback inside of premiere. How do you connect your preview monitor - via HDMI? What monitor model do you use? How do you deal with deinterlacing, does your monitor do the job?

     

    Thanks!

     

    Johannes

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 27, 2011 6:26 AM   in reply to shooternz

    Shooternz - just curious.  What is the brand and model of your top  HD monitor?

     

    J. D.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 27, 2011 12:01 PM   in reply to jojejo

    The set up is Default Adobe Premiere basically. (I slightly customised the layout within that)

     

    When CS5 installs ...the Default Edit Workspace is a single GUI even if 2 Monitors are connected to the graphics card.

    Playback to external device is a Sequence Set up setting.  It is not Global.  It monitors out at the resolution of the sequence. No up or down scaling is involved.

     

    That upper monitor shown is a Samsung xx2440 . Full HD  (It is extremely crisp and MAC users often comment on its quality)

    (HP Dream Color monitor can be  used in same place when prefered - I dont own it but have easy access to one)

     

    Lower monitor for the GUI is a 27 inch BENQ. ( I find this to be plenty of real estate to deal with ergonomically.

     

    A splitter  can send the signals to other playback monitors ( client, meeting room)

     

    It is placed above the other for easy eye ergonomics for editor and its is adjustable (tilts)  so both monitors can be viewed on exactly the same viewing angle.  ( A potential problem with all flat screens that I have eliminated.)

     

    I have set up the monitors to image match using the excellent facility in WIN 7 Color Management using Bars and Pluges, Grey scale cards and the scopes in Premiere.   Very easy and straight forward todo by eyeometer but if needs arose...I could use one of the set up gears often mentioned in this forum.  (FWIW: It is impossible to absolutely match the purple pluge and no way of doing so in my experience).

     

    I think I have my Nvidia Control Panel set to allow the applications to control the color space.  (will check this)

     

    I dont have interlace issues because I never shoot interlace or get interlaced media to edit.  Not sure how or if any issues would display in my monitoring set up.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 30, 2011 5:11 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Well, not "free".  Just "already paid for" with the graphics card we buy, which is more than capable of doing the job.

     

    Capable ....how so?  Wouldnt that require the graphics card to have "pure video" type connections and RGB to "pure video" convertors built onto them.  (Like the BM Cards).  Still dont think that Hardware is Adobes role in this feature request which I also see as coming from a tiny minority of users. eg.I dont see any one (identifiable) from the likes of the BBC, WETA Studios, TVNZ etc... requesting a 'proper monitoring solution".

     

    That's what needs to be eliminated.  The ability of Windows to affect the output of the timeline.  All calibration should be done on the monitor.

     

     

    I disagree.  You need the abilty to set up  hadware thru' the pipeline.  Garbage out = Garbage... no matter what picks it up.

     

    Win 7  Color Mangement (as does Mac Color Management) combines with calibration on the monitors if they have that facility.  Not so different , in analogy,  to setting up the camera and setting up the field monitor or setting up a telecine and setting up the CC Monitor.    Setting up final stage only is pointless.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 30, 2011 8:43 PM   in reply to shooternz

    Hi Shooternz and all other here. Re this topic:

     

    I believe I understand the premise of the original post and those of respondants who agree.

     

    I've been involved with editing in a pro level, albeit not the high-end but the pro-sumer level since the Miro DV 300 and a 9GB SCSI drive that cost over 800 bucks (always Premeire and Windows).  I've had Matrox DV 2000s (x2 units), Matrox RT X100s (x 2 units), a Black magic Intensity Pro and lately, with my upgrade to CS5.5, a Matrox MXO2 Mini (with max). I output to a Sony LMD 2030W (rec 709)

     

    Anyway, I agree with you  re not expecting Adobe to get into the hardware game. It seems to me they are working closely with Nvideo to do just what the original poster desires.

     

    Shooternz, you said you use the Dreamcolor. I think I'll probably get one myself. It requires a true progressive RGB signal to work properly, which my new MXO2 mini can supply. But it can also take a Displayport connection from a VGA card which also, by neccesity, supplies a progressive, RGB signal. I assume you are connecting your Dreamcolor thusly if you are not using a third-party I/O card like BM or Matrox to drive it. What card are you using?

     

    Thanks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 31, 2011 12:26 AM   in reply to jojejo

    My advise is to dissable Windows Aero and use classic mode when using dual monitors. With Premiere Pro CS 5.5 right above where you select the realtime playback resolution you have the option to display the first field, second field or both. Displaying only one field will get rid of interlacing issues. In Premiere Pro CS4 you had to opt for draft previews. CS 5.5 is much better. If you are using a NTSC monitor that makes use of both fields and your video is interlaced you may want to display both fields. I have no problems with color correction on my system. If I opt to use my HDTV as a computer monitor I can. If I want to use it as an interlaced broadcast montior I can also do that. If you switch from TV monitor to computer monitor you will get a color shift becuase of the RGB Vs YUV color space. If you have an interlaced HDTV Monitor and you try using it for a comouter monitor the text and GUI of your sotware will look blotchy. Only use HDTV Mode if you want to output the realtime preview of Premiere Pro to a dedicated NTSC monitor. I was using PP CS4 in the video for the URL link directly below but I think it might be of some help. CS 5.5 works great for me. I may do another video about how to set up CS .5.5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY33kyQ52hg Below is a video using a DV converter and SDTV to monitor the realtime previews of PP CS4.0. You can copy and past the url into your browser. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj0JoFxoOyo A PP CS 5.5 video that might help some of you with interlacing issues. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLBxut3tjE0

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 31, 2011 9:01 AM   in reply to medeamajic

    Hi Mediamajic,

     

    If I may say so, and this is just my opinion but I find a few of your points questionable. First, Aero really has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. It has nothing to with interlacing v progressive technology or YUV v RGB color spaces. Any card powerful enough to drive Mercury playback should certainly be powerful enough to support that Aero on two PC monitors. I believe you are confusing interlaced v. progressive. As far as I know, only a VGA card with a TV tuner with an interlaced capable output can output an interlaced signal. Not all do and why should they nowadays when all LCD and plasma TVs are progressive. PC/Mac computer displays and the computer VGA cards installed in their host computers are progressive. If an interlaced signal is fed to one of those progressive monitors, it will de-interlaced it internally.

     

    "Switching from TV monitor to computer monitor you will get a color shift because of the RGB Vs YUV shift" is incorrect because all TVs only display RGB and perform a realtime conversion of any YUV signal fed to them. YUV was devised as a technical workaround made to accomodate the production industry. Nay, the color shift is due to the fact that computer monitors are not made to support the rec 709 HD color space. Even much vaunted displays like the Apple Cinema Display (hailed as a Godsend upon its release) doesn't support rec 709. Apple issued a tech note warning not to use it for anything but content; it's not reliiable for color correction. You need a rec 709 monitor to even begin approaching proper pro color correction. And even then, inasmuch as consumer TVs do support it, you need be careful there since manufacturer preferences and tweaks make calibration issues a big factor. Color correction on a computer monitor cannot be done reliably within the industry's HD SMPTE color space. Various flavors of RGB and Adobe's RGB comes close from what I understand, however. And as of CS5, Adobe now does what is considered a professionally reliable YUV-to-RGB conversion in realtime. I have not yet investigated that since I just upgraded to it and I'm still working in YUV at the moment and all cameras except the very high-end like Red, etc.shoot in YUV. My new Matrox MXO2 Mini can do a realtime YUV-to-RGB conversion to my Sony LMD-2030W if desired (I did it as a quick test). That entry-level pro production monitor can be switched between Component YUV and RGB in the menu.

     

    Indeed, one should aspire to be working in RGB (progressive too of course) for the reasons stated above and for other obvious reasons, and feeding it to a progressive monitor that supports Rec 709. I just dumped my Blackmagic Intensity in favor of the Matrox MXO2 because nothing by BM currently outputs the RGB signal needed to drive an HP Dreamcolor (which is high on my list to get when my budget allows).       

     

    For those of you who don't already know, I can suggest reading comprehensive info on this entire subject by a highly experienced pro and cogent writer named Alan Tepper, over at www.provideocoalition.com. Do a search on his name and "Dreamcolor" and or "rec 709" to "get a good picture" of this subject matter.        

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 31, 2011 11:54 AM   in reply to artistdomain

    Artistdomain, did you read who my response was for for(jojejo)? Did you watch my video (  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY33kyQ52hg )? When using dual monitors as seen in the video for realtime previews Aero does make a huge impact on the realtime performace with my video display card (GT 240) and it could affect yours as well but I can not say for sure. Why would I lie about that or the interlacing issues( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLBxut3tjE0 )?  Also not all display drivers and monitors give you the same option as stated in my video. I miss having the anologue RGB output of my Nvidia 7600 video card. The Nvidia control Pannel  gave you more options for those analogue ports. I know the difference between interlaced and progressive. My monitor is an HDTV as I stated in the video. Yes it can go into an interlaced mode and display 60 fields per second. Trust me on that. You get a color shift and the text will look blotchy if you try to use it to display software on the monitor. I state all monitors and graphic cards are different in the video. Did you watch any of my videos? The color space of TVs are different than that of a computer montiors even if the final out put is RGB. You will get a color shift the same as you would going from RGB to CMYK.

     

    I am not talking about Apple monitors so why are you? Did I say Apple monitors give accurate CC? I am am hip to 709 HD color space but I am not saying a consumer HDTV is the best option for CC in any of my videos. I am only letting people know how to get the best settings when using Premiere Pro should they opt to use an HDTV from Best Buy to monitor realtime previews using an Nvidia or ATI graphics card. Learn to comprehend the intent of the video.

     

     

     

    You stated one should be striving to work with RGB progressive? Dude get real. I would opt to use the Red One camera myself but I can not tell my clients what video formats to give to me for editing. If they give me interlaced HDV clips then I will edit them. That is what 50% of my video files are.

     


    I don't realy care about your Decklink or MXO2 because we are talking about using Premiere Pro with off the shelf video cards. We are not talking about the best preview options on this thread.  I am hip that my set up is not as good a Decklink system nor did I say it is the best solution. It does work good for client previes but my videos were made for my subscribers on youtube and my response here was for jojejo. Comprende mi amigo?

     

     

     


    Your entire post has nothing to do with using Preimiere with a standard grahpics card. We all know at this point in time using the computers graphics card and a standard computer monitor is not the best option. My video only showed how to make things work optimal with what some people already have. The information is correct.

     

     

     

     

     

    Do you finally get it because I have to question your entire post.  I think rather than deal with the issue at hand (graphics cards for accurate preiews) you opted to try and school me. If you have better information about using the graphics card to monitor the realtime previews then post it. Like I said the thread is not about getting the most proffesional results but rather making the best use of the graphics card so why are you talking about Decklink products? I did not post on this thread right from the get go. Jojejo had asked about interlacing.  That is why I made my post. And yes if I use a compter montior for realtime previews I can get interlacing atifacts on the second monitor if I don't opt to display just one field at a time. Premiere will try to display the interlaced image onto a progressive computer monitor which may end up looking like crap depending on your graphics card and settings. If you only use Premiere with one monitor it will not be an issue at all. Aero is not an issue if I just use one monitor either. I have but one question for you my friend.

     

     

     


    Have you ever used the graphics card for realtime previews to a computer monitor or a HDTV?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 31, 2011 12:30 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    In trying to analyze the pipeline issues with Premiere playback (and this may properly belong in another thread - Jim, feel free to tell me so and I will start one), I've found another clue.

     

    This system is built on an NVidia GeForce GTX-470 and in the NVidia control panel there are two categories for display adjustments (given that as yet Jim's request hasn't been implemented and we still have Windows intervening in screen setup).  The two categories are "Display / Adjust desktop color settings" and "Video / Adjust video color settings."

     

    If I display a video on my Sony large-screen display using Windows Media Player, and I allow the NVidia control panel to make color adjustments (instead of clicking the radio button allowing the video player to control them), the control set that works on that image is the "Video / Adjust video color settings" controls.

     

    BUT, when I'm editing in Premiere, and within Sequence Settings / Playback Settings I set the "External Device" to that same large screen monitor, and it displays full-screen video playing back from Premiere, the NVidia control set that would control the image are the Display / Adjust desktop color settings controls.  The "Video / Adjust video color settings" are ignored and have no effect.

     

    What that says to me is that Windows contemplates two different kinds of pipelines for reaching the screen; something it considers "Video" and something it considers "The Desktop," i.e., computer applications unrelated to video.  Full-screen video being sent out of Premiere seems to go through the Desktop, i.e., "NOT VIDEO" pipeline.  I think this may be the entire problem I am encountering and explains why video playing full-screen via WMP looks terrific while the same video playing from within Premiere is washed-out due to the black level being raised.

     

    Is this coincident with others' observations?

     

    Pete

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points