I've got an AJA Kona LHi, and I'm not 100% happy with the way it works with Pr either.  So, I'm also interested in hearing if BMD products work any better.

The hardware is only as good as the drivers supplied to use it.  Whereas I get fantastic results with my Kona in FCP, I don't in Pr, which requires different driver software.  That could be why your MXO2 isn't giving you the satisfaction you desire.

Like so many others, I've been frustrated with the lack of good external monitoring.  For the most part, I've relied on a BM Multibridge that I purchased several years ago.  It's never functioned 100%, and is very picky about what kinds of media it will play with.  If you stick to a narrow range of source material (primarily uncompressed or DVCPro HD) it works fine, but these days most of my footage is XDCAM or CineForm.  I think some of the newer BM products are working better (like the Intensity Pro and the Decklink Extreme), but there are still issues.

I tried an Kona LHi a while back, and it was even worse.  Granted, it had just been released and the drivers were in a pretty young state, but I've heard that many of the troubles still exist for Premiere users.

I'm taking delivery on a new MOTU HDX-SDI this week and have high hopes.  Of course, given my history I should learn to be less optimistic.  I've been scouring the web to find some impressions of the hardware, but they're pretty much non-existent.  I'll post back once I've had time to evaluate.

As far as who's to blame, I'm not sure where to point the finger.  Adobe may have plenty to improve, but I get the feeling that most of the 3rd party folks have neglected to develop good drivers.  Jim Simon (and others, including myself) have been pushing for a proper solution that takes advantage of a typical video card and bypasses the need for 3rd party hardware entirely.You'd still need it for ingest of course, but most people's trouble seems to stem from timeline monitoring.

Agreed on all your points, Adam.  Adobe does need a full-time, no-lag, stable external monitoring if they want to make their way in to edit suites with finicky clients looking over the editor's shoulder.  This is a real weak link.

And they've possibly painted themselves into a corner with their commitment to all formats native editing, which conflicts with hardware monitoring.

To be sure, the way Avid and FCP handle full-screen monitoring is to have the hardware perform some (if not all) of the encoding and decoding, along with a proprietary codec.  When Avid and FCP use native formats, performance suffers.

This is why Adobe could benefit from developing their own cross-platform codec and committed hardware partners.  It could be that having to transcode to a hardware assisted codec is going to be necessary for stable and fast performance for some time to come.

All it needs to do is tap into the graphics card's video port and send the same signal.

That sounds like an nVidiAdobe solution.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Jim, I think this is the single point on the issue on which our opinions differ.

With Adobe and nVidia already partnering on GPU Cuda access, it would

make practical sense for those two companies to take the next step together.

But... if the required tech development were made available for other vendors to

incorporate (ATI, Intel, etc.) that would be great, but not likely (at least in the short term).

Most of us already bought MPE supported nVidia cards, and I am willing to make another

proprietary hardware purchase if it were natively supported NOW... but with the ultimate goal

of global implementation to all capable systems in the future as you suggest.

I agree completely that the current situation with monitoring via a proper signal path is far less than stellar. About 6 months ago I posted this thread which was moved by the moderators:

http://forums.adobe.com/message/3806587#3806587

I have used all three products Matrox, Aja, and Blackmagic and they all have their unique issues. I also believed in the beginning that the individual drivers for the cards were the culprit. But after trying all the different cards on the highest end MAC and a 8GB Fibre San, I concluded that there must be something more to the story. In my opinion, Adobe CS-5 series has built in limitations which make it impossible for the card manufacturers to improve the situation. By leveraging the GPU with the MPE the amount of CPU cycles it takes to reprocess that signal back from the GPU through the system and through the I/O card....it really is not optimal and performance takes a huge hit.

The other big problem is the actual userbase that currently has any I/O card. I cannot imagine the total number of CS-5 / 5.5 seats that have a I/O card installed, but I speculate it would be far less than 10%. Taking a cue from Apple, it appears that Adobe has no interest in the hardware game and the niche market of Premiere users that need I/O or machine control. So development resources are going to be scarce for a feature that the majority of users are not interested in. Hopefully I am wrong and CS-6 will be a drastic improvement.

Currently I have settled on the Blackmagic Extreme HD card because of DaVinci Resolve. The majority of my footage is Quicktime ProRes from either a Arri Alexa or Red Transcodes to ProRes. Typically working in 23.98 projects the card functions fairly well but not perfect. Performance is no where close to an Adobe native project, but in order to get the HD-SDI signal I require I have no choice.

In regards to DaVinci, I have two 24" GUI monitors. You are correct that only one is used. I place all my scopes on the second monitor. Stacked vertically taking up about 1/3 of the screen. I use the rest for project documents/finder.

I use a Flanders Scientific 24" as my third monitor hooked up to the HD-SDI of the Blackmagic Extreme HD. This is the only option for Resolve. I also use this for Premiere.

If I was a stand alone island, I would set my system up with both scenarios. Client monitors connected via gpu/dvi and also hd-SDI. But because we have a central machine room and everything is HD-SDI routed through a HD-SDI router, it isn't practical. Using the GPU connected  via DVI to a Dell is totally different than looking at a Flanders via HD-SDI. Unfortunately you pay twice. Performance and Cost to see it via HD-SDI. But it looks killer on the fully calibrated Flanders in the correct color space.

Come on CS-6!

Thanks

Ray

The silver lining in all this is that with Adobe's acquisition of SpeedGrade, they'll pretty much have to come up with a "proper monitoring solution," because you can't really consider yourself a player in critical color correction without one.

Yes, but what would be the point of adding a broadcast / feature film tier color-grading product to the line, if their intended market was mostly non-broadcast?  At this point, for Adobe to mimic Apple would likely drive away all the new customers they just got after the release of X.

Long term, there's going to be a declining need for broadcast cards and analog / tape io.  But, not for a while.  Apple seems to be taking the tack that it's going away, to ignore the rapidly dwindling market, and to groom the new increasing market.  But, there are still profits to be made until the day the last CRT is hauled off to the recycler.  I guess the question is, "Who wants them?"

Hi Adam,

what is your set up at the moment?

Darren

How many monitors do you have?

Darren