Hi, I have a question or two. Does anyone
use Premiere Pro's software waveform monitor
and vectorscope with any success?

If you do, do you need a card such as the
Matrox RT.X100?

Also, how much does a "live effects"
card help in the color correction process?
I can't imagine how this can be done outside
of the studio.

I'm using Vegas but I had the waveform, vectorscope and histogram
open when doing color correction in post. Besides me learning
what exactly happens to the signal when using certain functions
in the package it also gave me an insight into how far I could go
on certain things.

For shooting I relied on my zebra stripes (set at 90%) and my
laptops LCD screen from time to time if I wanted to be sure of
framing and contrast (from dark to the highlights).

I also use the waveforms in Vegas for tweaking the video. It would be interesting to get a program that samples the video coming in on Firewire and generates vectorscope and waveforms. A cheap laptop could do the job of more expensive equipment at a shoot.

I find the waveform monitor tools in Vegas to be indispensable. Don't know how I lived without them before. Kinda like a cell phone.

Firewire to a capable laptop is what I'm
thinking of too. But wouldn't that require
a "live effects" card such as canopus 2?
The idea is take your money from your
vecorscope/waveform monitor AND your
production monitor and put into the laptop
and canopus 2. What you get is something
that is very portable, color correctable with
the capability of live effects. You also get a
laptop that you wouldn't otherwise have.
Who knows what benefit you would have with
audio. It seems as though it would have to be
one hell of a laptop though.

This is my theory, but I have
no clue if it is doable.

Hi,

I'm a video newbie but very interested in this subject. The link below contains everything I know.

http://studio.adobe.com/tips/tip.jsp?p=1&id=400&xml=prepcolorcor

I don't even have Premiere Pro, just the basic version 6. Now I'm trying to decide whether to upgrade or go for a different NLE program. Can anyone recommend further reading or offer advice?

Tnx in advance,
Roger

Do any of the software only editors, show waveform/vectorscope for a dv input? (I mean without actually capturing and opening the file, but while it's connected) It seems like one did, but I don't remember who. I can say that vegas will not xpress pro will not.

I've used the WFM and vectorscope in Vixen with Premiere for a few years. Very helpful, if not essential, when grading.

I also use a WFM (a tiny Hamlet Picoscope) when setting up whenever there is time. The PicoScope is very small and feeds into the monitor.

Hamlet have a real-time set of software meters in the pipeline. These will allow a laptop with a 1394 port to act as a WFM, vectorscope, audio meter and more. The program is called VidScope. They already make a PCI card version for analogue video.

Now listen Sony, JVC and Panasonic: why don't you put software WFMs and vectorscopes in all your cameras? It would be so simple.

Best,
Helen

Hi,

Please excise my ignorance but what's Vixen?

Roger.

Hi Roger,
Sorry, I should have given more details in my original post.

Rather than try to explain, here is the URL of the Vixen site:

www.xentrik.demon.co.uk/ViXen/body_vixen.html

Vixen isn't just the WFM and 'scope, I guess that it compares to Video Finesse.

Ask if there is anything else.

Best,
Helen

Hi guys,
I have a basic understanding of using a waveform monitor and vectorscope to properly calibrate video. I've used them numerous times when dealing with analog equipment, but have been told that digital is digital and doesn't need to be calibrated. Honestly, I dont like that idea too much because I want full control over my projects. I am familiar with the difference between digital and legal analog broadcast (pertaining to 7.5 IRE black and 100 IRE white), and usually just use a broadcast legalizer filter to adjust for analog output, but would prefer a waveform monitor and vectorscope. My question is, are the scopes benificial to a 100% digital production or do they just apply to digital-analog conversion?
I've been looking at a program called VideoScope 1.3 (www.evological.com/videoscope) for my Mac. Its not very expensive so that's not a big deal, I'm just wondering if it will prove to be a useful tool.

FCP has scopes in the capture window. They are disabled when you start capturing. I don't know if they're any good.

<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Sacher : I also use the waveforms in Vegas for tweaking the video. It would be interesting to get a program that samples the video coming in on Firewire and generates vectorscope and waveforms. A cheap laptop could do the job of more expensive equipment at a shoot. -->>>

That would be nice. But you know they have that. But the bucks are big.

Canopus' Edius waveform monitor and vector scope module will display the incoming DV stream.

Fortunately I have a portable waveform monitor from Leader that works very well when I absolutely have to have a 'perfect' image.

Helen, thanks for the link. I've had a look at the site and downloaded the trial but not installed it yet. Looks interesting.

Now a question for everyone and it may be a really dumb one... remember I'm a newbie.

Don't programs and techniques like this just encourage bad practice in production? Most of the pictures I make are stills, shot on film. I try to light everything properly, set the right exposure and use a top notch processing lab'.

The only time I scan pictures and enhance them in Photoshop is when I've messed up (happens two or three times in a good year) and then the end result is never as good as if I'd got it right in the first place.

I know video is different. One of things I've learned is that it's so much more demanding. Everything needs to be spot on or you'll beat yourself up about the results you get.

But don't the same principals still apply? Get it right in the first place and you shouldn't need Vixen or anything like it, except for creating special effects or quirky colour casts.

This may sound a bit arrogant... it wasn't meant to come over that way. I'd genuinely appreciate feedback because I've still got a lot to learn about DV.

Cheers,
Roger.

There are sort of two threads running here. But mainly we are talking about using real time waveforms almost like a lightmeter.

As a tool for in-production use to ensure consistent and appropriate levels. A waveform is much better at this than a monitor, particularly an uncalibrated LCD monitor competing with the lights and shadows of a location shoot.

But even so, color correction is used even on the best footage, to make sure scenes match. Slight differences in color will be noticable if a straight cut is made between two clips.

Scopes are also used, in conjunction with color bars, to make sure analog footage transferred from one shop to another looks like the creator intended.

But I'm sure you are right, and it could be easy to over-rely on the power of modern color correction tools; to the detriment of careful production habits.

Roger,

Keep asking questions and making observations like that please!

I'll go along with everything Martin has written, and add a still photography simile.

Look on it like this: are all your photographs printed with the exact same printer settings?

Sure, you can get away without tweaks in post. That would be like using slide film for projection only (not printing), and only having one emulsion available to you for all your different work, and not being able to bracket. Perfectly possible, and people do it.

Best,
Helen

Thanks for your encouragement Helen. Just been playing around with Vixen and you're right... It can do some brilliant things. Still feels like a post production bodge though; sorry if I'm being a stick in the mud.

Martin: I take all your points but I cling to the belief that when I get good enough at this stuff, I'll get the white balance and exposure right nearly every time and could shoot one clip at dawn and the next one at midday and they'll blend seemlessly.

Nicholi: I looked at that link but I don't own a Mac. Shame there's not a PC version.

Finally, Mike: When do you ever not need to get an image "perfect"? Sounds like the minimum starting point to me.

So Roger, just out of interest: is all your still printing done with the exact same printer settings? When I write 'all' I mean every print from every shoot.

Best,
Helen

Rob, or anyone. How are LCD screens for judging brightness and contrast? How about for judging white balance? Is it a big improvement over a camera's flip-out screen?

"Finally, Mike: When do you ever not need to get an image "perfect"? Sounds like the minimum starting point to me."

Certainly a perfect image is great to have. Just not very practical.

When you are chasing a cop who's chasing a suspect at night, it ain't gonna happen. Or when a child in a school play moves unexpectedly out of the spotlight, that one's not going to be too good but you have to use it.

Weddings are another event where one will rarely get perfect footage. The Videographer usually does not have complete control over lighting, window treatment, or dark receptions where no on-camera lighting is allowed. All of those situations almost insure one does not capture perfect footage.

ENG work is rarely about perfect footage. It's about getting footage at all and perfect comes second or third or maybe even fourth on the list of priorities.

Perfect is expensive. It suggests either a large crew to watch everything (a TV studio and crew comes to mind or a Hollywood movie) or one takes a long time to set up the shot. Shoot, (not to put too fine a point on it) even the talent effects whether it is a perfect shot or not.

Turns out that the story is the most important part of the image. Every time. Few of my clients can afford the cost of a perfect image. And it is really not necessary in most cases.

What I strive for is the best image and sound that is practical given the time and money available to do the job.

If I were to list the issues that matter in a finished piece, it would be something like this:

1 Story
2 Sound
3 Framing and focus
4 Color and exposure

Unfortunately, the priorities sometimes change and they are probably different for different videographers.

Truth is there is no such thing as Perfect. It cannot exist with the quality of the reproduction tools we use. Not even 70 mm film is perfect and DV is far from perfect. Just good enough.

Mike,

Sorry. You're right and I was bang out of order.

Thanks for your comments. Maybe one day I'll learn to put my brain in gear b4 I open my big mouth.

Regards,
Roger.

Roger,

Not to worry. Everyone wants perfection. It is just too costly for most applications.

I didn't take it like you think I did, I guess.

'sides, its my turn next time.

Best

Don't be sorry Roger. This board is all about seeing how others
do things and think about different possabilities. If you are making
fictional peaces you will have more time to setup your shots then
when yo do when shooting ENG style.

Then again I have found that in my run-and-gun style fictional
shooting with limited time, limited daylight and only so many
time I can use actors I have to shoot as fast as possible.

For me post productions tools are very much a must to use. Again,
it will be depedent on the type of shoot and what the DP / camera
operator is comfortable with.