A Proper Monitoring Solution

Report · Sep 07, 2011

If you are frustrated by the current state of PP's monitoring capabilities, I encourage you to Copy/Paste the following into the Feature Request Form. Let's all band together and finally get this much needed feature DONE!

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

Any professional will tell you that an NLE needs an outside monitoring solution - for proper interlaced viewing, for color corrections, etc. Premiere Pro has in the past handled this job by passing it off to third parties like Matrox, AJA and Black Magic. But all of those solutions have their own issues and limitations (not to mention additional costs), and their time is at an end. The modern day graphics cards already installed in many NLE workstations are more than capable of stepping into the role. It's way past time Premiere Pro had a proper monitoring solution, without third party hardware or codecs. Here is what is needed and wanted:

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.

Items 4 and 5 define what is "proper monitoring", and all third party cards should be doing this now. (If they're not, Adobe needs to jump on them to get it right.) Items 1 through 3 define the new feature we want and need from Adobe and Premiere Pro.

Report · Sep 10, 2011

What version are you using Pijetro? I believe many of your concerns have been resolved in 5.5.

I'm still on CS4.0.

But essentially, Adobe hasn't addressed interlacing and downrezzing issues.
Once i've seen an effects folder with different deinterlacing options, then i'll believe it.

Again, read my link, and if you're working with progressive footage, as the article states, and you've got a proper monitor, then PPro is already running what you need.

Report · Sep 10, 2011

But essentially, Adobe hasn't addressed interlacing and downrezzing issues.

Actually, they have. 5.0 made HUGE strides in those areas.

Once i've seen an effects folder with different deinterlacing options, then i'll believe it.

It's not done as an effect, it's done automatically whenever it needs doing. For example, creating a progressive export from interlaced footage.

read my link

I have, even before you posted it. As far as Adobe has come, there's still a way to go. That's what this request is for, to get Adobe all the way there.

Report · Sep 15, 2011

I've submitted the original feature request to Adobe as well, so Jim, thanks for putting it together for us. I also encountered the >2000 character error but it disappeared after the last line was edited out.

I know I asked this already in another thread, but for purposes of this one, it would be great if you could post a description of the signal pipeline through Premiere CS5.5 as it currently exists (to the extent that you know it). Comparing playback of a clip through Premiere (playing back via an external device connected via, say, HDMI) against playback of that clip directly into that same device using something like Windows Media Player in full-screen mode, suggests that Premiere CS5.5 is rescaling the image internally in the playback process. Obviously I would expect it to rescale anything that needed it, but if you have a 1920x1080 sequence and you put 1920x1080 clips in it and (with no effects added) play that into a 1920x1080 monitor, no rescaling should occur.

What's ACTUALLY happening?

Pete

Report · Sep 16, 2011

I've submitted the original feature request to Adobe...

Thank you for taking the time to post this feature request.

The details of this deficiency have been discussed
in a number of threads since the release of CS5.
You might find some insights to your questions here:

CS5 can not output MPE to external DV device
CS5.5 & External Monitoring - is there anything new?
Firewire output of Hardware MPE - I give up
Who's it gonna be?

Report · Oct 12, 2011

I submitted the feature request - no problems doing so. Keeping fingers crossed...

Report · Oct 13, 2011

Submitted.

Report · Oct 13, 2011

Awesome. Keep 'em coming guys. The more people that ask for specifically this, the better the chances we have of getting it.

Report · Oct 22, 2011

Submitted, too.

Report · Oct 22, 2011

Every time I see a new post on this thread, my cockles are warmed.

Report · Oct 22, 2011

Joe, Jim and All,

It's unfortunate that we don't see a representative of Adobe here, indicating that they take this issue seriously. From what I can see, there is no way to use an HDMI pipeline out of Premiere to do even the most basic color correction, even of clips that will be used only on the web (except the most-of-the-time workaround I mentioned previously).

What can we do to get their attention? I put a lot of money into configuring a compatible system using an Adobe-specified graphics card and I feel we should have been told up-front about this problem and their lack of evident commitment to resolving it.

Peter

Report · Oct 22, 2011

Peter, you must be new to the forum. Otherwise you would be aware there are several Adobe folks that monitor and participate . At his point the only way to get a realiable signal for professional grade monitors and output to tape is through the various manufacturers (AJA, Matrox ,BM) hardware.. I cant comment on specifics being under NDA (not for Adobe ) but I know that they are aware and working on the issue. At this point it is a joint effort, not just Adobes responibilities. And those manufacterers have lots of other products to attend to. We have their attention, and they are taking it very seriously, but not all issues can be solved right at the moment you need it done.

Report · Oct 22, 2011

Hello lasvideo,

No, not new to the forum - or to editing (started in the mid-1980s and moved to nonlinear in 1993) or to this issue. Former Avid editor transplanted to Premiere about a year ago and for the most part I like what I see, but as someone who makes my entire living from video editing there are certain absolutes. One is that if you use the hardware the software vendor tells you to use, what comes out of the video spigot must look like what will end up in the output file. When that doesn't happen it's not a trivial issue. For the kind of work I'm doing at the moment we're not even talking about professional monitors and tape output - we're talking about an HDMI monitor and the fact that what Premiere sends to that monitor is different from what will go to that same monitor when the finished file is played from disk. With that kind of an issue in play I would normally expect the manufacturer of the software to be very up-front and frank about what the problem is, what is being done to address it and how long it is expected to take to fix it. When I first found this thread back in September (having suffered with this problem for many months already) I saw that the thread started in April and referred to the issue as "longstanding." If it was a longstanding issue in April, considering that this is late October, wouldn't you agree that we who use the software to make our livings are entitled to a little feedback from the company about what they're doing to address it?

Peter

Report · Oct 22, 2011

I understand your position, coming from a very similar background (CMX editor in the 80's / Avid DS in the 90's and PrP about 3 months after abandoning FCP). It is a very big issue for those of us used to working in a professional environment that demands a client monitor and / or output to digital tape for long form. I dont work for Adobe, but I know it is their policy not to give any specific completion dates for software issues. Obviously its a big concern to them since they are aware of its importance to many of us through these forums. I would hazard a guess that its a challenging nut to crack or else it would have been done. Complaining and sending in feature requests is really all we can do, short of switching to another platform. And currently Avid still hasnt started to support the Kona 3 (my hardware) that I know of. Those are our choices at the moment...pick one .

Report · Oct 22, 2011

What can we do to get their attention?

Keep submitting this feature request. If you know any other PP editors, point them here and have them submit as well. We've been assured by Adobe personal that those requests do get read and taken seriously.

Having said that, you do have to keep in mind that something like this isn't likely to end up as a free patch to current software, completed in a month or so. It's more likely to be a new feature showing up in a future version that we have to pay for. And as a publicly traded company, Adobe has certain rules they have to follow about what they can say and when they can say it regarding future products. So while we may not hear much back, it's still a very good thing to get everyone you know to Copy/Paste this specific feature request into the form so they know we reeeeeeeeally want it as soon as possible.

Report · Oct 22, 2011

Hi Jim,

I've always wondered why we take it for granted that for the software to do what it's supposed to do, we're supposed to consider it a "new feature." I'd like to try that with my own client base sometime - give them a video in which the music track drowns out the dialogue, or skin tones are bright blue, or the lower thirds contain obvious spelling errors, and then tell them that in order to get the video I had originally told them they would be getting, it's a new feature and they'll have to pay extra for it.

Look, I'm delighted to pay extra for capabilities I didn't bargain for the first time, and it's great when they show up. But here we're talking about basic functionality, not a new feature. If I buy a new car and it won't shift out of second, I don't care how great the sound system is or that the GPS knows how to find Indian restaurants. I need the car to shift out of second. And I don't consider it a new feature and I don't frankly care if the manufacturer would rather develop new features than fix the broken transmission.

This really is much the same thing. There's a basic part of the software that's broken.

What really concerns me is that I see relatively few postings to this message thread, and I think Adobe could interpret that as a lack of interest in getting this fixed. I'd hate to see it shuffled to the bottom of the deck just because not enough people know how to chalenge it.

Peter

Report · Oct 22, 2011

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.

Report · Oct 23, 2011

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.

Report · Oct 23, 2011

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.

Report · Oct 23, 2011

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

Report · Oct 23, 2011

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.

Report · Oct 23, 2011

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

Report · Oct 23, 2011

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.

Report · Oct 23, 2011

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.

Report · Oct 23, 2011

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.

Report · Oct 23, 2011

shooternz:

Welcome back, man!