A Proper Monitoring Solution

[excited_Genie16B8]

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.

[artistdomain]

I agree with you; you know what your talking about. I just somewhat disagree that there is no "Proper Monitoring Solution" without paying extra for third party solutions. Nowadays when you can power a 30 bit Dreamcolor with a Nvidea card or a 24bit PC monitor with a lesser VGA card, and have Adobe do the YUV to RGB conversion, I think it qualifies as proper. NOTE: I use the term VGA to denote a traditional PC graphics card as opposed to a tru video out card. VGA has long denoted a graphics card in the computer industry. Perhaps I should have been using "graphics" card). I suppose this is all still lacking for you because you are still working with interlaced footage to some extent?   

As the poster names Pjetro said, (I paraphrase) that graphics card ends up costing as much as a third-party monitoring solution. But prices are always coming down. What you seek re using just a monitor is exactly what Adobe and Nvidia are up to propoving. That's only natural since interlaced will become a thing of the past for a lot of us. Interlaced monitors are already considred legacy devices by a lot of us. It will all be progress, and all RGB. I think it'll happen before you know it and you can go that way right now with a VGA only card. It just needs to have an HDMI or Displayport, or  - probably coming next - thunderbolt.

By the way, I now see a number of affordable PC monitors designed in 1920x1080 (not 1900x1200) , all the more fitting into the desired scenario. No need to scale and worry about that anymore.  

Pjetro also provides a link to Allan Tepper on this subject. I read this material when it originally came out.  It illustrates what I'm saying and that's where I got it from. Did you read it? According to it, your desire seems to be here, now. No? 

What is not to like in your opinion?

Yes, sorry for misqoting you re frames v fields and I do know fields is interlaced.   

About a month ago I read in the NY Times that Intel is working on integrating 4K video on the CPU!  But I digress.

[shooternz]

By the way, I now see a number of affordable PC monitors designed in 1920x1080 (not 1900x1200) , all the more fitting into the desired scenario. No need to scale and worry about that anymore.

That is an important point and worth everyone noting.  Both of the monitors I use in my 2 monitor set up use monitors of this spec. 

These monitors are classed in an "AV" type of category because they are also able to be used as TVs ( although they do not have receivers) and also attached to DVD players ,cameras, freeview boxes etc. They are not solely for computers.  They actually have speakers in them and a multitude of input output connections.

Subsequently they are usually a higher grade image quality than many puter monitors and of course...no scaling effects if one has 1920x1080 rez on them .

The HP Dream Color is not my own and not my usual set up.  The freelancer uses it for his own edification ( and gratification).  Most times he uses my set up and is entirely happy with it as well.

[artistdomain]

Shooternz, I haven't delved into researching the specs but I assume they also support rec 709 too.

The Dream Color is 10 bit per color channel and thus supposedly excellent for color correction. For graphic compositing it'll show color banding that an 8 bit per chan monitor can't.

The RGB LED backlighting is superior to non-RGB LED backlighting too.

I'm definitely intending to cough up the premium for one next year. I'm a sucka for quality and from everything I've read about it, it's what I'd call really proper monitoring. For now my Sony LMD production monitor will have to do and it's pretty good .But being 8 bit just not the best for After Effects work.     

[medeamajic]

Artistdomain you were also wrong about Wondow's Aero not affecting the realtime previews. Just ask this guy :  )

http://forums.adobe.com/message/4000686#4000686

Message was edited by: Jeff Bellune.  Don't add unnecessary clutter to the topic by posting a long quote.  Just link to the discussion.

[Harm_Millaard]

If Aero plays a role in your performance, it means that - in combination with running services and processes, especially the sidebar - your CPU/GPU is a bottleneck in your system, because those two components are most heavily taxed by the use of Aero.

Remember, Aero is an extra task to perform and if your system is already running at or near its maximum capacity, adding an additional CPU/GPU intensive task can slow it down. If you can run a marathon under three hours, that is pretty good for an amateur, but if you add a backpack of 40+ pounds, you can't expect to finish under three hours. Same with Aero added to the load. On a properly tuned system that is nicely balanced, the impact of Aero is negligent and the same applies to 1 or 2 monitors. If the system is not properly tuned or balanced, the extra overhead of  using the 2nd monitor can just become too much and cause slowdowns.

I know this is not an answer to the question, but an argument to look at the issue from a wider perspective.

[medeamajic]

Look at it from a wider perspecitve?

My point is Windows Aero works but if dissabled some systems might work even better. So yea, Windows Aero can effect realtime performance on some systems. That is all I ever stated. I am not saying Windows Aero does not work for you. The other guy stated his Red One files still played fine with Windows Aero. My AVCHD clips played about the same but HDV files took a huge hit. Like I said had I not used Vista's non Aero mode I would have been happy as a pig in mud. Like the other guy stated I only noticed the performance hit using dual monitors. I don't doubt the Window's Aero may not affect your system at all. I wish I had  a Fermi Card or Quadro card to test out but as of now I don't. Like I said using Vista's Aero mode affects my realtime just the same as the Windows 7 Aero mode. I am hoping Windows 8 is different. Had I not switched form Windows Vista to Windows 7 I would not have known. In a way I am glade I did. I almost stuck with Vista. Vista is not bad but 7 is better in my opinion.

[artistdomain]

Hi, Mediamajic,

Sorry for getting into a controversy with you. I'm sure you know your difficulties and your Adobe feature wishes better than I.

Referring back to the title of the original post, I'd like to know what, if any, technical shortcomings exist in using only a graphics card to perform external monitoring with a decent PC monitor.

For over 12 years, since starting my production business, I've always built or upgraded my own systems (every two to three years). I'd rather not deal with the expense and technical hassle of Matrox BM, etc.if I don't have to. If external monitoring can be done properly with just a graphics card then by all means, I want to know how to do it, properly.

I'd bet that if we were interacting in person or in a group, we wouldn't have had this somewhat negative experience. It happens on forums sometimes, in my opinion, due to the lack of in-person human interaction. In person, things are articulated in ways that aren't nearly as subject to confusion or misinterpretation. For my part, I'll admith that perhaps my tone in forums probably isn't as refined as it in person.  

Best of luck in your aspirations re this thread.    

[medeamajic]

I stayed out of this thread until some asked about interlacing issues. The reason I stayed out it because I don't know what system everyone else is using. What settings would work best for you I cannot say.

With PP CS 3 I could infact use my graphics card's S-Video output to get 720 X 480i previews. They looked much better than the VGA 800 X 600 output.

As I stated you can use a progressive computer monitor to display interlaced video because CS 5.5 gives you the option to display seperate fields. This will eliminate interlacing issues on the client monitor. Like Shooternz I use AV monitors. They can be used as computer monitors or as HDTV monitors. I myself keep both monitors in progressive mode at 1920 X 1080P. Even if I get interlaced HDV or interlaced AVCHD it is OK becuase I can opt to display single fields. If I use 1920 X 1080P when I am not previewing the PP CS 5.5 timeline I can use the second monitor for other software programs like AE and Photoshop. I could in theory custom configure the second display to 720 X 480i with my system if I had to edit mini DV but I would prefer to just use the DV converter for mini DV projects. I myself like others can get more realtime runnning in Windows classic mode as opposed to using Aero. Aero is odd because my AVCHD plays just about the same but  the HDV projects took a big hit.  Go figure :  )

I have thought about getting a Decklink card just for the simple fact that you could have two monitors for the Windows GUI and use the Decklink system for client previews.  Using the graphics card works decent for static titles and static PIPs but if you apply fast motion they can look a little jittery but not bad. They are more than adequate for client previews. I think using a dedicate Kona card or Decklink card might give sligthly better realtime preview for motion graphics but I can not say for sure since I don't have one.

My systems works fine but you may have other video software or even 3-D games that might mess up the Nvidia settings. My advise would be to get a second computer monitor or HDTV at 1920 X 1080 and start testing it out for yourself. Try it with Aero on and off. If you have problems just post back here. I get nice smooth playback but I cannot say for sure if you will or not. I only have a mediocre GT 240 but it can playback 5 layers of native AVCHD at full resolution. If I use the three way CC I only get three layers :  (

From what I read a GT 440 with DDR 5 RAM will work great. I hope this helps :  )

[jdmack01]

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

J. D.

[excited_Genie16B8]

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

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

[shooternz]

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.

[artistdomain]

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.

[excited_Genie16B8]

(Would anyone give up the Mercury advantage for it?)

Man, I sure hope not.  The point here is to add a long overdue and very much needed new feature, not to swap one out for features we already have.

We need both the current level of hardware acceleration (maybe adding some improvements), as well as proper video output from PP.

[Powered_by_Design]

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

[rexeve]

Done.

[Jon-M-Spear]

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!

[shooternz]

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.

[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.

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).

[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.

@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.

[PeteGould]

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

[shooternz]

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

FWIW: Pete, I do not observe  a washed out effect in my second monitor.

Real wild shot here!  Does your monitor have any kind of automatic adjustment (ie senses the room brightness and adjusts brightness / contrast)  I am aware that is not consistent with the test you have been running but still worth checking.

[PeteGould]

shooterns - while the monitor DOES have such an ability, it is shut off in the menu options, and I have verified that it shut off both by looking there and by observing that room light has no effect on the monitor display.  Besides, I can do this comparison quickly and reliably: load the same video clip in WMP and Premiere and toggle between them.  Black level is raised in Premiere and not in WMP on the very same clip.  Can't imagine how the monitor would have anything to do with it.  If you could take a moment to indulge me and use the NVidia control panel to temporarily take control of the color space for full-screen Premiere playback on your second monitor, I'd be really interested to hear if the active controls are for video or desktop graphics.

Pete

[shooternz]

WIll get back to you on that one Pete once I go in to the studio today.

[medeamajic]

PeterGould,

There are a lot of things that could be tweaked in your Nvidia control panel. You may also have a different set of drivers. My sytems works great in Classic mode but in Aero mode it sucks. You may or may not have the same results with your system. Your MOBO, CPU, Chipset, system settings and OS will all have an impact.  Adobe's Karl Soule stated the HDMI should be pretty acurate for color correction in an interview. It may not be he best solution but it should not look like total bunk either. More than likely you will have to trouble shoot it yourself. Perhaps some other software on your system messed up the Nvidia settings.

[Jeff Bellune]

Gentlemen,

Play nice, or the thread will be locked.  Irrelevant and antagonistic posts have been deleted.

-Jeff