(Page 1 of 2 pages for this article  1 2 >)

Filed under: *VIDEO* •Editing •Hardware •Final Cut Pro •

Does Premiere CS5 achieve the “impossible dream” for critical evaluation monitoring?

Anyone who has ever read the seven articles I’ve published so far about critical video evaluation —be it with the HP DreamColor monitor, or any other brand and model— knows why this process has traditionally required a professional interface to do this properly. Even Apple has warned about this, both verbally at NAB 2005 when announcing the Digital Cinema Desktop, as well as in writing, in Apple’s support article TA27705. This situation has affected other professional editing programs too. This situation has convinced many video editors —even those who now deal exclusively with tapeless footage— to buy a (seemingly) otherwise unnecessary professional i/o interface from manufacturers like AJA, Blackmagic, Matrox, or MOTU. Has this situation changed with Premiere CS5, together with 10-bit/30-bit DisplayPort or HDMI connections on computers?

In this article

• Four traditional reasons for a professional i/o device
• The way we record, and the way we monitor
• Sidebar: RGB versus component video
• The “impossible dream”, fulfilled?
• Sidebar: Why not output YUV over DP or HDMI from the computer…?
• Other NLE programs which may also make this possible
• Other reasons to include a professional i/o, despite new possibilities
• Related articles

Traditional reasons for a professional i/o device

Traditionally, purchasers (or consultants/designers) of professional non-linear video editing systems have had several reasons to include a professional i/o (input-output device):

1. To capture
2. To output to tape or live to air
3. To monitor on an interlaced display
4. To achieve a proper and trustworthy realtime YUV>RGB conversion

Let’s see how many of these reasons still apply today.

1: Capture, what’s capture?

In the era of tape-based production, it was/is necessary to capture the audio and video to the NLE. With all analog tape-based material, and many digital tape based formats, this required a professional i/o device. Some digital tape formats could/can be captured via IEEE-1394 (FireWire, i.LINK), including those based upon the DV25 códec (DV, DVCam, Professional DV, DVCPRO25), the DV50 códec (DVCPRO50), HDV, and the DV100 códec (DVCPROHD). (With Panasonic DVCPRO25, DVCPRO50, and DVCPRO100 decks, this capability is model-dependent, and capable models sometimes require an optional IEEE-1394 card.) Even so, and especially before the birth of “open timelines”, there were benefits to capturing even these formats via a professional i/o device in order to capture all tape formats directly to a single lossless códec, or to uncompressed video. However, nowadays, we have “open timelines”, and a large portion of today’s production is done tapelessly, so many editors can now disqualify the first justification listed above. (For more historical background about this, see my articles: When to edit native, when hybrid, when pure i-frame, and why and Why capture HDV via HDMI.)

2: Output to tape, or to air

In the era of tape based distribution, it was/is often necessary to output edited programs to tape, and many of them required the use of a professional i/o device to make that possible. However, nowadays many productions are distributed on DVD, Blu-ray, the web, and mobile devices. Even those productions destined for traditional broadcast are often sent via FTP (hopefully SFTP) or on a disk (magnetic or optical) to the TV network or station… so many editors can now disqualify the second justification listed above.

3: Monitoring on an interlaced display

Interlacing? What’s interlacing? It’s a way to cheat when you don’t have enough bandwidth! If you don’t know what interlacing is (I wish I could say “was”), there’s no reason to repeat that explanation here. Just review my previous articles, or this nice one from Wikipedia. Anybody who has been reading my articles for a while —or has known me personally— knows that I am a progressive guy, not an interlaced guy! As I have stated previously, I wish interlaced versions of HD hadn’t even been ratified. Fortunately, more affordable tapeless cameras with native progressive sensors (especially CMOS), progressive shooting modes, and progressive recording are now available from both consumer and pro camera manufacturers. Most of these actually even offer native progressive recording modes too, with the notable exception of several Panasonic AG-HMC series cameras, which offer native 23.976p recording, but currently offer non-native 25p or 29.97p recording, as explained in another recent article.

Sadly, I do realize that there is still some interlaced production happening in the camera (480i, 486i, 576i, and 1080i, rather than the beloved 720p or 1080p modes), sometimes out of true choice or necessity, and sometimes because the camera operator didn’t know any better and just shot in interlaced mode because the last person to rent the camera left it in that mode. (I have seen this happen too often!) Whatever the reason that there is still some interlaced production happening, there isn’t much interlaced viewing happening anymore, considering that most video nowadays is seen either on an LCD, a plasma, or a projector, which are natively progressive. Unless an editor knows that a production with mostly interlaced raw footage —with very fast movement— is destined to be sent to a 1080i TV station which demands 1080i (as opposed to 1080p), s/he may in many cases consider de-interlacing the raw footage to progressive and working on a progressive timeline, in order to take advantage of progressive from there forward, and in many cases, to avoid forcing a realtime de-interlace in a 30-cent chip in someone’s TV set, monitor, or projector.

Way back in 2005, when Apple first offered the Digital Cinema Desktop feature, there was a lot more SD production happening, and therefore, a lot more interlaced footage and projects. Also, back then, there were many more CRT (cathode ray tube) monitors and TV sets being used, which meant there were many more people actually seeing final productions on an interlaced screen. In 2010, interlaced screens are rare at the viewers’ end.

Taking into account all of these issues, some editors may decide to leave interlaced video in the past, and exclusively deliver progressive programs, whether they be low framerate (23.976p or 25p), medium framerate (29.97p), or high framerate (50p or 59.94p) for maximum smoothness (if not destined for an iPad), together with all of the progressive advantages. If that is the case, they can disqualify the third justification listed above.

4: Achieving a proper and trustworthy realtime YUV>RGB conversion

Way back in 2005, Apple launched Final Cut Pro 5, together with a new feature called the Digital Cinema Desktop. The purpose was to allow FCP editors to preview full screen video on an independently connected computer monitor. However, together with the launch of the Digital Cinema Desktop feature, Apple warned us that it was for content only, and was not to be trusted for color correction purposes. This warning was stated both verbally at NAB 2005, as well as in writing on Apple’s support article TA27705. (The same article also explained the importance of viewing interlaced video on an interlaced monitor, but we already covered that above in section 3.) The reason for the color/gamma precaution has to to with the accuracy of the conversion between RGB and component video.

On page 2 of this article

On page 2, you’ll see:

• The way we record, and the way we monitor
• Sidebar: RGB versus component video
• The “impossible dream”, fulfilled?
• Sidebar: Why not output YUV over DP or HDMI from the computer…?
• Other NLE programs which may also make this possible
• Other reasons to include a professional i/o, despite new possibilities
• Related articles

Click here to continue to page 2.

(Page 1 of 2 pages for this article  1 2 >)

Interesting read Alan.

I recently did an edit that was destined solely for Web & DVD.

As it was quick turn around on location and we were shooting with an EX3 I didn’t take my AJA IOhd box and a monitor, instead we used the laptop and an additional external monitor feed via DVI.  editing on FCP 7.

The start of the video was two logo (imported as is with white backgrounds) over a shot of the sky, the logos then move up as camera tilts down.  All looked fine on the laptop display.

I then put the (i though finalised!) piece onto a DVD and watched it on the TV to check the disc.  To my amazement the logo’s were in a dark box - basically there were some clamping issues which weren’t showing up on the computers display.  The simplest way to solve the problem was to make the logo’s transparent as opposed to white backgrounds.

Do you think the system your advocating have shown this up?

Posted by MichaelSanders  on  07/03  at  05:23 AM

---

Then, which is the answer?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/04  at  06:02 AM

---

Hi,

Interesting article. I have two questions. First is the following a potential typo?  Should this headline have had a NOT? 
—-
Other reasons to include a professional i/o, despite new possibilities

——

It sure seems like it.  In fact there were a couple of places where it seemed as if there might be typos which had me confusing your meaning.  Maybe not.

Second, given the info you have provided, what products do you suggest for using as video scopes in this type of workflow?

Thanks,

Jef

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/04  at  06:54 AM

---

Michael,

I’m glad to see our articles are being appreciated in the UK

It is very likely that it would have shown the anomaly you had, but to be sure, someone would have to test it. I have Premiere CS5 installed, but no longer have local access to a DreamColor or similar monitor. If you post the original logo somewhere, I can verify it the next time I have access to a DreamColor, or perhaps another reader will be able to do it even sooner. However, please understand that what the reason that you didn’t see it at first may be do to the proper monitoring, or it may be the way FCP7 previewed it before rendering it. So if someone attempts to test your original logo using CS5 with a DreamColor connected directly, it may be visible either in the status monitor, or on the DreamColor, or on both. if it is on both, then that would mean that it is the way that FCP7 previews it. If it is only visible on the DreamColor connected that way, then it is directly related to the configuration described in the article.

Allan Tépper

Posted by Allan Tépper  on  07/04  at  07:05 AM

---

Thanks for the reply Allan.

The worrying aspect to all this is that it didn’t show up after I’d rendered the file out to quicktime.  I watched the disc on a stand alone DVD player - discovered the error and then watched the disc on the laptop - again it didn’t show up.

Posted by MichaelSanders  on  07/04  at  07:20 AM

---

Jef,

The question mark in the title is 100% intentional. The reason for the question mark is because this potential achievement is very conditional: the editor must understand each one of the 4 points, and then ask her/himself whether s/he can really disqualify each one. Some will be able to do so, and others will not be able (yet).

The section called Other reasons to include a professional i/o, despite new possibilities is also there purposefully, as explained within.

For anyone who is able to disqualify the 4 points, Premiere CS5’s own scopes are my recommendation.

Allan Tépper

Posted by Allan Tépper  on  07/04  at  08:25 AM

---

Nice product, i liked it…

Posted by MoviesBlaster  on  07/10  at  03:57 PM

---

Hi
If I’m using DPX 10-bit log files in a compositing software like Nuke, which are always RGB, do I still need an I/O converter with my HP dreamcolor to critically view color?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/11  at  09:48 AM

---

AtlasStorm,

It depends upon whether Nuke send out a proper Rec 709 signal to the GPU. You would have to ask them.

Allan Tépper

Posted by Allan Tépper  on  11/11  at  09:54 AM

---

Allan, I just discovered your blog and podcast, great stuff. I moved to Premiere Pro from FCP about a year ago, and I recently replaced my secondary aging monitor, with an Asus Pro Art PA246Q monitor, which is supposedly a pretty good deal, and supposedly a 10 bit P-IPS display with 12 bit processing, though probably not close to a DreamColor. It also has HDMI and Displayport as well as DVI inputs. I’m connected to it with a Mac Pro with a NVidia Quadro 4000 via DVI (the Nvidia does have a displayport output).  It doesn’t have a specific rec709 setting, but it does have sRGB, and it is factory calibrated. I also used a Spyder 3 to calibrate it to the rec709 color space.

Anyway, I’m wondering if you know if Premiere Pro on the Mac can drive this (or any RGB connected monitor via DVI or displayport) for accurate color correction, if this has been proven or if it’s just a theory. I have a Black Magic Intensity Pro, which has HDMI and would probably be able to drive a good HDTV as a reference monitor, but I’ve found it to be problematic with Premiere Pro. It just seems very flakey.

Anyway, and new discoveries or advice is appreciated.

Posted by Keith Moreau  on  08/26  at  11:08 PM

---

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: