Analog Vector scope and Waveform Monitor

[Dustin Dooley]

I recently attended an auction and just for fun bought an old Tektronix analog vector/waveform monitor. Is there any value in a modern production environment, or should it go on the shelf as a cool artifact? It could go next to the old RCA cam with the "woody" sides ;D

I also was able to pick up a set of HMIs for a couple hundred each so even if it is just a show piece the other deals more than made up for it.

 

[T_Freundlich]

I recently attended an auction and just for fun bought an old Tektronix analog vector/waveform monitor. Is there any value in a modern production environment, or should it go on the shelf as a cool artifact?

Opinions on this, anyone? Plenty of cheap non-HD SDI scopes seem to be floating around, and my Blackmagic card does simultaneous HD and SD output so was also wondering if one of these oldies would work for grading out of Resolve?

 

[Marc Wielage]

Standard def? Forget it. You can get Scopebox for $99 plus an old computer:

http://www.divergentmedia.com/scopebox

Far more accurate than a standard def scope for HD/2K/4K work.

 

[T_Freundlich]

Cool, thanks!

 

[Alex Frausto]

There is one very useful application for an analog waveform monitor: Checking bi-level / tri-level sync signal integrity. Most digital scopes have a reference input but do not display the blackburst waveform. Helps for checking for double terminated and unterminated loads too.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

External scopes are only useful for monitoring the signal you send them. They're worthless for color grading of RAW images and larger color spaces. In other words, an external scope box is useful between your computer and an HDCAM deck to make sure everything sits where it should, signal-wise, for input to the deck. If you're using it to analyze what's going on in a grading application with 16bit RAW footage processed in 32bit float, then processed, down-converted to 10bit or 8bit or whatnot, often with condensed chroma, all before it hits that scope, well.... That's just silly. It all made sense back in the day when we transported between various cameras and decks and these scopes were intended to monitor that process and maintain proper chroma, levels, etc.. Now your most valuable scopes are right in the software that is directly manipulating all the bits.

 

[T_Freundlich]

External scopes are only useful for monitoring the signal you send them. They're worthless for color grading of RAW images and larger color spaces. In other words, an external scope box is useful between your computer and an HDCAM deck to make sure everything sits where it should, signal-wise, for input to the deck. If you're using it to analyze what's going on in a grading application with 16bit RAW footage processed in 32bit float, then processed, down-converted to 10bit or 8bit or whatnot, often with condensed chroma, all before it hits that scope, well.... That's just silly. It all made sense back in the day when we transported between various cameras and decks and these scopes were intended to monitor that process and maintain proper chroma, levels, etc.. Now your most valuable scopes are right in the software that is directly manipulating all the bits.

Hi Jeff,

this is an interesting point, can you elaborate on it further?

As you point out, I always assumed that the point of a scope was, yes, exactly that, i.e. to monitor your final output signal. Let's say I'm grading some R3D's for broadcast finish in 709 colorspace. Internal processing in Resolve is 32-bit float, and I'm outputting 10-bit 4:2:2 via a video card to a calibrated Grade 1 reference monitor. So I have confidence that what's on the monitor represents (as closely as is reasonably possible) the final result of the grade. Isn't that same signal chain (either before or after the monitor) the exact right place where you'd want to stick a waveform monitor/vectorscope/whatever to aid in your grading decisions?

Of course all this is with the realization that the source RAW files will always contain more bit depth etc. than is possible to output into the final deliverable. But how does that negate the usefulness of using an external scope for grading Red footage, assuming that you're outputting a sufficiently high-quality video signal? (And to go somewhat OT from the original post, let's forget about analog/SD equipment right now and assume we're talking about a proper HD-SDI external scope.)

Now, I gather from this and other discussions that unlike in times past, the software scopes in Resolve and other programs are actually good enough that you don't lose much, if any, accuracy compared to a separate hardware scope. However, that being said, I can still think of several reasons why a dedicated hardware device would be preferable to the built-in software scopes, i.e. better physical desk layout; saving screen real estate in the grading application; and saving processing power in the grading workstation by not having to run the scopes in real time. But please correct if I've misunderstood something!

Cheers