is it better to rely on dedicated wave monitor than AF100's waveform monitor?

[Nicholas Natteau]

I'm planning to get the Flanders Scientific LM-1770W broadcast monitor for editing.

Please scroll down to bottom of LM-1770W page to see its scope tools.

Would using a dedicated waveform monitor like the FS 1770W on an interview shoot be more helpful (more precise / accurate) than the AF100's built-in waveform monitor for judging exposure???

 

[PaPa]

I would think not, unless the larger size makes it easier for you to read.

 

[Brian@202020]

The waveform on the camera and the waveform on the monitor are both reading the same image so they are both just as accurate.

 

[Nicholas Natteau]

I see. Is there any setting to make the waveform display cover the whole size of the LCD screen?

 

[Paul F]

I would think not, unless the larger size makes it easier for you to read.

Agreed. But I think that is a big plus. While the WFM on the AF100 is a nice tool, it is small. Having a larger view of the waveform is just as beneficial as having a larger view of the video itself. Even if the WFM of the AF100 were monitored on an external monitor (I don't recall if it will show up on the HDMI output), if I could have it on a proper scale on the monitor being proposed, I would find it a big benefit.

 

[Jim Brennan]

WFM will not show on an external monitor. Having that option means that the WFM image can be sent accidentally to a recorder.

 

[bbalser]

The FS monitor has it's own built-in scopes, which are very nice and accurate. You'll use them when watching via the monitor, use the AF-100's when watching via it's LCD.

 

[Jim Brennan]

I keep the WFM on the LCD and watch the shot through a different monitor. Be nice to have the WFM on just the LCD or the EVF.

 

[groveChuck]

I keep the WFM on the LCD and watch the shot through a different monitor. Be nice to have the WFM on just the LCD or the EVF.

Good idea, Jim. Good suggestion, too.