Instead of clicking through one parameter after the other with the mouse, a panel allows the colourist to control several parameters simultaneously in real time. The bread and butter are still the three balls and rings (or, in the case of the Wave 2, the master dials), but the more rotary encoders and buttons a panel has, the more functions can be called up and set at the touch of a button without having to click through countless submenus. This saves a huge amount of time.
The market now distinguishes between so-called dedicated panels – i.e. panels that are specifically tailored to a software and only work with this software – and free panels, which are supported by a variety of software packages. We take a look at a bit of both in the lower price category. Free panels are in the price segment of under 3,000 euros – the only outlier here is the Tangent Arc, which is available for around 13,000 euros (and is therefore still inexpensive compared to similarly equipped panels).
Tangent is the market-leading manufacturer of 3rd party panels – the competition from Avid has already been announced as EOL for the end of 2020, while JL Cooper already stretched its wings last year with the Eclipse panel. The Oxygentech panel is only available in Asia (and in the rest of the world only via major detours) and currently only works with Resolve. This means that the only competition to Tangent at the moment is Blackmagic Design, whose Mini and Micro panels are equivalent in price to Tangent’s Element and Wave 2 – of course Mini and Micro only work with Resolve, but what does that matter when the majority of the market works with this tool anyway.

Reboot is good for you

But back to the Wave 2 and how it differs from its direct predecessor. Firstly, there is the obvious: the price. While its predecessor cost a net 1,195 euros, the Wave 2 comes in at a slim 750 euros, making it a good 100 euros cheaper than the entry-level panel (Micro) from Blackmagic Design. Compared to the original Wave, the smaller form factor is immediately noticeable: The Wave 2 takes up considerably less space on the table than the original – and with the same range of functions!
The more compact design makes the panel appear more stable in comparison – even though the housing is also made of plastic. The surface has a fine texture, which finally puts an end to the cheap plastic feel of the original. Another major criticism of the Wave 1 was the ergonomics: the palm rest was higher than the trackballs. This has also been improved on the Wave 2, where the front edge now slopes gently downwards. Furthermore, there are even fold-out feet on the underside, which can be used to give the panel a comfortable angle of inclination.
But it’s not just the design that has changed – the innards have also been upgraded. Many parts, such as displays, rotary encoders and trackballs, come from high-quality Element production. On the one hand, this is of course a more favourable production method – on the other hand, all parts are of a consistently higher quality and more precise than on the Wave 1.
And it gets even better: as the Wave 2 has exactly the same range of functions as its predecessor, it is also automatically supported by all software that already supported the original. Absolutely nothing has changed in the way the panel communicates with the software – upgrading couldn’t be easier. However, there is one fly in the ointment in direct comparison: unlike the original, the Wave 2’s balls are not held in their recess by a safety ring, but fall out as soon as the panel is turned upside down. This is, of course, less of a problem if the panel is standing on a table all day – but in portable use on set (and that’s exactly what it’s ideal for), this quickly becomes an annoying issue.

And compared to the competition?

The Wave 2 is a high-quality panel that leaves nothing to be desired in terms of functionality. If you compare it with the Micro Panel from Blackmagic Design, two things immediately catch the eye: the Blackmagic counterpart has both an attractive metal housing and neat ball-bearing rings around its trackballs, whereas the Wave 2 only has plastic master dials. This may seem like a disadvantage at first – but it doesn’t have to be. Rings vs. masterdials are purely a matter of taste (although the majority prefer rings), and while a metal casing looks nicer and more valuable, it is still heavier (see portable use) and also feels cooler. In contrast to the Micro Panel, the Wave 2 also has dedicated transport controls and a jog wheel, which can also be used to move a reference wipe.

The displays of the Wave 2 are less absent on the Micro Panel, as all buttons are labelled directly. However, the biggest advantage of the Wave 2 is that it can also be used with software that does not come from Blackmagic. Due to its compact design and the number of buttons and rotary encoders, it is ideal for live grading on set using Pomfort LiveGrade or dailies grading with Assimilate Scratch or Colourfront OSD. However, it also cuts a consistently good figure in traditional grading in post – with Mistika, Resolve, Nucoda, Scratch, Firefly or Baselight Editions – but also with Adobe Premiere, Final Cut X (via Color Finale plug-in) or Capture One Pro. All important functions are quickly accessible in the default mapping. The mapping itself can also be freely customised in most applications, either within the software or using Tangent’s mapper.

Conclusion

If you are looking for an inexpensive entry-level panel, the Wave 2 is not a bad choice. The main disadvantages are the lack of rings and the somewhat less attractive plastic housing compared to the Micro Panel from Blackmagic. Nevertheless, the Wave 2 is a worthy alternative – especially if you want to use tools other than Resolve or want to remain flexible. This makes it particularly interesting for Premiere or FCP-X editors who only occasionally tweak the colour.