This just in. From the QC house, "Upon further review we have passed the file." Shocking. Glad I don't have to sit through another almost 2 hour export. Yesterday I was ten minutes from the file finishing when the death screen came up. We today's another day and I haven't been kicked off of QC Island yet.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > When we asked the QC house what they use to QC files they told us they use
> > QT.
>
>
> I would've told them that this is both DUMB and representative of
> incompetence. Unfortunately, possessing those qualities is likely to land
> one in positions one is less qualified for anyway, so it's a losing battle…
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:27 PM, John Moore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > On today's episode of QC Corner we find John called in for an emergency
> > fix to a file delivery that failed QC. This is after the HDCamSR tape
> > passed. We like to call the episode "WTF?"
> >
> > This is a mixed frame rate timeline that I mixed down the 23.98 sections
> > so I could remove them for export of a QT Ref. The 23.98 sketches are
> > flagged with studdery motion and even a 29.97/59.94I sketch is flagged for
> > blurred motion on transition wipes. I ama link to the file and everything
> > looks fine even stepping through field by field. When I open the file in
> > QTPro I do see the blurred motion and split frames caused by QT playing
> > back the whole frames split field and all. So of course if you park on a
> > fast wipe transition there will be a merging of two distinct wipe border
> > positions. When we asked the QC house what they use to QC files they told
> > us they use QT. I was amazed and shocked. How can you QC 1080I/59.94
> > ProResHQ with QT. Perhaps they are driving a card or something like a
> > Digital Rapids box to check levels on a scope but if they can't see fields
> > it seems like an inadequate form of QC. This is a big facility and nice
> > people
> > but this just seems wrong to me. Oh well after a phone call they are
> > going to look again to see if they still feel it's an issue. More will be
> > revealed.
> >
> > John Moore
> >
> > Barking Trout Productions
> >
> > Studio City, CA
> >
> > bigfish@...
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (3) |
No comments:
Post a Comment