I do QCs for broadcast (UK) and normally I'd agree that anything rated 3 or greater that should be fixed shoukd have every occurance listed.
But I'd also add that the charge for that level of QC may not have warranted a multi page listing of fail errors.
I've had content before that frankly wasn't ready for Broadcast (at the required quality for that broacaster) being presented fir QC and a few minutes of QC and spot checks down the content confirm it needs so much fixing detailed logging is pointless.
So I've sent back QC reports thst said just what you saw.
My expectation isn't a quick blow by blow fix. It's a return to the suite and actually rework snd recheck the content before sending off.
I don't expect content presented for broadcast to be using me to do the editors job. I expect it to be broadcast ready.
At VET we also do QCs of content before its ready for final output and that's very detailed but also far more expensive.
So in your case I'd have expected a different QC service to hsve been used. But its possible it's different here in the UK.
Pat from his mobile.
Posted by: pat@horridge.org.uk
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (8) |
No comments:
Post a Comment