9 Sep
2016
9 Sep
'16
12:09 a.m.
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, Carsten Kurz via DCPomatic wrote:
Am 09.09.2016 um 01:20 schrieb Carl Hetherington via DCPomatic:
Absolutely agree. If they tell us in detail what's wrong, we fix it,
problem solved. If they don't (but convince festivals that there are "bad
things" with this DCP that only a "professional solution" can fix),
it's
just more FUD and they can pocket $900 for a re-wrap.
I think I'd rather any QC tools rejected
anything that it is not up to
spec, even if all current equipment implementations are ok with it. At
least then you have only one set of goalposts. The tricky part comes when
QC tools are themselves opaque and don't give full details of why the are
rejecting things.
I agree that QC tools have to be strict in evaluating files. The
question is, what does the QC tools operator make of certain complaints?
'Warning'? 'Error'?
If 'opaque' QC rules decide which tools are 'allowed' to master content
for festivals, that would be a bad development. Deluxe is a mastering
facility. If they decide on the QC rules, they boost their own business
in ruling out alternative DCP creation solutions. Add to this the fact that full specs for DCP
formatting is only
available in the form of very costly SMPTE documents...
Agreed, also a bad thing ...
I do agree, though, that ISDCF-WTF is a must for SMPTE
wrapping.
Fixed locally :)
Best,
Carl