QC page for Resolve 20

Even if there where a lot of nice things in Resolve 19 I still miss a page which I thing would make a lot of sense in the workflow. I would like to see a QC Page.

I have made a list of different things which I would like to see. I also put them in a prioritization order, from 1 to 4, where 1 is the highest priority.

Doing a QC check (even a simple one) before exporting can save the user very much time and frustration. Often it takes just a few minutes to fix things when you know about them.

When it comes to audio we find that most sound studios don’t do a proper QC check, so it’s us who do the online that get a lot of extra work if our Client's QC department finds stuff and we already did a lot of exports.

Video

1 - Video blanking /active Region - often just a faulty input sizing
1 - Freeze frame / black frames
1 - Dead pixels - on the whole shot / source

2 - Digital dropouts - from render errors
2 - Chroma fringing / ACES gamut problem - magenta around highlights etc.
2 - Gamut errors
2 - Pixel dropout - on a single frame

3 - PSE / Harding Test
3 - Flash frames - single frames in between two shots
3 - Black sun

4 - Media offline
4 - Dolby vision lift warning - lift over 0.025

Audio

1 - Audio dropouts - it gets quiet
1 - Pops

2 - Clipping
2 - Loudness / LUFS / Audio levels

Fantastic Idea! +1

Even if there where a lot of nice things in Resolve 19 I still miss a page which I thing would make a lot of sense in the workflow. I would like to see a QC Page.

I have made a list of different things which I would like to see. I also put them in a prioritization order, from 1 to 4, where 1 is the highest priority.

Doing a QC check (even a simple one) before exporting can save the user very much time and frustration. Often it takes just a few minutes to fix things when you know about them.

When it comes to audio we find that most sound studios don’t do a proper QC check, so it’s us who do the online that get a lot of extra work if our Client's QC department finds stuff and we already did a lot of exports.

Video

1 - Video blanking /active Region - often just a faulty input sizing
1 - Freeze frame / black frames
1 - Dead pixels - on the whole shot / source

2 - Digital dropouts - from render errors
2 - Chroma fringing / ACES gamut problem - magenta around highlights etc.
2 - Gamut errors
2 - Pixel dropout - on a single frame

3 - PSE / Harding Test
3 - Flash frames - single frames in between two shots
3 - Black sun

4 - Media offline
4 - Dolby vision lift warning - lift over 0.025

Audio

1 - Audio dropouts - it gets quiet
1 - Pops

2 - Clipping
2 - Loudness / LUFS / Audio levels

+1

+1

+1

This would be a *substantial* contribution to independent filmmaking, especially if such a page could also output customizable QC reports and filter parameters tuned for specific vendors who readily publish deliverable standards like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc.

+1

This would be a *substantial* contribution to independent filmmaking, especially if such a page could also output customizable QC reports and filter parameters tuned for specific vendors who readily publish deliverable standards like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc.

Yes, the QC software out there is crazy expensive when you just need to QC stuff once in a while. Those that are cheap create far to many false positives.

+1
Great idea and very useful for everyone delivering content, no matter what the budget

As I just said on Facebook about this exact same question: Ya know, I feel like a QC feature is too much to expect in Resolve. What they have in Omniscope actually hits the main bullet points about what happens in QC (particularly for out-of-gamut errors, clipping, black holes, blanking, and all that stuff).

But a full-blown QC program is its own thing -- there's no way they could do it in Resolve. It's the same reason that Avid, Baselight, FCPX, Nucoda, and Premiere don't do it, either. I concede that some basic QC features are possible, but it's not going to (for example) find a 2ms dropout in the right surround channel, that kind of thing.

Hi Marc,

I do not agree with you. Some things can be done by Resolve in a matter of seconds, like Video Blanking, freeze frames, flash frames since it knows the size of the canvas and the size / position of the footage, it has all the timeline data.

These errors are the majority of the things I find when do QC. The other one is dead pixels and that takes more power, but instead of exporting, loading into another software, run test, go back to Resolve and try to find the errors I would rather do it in one go.

"But a full-blown QC program is its own thing -- there's no way they could do it in Resolve."

Well, they added Fairlight and Fusion, so there is a way they could do it in Resolve.

Well, they added Fairlight and Fusion, so there is a way they could do it in Resolve.

Naaaa, that's an error of false equivalency. Just because they took two complicated programs and crammed them into Resolve doesn't mean they could also do it with a new (from scratch) QC program.

I still say that Avid / Baselight / Premiere / etc. also don't provide QC within their programs. I have done work with QC people all over LA, and they actually do a pretty good job and look at things outside just sheer technical stuff. For example: they'll flag one shot out of 10 because the color doesn't match, or they'll talk about a shot looking "ugly"... and I'm not sure software alone could do that. (I used to laugh back in the 1990s when a big movie would go through QC and pass all the technical checks, but I'd point out, "it's very ugly," and the QC person would shrug and say, "yeah, but at least the blanking was legal.")

I saw a couple of booths at NAB two weeks ago touting "QC by A.I." but I didn't have time to stop and get the info. It's an attention- and time-sucking process, and doing it just with humans is pretty draining; I don't envy anybody who has to do that for a living. BTW, for those looking at this thread, here's a list of just some of the video QC software out there:

VidCheck
http://www.vidcheck.com

QCTools
https://mediaarea.net/QCTools

Tektronix Cerify
http://www.tek.com/file-based-qc/cerify ... t-analysis

Telestream Vantage
http://www.telestream.net/vantage/vantage-analysis.htm

DigiMetrics Aurora
http://www.digi-metrics.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=499

Veneratech Pulsar
http://www.veneratech.com/pulsar/overview/

Dalet AmberFin
http://www.dalet.com/platforms/amberfin

GrayMETA IRIS QC Pro
https://www.graymeta.com/iris-qc-pro/

Some of these cost thousands of dollars. This is a very complicated business and I'm not sure that shoving it into Resolve is the right thing to do. Looking back over the last 100 things in the Feature Request section, I think there are more important things that the BMD Dev Team could do with their time -- but that's just me.

Hi Marc

I still say that Avid / Baselight / Premiere / etc. also don't provide QC within their programs.

What has that to do with this thread? Just because other software does not have it, doesn't make it a feature Resolve, according to you, SHOULD not have.

I have done work with QC people all over LA, and they actually do a pretty good job and look at things outside just sheer technical stuff.

I understand that and I am not saying they don't do a good job, but for most people in the world there are no QC facilities in their neighbourhood. In Sweden there is no place I can send my files and get a QC report.
You can't compare the US and especially LA with the rest of the world.

I have tested most of the software in the examples you give, but none of them is suitable for the budgets we have here and the amount of files we need to check. Either they give to many false positives or they are far to expensive.

You missed Baton, https://www.interrasystems.com in your list. As far as I can judge they have the best pixel detection. I have talked to them twice and they don't even bother to send us a quote since we are to small.

I agree there are a lot of other things that could be fixed, but if you never ask you never can get that one feature which might be very valuable to a lot of people.

+1

I saw a couple of booths at NAB two weeks ago touting "QC by A.I." but I didn't have time to stop and get the info. It's an attention- and time-sucking process, and doing it just with humans is pretty draining; I don't envy anybody who has to do that for a living.

It's mostly Vidcheck in UK broadcast. It's automated, Marc; mostly assistants do it in the machine room, but often accessible from the online suites too, if you're back and forthing to catch those stray out of gamut and PSE errors; it's not really very hard, at all. Eyeballing is more consuming; laborious but not hard again.

I don't see the need for independent filmmakers to necessarily need it, though. If you're lucky enough to get your film on Netflix and the rest, you'll have to go through established QC channels, somewhere. The broadcasters do their own again. It's not necessary for most anything else. PSE epilepsy Harding test is mandatory here; but again not something the individual is obliged to bother with normally.

But I give this a cautious +1 too; it would be very useful for me and my small online setup. Omniscope looks promising but I don't think it fully cuts it yet, in this regard.

I would appreciate some of this in a pre-render check (like checking for offline media before adding to the queue) may be useful - e.g. a check for blanking errors, etc.

To the Nucoda point, I was looking at the Filmworkz website the other day and they've got DVO Pixel that'll detect pixels and fix them: https://filmworkz.com/dvo/pixel/

I wonder if some kind of report generated after render - since it'd be going over every frame anyways - would add too much to render time.

I don't see the need for independent filmmakers to necessarily need it, though. If you're lucky enough to get your film on Netflix and the rest, you'll have to go through established QC channels, somewhere. The broadcasters do their own again. It's not necessary for most anything else. PSE epilepsy Harding test is mandatory here; but again not something the individual is obliged to bother with normally.

I have worked on indie films where as part of the distribution agreement, the filmmaker had to pay for an outside QC to be done. And the distributor had a list of maybe 5 or 6 QC companies they would accept -- you couldn't just pick "anybody." In LA, what I see is a combination of a human QC operator and QC software... so they work together in tandem just to check little things that might go wrong.

For example: I've gotten some memorable QC reports where they complained, "there are footsteps on concrete in this scene that takes place on carpet." Or "bad ADR -- does not match production sound." Or "the lady's third close-up is more red than the first two close-ups." Show me some QC software that can flag these problems. Or: "L & R surround channels appear to be reversed." That stuff happens. And trust me, Amazon, Apple, and Netflix are very tough on this stuff.

I saw a huge, massive $200M film on streaming a few months ago, and (because I'm me) I stuck with it all the way through the studio logo at the very end... and the studio logo was in log color space, with blacks up to 50 or something. I fell off my chair when I saw that. I noted the name of the post supervisor, who was somebody I actually knew at <company X> and I sent them an email and warned them of the problem. They never wrote me back, but "maybe" it was fixed in subsequent versions. Would QC software catch that?

I totally agree that QC software can fix obvious glitches, blanking problems, letterbox changes on cuts, glitches, wrong formatting, and all that stuff. Omniscope does some of this, but it's not their primary business. I think of Resolve as a conform / editing / color / VFX / sound tool, yet it can sorta do other things like making DCPs. Do we want to add QC to that list? Hell, I'd be happy if they greatly improved the Title tool, and that's something I use all the time. I've been whining about that since like Resolve 10.

That's not the world 99% of Resolve users live and work in though.

The majority would benefit from even a simple QC version that detects some of the annoying, little mistakes mentioned above, that don't need deep coding.

From there it could get improved successively to cater higher end needs. Who wouldn't love it?

I've been struggling with failed QC for the past few weeks - via Bitmax. Some of the issues are listed here, and its relatively easy for Resolve to implement.
+1 for this post - please give us detection of blank channels (in 5.1), audio dropouts, video blanking errors (due to sizing) etc.

Some QC features would be welcome... not entirely convinced we'd all need/want an entirely new page for it though.

Maybe a QC analysis window would suffice, similar to the modal 'Quick Export' window as hosted on the Cut, Edit and Color pages? The user selected analysis process generating specific 'QC markers' on the active timeline (within the targeted range) that you can then navigate and address as necessary.

Or maybe adding a specific QC tab to the already existing Index panel (across all hosted pages)? From the Index panel's QC tab, the user could select the specific options they want/need to check for, and then trigger the targeted analysis to generate an index of categorised QC flags indicating any problems/potential problems eg Info, Warning, Error etc

Or maybe, like the Fairlight page's Loudness History plot, this is something that could be optionally monitored / analysed in real time? ie when enabled the QC flag index would self populate, updating in real time during playback.

Just thinking out loud, so to speak.

+1

and viewtopic.php?f=33&t=198780

I grade with Nobe Omniscope, leave it's Qc window open always
and when near finished turn on Drastic4k scopes and play the show again with it's Qc page logging errors
then i run QCscan anylsis on an interm Prores a day or two before sending to real QC
pretty bullet proof, but having QC inside the software would make for a much cleaner / faster workflow

should note Lightworks bought QCscan a few years ago, and they now have the basic QCscan inside their edit software, it can be done