Method to ensure broadcast safe?

I have seen a method of using the vectorscope to check for saturation that is outside legal parameters for broadcast, but what about policing luminance values? What is the method to ensure these are safe?

There also appear to be different methods for ensuring output is broadcast safe, including using a broadcast safe LUT. What is a goof method?

Resolve is excellent at clamping out of range values on export by default, there would have to be something seriously wacky going on in your image for it to fail (though certain resize operations could cause super-whites/sub blacks in FCP7 and Premiere, not sure how much that applies to Resolve).

Also, the vectorscope isn't very good for determining what would fail, because it depends heavily on where that saturation is in the luminance range (bright highlights and deep shadows being less tolerant). If your image is so saturated that you have colours approaching the r/g/b/c/m/y boxes then it's merely a prompt to double check whether you really want things to be that colourful, but not for broadcast safe purposes.

Am I correct in understanding that for broadcast safe, you use Davinci to clamp saturation levels to make them legal by using the Make Broadcast Safe check box in Project Settings, but that for luminance values, in Davinci Resolve these are automatically cut off at 100% IRE (1023 on Waveform monitor) and therefore do not need any separate operation and thus don't have to be considered?

no, the 'make broadcast safe' checkbox is not needed at all in my experience. Just export and it will be fine, with the possible caveats mentioned previously.

Could someone answer me regarding my question about luminance? Thanks.

yes, everything gets clamped, as per the first sentence of my first post on this thread.

gamut excursions are not protected by the "broadcast safe" clamp, only luma

the internal vectorscope will not show you gamut excursions

my answer is to use external scopes with real time error logging, and set the values to slightly tighter than deliverables spec, then i can use the warnings to adjust sat in shadows/highlights while gradeing

i also turn on the display broadcast safe exceptions" in the view menu

between them i've got a pretty decent track record for passing QC, and my clients see what they are really signing off on.

If you stay within 0-1023 in parade for each channel then exported file will be always gamut safe as Resolve works in RGB and it's mathematically impossible to produce bad YUV result in such a case. Don't tick "Retain super white/blacks" for such an exports.
Gamut problems mainly appear when you do processing in YUV, which is not the case for Resolve.
With "Retain super white/blacks" unticked Y in exported file should always be within limits.
Any possible overshoots can appear due to particular codec compression (mainly on high contrast areas), but this is why EBU R103 allows for some margins, so there is no need to worry about them.

Broadcast Safe option in Resolve is based on outdated/analog based measurement of IRE and it's really not what should be used these days. No idea why BM still keeps it there. All broadcasters which I know check files against EBU R103 spec, which has nothin to do with IRE
If you want to automatically soft clip (instead of hard clip, which is harsh) your final master then generate of Soft Clip LUT and apply it on export.

If you want to automatically soft clip (instead of hard clip, which is harsh) your final master then generate of Soft Clip LUT and apply it on export.

I find those are pretty noticeable and will change the pictures in ways we didn't want or intend. As we say in America, you're "throwing the baby out with the bath," affecting everything when you just need to change a little piece of the project.

I just go through shot by shot, look at two Scopebox Channel Plots, and that'll tell me very quickly when we're on the edge of legality in chroma. (And my thanks to Robbie Carman and Jason Bowdach for getting me on the Scopebox train a few years ago.) Scopebox is a very powerful tool, the next best thing to dropping $10K for a real Leader, Tektronix, or Videotek external scope.

yes, everything gets clamped, as per the first sentence of my first post on this thread.

Hello Tom,

Indeed you did. Thank you. I probably should have been more specific in asking about how this relates to the Waveform monitor values, i.e. 0-1023, which I can now see get clamped by default.

I appreciate your helpful reply.

If you want to automatically soft clip (instead of hard clip, which is harsh) your final master then generate of Soft Clip LUT and apply it on export.

I find those are pretty noticeable and will change the pictures in ways we didn't want or intend. As we say in America, you're "throwing the baby out with the bath," affecting everything when you just need to change a little piece of the project.

I just go through shot by shot, look at two Scopebox Channel Plots, and that'll tell me very quickly when we're on the edge of legality in gamma. (And my thanks to Robbie Carman and Jason Bowdach for getting me on the Scopebox train a few years ago.) Scopebox is a very powerful tool, the next best thing to dropping $10K for a real Leader, Tektronix, or Videotek external scope.

Yes, but there is no escape from it. At least it's soft clip, not harsh clip if you leave it to clip for export itself.
Your choice- manual fix (also visible) which takes time or automatic.
Any other tool will do the same and it will be always visible to some point.

Yes, but there is no escape from it. At least it's soft clip, not harsh clip if you leave it to clip for export itself. Your choice- manual fix (also visible) which takes time or automatic. Any other tool will do the same and it will be always visible to some point.

We shipped 29 feature films this year, and not a single one came back for gamut or level issues. (A couple had some audio dropouts and one had a title problem, but nothing to do with video levels at all.) I've done this at other companies as well. I think soft-clipping everything is excessive. It's like using a sledgehammer when what you need is a scalpel.

When you create those "1st masters" there is budget and time for proper handling. Later when you create 3rd, 8th version of the master for broadcast no one will pay for proper human assisted adjustments. It's all automated done in software or hardware box. If master is done well in the 1st place (in app like Resolve) you actually will be fine for gamut and no adjustments are needed later (until someone doesn't fuxxx up master).

I think soft-clipping everything is excessive. It's like using a sledgehammer when what you need is a scalpel.

I agree with Marc here. It's not good practice to just add some sort of soft clip, gamut limiter, legalizer on everything. I am not saying that it's necessarily bad using any of these tools to solve a specific problem on a shot, but you should review this on a case by case basis.

In my experience it's usually not a big issue. If you've been keeping an eye on you levels on a scope during the color correction session, it's rare to have a problem. I've delivered a bunch of features and TV series to distributors with very meticulous QC, and can't remember received anything back because of levels/gamut errors.

You also have to define which "broadcast safe" we're talking about. The analog RF transmission broadcast safe sort of doesn't apply any longer. At least in the U.S. I haven't seen that requirement in network spec sheets for a while.

The RF analog signal had a potential for wrecking the signal if the levels exceeded certain limits. DTV has no such problem. The "safe" limits and gamut considerations don't really affect the integrity of the signal. They are there just to ensure that the end viewer kind of sees the same color that you see on your end.

The new version of Resolve has an option of including superblacks and superwhites in the delivery files. I haven't played with that yet. I suspect that using this feature incorrectly could cause your luma to exceed the 700 mV limit.

I don't think the older versions of Resolve can output values outside of 0.0 - 1.0 range. But I think you could end up with a whiter-than-white video in some situations. For example, using data levels in a codec that's generally used with video levels would produce a change in contrast and values that are outside of 0 - 700 mV range expressed using an analog scale. Though, excessive peaks would be the least of the problems in such situation.

Everything what is broadcast has EBU R103 limiter on it (in Europe at least, but same applies in USA I assume). If you made good master then limiter won't touch "good" parts, otherwise it will be soft clipped. Many masters are over processed massively before people at home see them. Some are massively fuxxx up compared to their original state. It's reality. I put through different processes sometimes 100 masters a week, so seen everything possible, yet still sometimes get surprised

You also have to define which "broadcast safe" we're talking about. The analog RF transmission broadcast safe sort of doesn't apply any longer. At least in the U.S. I haven't seen that requirement in network spec sheets for a while.

It's so outdated.
Like about everything in post industry
All what you should care these days is EBU R103 as this is what most (at least per my knowledge) broadcasters use.

you only need to care about what the facility creating the QC report cares about

and in many cases they do care about analog RF transmission broadcast safe, useless and outdated as it is, if they will not say PASS until those standards are met... full stop

it's mainly about delivering to international markets that may still demand analog RF transmission broadcast safe, and the QC house protecting the distb ablity to sell into those markets without seeing a sub master getting kicked back more than a year after delivery

like Marc i can't remember last time i had a kickback for levels/gamut, i don't clamp my masters wholesale, but i do watch my scopes and the RT error logging is absoultly golden, it's the one big thing the Scope Box is missing, hope they get that in their next update.

No idea which international broadcaster requires analog checks. Maybe some less developed countries?

Whole Europe operates based on EBU R103 these days. I deliver tons of masters every day to whole world (70% Europe) and never seen such a requirement. Even those going to Eastern countries never needed analog checks.

Resolve won't produce "bad" master (if super white/blacks are not ticked), so you don't even need to care about it. It operates in RGB and every RGB combination will be on export converted to valid YUV. It's opposite which is not true.

RT error logging is absolutely golden, it's the one big thing the Scope Box is missing, hope they get that in their next update.

QC correction above.

I used to rely on the Leader/Wavetek "IRIS" pattern that flagged OOG excursions -- which occurred surprisingly often even with Resolve limiting active. The most rigorous, out-of-date criteria still involve some of the old RS-170A composite baseband video gamut area -- most notably Luminance + Chrominance errors that would occur if someone were crazy enough to do an actual NTSC/PAL - like conversion for what would be the ancient and now defunct method of terrestrial broadcast. Because it used-to-be possible to generate wildly out-of-limit excursions with combinations of Y, CbCr and Y,IQ when there was no digitization going on. Now, when you run out of numbers, you run out of numbers, at least inside the component domain. It is still true, though, that you can have issues with values that cannot be defined in all encoding schemes. Like sometimes negative values that cannot exist in RGB. It depends on the conversion matrix.

It has been about 6 years since I got mixed results from various international exports from different receivers -- some were fine with the product, some weren't -- and it wasn't always about levels and occasionally it was about frame rate conversion (method of deployment, and sometimes because the QC assumed it was a conversion from 29.97, which it was NOT). Plus I do see some ridiculously out-moded Deliverable pdf documents that were obviously compiled by a low-level-functionary pulling text from a grab-bag of websites. Really, who worries about breezeway blanking anymore? Seriously, like a time warp from 1934. As often as not, the receiver really doesn't have a clue about these criteria and are completely reliant on (at the mercy of) the QC company -- who obviously have to CYA to keep their rep. So flag everything. Its been almost 20 years, but had a PAL movie kicked back because there was a "Location" super near the beginning of the show that might confuse viewers that it might be part of the opening credits. So, I haven't always had the highest regard for those poor maladjusted individuals who got stuck in the closet watching those things under immediate threat of dismissal for missing anything, although I get the sentiment.

jPO, CSI

When you create those "1st masters" there is budget and time for proper handling. Later when you create 3rd, 8th version of the master for broadcast no one will pay for proper human assisted adjustments. It's all automated done in software or hardware box. If master is done well in the 1st place (in app like Resolve) you actually will be fine for gamut and no adjustments are needed later (until someone doesn't fuxxx up master).

Exactly. We don't do any additional clipping once that first master is done. We trust that the levels are going to stay the same -- which they do for the most part.

like Marc i can't remember last time i had a kickback for levels/gamut, i don't clamp my masters wholesale, but i do watch my scopes and the RT error logging is absoultely golden, it's the one big thing the Scope Box is missing, hope they get that in their next update.

Yeah, I've told the Scopebox people before that if they added a realtime error-logging capability, that alone would be worth double the price of what they're charging now ($99). It'd be great to have a PDF with timecodes and specific errors in level, gamut, and audio LUFS levels, so you could just make isolated fixes here and there as needed.

I think most of the old-timers around here (and I would include Dermot, Joe, Walter, and a few others on that list) would agree that we can generally just glance at a calibrated Rec709 display and go, "oh, no, I bet that's out of gamut," and it generally is. If there's even the slightest doubt that we're on the edge, I'll drop in a Gamut Mapping node at the end just to get it under control, but otherwise I'll let it go.

I have now watched two tutorials that set Video-Video/Data level to Video (64-940) in DELIVER-Render Settings to ensure output is broadcast safe in regard to luma levels for Rec 709 (HD broadcast). These levels are thus further within the 0-1023 range of the Waveform monitor.

Another tutorial uses a manual method to also pull the levels away from these extremes of 0 - 1023.

So, can someone confirm that it is therefore not broadcast safe to output to Rec 709 if highlights and shadows are at these extreme values (0 - 1023) in the Waveform monitor? These tutorials would seem to indicate this is so.

Legal chroma (saturation) values are, it seems, addressed separately using the vectorscope safe guide by drawing an imaginary line between the small boxes and manually reducing saturation, as a manual method.

Legal chroma (saturation) values are, it seems, addressed separately using the vectorscope safe guide by drawing an imaginary line between the small boxes and manually reducing saturation, as a manual method.

not really, the internal vectorscope in Resolve shows you the chroma at a single slice

think of an egg upright with pointed ends
the top is white, the bottom is black
the vectorscope shows you a slice through the center
most rejections are for gamut excursions in the highlights and shadows, not the center
the internal vectorscope will not help you there
most external scopes will in one way or another
error logging absoultly will, and tell you what color channel is out of gamut, the timecode and duration

I have now watched two tutorials that set Video-Video/Data level to Video (64-940) in DELIVER-Render Settings to ensure output is broadcast safe in regard to luma levels for Rec 709 (HD broadcast). These levels are thus further within the 0-1023 range of the Waveform monitor.

Another tutorial uses a manual method to also pull the levels away from these extremes of 0 - 1023.

So, can someone confirm that it is therefore not broadcast safe to output to Rec 709 if highlights and shadows are at these extreme values (0 - 1023) in the Waveform monitor? These tutorials would seem to indicate this is so.

Legal chroma (saturation) values are, it seems, addressed separately using the vectorscope safe guide by drawing an imaginary line between the small boxes and manually reducing saturation, as a manual method.

much of this is addressed in my previous posts, please re-read them. As for video versus data levels, this setting has nothing to do with making sure something is broadcast safe, just leave it on auto and it will set levels according to the delivery codec.

In short, just output the thing, it will be fine unless you've done something crazy. It will be clamped. Automatically. That's it.

I have now watched two tutorials that set Video-Video/Data level to Video (64-940) in DELIVER-Render Settings to ensure output is broadcast safe in regard to luma levels for Rec 709 (HD broadcast). These levels are thus further within the 0-1023 range of the Waveform monitor.

Another tutorial uses a manual method to also pull the levels away from these extremes of 0 - 1023.

So, can someone confirm that it is therefore not broadcast safe to output to Rec 709 if highlights and shadows are at these extreme values (0 - 1023) in the Waveform monitor? These tutorials would seem to indicate this is so.

Legal chroma (saturation) values are, it seems, addressed separately using the vectorscope safe guide by drawing an imaginary line between the small boxes and manually reducing saturation, as a manual method.

Resolve operates in RGB, so you do everything to 0-1023 as this gets (at least by default) scaled to 64-940 for every YUV based codec during export. If you try to have black at 64 then on exported YUV file this will be raised black, not proper one (64 or 16 for 8bit).
If you want to have proper black in YUV final file you need to have it at 0 in Resolve scopes.
If Resolve is set to YUV levels on export it should be simply impossible to produce bad YUV file. You can have some codecs overshoots going outside legal levels, but this is "normal" and you can't really avoid it (with lossy codecs). Any broadcaster with proper standards allow for it as they mainly based on EBU R103 spec, which takes all those real life "problems" into account.

Exporting with super black/white is a special case for YUV codecs and you rather want to avoid it in general and specially for broadcast delivery.

I have now watched two tutorials that set Video-Video/Data level to Video (64-940) in DELIVER-Render Settings to ensure output is broadcast safe in regard to luma levels for Rec 709 (HD broadcast). These levels are thus further within the 0-1023 range of the Waveform monitor.

0..1023 represents the visible range from black to white. Only on the destination does Resolve determine if this range needs to be translated to full or limited range when encoded.

However, setting the destination to video range does not determine if the output is broadcast safe.

You can have some codecs overshoots going outside legal levels, but this is "normal" and you can't really avoid it (with lossy codecs). Any broadcaster with proper standards allow for it as they mainly based on EBU R103 spec, which takes all those real life "problems" into account.

I would not say that.

@Tom Early:

"much of this is addressed in my previous posts, please re-read them. As for video versus data levels, this setting has nothing to do with making sure something is broadcast safe, just leave it on auto and it will set levels according to the delivery codec.

In short, just output the thing, it will be fine unless you've done something crazy. It will be clamped. Automatically. That's it."


Thanks for your reply Tom and your time in offering assistance. I sincerely appreciate it. But nowhere in the replies do I see the specific questions in my last post specifically addressed, let alone properly explained. In fact they go off on a tangent about something distinctly different - gamut levels. I asked about ensuring legal luma and saturation levels.

Since I have seen two independent tutorials (one of them from a professional colourist course) clamp these broadcast safe values exactly in the manner I have described, I would like further confirmation with more details before I dismiss them as incorrect. I can not find much in the Davinci manual on this.

The Video-Video/Data level to Video (64-940) in DELIVER-Render Settings technique is recommended in one tutorial of the Ripple Training course for setting broadcast safe levels. A link to some reputable documentation on this auto clamping you mention if luma levels reach 0 or 1023 would be helpful.

You can have some codecs overshoots going outside legal levels, but this is "normal" and you can't really avoid it (with lossy codecs). Any broadcaster with proper standards allow for it as they mainly based on EBU R103 spec, which takes all those real life "problems" into account.

I would not say that.

Why?
You will get some pixels outside legal levels even with intermediate codecs, but this is why EBU R103 has margins to cover those situations. If you torture some file with many conversion (and heavily compressed codecs) then you may get problems, but this is very unlikely to happen for 1st export in Resolve to good quality master.

@Tom Early:

"much of this is addressed in my previous posts, please re-read them. As for video versus data levels, this setting has nothing to do with making sure something is broadcast safe, just leave it on auto and it will set levels according to the delivery codec.

In short, just output the thing, it will be fine unless you've done something crazy. It will be clamped. Automatically. That's it."


Thanks for your reply Tom and your time in offering assistance. I sincerely appreciate it. But nowhere in the replies do I see the specific questions in my last post specifically addressed, let alone properly explained. In fact they go off on a tangent about something distinctly different - gamut levels. I asked about ensuring legal luma and saturation levels.

Since I have seen two independent tutorials (one of them from a professional colourist course) clamp these broadcast safe values exactly in the manner I have described, I would like further confirmation with more details before I dismiss them as incorrect. I can not find much in the Davinci manual on this.

The Video-Video/Data level to Video (64-940) in DELIVER-Render Settings technique is recommended in one tutorial of the Ripple Training course for setting broadcast safe levels. A link to some reputable documentation on this auto clamping you mention if luma levels reach 0 or 1023 would be helpful.

If any professional tutorial asks you to stay at 64-940 levels in Resolve scopes to get legal YUV files export you may throw it to the bin

Forget about 64-940 in scopes- has not much of a meaning in RGB Resolve scopes. Leave delivery page on default (or specifically set Video levels) and you will be fine for any project (stay away from super black/white setting as well). You're making it more complicated than it really is.
It's mathematically impossible to get luma out of safe with Resolve export (if you have no super black/whites ticked) and set levels to Video. We are talking digital of course, not requirements for old analog transmission.

@Andrew Kolakowski

Hello Andrew,

When you say leave delivery page on default, do you mean have Data Levels set to Auto, rather than Video? I think that is the default? In the tutorials I mentioned, this was manually set to Video (64-940) — this was in Resolve 11 though I see in v.12.5 (my version) this option is listed instead simply as Video (presumably the same cutoff levels as Video (64-940)).

Why the options for Auto and Video? Its a bit confusing. Should I opt for Video mode to be sure?

If I can be assured Auto mode will impose the correct broadcast safe luma levels for Rec 709, even if my waveform scope shows luma levels at 0 and 1023, then that would cure my concern.

You can always set it to Video, but so far what I have seen Auto behaves fine.
Export file with black at 0 and 64 to few codecs with Auto and Video and check in different NLE scopes, eg. Edius which shows you YUV levels. Best test

@Andrew Kolakowski

Thanks, that is helpful to know.

The Video-Video/Data level to Video (64-940) in DELIVER-Render Settings technique is recommended in one tutorial of the Ripple Training course for setting broadcast safe levels

As for video versus data levels, this setting has nothing to do with making sure something is broadcast safe, just leave it on auto and it will set levels according to the delivery codec.

Auto is the default setting. As I said, Resolve will then either apply video levels or data levels depending on what codec you export out as.

On import, Resolve automatically assigns video or data levels to files depending on their codec. For example, ProRes is a video-level codec, DPX is a data level codec. Everything will be processed at data level by Resolve, and so any ProRes clips will be scaled to full range for processing.

Likewise on export, if you select ProRes as your codec, Resolve will scale back to video level, since it is a video level codec, having already clamped everything outside the 0-1023 range. This will be legal not just for Rec709 but any colour space you could choose, because anything illegal has been discarded (in 99.9999% of cases). And because each of the RGB channels has been clamped, that means that both luminance and chrominance (or saturation, if you prefer) will be legalised.

As stated, it IS still technically possible to cause illegal levels in Resolve on export, (aside from checking the 'retain sub blacks and super whites' checkbox), though you'd have to be trying *really* hard to make something fail (and you'd need a decent set of external scopes to tell you that there are illegal levels, sadly not the BlackMagic made ones). If you see a straight line on the outer border of the vectorscope, this is an indicator that you should dial saturation back - not because it will be illegal as even now it will probably be fine - it's just that it will look like garbage (though I do not currently have access to a Tektronix scope so I cannot test for tolerances, I am just speaking from experience).

You can manually set things to video for your own peace of mind if you like, but there is literally no difference between that and the auto setting for video level codecs. They would be identical. I wouldn't recommend doing so because one day you may accidentally export a data level codec as video level. It's not worth it.

The reason that you can choose at all is so that if someone has supplied something incorrectly i.e. at the wrong levels (probably coming from Avid, seems a lot of people using Avid know nothing about correct export settings and there are even tutorials on professional sites that give incorrect instructions which will destroy your image levels), then you are able to fix them.

@ Tom Early

Thanks for the info Tom.

If any professional tutorial asks you to stay at 64-940 levels in Resolve scopes to get legal YUV files export you may throw it to the bin

Exactly!

i can set Resolve to use a clamping LUT on output, and still easly generate ileagal values, not in luma, but super easy to do gamut excursions... ie; police lights, bar/disco scenes etc etc.. even a pratical lamp in the back of a bakery in scene of the feature i'm gradeing now had to be controled

@ tom
ultrascope does have accurate error logging, i have the ultrascope set to slightly tighter than EBU so it flags errors before they fall of the edge of leagality

Ultrascope doesn't support low pass filtering which in most cases should be active (like in Tektronix). Can be so misleading. I would avoid it as a reference tool.

What tool says it's illegal? Do you limit gamut to Rec.709?
Some pixels may end up illegal, but with lossy codecs this is really unavoidable. This is why EBU R103 (and most proper delivery specs) have thresholds.

if someone has supplied something incorrectly i.e. at the wrong levels (probably coming from Avid, seems a lot of people using Avid know nothing about correct export settings

quote from Hansard: Some members: "Hear! Hear!"

Mostly this is about not knowing what the difference is between RGB and YUV / Y'CbCr, &c. Really.

As far as knowing nothing about correct export settings, demonstrably true of the entire Apple Corporation. Exhibit "A" -- the ProRes 444 codec.

jPo, CSI

Ultrascope doesn't support low pass filtering which in most cases should be active (like in Tektronix). Can be so misleading. I would avoid it as a reference tool.

What tool says it's illegal? Do you limit gamut to Rec.709?
Some pixels may end up illegal, but with lossy codecs this is really unavoidable. This is why EBU R103 (and most proper delivery specs) have thresholds.

Andrew,
- i only mentioned using ultrascope for error logging, and that it does well
- you would have to ask Technicolor, Deluxe, Photokem or any other "first class Qc facility as agreed upon before hand" what they use, not my concern what tools they use, my concern is making as clean a QC report as possiable
- i limit gamut to what ever the deliverables contract calls for
- i typicaly deliver a DXP seq to QC, no codec's involved
- as stated above, the only delivery spec that count are the one that must be met by the producer's deliverable contract, my or your opnion of them does not matter- meeting the spec's is the only thing that does

Yes, but if it doesn't low pass filter then it means its logging is not accurate (it will be very over-sensitive). I think it always operates in 4:2:2, so this is even more important as you have chroma subsampling, which creates overshoots. It may be also doing all math in 8bit only precision if I remember well. This is why I said that it can be very misleading. It was tested in one of "top QC houses" and rejected.

yea in this case over sensitive is good, i set mine to slightly tighter than EBU as well as it exists to give me a warning while i have the eyes with sign-off's in the suite

I'm also useing Drastic's 4kHDR scope these days, that also has error logging

Yes, in this case it's a feature

you would have to ask Technicolor, Deluxe, Photokem or any other "first class Qc facility as agreed upon before hand" what they use, not my concern what tools they use, my concern is making as clean a QC report as possible...

They generally use one or more of the automated solutions, plus a human to watch the show all the way through:

VidCheck
http://www.vidcheck.com

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/

This is standard list (I used or at least tested every single tool from this list) and none of these tools can replace operator with knowledge.

I don't think Cerify is sold anymore. Tektronix took over Aurora and now it's their software.
Vidchecker is now Telestream product.

Reality is that most QC places operate based on 90/10 proportions between junior and senior people with knowledge. Technicolor or Deluxe are not an exception. If anything those proportions are even worse at those places. The only good thing about those big places is that they will have (eve if it's in 1 room) good QC monitor etc. Some of smaller QC places can be better, but sometimes they have no budget to buy more expensive hardware. It all depends what you QC for. If you QC for broadcast then big places are not necessarily better at all.

choice of QC is not up to me
it's a list from distb
producer can chose one -or- ask to qualify another, but that's not a likely or common choice

my concerns are more about moire in downscaled 2k/HD, crap VFX and shots that had significant issues in camera and resualting work done on them... trying to find the line inbetween getting faulted for excessive noise, or gettting faulted for excessive noise reduction artifacts for example... those are judgment calls and production and the QC house are always aware of them

they are also aware of scenes with elevated / crushed blacks or similar when it's creative choice

but getting faulted for undocumented levels or gamut excursions is a complete error on my part, so i avoid those

the bank charges get expensive for the producer's, every day the show is held for QC revisions can cost more in bank charges than a day in my suite, getting it right in the first place is a good way to keep clients

At leats you know your budget. I sometimes work with projects which have been sold, before it's known what actually needs to be done!
For example- you are asked to just make DPP masters. Then you find out that your source is actually UHD HDR master which needs to be converted to SDR. Of course pay doesn't include money for any conversion, just typical DPP mastering charges. Real fun