60 TVBEurope Forum Automated QC
Loudness is an issue that doesn’t want to go away. Is the ongoing debate affecting the production of QC equipment — and if so, how?
Begent: All QC systems now need to be able to check for loudness and correct it in accordance with national broadcast recommendations and regulations — EBU R128 in Europe and ATSC CALM in America. Not having the ability to correct the audio levels automatically is a major drawback, where content that is not within the required specification has to be sent back for editing and re-encode. Devlin: At AmberFin we have seen the debate between ‘I want a transcoder that just fixes the audio’ and ‘I am going to manage the supply chain problem and prevent suppliers from giving me over-quiet and over-loud material’. It’s not so much what the QC tools measure — because this is an international business and all vendors have to support all the
distribution transcode ‘fix the garbage on the way out’ problem. Currently most broadcasters seem to be opting for the latter approach, whereas a long term fix seems to be to ripple the loudness control problem all the way upstream to programme origination, so that the risks of garbage out are reduced if you never put garbage in the pipeline in the first place. Patel: At Emotion Systems,
MC Patel: “We see loudness as being an element of QC, but not one that should necessarily exist within QC equipment”
rules all the time regardless of cost. It’s more about loudness measurement and fix-up being a goods-in/ingest supply chain control problem or a
we see loudness as being an element of QC, but not one that should necessarily exist within QC equipment. This is because the requirement and ideal location in a workflow, for loudness compliance, can vary tremendously. Also, unlike other QC requirements, loudness is ideally ‘fixed’ at the point of discovery, to maximise time and cost efficiency.
It is easy to pick up certain errors — loss of colour, blank frames etc — but what about other possibilities such as wrong language?
Begent: A track with associated metadata can be checked to ensure that the labelled language is correct. However, if there is risk that a different language could be selected on playout then media human intervention is currently the only way to check that the words spoken are in the correct language. Gupta: Speech recognition algorithms have now been developed which can facilitate
www.tvbeurope.com September 2013
Vikas Singhal: “The main objective of ‘Automated QC’ is improved workflow efficiency”
QC solutions to detect wrong language and raise an alarm. Kandell: The recently released
Nexidia QC is the only QC application on the market that provides automated checking of spoken languages. Nexidia QC looks to eliminate some of the last remaining error checks that require human intervention, including language verification, closed caption verification, and video description verification.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84