dlflannery
February 11th, 2008, 08:59 AM
I realize this is not entirely a new question and I am aware of previous VRD staff posts (this one (http://www.videoredo.net/msgBoard/showpost.php?p=20783&postcount=34)and this one (http://www.videoredo.net/msgBoard/showpost.php?p=20790&postcount=2)) that are relevant, although more than a year old.
Starting with a TiVo file and considering the following processing options targeting an adscan/edited mpeg2 result:
1. Adscan/Edit
2. QSF --> Adscan/Edit
3. Adscan/Edit --> QSF
Questions:
1. Is one generally superior in terms of correcting/avoiding audio sync or any other defects? (i.e., averaged over a wide variety of TiVo input files.)
2. Is one better for some types of defects while another is better for another type?
3. Can there be cases where 2) or 3) are better than 1) (i.e. where including QSF makes an improvement over just adscan/edit/save )?
If sequence 3) can sometimes be best, I will have to consider modifying TVAP (see signature) since that is the one sequence it cannot do!
Thanks
Starting with a TiVo file and considering the following processing options targeting an adscan/edited mpeg2 result:
1. Adscan/Edit
2. QSF --> Adscan/Edit
3. Adscan/Edit --> QSF
Questions:
1. Is one generally superior in terms of correcting/avoiding audio sync or any other defects? (i.e., averaged over a wide variety of TiVo input files.)
2. Is one better for some types of defects while another is better for another type?
3. Can there be cases where 2) or 3) are better than 1) (i.e. where including QSF makes an improvement over just adscan/edit/save )?
If sequence 3) can sometimes be best, I will have to consider modifying TVAP (see signature) since that is the one sequence it cannot do!
Thanks