Myth and Reality of Auto-Correction in File-Based Workflows

File-based workflows are ubiquitous in the broadcast world today. The file-based flow has brought enormous efficiencies and made adoption of emerging technologies like Adaptive Bit-Rate (ABR), 4K, UHD, and beyond possible. Multiple delivery formats are now possible because of file-based workflows and its integration with traditional IT infrastructure. However, the adoption of file-based flows comes with its own set of challenges. The first one, of course, is - does my file have the right media, in the right format and without artifacts?

Auto QC is now an essential component in file based workflows and is widely used these days. This has triggered the need for a QC solution, which can auto-correct errors in order to save time and resources. It is based on the thought that if a tool can detect error, it can also potentially fix it. But auto-correction in the file-based world is a more complex process and should not be trivialized. A QC tool having in-built support for auto correction including transcoding has issues of its own. Transcoding and re-wrapping processes if not managed properly, can introduce fresh issues into corrected content leading to further degradation of content quality. Hence, it is not possible to fully rely on such auto correction flows. A more practical approach would be to reuse facility specific tools for encoding needs during the correction process. In such scenarios, the role of a QC tool is limited to baseband and metadata correction or setting the transcoder correctly. A smarter in-place correction strategy can also be adopted in case of uncompressed content. Having said this, there is still a set of issues, which requires manual intervention and thus cannot be auto corrected. Hence, the scope of QC tools for auto correction is limited but feasible for a set of issues provided we use the right tools, workflows and techniques.

Let us know what you think…

Log-in or Register for free to post comments…

You might also like...

Why We Need OTT Monitoring – Part 2

In the previous article in this series, “Understanding OTT Systems”, we looked at the fundamental differences between unidirectional broadcast and OTT delivery. We investigated the complexity of OTT delivery and observed an insight into the multi-service provider silo culture. In thi…

Data Recording and Transmission: RF

In part 8 of the series “Data transmission and storage”, consultant John Watkinson looks at some of the intricacies of RF transmission.

Understanding OTT Systems - Part 1

In this series of articles, we investigate OTT distribution networks to better understand the unique challenges ahead and how to solve them. Unlike traditional RF broadcast and cable platform delivery networks, OTT comprises of many systems operated by different companies…

eBook:  Preparing for Broadcast IP Infrastructures

This FREE to download eBook is likely to become the reference document you keep close at hand, because, if, like many, you are tasked with Preparing for Broadcast IP Infrastructures. Supported by Riedel, this near 100 pages of in-depth guides, illustrations,…

Streaming Competes with Broadcast at Super Bowl LIII

Thanks to improved streaming technology, a lot more fans are going to be watching the Super Bowl on mobile screens.