|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 18th, 2009, 05:07 PM | #16 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 1,104
|
Quote:
|
|
September 18th, 2009, 05:21 PM | #17 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 1,104
|
I can understand their thinking in doing it this way. It's the best way from their point of view to insure the best quality. A replication company sees all kinds of stuff, some of it pretty badly encoded. Unfortunately, it's that type of customer who is the first to blame the replication company when the video quality on the finished DVD is bad. A replication company can also accept 100% customer created masters from customers who have the ability to produce the master. They don't have to worry about the video quality in that case because they are simply making digital copies that are the same as the customer supplied master. It's when they are encoding and authoring that there is a potential for finger pointed when the video quality isn't good.
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|