Gustavo Mendes I've been trying DVO REPARO a bit on my current project, and I was full of hope when I started with it. However, I have to say that its usefulness is just not there for me. Not to contradict you, but I found that for my workflow it was neither more direct nor faster than DVO FIX. In fact, it was significantly slower in terms of its processing speed, and thus slowed down my entire process.

I also think it might have increased its usefulness to make DVO REPARO not a separate DVO but to streamline and make it part of DVO FIX as an additional operation mode, like "Clone," perhaps. After all, it's just another way to skin the same cat. The DVOs have become so many these days that a bit of consolidation wouldn't hurt, I feel. There are now so many DVOs that do effectively the same thing, just using different technologies or methodologies under the hood to get the desired result.

So for me, DVO FIX is clearly the tool that is better suited for the way I work. I will admit, however, that this may have to do with my particular workflow. I'm working exclusively on film material and all of it in 4K or higher resolution in a strictly DPX-based pipeline. I can see certain situations where DVO REPARO might have benefits, and I will definitely give it another go when that time comes, but for my day-to-day work, I will stick to DVO FIX. It's become such a good, trusted and universal friend to me… :-)

Gustavo Mendes Yes, that's what I thought. When I will have a case that's really tedious to fix with DVO FIX, I'll definitely try and see how DVO REPARO tackles it by comparison. It may be the perfect companion that way, so to speak. :-)