Any Field Recorder that supports MXF or AAF in the file cr..

On 29 Dez., 23:55, AC wrote:
> On Dec 30, 5:47 am, jojohamps wrote:
>
> > Dear group,
>
> > could you name me any Field Recorder that supports these standards, or
> > going to support?
>
> > Thank you!
> > Johannes
>
> Johannes,
>
> Interesting question you have here, but are there any real advantages
> for AAF and MXF in the Visual Post workflow? Currently HHB does
> Protools Session, Fostex does ALE (Avid Log Exchange) and most will do
> iXML data.
>
> Alan

Oh for me its quite interesting that hbb and fostex support such
special formats...It seems for me that mfx with its total compliant
aaf part is becoming the next big thing....I haven't read really new
stuff about ixml, in the groups, magzines or anywhere else, is it
because it is working so well?
MXF or AAF have much more power behind themselves and they are true
standards, aren't they?
Johannes
 >> Stay informed about: Any Field Recorder that supports MXF or AAF in the file cr.. 

On 30 Dez., 08:41, ¤R¼..-¦°€•*¦*b€rt°• <~¤..-¦-•¦-y¤€-•~¤¤¦*@le•
€s.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:41:09 -0800 (PST), jojohamps
> schreef:
>
> >MXF or AAF have much more power behind themselves and they are true
> >standards, aren't they?
> >Johannes
>
> Speaking of standards, how about .wav ?
>
> --
>
> http://tralalala.xs4all.nl

AAF wouldn´t make sense for a field recorder since it´s a kind of EDL.
A field recorder just generates time stamped sound files why would
someone want those files in an AAF sequence?

MXF woldn´t make sense either because it´s just another container
format that inessence carries a BWAV file anyway. Also: So far the
only programs that can play back MXF audio directly are ProTools and
AVID while the avid would convert them to it´s own format what ever is
set in th AVID´s settings.

Either format wouldn´t really gain anything over BWAVs with iXML.

Frank.
 >> Stay informed about: Any Field Recorder that supports MXF or AAF in the file cr.. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Any Field Recorder that supports MXF or AAF in the file cr.. 

I hope that this doesn't come to pass. The situation with digital
formats and delivery is complex enough already.

Philip Perkins
 >> Stay informed about: Any Field Recorder that supports MXF or AAF in the file cr.. 

On Dec 30, 8:41 am, jojohamps wrote:

> MXF or AAF have much more power behind themselves and they are true
> standards, aren't they?
> Johannes

I don't think post will want an EDL format or a sequence like OMF, AAF
and MXF. Unlike digital dubber from Akai and Tascam which handle OMF
style kind of files, Field recorder generate metadata which will be
embedded into the BWF data chunk. A sequence file will not really help
post unless they are being use in the dub stage or sound editorial for
session transfer.

Can you imagine, if we recorded 12 hours of stuff on set and translate
that into a sequence file? The recordist roll at 8am and last file
generated at 8pm, we have a 12 hours timeline. No good.

Field Recorder needs to generate log not sequence. ALE is sweet
enough.

Alan
 >> Stay informed about: Any Field Recorder that supports MXF or AAF in the file cr.. 

On Dec 31, 3:46 am, ¤R¼..-¦°€•*¦*b€rt°• <~¤..-¦-•¦-y¤€-•~¤¤¦*@le•
€s.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:23:25 -0800 (PST), wildt®ax
> schreef:
>
> Maybe he can ask the DP, if he could deliver in Quicktime HD, instead
> of 35 MM.
>
> R

Maybe we should ask post if they want an Avid or FCP sequence with all
audio sync up and with whatever codec they prefer. lol

Alan
 >> Stay informed about: Any Field Recorder that supports MXF or AAF in the file cr.. 

30-12-2008 12:23 "wildt®ax" :

> MXF woldn´t make sense either

It could make sense, for use with Avids. It would eliminate the need to
import. You could simply copy the files into the MediaFiles folder, perhaps
using an AAF to get multitrack master clips with additional metadata.

Not much of an advantage though, and limited to only one NLE manufacturer
(altough MXF is a more widely used standard).
 >> Stay informed about: Any Field Recorder that supports MXF or AAF in the file cr.. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Any Field Recorder that supports MXF or AAF in the file cr.. 

On 30 Dez., 20:50, wrote:
> On Dec 31, 3:46 am, ¤R¼..-¦°€•*¦*b€rt°• <~¤..-¦-•¦-y¤€-•~¤¤¦*@le•
>
> €s.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:23:25 -0800 (PST), wildt®ax
> > schreef:
>
> > Maybe he can ask the DP, if he could deliver in Quicktime HD, instead
> > of 35 MM.
>
> > R
>
> Maybe we should ask post if they want an Avid or FCP sequence with all
> audio sync up and with whatever codec they prefer. lol
>
> Alan

Indeed. The main cost and time burner in audio-post today is the
conforming process. The work generated by films cut with mono-guide-
tracks or sound from telecine downmixes. The work can be a breeze if
all is done correctl from shoot to audio-post but can also be
extremely tedious and expensive only because one tiny aspect wasn´t
set correctly or a recordist forgot to flip one single switch.
I have no idea how MXF/AAF could improve anything since even with iXML
being supported by all of the machines it is still the human error
rate that generates or saves the cost in post.
MXF is just a different container for a BWAV file and in essence
contains that same data that the iXML meta-data does so in terms of
meta-info there wouldn´t be any difference other than the fact that
only 2 out of a universe of audio software could read an MXF file.
So I don´t really see why on earth MXF would become "the next big
thing". Even between NLEs and DAW using AAF/MXF as exchange format
still is very cumbersome and with some systems either not possible or
doesn´t work correctly or data is missing.

frank.
 >> Stay informed about: Any Field Recorder that supports MXF or AAF in the file cr..