-
MXF XML Standards Still Evolving
Members of standards groups are feverishly working to get xml-mxf worked out. By NAB it probably will be clearer when the hardware and software folk can start implementing it. I have speculated previously that without an xml version of MXF it might be difficult for Adobe to support MXF. Adobe hasn’t commented on this. I wouldn’t expect them to until it’s a done deal. MXF or something very similar is needed for video to become more “IT friendly”.
The True Value of MXF
While the value of having PP play mxf files is apparent for the folks that are using an mxf format, there’s an even more compelling reason for it to be used in an NLE. MXF files contain more metadata.Right now, just about all the metadata about a dv file or video file is contained externally from the file itself. Adobe Bridge is an example of an application that can be used for metadata. But, if you send a clip over to another station that doesn’t have access to bridge application, then you don’t get the metadata —because in video file formats there isn’t space allocated for it.
Anyone who is trying to track there video assets over the long run will be pulling video assets from a variety of locations. Without the metadata being contained in the file, it becomes a challenge to keep every station aware of exactly what’s in each clip.
IMHO, the value of Bridge will be just about worthless for video oriented workgroups and enterprises without the metadata being wrapped into the video file itself.
Hence the true value of MXF is the launch of a new series of functions related to asset management. Quick example.
Now, when you open an PP job on a new system you have to point it to the clips sources. If you don’t know where they are, you have to hunt them down, or redigitize.
With MXF(where each clip has a unique media ID) the file metadata can be searched. Bridge could have a simple function that reads every header in the files available, and ID’s the ones that are needed for a particular pp project automatically. This can be done by a simple look up table to track the locations of every clip.
What Adobe Needs to Do Now
But back to today. With 2.0, the groundwork for better asset management has been laid with Bridge. In order for bridge to be a more effective tool, two things are needed.1. Bridge’s metadata information isn’t the same information that you enter in PP’s internal shot metadata fields. You can enter a shot description in the PP bins, and it doesn’t show up in Bridge and vice versa. So the first thing that’s needed is for Adobe to get their act together and harmonize all the metadata fields between bridge and PP as well as its other apps.
2. There needs to be metadata that travels with the media. That’s what MXF and AAF are all about.
Timing is the cricital issue here. If Adobe postpones either one or both of these needs beyond the next release, IMHO it will not be a player for the enterprise and workgroup markets.
That being said– Not everyone needs this functionality. Integration with IT is where it is all going. Adobe knows this. That’s why it puzzles me why this aspect of their products has taken a back seat.
-
4 Replies
-
I already hit on some of the Adobe folks that they need to have Bridge mine the data already looged for clips in Premiere….
Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX
See My Current Reel
visit the combustion exchange ftp
-
Hi Richard…
What about a San Environment?
Is it possible to place the Meta data on the san as opposed to it being local for each client?
I guess they’d need a Bridge “Server” app and then each local box becomes the bridge “client”….
I was already if it was possible to save “Colections” on a San so you could access them from any box…
hmmm…
Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX
See My Current Reel
visit the combustion exchange ftp
-
Richard,
Great little mini-tutorial and analysis of the problem/solutions that Adobe should/must address. I hope everyone reads and understands it. Adobe seems to have the framing in place but a number of the stairs and elevators are missing.
[Richard Milner] “1. Bridge’s metadata information isn’t the same information that you enter in PP’s internal shot metadata fields. You can enter a shot description in the PP bins, and it doesn’t show up in Bridge and vice versa. So the first thing that’s needed is for Adobe to get their act together and harmonize all the metadata fields between bridge and PP as well as its other apps.
2. There needs to be metadata that travels with the media. That’s what MXF and AAF are all about.
Timing is the cricital issue here. If Adobe postpones either one or both of these needs beyond the next release, IMHO it will not be a player for the enterprise and workgroup markets.”
In a very nice nutshell, yes.
[Richard Milner] “Integration with IT is where it is all going. Adobe knows this. That’s why it puzzles me why this aspect of their products has taken a back seat.”
I don’t think that “back seat,” is the right characterization. Maybe, temporarily postponed, or on the back burner for a time? You sorta answered your own question in the first paragraph:
[Richard Milner] “Members of standards groups are feverishly working to get xml-mxf worked out. By NAB it probably will be clearer when the hardware and software folk can start implementing it.”
XML-MXF wasn’t ready for implementation yet and what is more easily understandable by the NLE purchasing public is the Integration of the Production Studio applications. That had to take priority for version2, because it established the Adobe apps as the tops in this category of craft editing, making their competitors work to match it. Neither Avid nor particularly FCP have the XML-MXF thingy worked out entirely, so Adobe could postpone it for a time. Like you I hope that this postponement is over, and that it will take months rather than years to start addressing this significantly. We both know that Matrox is working feverishly on this for Axio and this could result in fairly rapid 3rd party enhancements or partner licensing to address this need. As you say, not everyone needs it (but it won’t be too long before everyone wants it.)
Ron Shook
-
I think a lot of people want Premiere Pro 2.0 to be patched to 2.1 or 2.01 and include P2 support for the Panasonic HVX200 and the upcoming Varicam that uses P2. Premiere is an awesome tool, but without MXF support, it will be in trouble.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up