.mxf Files Mishandled in Premiere CS4 CS5

William Urschel · July 11th, 2010, 05:37 AM

Tim, I have just posted a query about Cineform's HD Link and my faulty memory (and perhaps faulty statements) over on the DVInfo Cineform board, and hopefully, we will be hearing some response from the fellows over there ( maybe even one of the two Davids!) Please go to: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/cineform...ash-files.html

William Urschel · July 12th, 2010, 04:43 AM

Tim - one of the David's has now posted a response at the thread I just linked to above. Please see his comments about mxf which I didn't know and found very interesting! Apparently, for HD Link, nano files cannot be handled yet, but evidently Cineform is giving some kind of fix some attention, though it may be toward the back burner.

Dan Keaton · July 12th, 2010, 06:41 AM

Dear William,

To elaborate on David's post, in the other thread:

All MXF files are not created equal. By its very nature, MXF was designed as an "Extensible" (extentable) format. There is not "Correct" place for every item.

Even if the actual item (piece of data, or metadata), in the MXF header is identical, it may be in another place.

For example, if we have 10 data items, one could put them 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, whereas someone else could put them 1,2,4,7,3,6,10,8,9,5.

Thus, one has to search and find the data in the MXF header.

Also, there are multiple ways (flavors or formats) to record the audio. thus I understand David's comment that they have to work on the audio.

All of this is perfectly natural and expected.

As a side note, we offer a File Converter. One of the reasons we do so is to convert Apple's MXF format into our MXF format. Inside the nanoFlash, we want to save time by having the MXF header data where we expect them. So, we just re-arrange Apple's version so that it is in the order we want.

Originally, our MXF format was incompatible with Sony's Optical Disk Format. We modified ours to make it compatible.

Tim Kolb · July 12th, 2010, 10:06 AM

Yes indeed. The great thing about so many of our standards is that they're so darn flexible...

Now...why Sony decided to wrap EX files as MP4 while the original XDcamHD format is MXF? That's another interesting tale, I'm sure...

I'm glad some of this stuff is turning around. The tone was pretty down...and I knew that this wasn't being ignored by Adobe.

I like the CineForm guys and the work they do as well....and have since "Aspect HD for Premiere 6.5" came out way back when...

Piotr Wozniacki · July 12th, 2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Kolb

Now...why Sony decided to wrap EX files as MP4 while the original XDcamHD format is MXF? That's another interesting tale, I'm sure...

Oh yes - I have been wondering the same myself since the moment I learnt the file inside the MP4 (MPEG-4?) container is actually the old, good MPEG-2... Wrapped into MXF by other applications!

July 12th, 2010, 06:41 AM	#48
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear William, To elaborate on David's post, in the other thread: All MXF files are not created equal. By its very nature, MXF was designed as an "Extensible" (extentable) format. There is not "Correct" place for every item. Even if the actual item (piece of data, or metadata), in the MXF header is identical, it may be in another place. For example, if we have 10 data items, one could put them 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, whereas someone else could put them 1,2,4,7,3,6,10,8,9,5. Thus, one has to search and find the data in the MXF header. Also, there are multiple ways (flavors or formats) to record the audio. thus I understand David's comment that they have to work on the audio. All of this is perfectly natural and expected. As a side note, we offer a File Converter. One of the reasons we do so is to convert Apple's MXF format into our MXF format. Inside the nanoFlash, we want to save time by having the MXF header data where we expect them. So, we just re-arrange Apple's version so that it is in the order we want. Originally, our MXF format was incompatible with Sony's Optical Disk Format. We modified ours to make it compatible. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

July 12th, 2010, 10:06 AM	#49
Tim Kolb Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Neenah, WI Posts: 547	Yes indeed. The great thing about so many of our standards is that they're so darn flexible... Now...why Sony decided to wrap EX files as MP4 while the original XDcamHD format is MXF? That's another interesting tale, I'm sure... I'm glad some of this stuff is turning around. The tone was pretty down...and I knew that this wasn't being ignored by Adobe. I like the CineForm guys and the work they do as well....and have since "Aspect HD for Premiere 6.5" came out way back when... __________________ TimK Kolb Productions

July 11th, 2010, 05:37 AM	#46
William Urschel Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bee Cave, Texas Posts: 151	Tim, I have just posted a query about Cineform's HD Link and my faulty memory (and perhaps faulty statements) over on the DVInfo Cineform board, and hopefully, we will be hearing some response from the fellows over there ( maybe even one of the two Davids!) Please go to: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/cineform...ash-files.html

July 12th, 2010, 04:43 AM	#47
William Urschel Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bee Cave, Texas Posts: 151	Tim - one of the David's has now posted a response at the thread I just linked to above. Please see his comments about mxf which I didn't know and found very interesting! Apparently, for HD Link, nano files cannot be handled yet, but evidently Cineform is giving some kind of fix some attention, though it may be toward the back burner.