With MXF export files, is it really necessary to keep BPAV files?

[Peter Kraft]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

I don't know that FCP supports the native files.

Here comes help:

Native MXF Editing in Final Cut Pro
Calibrated{Q} MXF Import is a QuickTime plug-in for NATIVE Importing and Editing of MXF Files within Final Cut Pro. Calibrated{Q} MXF Import v1.5 supports the following MXF Files:

Panasonic P2 MXF Files (with separate video and audio tracks seen as 1 file*):
AVC-Intra
DVCProHD
DV50
DV25

Sony XDCAM:
XDCAM HD (35Mb and 25Mb)**
XDCAM HD 422**
IMX***
DV25

Select OP1a:
DVCProHD
DV50
DV25
IMX***

Finally you can enjoy the freedom of native editing in Final Cut Pro without the need for Logging and Encoding.

Calibrated Software's unique solution successfully joins the separate video and audio P2 MXF files so that Final Cut Pro sees them all as ONE file - complete with TimeCode and Reel Name. PullDown can also be removed or added for select frame rates.

And you're not just limited to Final Cut Pro, you can also natively import files in Compressor, Motion, Sound Track Pro, QuickTime Player and Shake.

[Peter Kraft]

Sorry, double posting

[Rob Collins]

So if one edits now in FCP, the consensus is that in addition to the QT files, one should should save either the BPAV folder OR MXF versions. Correct? If so, is there any advantage now to archiving as MXF (again, for someone like me using FCP)? Seems like an extra step that could be done later if necessary.

[Perrone Ford]

What quicktime files are you guys talking about? On the Mac version of the clipbrowser software, is the primary choice to export quicktime? PC users don't have that choice.

[Paul Joy]

Why would a mac user export mxf files?

My understanding was that mxf is another wrapper just like quicktime, but more common on PC's. I thought both file types contained the same XDCAM-EX codec so both would require the codec to be installed on the host machine anyway making them pretty much equal in terms of future proofing.

Maybe I'm wrong here but I think mxf is to PC users what quicktime is to mac users. In either case I don't think it would be practical to convert entire BPAVS to either QT or mxf, you only need to convert the footage that's being used as complete individual clips or sub-clips.

I store all my BPAVS on HD and only import the parts I need into FCP. This converts the footage I use into quicktime wrapped XDCAM-EX files. Both get backed up by Time machine to an external drive and archived at regular intervals.

[Peter Kraft]

Originally Posted by Rob Collins

So if one edits now in FCP, the consensus is that in addition to the QT files, one should should save either the BPAV folder OR MXF versions. Correct? If so, is there any advantage now to archiving as MXF (again, for someone like me using FCP)? Seems like an extra step that could be done later if necessary.

Rob, the question to use QT or MXF can be answered easily - if you need the Metadata that MXF contains and gets from the raw material, then opt for MXF right away.
In that case archive the MXF files, BPAV is not needed any more. To edit MXF files in FCP natively, use the above mentioned Calibrated MXF plugin for FCP.

If you only need video and sound but not the Metadata, then you can use QT files and archive the BPAV folder(s).

However, as it is a more cumbersum to split a large BPAV folder i.e. from a 16GB SDHC card onto 4 single layer DVDs, I'd rather opt to convert the BPAV content into MXF files from the very first moment on (instead of converting the BPAV folder into QT files and to archive those as well as the BPAV folder(s)). MXF is easier to archive, easier to handle, easier to retrieve later.

FWIW, MXF is a wrapper like QT, like AVI, like...
So the content in an MXF file "picture-quality-wise" is identical to the source material or that of the corresponding QT file.

Hope this helps. P.

[Rob Collins]

I didn't (maybe still don't) understand MXF. My goal is to archive the most future-proof format of the orginal video (like having a camera tape). I'm still under the impression that QT is not that format. Even now, if I were to need to turn a project over to an Avid editor, wouldn't my QT files require some transcoding? That is, wouldn't the original camera data be better? I don't know--am asking.

My interest in this thread was whether MXF files were somehow better than the BPAV folder. Aside from being able to more easily split them onto DVD's and the metadata, it seems they're not. Correct?

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Rob Collins

My interest in this thread was whether MXF files were somehow better than the BPAV folder. Aside from being able to more easily split them onto DVD's and the metadata, it seems they're not. Correct?

MXF was built to do exactly what you said you wanted. An attempt to future proof these files including carrying the metadata (which QT cannot). The BPAV folders, at least for now, will require a re-wrap to be useful to most editors. In that regard, the original BPAV folders would be LESS useful to editors because they would not only have to download the Clipbrowswer software, they'd have to wait for the re-wrap for any and all files you submit to them.

If you gave them the MXF files, they could drop them into the NLE with no further effort, and simply go to work. The MXF files are visually identical to the original files that were stored in the BPAV folder structure so nothing is lost.

[Tom Roper]

I save the BPAV folders because you can't use clipbrowser to export XDCAM 50 mbps 4:2:2 or downconvert to SD from the mxf files.

It's the mxf files I toss. I can always recreate them.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

I save the BPAV folders because you can't use clipbrowser to export XDCAM 50 mbps 4:2:2 or downconvert to SD from the mxf files.

It's the mxf files I toss. I can always recreate them.

Huh?

How are you getting XDCam 50? And why wouldn't you convert to SD in you NLE?? I really don't get where you're going here...

[Tom Roper]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Huh?

How are you getting XDCam 50? And why wouldn't you convert to SD in you NLE?? I really don't get where you're going here...

Clipbrowser 2.0 exports 4:2:2 50 mbps, right? (You have to pay for the license to lose the watermark.)

As for your second question, clipbrowser converts to SD faster than most NLEs.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

Clipbrowser 2.0 exports 4:2:2 50 mbps, right? (You have to pay for the license to lose the watermark.)

Mine won't. Maybe yours does. In any event, even if you export that way the video will still be the same as if you exported "MXF for NLE", so I don't see any advantage.

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

As for your second question, clipbrowser converts to SD faster than most NLEs.

I'll have to try it sometime.

[Tom Roper]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Mine won't. Maybe yours does. In any event, even if you export that way the video will still be the same as if you exported "MXF for NLE", so I don't see any advantage.

No advantage qualitatively, but someone could be asking for delivery in that format.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

No advantage qualitatively, but someone could be asking for delivery in that format.

Somewhat moot for me since my Clipbrowser won't do it, but I'd probably render in my NLE anyway where I'd have more control.

[Bill Ravens]

There are many ways to skin this cat. Exporting to Sony mxf is absolutely identical to the original mp4, no reason to save one or the other, as long as you archive one. You can also export directly to Avid AAF, but, AAF files lose their link to the source material in Avid, so you have to be really careful to backup your data with the BPAV info.

IMHO, the absolute best way is to do a Cineform conversion directly from the BPAV folder, then archive the CFHD.AVI file. Sony .mxf will not import into all NLE's. CFHD will. Within Avid, a CFHD file does not need to be transcoded to DNxHD. It can be imported to whatever DNx resolution you select...very convenient. CFHD also imports as 601/709, every time. Certain NLE's, like Vegas will play games with the superwhites that you have to be very careful about wrangling in order to keep your images undistorted.

Long form GOP(eg Sony mxf) is designed to be a camera storage medium. It is NOT an edit medium. Sure, you can edit with it, but, that comes with its own set of problems. There's lots of folks who will claim they have no problems editing mxf, and I won't argue. But, at a minimum, they are incurring multi-generational losses on a grand scale.

I just can't imagine the logistic nightmare of saving BPAV folders. Totally unnecessary and cumbersome.