naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: from metadata to archiving (was Some prescient words from Murray

Subject: Re: from metadata to archiving (was Some prescient words from Murray
From: "John Lundsten" lundsten_john
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:41 pm ((PDT))
Charles Veasey wrote

| Thanks for the iXML link Paul. I looked at Sound Devices implementation;
| it is geared for video/film production.

Yes indeed, Btw I come from this background & I think understand it well, 
tho I think appreciate the needs of  "nature recordists" too, an old Pro & a 
nature recordist newbe in a way.

IMO a + & -  of iXML like any XML is that is is "Extensible", IE you can 
write whatever you like, which is fine in a way but means initially you 
can't assume anyone other than yourself can read what is written.
However (or conversly) any data chunks that are not understandable by a 
given peice of software, will be ignored IE they won't compromise what is 
understandable by it.

Now what bext/iXML is understood by current DAW's is VERY limited, AFAIK 
nothing in iXML that is not also in bext (aka the Broadcast Wave Format).

So for BWF (aka bext) for Film/Tv post
1) the most vital feature is the timestamp, the moment within a 24Hr period 
a recording starts.
Many but for sure not all DAW's support this.
2) There is a well established (informal) use of the bext "Description 
Field"  [which has a max of 255 ASCII char] to store a lot of info useful to 
Film/TV production, but about the only thing that is not already part of the 
RIFF  info basic to a  WAV file which is useful for Nature Recording Archive 
purposes is :- what is on each track of a  multitrack recording.

{i'm writting of what what is "read" by current DAW's within the limits of 
255 char, you are free to write whatever you like.}

iXML has the potential to store way beyond 255 alpha-numeric characters but 
in terms of what any known DAW can read, has only added some useful Film/TV 
stuff like what "take" should be  printed  or is considered good.


| Soundminer looks interesting, but it is also very expensive. Also, from
| looking at the screenshot the metadata options seem to be from pull down
| options, and it is not clear to me what those options are, or if they
| are customisable.

No they are not, it is very "focused or limited" on the idea of the 
description field describing the contents of an FX recording, + some ancient 
ideas of these FX having come from a CD with it's 99 "tracks" & 9 
indexes/track.
|
| I haven't been able to figure out how to edit metadata on Wave Editor.
Do you mean Sound Developments Wave Agent, if so it is really rather dam 
good I think, good, tho inevitably Film/TV focused.
IMO Widget Pro is a bit better.
|
| Sound Forge 10 (my favorite editor) has introduced extensive Metadating
| editing capabilities with similar categories to SD.

I beg to disagree, IMO it is way less capabable than SD wave Agent, but IMO 
the best there is on current File based Recorders serves the needs of Film & 
TV quite well, but unfortunatly most DAW's and NLE's are WAY behind what is 
in the audio files delivered to them!

To put this a different way, the latest gear/tools used by people recording 
sound for Film or TV have great metadata capabilities but they are are 
working in a predominatly "visual medium" that doesn't give a sh** about 
sound.

John L













<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU