At 8:41 AM -0400 4/22/10, Wil Hershberger wrote:
>
>
>Here are some interesting links regarding BWAV files and metadata
>
><http://cool.conservation-us.org/byform/mailing-lists/arsclist/2005/03/msg=
001>http://cool.conservation-us.org/byform/mailing-lists/arsclist/2005/03/m=
sg001
>34.html
>
>Attempt to standardize that use of metadata fields within the BWAV format
>etc.
Hi Will--
I can think of some cases where one might need extremely precise
clock time and to have that insured and preserved through to the
database record. This would require a recorder with clock time
stamping.
Also in scientific studies for atmospheric or underwater conditions
in real time or a motion study where a animals are being very
carefully tracked in a boat or vehicle. Anyone have some non
time-stamp metadata applications to throw into consideration? There
are likely some tricky requirements presented by specific needs we
should start chewing on.
(There should be work-arounds to incorporate all the the clever ways
people can think of generating atypical data that must be
attached/synchronized to files in the recorder in the field. Worse
case, one can read the data manually from the instrument and type
reference points into the time line using markers to get key
relations into the DB.)
With most of the goals and applications we are looking at, using or
not using metadata attached to the original field recordings
shouldn't make a huge difference.
As someone who enjoys DIY when quality is not sacrificed, I agree
with John that the concepts/facilitations behind metatags harken to
the "needs" and habits of film/video folks. As an "independent" film
and video maker I am very prejudiced. We didn't have enough money for
cameras, mics and recorders at the the University. It was pretty easy
to figure out how to get "sync" without SMPTE timecode. We taught the
methods from the get-go and thousands of perfectly sync'd films and
videos were made, maybe with a little extra pride built in.
>http://www.digitizationguidelines.gov/audio-visual/
>
>It appears that Soundminer V4pro has the capabilities that a lot of us are
>looking for but $899 US is just too steep an entry point for most of us.
>
><http://www.soundminer.com/SM_Site/V4.html>http://www.soundminer.com/SM_Si=
te/V4.html
A number of folks on this list use Soundminer. It looks limited in
comparison but there could very well be some functions it provides
that our two app discussion hasn't covered. If so, it would be great
to learn about these on or off list if they are important to people.
:-) Rob D.
--
|