Nomad file names - where do they go

[fieldmixer]

I've been Recording with nomad for well over a year. I'm hearing from post that the file names that I have been entering methodically do not show up on the file itself when imported. I know they show up in the report, have I been wrong to have thought that this data is displayed on the track itself? All that shows up is: S1,S2,S3 etc...im assuming that means "source". I'm delivering polywave, the individual track names are the same as the main polywave file, in most cases the date, plus the "S1". Will the track names appear if I deliver mono?

[Philip Perkins]

Post as in FCP?  Avid?  A DAW?   

 

phil p

[Jeff Wexler]

What software is pictured above? There are lots of software programs used in editorial that never see the metadata where track names and other data is stored. That isn't ProTools is it?

[fieldmixer]

Very good question. This particular post person is audio post. He is using Nuendo in the studio, pictured above is Cubase. What software reliably recognizes this particular metadata in your experiance?

[Marc Wielage]

Previously discussed here:

 

 

I don't believe Cubase can do it, but 99% of all the post houses I deal with in LA are all Pro Tools. 

[fieldmixer]

Thanks for linking to that discussion. Have there been significant changes since then regarding the ability of a software program or plugin to automatically pull in and display the location entered file names?

[Philip Perkins]

PT can do it, but the issue for most of us is whether the picture editor can see the track names, ie FCP or Avid.  So far no luck for me in FCP7.  Re changes in software, no I don't think there have been many changes re reading metadata lately.

 

philp

[fieldmixer]

Thank you very much Philip Marc and Jeff. This will be passed on. So, in a nutshell, is appears that in order for the picture editor to see this metadata, and everyone after him down the line, he will need to first open all the files in something like wave agent then export that into avid or fcp. Is that the present day typical workflow?

[Philip Perkins]

or read a report.....?

 

philp

[pindrop]

Thank you very much Philip Marc and Jeff. This will be passed on. So, in a nutshell, is appears that in order for the picture editor to see this metadata, and everyone after him down the line, he will need to first open all the files in something like wave agent then export that into avid or fcp. Is that the present day typical workflow?

Not sure that opening and modifying in Wave Agent is going to help, but it's an issue you've raised which is a somewhat mystifying disgrace that 10 years later no software producer for video editing or sound editing (including Pro Tools with it's own clumsy implementation) with the possible exception of the very expensive Nuendo has properly implemented iXML or Bext metadata and timecode interaction which should offer a choice of automated possibilities and one would imagine it would be a priority for them, but it's obviously not as each year goes by and it continues to be ignored. And one imagines it wouldn't be too difficult, I mean what's difficult about offering the option to take track names (given in the field) and import them to the right place, or automate timecode placement on the timeline etc. etc. etc.

I continue to be mystified about this!

[Jeff Wexler]

It is this widespread lack of support for metadata (date about data in case you don't know what metadata is) that has caused lots of newbies to declare that they have to have the file NAME include information that is properly placed in the proper place as metadata. We have had all these discussion about the reasons NOT to change as filename since this is a vital piece of the data (your sound, not metadata or information about that sound) that should not be altered.

 

The real push should be to compel the manufacturers of the dominate software platforms used in post to support industry standard metadata (the data about the data contained in our sound files).

[pindrop]

It is this widespread lack of support for metadata (date about data in case you don't know what metadata is) that has caused lots of newbies to declare that they have to have the file NAME include information that is properly placed in the proper place as metadata. We have had all these discussion about the reasons NOT to change as filename since this is a vital piece of the data (your sound, not metadata or information about that sound) that should not be altered.

 

The real push should be to compel the manufacturers of the dominate software platforms used in post to support industry standard metadata (the data about the data contained in our sound files).

Yes any suggestions about how we could try to compel them? Some mass outings / protest actions 'metadata spring' to the DUC / Avid / Final Cut / forums.

 

I've just looked on the DUC (Pro Tools) forum and found a discussion from 2011 with things like the following in -

http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?s=e746292664c66f20f8b4bb537be6475b&t=304491&highlight=metadata

 

Tracks 2-8 are actually not ignored but the AVID enters the info from Track 1 into ALL the other tracks as well.

Example: Tracks 1-4 called "Mix, Boom, Lav1, Lav2" the AVID will enter "Mix" for all 4 tracks.

For some reason this doesn´t happen with Deva files.

Also: AVID MC should really begin to support iXML after all these years.PT does it and ALL professional recorders have been writing iXML for many years.

 

but... there most definitely are two serious issues with the Zaxcom Fusion at least:

1. it truncates the all-important bext description metadata field causing loss of channel names depending on length of names and notes.

it fails to use all 256 characters available in the field and in my experience clipped at about 210 characters.

this is the one metadata field that we all rely on to get matches happening in PT since iXML is ignored by MC.

2. it truncates the iXML chunk before it writes it back to the file rendering the iXML invalid and illegible in pretty much any application.

unfortunately the response from Zaxcom was pretty relaxed.

 

So of course the nitty gritty is more complex than I've bargained for and I've discovered that Avid / Pro Tools had a go at defining metadata workflow in 2006 with this pdf file attached -

Field_Recorder_Workflows_29732.pdf

 

So progress might be happening but it's like treacle, very very slow.

Field_Recorder_Workflows_29732.pdf