osa Posted April 20 Report Share Posted April 20 Curious if someone might help me understand the pro's n con's of OMF vs AAF imports in pro tools. I have been using OMF for ever out of habit. Always encapsulated to keep things organized, and it would work perfect for my purposes except for a few occasions where the material is larger size and I would request separated - but this made things slightly difficult where I would have to manually connect the data which was a bit time consuming but worked in the end. Recently an editor I have been working with was sending me AAF's. Worked extremely well although contained a video track that would give me problems but I would just skip it on import and bring in video manually which is typical for my omf imports. the AAF's were separated but imported perfect with no manual sync no matter the project size, and also pans werent all whacky like they could be on stereo tracks with the OMFs. If i understand correct AAF is newer than OMF, even thow they are both old by todays standards? is there any reason not to request AAF from now on? I have editors I work with who always send me OMF and I have them well trained, and I fear changing to aaf for them might disrupt things if the process causes any issues on their end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrimic Posted April 20 Report Share Posted April 20 A big advantage for post, the AAF keep the original metadata of the sound files, so it’s easier to conform multitracks in Protools Ultimate via the field recorder workflow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osa Posted April 20 Author Report Share Posted April 20 1 hour ago, henrimic said: A big advantage for post, the AAF keep the original metadata of the sound files, so it’s easier to conform multitracks in Protools Ultimate via the field recorder workflow. Oh wow that’s mind blowing in itself considering 90% of the projects i work on w post are starting with my field audio. Cant believe i have beeb missing out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Reineke Posted April 20 Report Share Posted April 20 AAF is good in a perfect world, but in my experience 80% of AAF imports have some kind of problem. especially when going x-app and and x-platform. OMF is much more reliable and btw, metadata can be maintained if the media files are not embedded in the OMF file, which has the inherent size limit anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrimic Posted April 20 Report Share Posted April 20 16 minutes ago, Rick Reineke said: btw, metadata can be maintained if the media files are not embedded in the OMF file, which has the inherent size limit anyway. Good to know, I always received embedded audio files. Thx for the tip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osa Posted April 22 Author Report Share Posted April 22 Think i am gonna stay the course with current editors i work with to not mess with our workflow. Will try to run some tests with a friend of mine. If I recall correctly in all of the OMFS I have worked with encapsulated as well as separated, the only meta-data with the files is the editor timestamps and not the original timestamps of the files whether it be camera footage that was synced with production sound on set or the production sound files themselves. I have editors give me EDL’s and i use EDiLoad to sync my production sound files with these sessions. This is something I’ve never explored with AAF but going to try to do a comparison between them all when i get a chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.2bf2d6f7b89ab88ba7729612d7a505f1.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.