Dan; (offlist) You pay for SMPTE membership - list me as your referrer, and I'll make a copy of my raw SMPTE folders (public documents) and non-disclosure. Not all the specifications, but many. Not necessarily the latest copy, and many are in process or are the FCD (last step before publication). You can decide which to buy (to make sure you have the bits right.) And, you will truly enjoy the work, joining committees, learning and having a say (when you exercise it) on new and modified standards. And, you can't tell anybody I've done that, since SMPTE lives off document sales. So, you can get started for $135 for one year, or (like me) $325 for three years. That renewal always seems to come up fast. I do believe the fee is tax-deductible, but of course, only us self-employed generally can take advantage of that . John _____ De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx Enviado el: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:06 AM Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Production Codecs Good to know, especially since Avid, and possibly Sony, products will be so prevalent in our facility. You are quite right that I need to join SMPTE. I also need the specifications. Together they are major dollars and I am trying to save up for them since the university will not pay for them. Dan "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 07/16/2008 08:54 AM Please respond to opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> cc Subject [opendtv] Re: Production Codecs Dan; MXF works just fine, between and among vendors. And, I suspect that you are not going to engineer an MXF system from source documents. There is a problem with the latest reworkings of the spec. It seems that two major vendors (Avid and Sony) made some technically non-compliant changes that didn't seem to affect anything until the new changes were proposed, and ALL HELL BROKE OUT. Some of the changes were good, others seemed to have been intended to cause chaos. I have suggested to you time and time again to join SMPTE. The battle was "fine fun" last fall. People who aren't on the WG email reflector only got this in a small dribble, and EVERY article I've read about the controversy was slanted, ill-informed or ignorant. Basically, customers like PBS, like NBC, were doing the log-rolling for Avid and Sony, who never commented on the reflector. At one point, the AAF acted like they should have a veto on SMPTE specifications. I have it on good authority that the changes wouldn't break much on the Snell & Wilcox side, but that's not exactly by design. The intellectual author of MXF is Bruce Devlin of Snell. At one time, they had a microsite on MXF, but this is what they have now <http://www.snellwilcox.com/mxf/> http://www.snellwilcox.com/mxf/. I wonder where my archive of the applications formerly there are . Before you ask someone hereabouts concerning something as technical as MXF, it's important to ask how their employer supports MXF. In the case of Harris, I believe that's about zero. Harris has been the big driver behind BXF, but aside from a similar moniker, they are quite different and have distinct domains within TV plants. It's also important to ask about their personal experience with the technology, not "what they've heard." MXF's major problem is widely-deployed non-standard vendor-specific implementations, the inability or lack of a desire for vendors to fess up on what they've done, and how that will be dealt with in future upgrades. It's close to a nightmare. What I wrote in the third paragraph above is actually news: you won't have read it anywhere, at least anywhere I've seen. (Other than the original posts to the SMPTE WG.) John Willkie