Talk:Advanced Authoring Format

Comment: As I've read the refs, AAF would be defined as incorporating MXF (ref) -- as like, "part and parcel", they're derived, together, somehow as a whole unit. I'm not an expert about AAF, enough to describe it in any more, or enough to to challenge the unfavorable tone, about it, seeming evidenced in the article, above. AAF appears to have quite more support than what an unfavorable appraisal, beside it, would serve to indicate. -- (User:Gimbal)

Response: AAF is now supported by a large number of non-linear editing systems, there are so many that listing them on this entry is probably not worth it. Tapeless workflows are being built around the combination of AAF and MXF today.

MXF was definately directed in the SMPTE standards process to be a subset of the AAF data model.

Is AAF a Container format?

Is the Advanced Authoring Format a Container format?--Hhielscher 20:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a simple container format, infact you can have some quite complex combination of data and editing directives in AAF. But I suppose it does fall under the concept of a "Container" or "Wrapper" format.

Added a link to technological essence as this is integral to AAF's context. Certainly it's good for non-programmers and other non-techies! (MonstaPro 14:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

On Audio Pans

Someone wrote that audio pans are not supported in AAF. You can see for yourself that audio pans are supported in the AAF Edit Protocol: [[1]]

Legal Status

I guess it would be great if somebody who knew more about it would point out the legal part of the AAF format in the article, does anyone hold the rights to the AAF format etc.

The license for the SDK is some sort of custom open source. It can be found here: http://aaf.cvs.sourceforge.net/aaf/AAF/LEGAL/AAFSDKPSL.TXT (There doesn't seem to be a human-readable summary). Ah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)