David Abraham Fenton wrote:
>>AAF appears to be dead or at least in a coma. (it's not even on
>>www.microsoft.com/aaf anymore.) but I agree OMF support would be
>>nice or even the upcoming AES standard
>>
>>-david
Alright David! Another vote for interoperability!

Knowing Microsoft, AAF is probably undergoing one of five more name
changes to come before it becomes reality. I actually briefly got
through to the www.microsoft.com/aaf site yesterday before it
disappeared again! Maybe the new code name for it is "Brigadoon"
(shows up for one minute then vanishes for another 100 minutes) :) I
got in just long enough to find that Sonic Foundry's OMF/AAF contact
is Mike Winter (MikeW@sonicfoundry.com). I e-mailed him about
OMF/AAF support in Vegas. His reply was as follows:

"Sonic Foundry has been involved in AAF and is waiting for the
specification to get to a point where we can implement it. At that
time we hope to integrate AAF support. This assumes there is an
interest from our customers. Thanks for the e-mail, it does show us
there is interest in AAF."

Whatever that means for the status of AAF specifically, who knows.
However it does indicate that development is driven by demand. (The
current status of AES-X68 according to their website is that a
combined OMF and AAF proposal is posted to the working group "for
consideration," FWIW.)

So, hey everybody! If you need to move sessions to and from other AV
production systems without submitting to the extortion of proprietary
hardware, stand up and be counted--let Mike Winter and the rest of
Sonic Foundry know! Tell them "I want OMF!" (or AAF or whatever AES
comes up with.)

--bob