AAF - Features Request

Nuendo
1

Import - with errors

Give the option to import even with some errors rather than just having the import just fail. Without this option the first solution is to go back to the source of the AAF, a video editor usually, and then have them do more work to get us a workable AAF. The problem with that is that we are viewed as the problem because people using Pro Tools often don’t have the same specific problems that we do. The other way to get around it is to simply rent Pro Tools alongside Nuendo, as I am doing. Notes on this:

  • These imports should list the errors in a marker track that identifies which error is making the correct import fail. If not a marker track at least a .txt with timecodes. This would allow us to just import and troubleshoot later.

Import - without rendered effects.

In Nuendo the effects seem to get rendered which means we are stuck with them and lose handles, whereas in Pro Tools we can choose to not import with effects and thus get the ‘clean’ audio. For example: problems with static noise in LAV mic is sometimes “solved” during the edit process by the editor applying a steep high-cut filter. That then gets baked into the files so now everything lacks high end content and the only way for us to access that is to import into PT and re-export from there.

Import - muted events/clips (as muted).

Import audio files for selected tracks only.

Currently, selecting just one track in the import dialog still imports all audio files for all tracks into the audio files folder. In fact, selecting none of the tracks and clicking “ok” still imports all audio files while placing none of them on tracks. Completely unnecessary and a waste of disk space.

Import “.L” and “.R” to stereo interleaved as preference, in order to skip having to “convert tracks.

Sample rate convert files that do not conform to the project sample rate.

If the AAF import is smart enough to detect multiple sample rates, just have Nuendo convert on import to conform to the project. Do not allow import without conversion as this can result in files playing back at the wrong speed and we then miss that error (yes, that happened).

And finally;

  • Improved import of video tracks (from other user)

  • Improved import of mxf meta data (from other user)

  • Export muted events (from other user)

In my opinion step one in post is importing files in order to actually have something to work on. I think most of us that want improved import understand that there is a standard and that Steinberg most likely is following it, but please also understand that Avid doesn’t care, nor do those of us that use Pro Tools, and most definitely our clients couldn’t care less. In 2025 we’re just expected to make sure things work and in a lot of the market segments that are not full blown movie productions the deadlines and budgets don’t allow for telling people to fix things on their end, and it is becoming increasingly frustrating having to rely on a 3rd party solution in order to just start working.

If any of the above has been improved and I missed it please let me know.

2

yep. and i hope steinberg realizes that this is not some “feature request” for the sake of “lets have something new”.

nuendo’s main rival has this tools as long as i can remember, and NLE world is pushing forward with stuff that nuendo has trouble keeping pace with.

it has been discussed here on forum that some companies “broke” the aaf protocol, and that is maybe thrue. but did the realy “broke” it, or did they “augment” it - that is for another discussion.

all i know is that nuendo is far behind its main rival (PT) when it comes to aaf.

3

yeah definitely nice ones. All great suggestions. Only one that I’ve not seen is getting files with rendered effects built in and needed to import into Pro tools - dam workflow killer there. I usually request that they turn those setting off at the source in Premiere & Davinci, rarely get from media composer.

Also for us since the AAF’s are coming alot from Adobe Premiere and often the editors may not follow our guide properly - we lose so much metadata that using alternative methods is usually mandatory anyways to build a new assembly from - also using XML’s EDLS at times.

For me I wish Premiere would do a better job at retaining metadata (instead of needing a bunch of workarounds) also to make the third party conforms a better process or to actually be able to use AAF directly> I’m talking more for long form projects. Sometimes with short form we just run with the AAF.

4

I usually request that as well, but it depends on the job and the client. 90% of the time it’s no problem.

Definitely there is a knowledge deficit among editors, and NLEs need some serious work on their export functionality as well. We’re probably not far away from the Avid ecosystem being fully integrated anyway, where Avid→ PT will be pretty much seamless. For those of us that are “DAW-bilingual” it’ll be hard to not stay in PT at that point.

5

i think this is indeed what will happen. If has finally gotten their sh!t together it will be a no brainer for post houses. A back and forth (ping pong) between editorial and post audio will be fluid and easier than ever. They will have to make MediaComposer (‘the Avid’) more accessible for that.

That way Nuendo would be left with Premiere and other NLE’s for smaller projects: struggling to import session data. Which is not always a problem on small scale stuff with easy dialogue edits and little need for other set sound (so interviews/animation/shorts). But as soon as you need more control, we currently in a ‘not so good’ place with Nuendo.

As much as I love nuendo, on bigger project i would have to jump to PT.. not a fan but i need my starting position to be solid not hampered by technicalities.

Please focus on this SB!

6

I think they added the ability to export “.ptx” files over a year ago, but from what I read a lot of editorial places still had many edit bays on earlier versions of Media Composer and just couldn’t upgrade their entire facility at once. So there’s a lag there because of this slow adoption rate. It’ll come though.

And to me this really is a bit of death by a thousand cuts, even though it’s obviously far fewer than a thousand.

I’m just looking at this from my clients’ perspective where me not doing something that others can do is simply producing a “but why?” in their heads. 99% of the time they literally don’t care what DAW I’m using and I only ever deliver PT sessions with rendered stems, no mix files. So to them it’s transparent. But if I have to ask for new AAFs, or if I end up with a file that plays back at the wrong speed, if I ask for alts for words during the dialog edit… all because Nuendo is behind on AAF import and dialog transcription etc. then at some point they will view me as the problem. They don’t want to babysit. They want to just deliver the same way they deliver to everyone that’s on PT and then get a great mix back.

Like I said in another thread, we keep asking for things and it’s like you’re standing at a tall mountain and speaking into an empty ravine. I have zero sense of Steinberg’s direction for audio-post. Zero.

7

image
image411×246 9.36 KB

Just giving another reason for why AAF import has to be improved:

I get the above with an AAF and no tracks are created. However, the audio files folder gets populated with the required audio files. So the dialog box seems inaccurate. Nuendo can create a bunch of files just fine, it just can’t seem to create tracks and place the events appropriately.

Obviously Pro Tools manages to import it just fine. Lucky me I pay for that as well.

2026 is coming. Long overdue to overhaul this…

8

Not to be a wet blanket, but maybe someone can take over development of the AAF standard, as it was basically ended over a decade ago. Hello Yamaha?

9

BUMP BUMP BUMP

At this point virtually all input seems 100% futile. Not sure why I bother at this point, except for being insanely fed up with having to use 3rd party software to get imports to work.

10

Yes, please!
AAF workflow has been a real pain in the ass and has been creating havoc in our post house as of late. All sorts of workarounds and tiny little details, a bit of praying and a bit of luck needed to make Nuendo chug a session successfully.

11

I feel your anguish … it is staggering that a “Premium media production system” hasn’t done anything to improve the very first step of it’s own workflow for … well, maybe ever.

I just don’t know what they are thinking over in SB HQ. Not post production clearly.

12

Perhaps Cubase has been growing it’s market share, but Nuendo not so much, and they have done the numbers + looked at DaVinci + Avids recent developments, and maybe Nuendo just isn’t making much business sense and they are just letting it roll with a very reduced team and budget, doing the just so much so they don’t outright abandon it. And since it shares most of the code with Cubase, perhaps they have a merging on the horizon where Nuendo will be just a add-on to Cubase with some post-production features.

Or something like that.

Meanwhile Timo comes here everyonce in a while to calm everyone down and keep it under control.

13

I think a merge of the ‘brands’ would be the death of Nuendo in professional settings in terms of growth. Sure, those who have invested in it and run a multi-room facility probably won’t switch over right away because their rooms are booked because of the talent and reputation they have, but I have a hard time seeing newer facilities buying and marketing that they have Cubase for post services.

It could be right that development resources have been reallocated or realigned or whatever we might want to call it. All I know is that I see some really basic items not getting any love at all, coupled with effectively close to zero communication on the matter. Like, why bother with this when we don’t even see an end-game? I already installed the latest PT on my new laptop and I’ll be setting up my full-mix templates on it soon. My easier mixes I’ll likely start doing in PT full time soon, and I’ll just see if the more complex ones “feel” right at some point later on. But for sure the easier mixes I see virtually no point in struggling with AAF rubbish in Nuendo if I don’t have to.

14

Yes, I was just speculating with absolutely no hard evidence to back it up. but sometimes that’s just how it feels.
I mean, so many unaddressed issues go on without any feedback on them in spite of many of us being so vocal about it. It makes you think constantly about what is going on.
The release of N15 with so many old bugs still present (without a single word about them) was a bit of a cold shower to me.

Other teams seem to have a different approach when it comes to addressing their userbase in this official forum. (yeah we know this is not an official support channel, but still, the demand is clearly there and Nuendo team should be smarter about this by now IMO)

EDIT:

By the way, I quickly compared C15 with N15 to see what is really new in Nuendo.

Let’s see:

The addition of Intelligibilty in the Analyzer track. (nice)
Automation modes for individual tracks. (nice)
Automation write on play. (nice)
MXF video (sadly without any improvements on the much needed metadata support for MXF files)
Added MPF and MXF/S-ADM formats to MPEG-H imports (must be nice for those who need it)
Redesigned marker editor (ok?)
3 of the 4 pattern editor improvements (unfortunately not related to post)
Ability to invert horizontal scroll direction (ok but very late)
New Convert channels (this is not nice.)

The rest of the improvements or features are also present in Cubase 15, and many of them are simply not very useful for post-production. Plugins we all already have better third party alternatives, modulators, other non-related stuff.

I’m not sure what to make of this comparison. Is it too little? Is it enough? Does it indicate something? Or not? =P

15

I don’t want to sound like I’m advertising, but when it comes to transferring files to and from Pro Tools, I now only use my tool, EDLtranslate. Open and save AAFs in Pro Tools, and then convert them to a XML track archive. This is a thousand times better than any direct AAF import. It really does transfer all the relevant data to Nuendo. And more!

Best regards,
Dietrich

16

Thanks for the recommendation. I think most people are aware of the 3rd party options. We just want this to work better natively.

17

Today’s error was a lack of error message. Nuendo imported the AAF “fine”, and then my client asked about the missing music.

Opening the AAF in Pro Tools at least throws up an error message that files were missing, and then places blank clips on the timeline to indicate where they were. Very convenient.

But why do I bother complaining about this…?

18

Keep posting … nothing else to do.

If the AFF Association ( now Advanced Media Workflow Association ) has ceased work on AAF then at least it’s not a moving target!
SB could at least perform exhaustive tests with AAF exported from the latest Premiere, Avid, Resolve, Protools ( the main players ) to see what gives. Also since FCP only exports XML they should also test the third party app X2Pro which is well supported and seems to work well for me.

19

It is.
Because different DAW manufacturers create their own “interpretations” of the AAF protocol.
Historically, PT couldn’t work with multichannel audio files, which forced all other applications to design their AAF engines to only deliver and accept dual-mono audio files.

I have never received an AAF from FCP(X)/X2Pro that was actually correct.

FCP(X) may be a handy tool for editors, but it’s not really built for collaboration with others.

I know one editor who sucessfully uses FCPX, but transfers his projects to Media Composer before exporting to third parties.

Knowing that more than half of the issues are caused by problems unrelated to AAF itself — such as differing sample rates, stretched audio, metadata loss, naming changes, muted audio, etc. — it’s simply impossible.

The people behind AATranslator work full-time on continuously updating their application, so Steinberg most certainly can’t keep up with that.

Fredo

20

Ok, so it’s a matter of allocation / prioritization of resources. How much time has been spent by SB on this though over the past decade? I don’t think anyone here is arguing that SB should spend every day on this, but…

AAF is ‘frozen’ but they had time and resources to develop “DAWproject”?

Seriously?

I think what we are asking for is far from unreasonable. I don’t think the SB implementation has to be on par with AATranslator, assuming that’s the best one, but it’s absolutely reasonable to request that it at least approaches Avid somewhat. In fact, there are some things I see as just “odd” in the implementation, meaning that it shouldn’t be something that relies on even the AAF specification or adherence to it (though I could be wrong). For example;

If an AAF import fails it may give me an error message that it couldn’t create files yet it populates my folder with literally all of the embedded AAF files. That seems to be a problem with SB’s implementation, not with the format. If Nuendo can’t import the files into the project, don’t import them into the audio files folder. Similarly, if I choose to import one track only I still get all the files from the AAF. Again, it seems like this wouldn’t have anything to do with the AAF format or adherence to it and everything to do with how it’s implemented. Pro Tools does it “right”.

People have different priorities and I’m sure a lot of what makes it into Nuendo is coming out of the Cubase development cycles, but Nuendo is a post app and we can’t work on content unless that content is imported into Nuendo first, and that is why it’s reasonable to consider this a higher priority. It’s frustrating seeing a new compressor or a filter being released when AAF still lags and most people who don’t have a good enough compressor or EQ just go and buy Fabfilter Pro-C/Q anyway.