Feature Sponsorship
as an Alternative
Development Model

Funding common tools: the MediaInfo experience

Jérôme Martinez, MediaArea

MXF Plugfest 2026, Frankfurt, November 2026

Context

MXF workflows also rely on a few common open-source tools

• Writing: bmx, FFmpeg...
• Inspection: MediaInfo
• Embedded in many products, open-source and proprietary

MediaInfo: since 2002, BSD 2-Clause permissive license

Millions of users, few funders

Free to use does not mean free to make

Problem statement

New needs every year

New profiles (e.g. ARD-ZDF XDF), ADM and S-ADM, HDR metadata, C2PA...

Each one needs specifications, sample files, development, then maintenance

How to get a specific feature in a tool everybody already uses?

Options for a new need

Not exclusive: most organizations use all of them

Feature sponsorship

An organization funds a specific analysis, validation or interoperability feature in an open-source tool

The sponsor pays for one feature, and gets the whole tool

How it works

A typical sponsored feature

Developer: the maintainers or anybody else. Open code: forks are possible

Then: maintained with the rest of the code, tested with every release

Lesson learned: sample files matter as much as specifications

Benefits

For the sponsor

• Pays for one feature, gets the whole tool
• No fork to maintain: the feature stays in the mainline
• Partners and suppliers use the same tool and see the same information

For everybody

• The feature, at no cost
• Priorities follow concrete industry needs
• More users, more files, more bug reports: better quality, for the sponsor too

Use cases

Examples of sponsored features

Same model for other tools, e.g. RAWcooked: initial development sponsored by Reto.ch, improvements by a pool of 50+ archives, thanks to a license key on the executables (source code still open source)

What everybody gets

MediaInfo 26.10, MXF file with S-ADM in MGA (excerpt)

General
Format                                   : MXF
Format profile                           : OP-1a

Audio #4
Format                                   : MGA
Channel(s)                               : 10 channels
Metadata format                          : S-ADM, Version 1 / ADM, Version 3
Metadata muxing mode                     : SMPTE ST 2127-1 / SMPTE ST 2109 / SMPTE ST 2127-10
ADM profile                              : AdvSS Emission, Version 1.0.0, Level 1
Number of programmes                     : 1
Number of track UIDs                     : 10
Programme #1                             : VF-5.1.4 ((fre)VF-5.1.4)
 Integrated loudness                     : -23

ADM profile detected, then checked: no ADM conformance error in this file

Basic MXF inspection and conformance information, at no cost, for millions of users

ADM graphs

Sponsored by the EBU: the ADM structure at a glance, for everybody

ADM in MXF, step by step

From display to conformance checking

Conformance errors                       : 36
 audioProgramme #1                       : 3
  loudnessMetadata #1                    : 3
   loudnessMethod                        : loudnessMethod attribute is present
                                           (additional constraint from AdvSS Emission v1)
   loudnessRange                         : loudnessRange element is present
                                           (additional constraint from AdvSS Emission v1)
   maxTruePeak                           : maxTruePeak element is present
                                           (additional constraint from AdvSS Emission v1)
 audioProgramme #2                       : 3
[...]

What AI changes

Implementation: faster and cheaper

Example: XDF-02 draft (v0.5, October 2026), check implemented in a couple of hours (human time spent on coherency verification and double checks)

What matters more now: presentation, and the number of users

Open source and wide use help: more files tested, problems reported faster

XDF-02 check

MediaInfo development version, ARD-ZDF XDF-02 draft: "Compliant with" field

General
Format                                   : MXF
Format version                           : 1.3
Format profile                           : OP-1a
Format settings                          : Closed / Complete
Compliant with                           : ARD_ZDF_XDF-02

Not compliant? The reason: mediainfo --MxfProfile=ARD_ZDF

General
Format                                   : MXF
Format version                           : 1.3
Format profile                           : OP-1a
Format settings                          : Closed (header: Open) / Complete (header: Incomplete)
Conformance errors                       : 1
 MXF                                     : Yes
  MxfProfile                             : ARD_ZDF_XDF-02: Header Partition status is wrong
                                           (actual Open Incomplete, expected Closed Complete)

What AI does not do

AI helps a lot, but takes no responsibility for the future of a product

• Not a product manager: no roadmap, no decision on what to refuse upstream for long-term maintenance
• Does not choose between incompatible pull requests
• Does not settle an ambiguous specification: this is what a Plugfest is for
• Does not sign a contract, does not answer for a wrong result
• Does not commit to years of maintenance and compatibility

Costs are reduced, not removed

Somebody still has to decide, maintain and answer

In-house? No invoice, but staff time has a cost too. Really cheaper?

Complement, not compete

A shared baseline helps everybody: users learn when a full QC is needed

Vendors sponsor too: Digimetrics (QC) for MXF, Dolby for ADM profile checks

Developer dependency?

Open code and license: anybody can contribute, fork or take over

• Source code in a public repository, under the BSD 2-Clause permissive license
• Sponsored features are in the same public code, under the same license
• Another company or an in-house team can implement the next feature

Pooled sponsorship

Same need, several organizations, shared cost

Shared needs for MXF?

Candidates, from this Plugfest's topics

• Delivery profiles: ARD-ZDF HDF, SDF and XDF checked, which others?
• ADM and S-ADM, and others, in MXF: more checks and crosschecks
• Growing files: status and consistency
• C2PA in MXF: detection and display (already in JPEG, PNG, WAV, MP4)
• EBU QC cards: wider participation in writing and reviewing them

Which ones matter for you?

Questions for discussion

• Which other MXF checks should everybody have?
• Is baseband analysis needed in open-source tools? By integrating other libraries, open-source or proprietary?
• How can vendors and open-source projects work together?
• Would you co-fund a shared need? Through which group?
• What does your procurement need to fund such work?

Today's features come from sponsors and contributors. The next one could be yours.

Who is interested?

Stay in touch

MediaArea: https://mediaarea.net, @MediaArea_net

MediaInfo: https://MediaArea.net/MediaInfo

Jérôme Martinez: jerome@mediaarea.net

Slides: https://MediaArea.net/Events

License (except images): CC BY