Q: Ideas for Server or Net-Drive for Small Group
-
Dec 7, 2012 10:14 AMby Shane Ross,Video storage is very demanding. SHARED video storage even more so. Simple NAS setups for home or business use won't cut it for video. Multiple streams of video will need to be played back (multiple edit stations accessing the server) and it will need to be smooth. You are looking not only as storage, but a server computer and hardware to support that. $12,000 is a lowball amount for such a thing.
TWO computers...you might get away with a RAID on one system and then connecting them via Ethernet. Even then it isn't the best. More than two....you need a server.
-
by Michael Grenadier,Dec 7, 2012 10:47 AM
Michael Grenadier
Dec 7, 2012 10:47 AM
in response to Alex Campuzano1
Level 7
(20,362 points)
Mac OS Xfwiw, you might do best just cloning your media drive. Much simpler, less that can go wrong not to mention the security of the backup.
-
Dec 10, 2012 7:59 AMby Alex Campuzano1,Thanks to both of you for the replies. Michael, can you elaborate on your idea? Are you saying to have a RAID, as Shane suggested on one system, then have that RAID cloned to a second RAID which is dierectly connected to the second workstation? I could set Carbon Copy Cloner to update the second drive every night to ensure they are both up-to-date.
What about the idea of buying Thunderbolt drives using FW 800 to TB adapters with the thought that in a few months, God willing, we'll probably be getting new Mac Pros and will be ready to tap into the faster connection?
Thanks again for your opinions.
-
by Michael Grenadier,Dec 10, 2012 8:04 AM
Michael Grenadier
Dec 10, 2012 8:04 AM
in response to Alex Campuzano1
Level 7
(20,362 points)
Mac OS X
What formats are you working with. A raid may not be necessary. But yes, just update the clone each night. Masnaging versions of your fcp project may be a little tricky. if each editor has his own bin and you make sure these bins are updated correctly, you should be ok. Not as elegant as shared storage perhaps. Testing this workflow to make sure you're not overwriting the other editors work will be crucial.
-
Dec 10, 2012 9:00 AMby Alex Campuzano1,Yeah, our workflow is not pro at all really. Pro in the respect of the look and the quality of the files, but we're former designers that have a few years of FCP under our belts. Started with the old Sony BetaSP deck and all.
Up to now, I've kept a main project file for every campaign, with individual bins containing the sequencing and assets for each client. Very easy to keep track of. I always kept my files local on my GRAID2, then transfered the finished exports to the server. I also have backups of these project files and their assets. Now, I'm media-managing each client sequence so the other editor can have everthing just for that client.
Many of our spots are motion-graphic based. Lot's of Photoshoped 24-bit PNG files, Title 3D and Cinema 4D animations using the Animation+ codec for alpha. I know people say to use image sequences, but FCP doesn't seem to handle these too well. Bogs my system down too much.
I've been setting up my sequences in ProResHQ, HDTV 1080i (16:9), square pixels and things look gorgeous. Unfortunately, most cable stations these days want h.264 files which isn't a rich looking, but they look nice on TV.
Sorry for the long post.
-
by Michael Grenadier,Dec 10, 2012 9:05 AM
Michael Grenadier
Dec 10, 2012 9:05 AM
in response to Alex Campuzano1
Level 7
(20,362 points)
Mac OS X
Hey, if you're getting paid for the work, it's pro as far as I'm concerned.
who the heck ever told you to use image sequences? They will bog the system down. I use quicktime player 7 to convert to a quicitime file usually with the native codec which is totally lossless. Prores 4444 works much better than animation with millions+ as far as I can tell, so if you can output in your other apps with it, I'd go for it (or at least test for quality).
I've actually had to use h264 files as sources when on location with an animator providing files from a distance. h264 at full quality look pretty good.
-
Dec 10, 2012 9:24 AMby Alex Campuzano1,I'll check the ProRes 4444 option out. I also just read a review at Cnet that states:
"In both situations, the FireWire protocol cannot host a Thunderbolt device, so attaching the Thunderbolt adapter to a non-Thunderbolt Mac through its FireWire connection will not provide that Mac with Thunderbolt capabilities."
Bummer.
