Q: clips in multiple projects

Libraries are closed containers. The clips would have to be in every library. However, the clips do not have to be copied into the event. They can all remain in a single folder somewhere and be linked into each library.

I don't understand. In my test Final Cut duplicates the clips inside the project library if they come from a different one

If the original media isn't in the library package in the first place, when you move clips from one library to another, the media is not being duplicated, only the symlinks are duplicated.

It's important to be sure if this no-extraspace duplication is the same as for self including clip projects.

What happens to disk space if you move that library?

What happens if you mount on a disk image?

I'm sorry I'm not entirely sure I understand the questions.

If you move a library from one place on a drive to another place on the same drive then there is no change in drive space. If you move it to another drive, the space goes down on one and increases on the other.

If the library is on a disk image there should be no change in space used. The disk image is on the computer whether it's mounted or not I presume. If you're using a sparsebundle, the bundle will probably increase in size over time as the library writes more render and peak data and thumbnail files to it.

Hello,

in order to explain the situation is good to explain my workflow.

I usually share my clips(events) with my partner or simply use them on different workstations (like Imac, Mbpro).

The footage is not stored always on the same physical drive. All of us are in different places so we use to copy the events on external disks, mount them on different workstations, etc.

The best solution was disk images where events were stored. They are very easy to handle and very flexible: no matter where they are phisically located, if you open that sparseimage, you have that drive mounted with all the required events and clip available.

Projects could include clips from different events on different disk images, all was pretty simple.

I know that this approach is a common one: many many editors/videographer do the same.

Now we have libraries... it seems quite similar on the sheet, except for projects. This is where all the portability seems to fail for me. Because projects library needs to have all the clips "inside" that library!!!

Yes, probably the disk space is not wasted... but I wonder what happens if I have to move that library on different drives...

In a number of blogs is clearly stated that "it's fundamental to keep media away from libaries"... that's a complication for my workflow. I need to

1 create sparseimage to store files media

2 create libraries to import media (leaving the source in the created sparseimage)

3 create projects on libraries (in this way the project will include only links and not the clips)

I think this has generated more steps than before.

I don't understand why Final cut does not let the user decide to include links or not in the projects.

I'm not sure I see the point at all of disk images in the new structure. Not sure what benefit sparseimages were in the old structure, except that they were smaller than whole drives. In the new structure, at its basic level you simply have a folder with the media you need and the library points to the media.

What's the point of the sparseimages?

See if this thread gives you some ideas

http://www.fcp.co/forum/4-final-cut-pro-x-fcpx/18684-another-side-benefit-to-usi ng-transfer-libraries-for-project-sharing