This discussion is locked
avideditor

Q: Advice needed... do we need FCServer?

I have read through similar questions on here, so pardon the redundancy of the question. I still have some questions though, and a situation that may be different from other posters.

We have a 5, going on 7 FCP license facility. 5 machines are running metaSAN over fiber channel. The metaSAN master machine is an XServe. The two expansion machines are going to be iMac's, connecting to the SAN via AFP.

We work mostly at uncompressed 10-bit for finish, pro-res occasionally for offline. We are not interested in FCServer for it's proxy generation, we don't want to flood our SAN with compressed files, we'd run out of space.

With that in mind... in your humble opinion, do we need FCServer?

Also, keep in mind, it would have to run on our metaSAN master XServe. I am concerned about the compatibility of this setup, although Tiger Tech says it's supported.

Would this give producers access to browsing assets if they are not on a FCP machine?

Any other helpful advice?

Thanks in advance for your time.

2 x 3.2 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 8 GB 800 MHz, Mac OS X (10.6.4), metaSAN, Sonnet RX1600s, Kona 3, FCP 7 suite v.7.0.3

Posted on Nov 18, 2010 6:51 AM

Close

Q: Advice needed... do we need FCServer?

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

  • by Will Griffith,Helpful

    Will Griffith Will Griffith Nov 18, 2010 8:22 AM in response to avideditor
    Level 1 (65 points)
    Nov 18, 2010 8:22 AM in response to avideditor
    {quote:title=avideditor wrote:}Would this give producers access to browsing assets if they are not on a FCP machine?{quote}

    Yes. We have folks on everything from MacPros to 5 year old junk PCs able to review, export, and approve assets.

    It works great for us.

    Will Griffith
  • by John F. Whitehead,Helpful

    John F. Whitehead John F. Whitehead Nov 18, 2010 8:24 AM in response to avideditor
    Level 2 (380 points)
    Nov 18, 2010 8:24 AM in response to avideditor
    How much you need Final Cut Server depends mostly on how much you reuse content - multiple users accessing the same content, keeping content around for reuse in other projects or archival purposes, or offline/online workflows. You seem to hit at least a couple of these.

    There are a lot of questions I would ask before making a recommendation. Why do you need to work in uncompressed? (Not that you don't--it's just that FCSvr might be able to address some of the issues to improve your workflows.) HD or SD? What kind of projects? What kinds of collaboration? What kinds of delivery workflows? What are the situations requiring ProRes offline? What space restrictions do you have?

    You may not need to worry about flooding your SAN with proxies if you are working with uncompressed--the disk space for proxies will seem insignificant in comparison. You also need those proxies for non-FCP machines to browse over Ethernet (which also answers your second question: yes, it would give producers access).

    So yes, Final Cut Server could definitely save you time, disk space, and make your production workflow more efficient. Exactly how will require a deeper assessment.
  • by BenB,

    BenB BenB Nov 22, 2010 6:09 AM in response to John F. Whitehead
    Level 6 (10,041 points)
    Audio
    Nov 22, 2010 6:09 AM in response to John F. Whitehead
    Since no cameras are recording uncompressed HD, I'd question why you're storing in uncompressed HD. But FCSvr will take care of all you issues.

    A properly set up SAN will deal with compressed HD (either the camera's native codec, ProRes, or DVCPRO-HD) with that many stations and FCSvr with no problems. Again, why are you wasting disk space and data bandwidth with uncomprssed HD?
  • by avideditor,

    avideditor avideditor Nov 22, 2010 1:10 PM in response to John F. Whitehead
    Level 2 (150 points)
    Nov 22, 2010 1:10 PM in response to John F. Whitehead
    Thanks to everyone who responded. This helps give me a better idea of how it could actually be helpful to our workflow. Mostly from a producer surfing assets standpoint, but it sounds good overall. Thanks again.

    I will briefly address the "why Uncompressed 10-bit" question that was asked more than once... most of our sources are .R3D files and we cut with proxies... so these are not uncompressed 10bit... and other source formats include p2 and DVCPro etc... these are only kept as their source format. But we transcode to 10 bit when we mix formats in an online/color workflow, or when we pre-transcode .R3D files and use the 10 bit for color correction and in our post-fx pipeline. ProRes is fine for off-lining... as are most source codecs, but when were dealing with raw sources that originate in 12 bits, we finish in uncompressed 10 bit for the lowest noise and cleanest keys possible.
  • by John F. Whitehead,

    John F. Whitehead John F. Whitehead Nov 23, 2010 7:55 PM in response to avideditor
    Level 2 (380 points)
    Nov 23, 2010 7:55 PM in response to avideditor
    Producers are important (well, at least I'm not going to argue that point), but it sounds like FCSvr could be helpful from a workflow perspective as well.

    Every time you convert from one source to another, FCSvr could do that for you, and manage the connections between the media, and allow you to offline/online without thinking about it.

    Copy your .R3D files to a drop folder, have FCSvr convert them to uncompressed and ProRes HQ (FCSvr handles the online & offline versions) and H.264, move the .R3D to an offsite backup, archive unused footage to nearline storage, etc.
  • by BenB,

    BenB BenB Nov 26, 2010 5:06 AM in response to John F. Whitehead
    Level 6 (10,041 points)
    Audio
    Nov 26, 2010 5:06 AM in response to John F. Whitehead
    Upload your RED RAW footage into FCSvr. Do you need a Watcher folder? Depends on your workflow. But you'll set FCSvr to create Edit Proxies (not only preview proxies, two different things), and when you use this stuff for your FCP editing project, it'll ask if you want to use original files, or edit proxies. You'll use edit proxies, until you're ready for full rez output. At that point you'll check out your FCP project file, and specify (you'll get a window asking you when you check out FCP project files) that you want to use the original RED RAW files. It's as simple as that. You don't need to convert to ProRes or anything, edit proxies turned on will do that automatically.

    And there's still no reason in the world to make "uncompressed HD" files at all. Why would you waste the time and drive space for something that's basically not doing you any good?
  • by BenB,

    BenB BenB Nov 26, 2010 5:43 AM in response to BenB
    Level 6 (10,041 points)
    Audio
    Nov 26, 2010 5:43 AM in response to BenB
    "But we transcode to 10 bit when we mix formats in an online/color workflow, or when we pre-transcode .R3D files and use the 10 bit for color correction and in our post-fx pipeline. "

    Well, uncompressed doesn't help with your color work. The data is the data, it doesn't add anything to your color or FX work. ProRes 4444 would take care of any FX work that requires an alpha channel, and even then, you'd take your footage in in it's native format, do your FX work, and only use 4444 when you have to move from one app to the other and preserving an existing alpha channel. RED RAW files don't have an alpha channel to preserve.
  • by avideditor,

    avideditor avideditor Nov 26, 2010 5:56 AM in response to BenB
    Level 2 (150 points)
    Nov 26, 2010 5:56 AM in response to BenB
    BenB wrote:
    Well, uncompressed doesn't help with your color work. The data is the data, it doesn't add anything to your color or FX work. ProRes 4444 would take care of any FX work that requires an alpha channel, and even then, you'd take your footage in in it's native format, do your FX work, and only use 4444 when you have to move from one app to the other and preserving an existing alpha channel. RED RAW files don't have an alpha channel to preserve.


    That fine, your entitled to that opinion. Our opinion is that while it's a 10-bit format... it's a compressed format and for broadcast work we only work uncompressed. You can compare the two to your eye and they are identical, but comparing scopes, there is a difference. Considering we are just transcoding selects for final grading and compositing work... the extra data size of the uncompressed is not an issue.

    Again, the thrust of this thread is about FCSvr, not what codec.
  • by BenB,

    BenB BenB Nov 26, 2010 3:46 PM in response to avideditor
    Level 6 (10,041 points)
    Audio
    Nov 26, 2010 3:46 PM in response to avideditor
    If I take any compressed video file, convert it to uncompressed, it will show on scopes exactly the same. No data is added to the original, it can't be. Just a scientific fact, you gain nothing in quality. Moving on...