-
Anyone seriously using FCP X in a Volume-based SAN like SanMP?
-
[Chris Harlan] “But, while we’re here– having to make “disk images”? Isn’t that a little much. I mean, instead of copying a folder and sharing a project file you have to fake a system out completely by making it think its using the same disk?”
Read my post before. Disk images are not necessary. It’s *a way* of doing it, but for organization, NOT “sharing”. Just last week I was bouncing sequences between two rooms based on common media. Didn’t even copy the Event. Different imports in each room (from the same media files). Then I just moved the project files from one room to the next and relinked. Pretty much like in Avid (without Unity) or in FCP 7.
Would something like Unity/Isis be nice? Sure. We’ll just have to see if it’s in the plans. Want one better? Lightworks has actually demonstrated two editors actively working on parts of the SAME timeline at once!
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Read my post before. Disk images are not necessary. It’s *a way* of doing it, but for organization, NOT “sharing”. Just last week I was bouncing sequences between two rooms based on common media. Didn’t even copy the Event. Different imports in each room (from the same media files). Then I just moved the project files from one room to the next and relinked. Pretty much like in Avid (without Unity) or in FCP 7.”
Well, that’s good to know. I definitely have to say things out loud a little more to ferret out where my misconceptions lie. I’m curious: Let’s say you are working on a sizzle reel with a very tight deadline. In FCP X, is it easy to take like four or five chunks of a long rough cut, do something like media manage them with handles (so that they don’t have to carry source files with them), hand them out to different editors, and then re-assemble them for completion? Is something like that as doable as it is in other NLEs?
[Oliver Peters] “Lightworks has actually demonstrated two editors actively working on parts of the SAME timeline at once!
“That’s pretty wild!
-
[Chris Harlan] ” I’m curious: Let’s say you are working on a sizzle reel with a very tight deadline. In FCP X, is it easy to take like four or five chunks of a long rough cut, do something like media manage them with handles (so that they don’t have to carry source files with them), hand them out to different editors, and then re-assemble them for completion?”
Copy and consolidate – no problem. Trim with handles? No. I agree with what you are asking, but I am also finding that trimming creates some problems. In general, I see that developers are moving away from it in a file-based world, since clips are *usually* short. When I say “problems”, for instance FCP 7 MM completely messes up Alexa files if you don’t take the entire clip.
My greater concern these days is that FCP X is still pretty much an island. For instance, right now I have a project where I am unable to translate the timeline over to 7 and get a proper audio configuration. I need to do that for the OMF. Definitely still a work in progress.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Chris Harlan] “It just blows my mind that people are using disk images to share files and that other people are crowing over FCP X’s super slick media capabilities. Apple is the only company I can think of that people would do this for. Any other company would have been laughed off the planet.”
While it’s a very clever work around, I agree it is completely odd. Like Oliver, I also think it’s kind of unnecessary.
There has been some discussion on this method, and the consensus seems to be while it’s convenient and does “solve” a problem it hampers performance.
I have a file based SAN (not Volume based) and I really like FCPXs media capabilities. The SAN Locations makes things very manageable, and it’s a shame this capability isn’t built in to non SAN volumes (although technically, I can see why it’s not). It is super simple to load Events/Projects on any machine without quitting/leaving the application or messing around in the Finder, and my SAN software acutally has a lockout system (called ProjectStore) that enables virutal read/write and read only “Volumes” to prevent people from overwrting each other’s work. It also enables a checkin/checkout system. Screen grabs here:
What it looks like on the desktop:
A volume based SAN, as Oliver pointed out, isn’t all that different from an FCP7 way of doing things once when you get used to what it looks like. The separate Project and Event structure is actually not so bad. Sharing Projects (edits) is acutally pretty slick. Having the timeline spearate from the browser can be helpful, but it does take getting used to.
[Chris Harlan] “In FCP X, is it easy to take like four or five chunks of a long rough cut, do something like media manage them with handles (so that they don’t have to carry source files with them), hand them out to different editors, and then re-assemble them for completion? Is something like that as doable as it is in other NLEs?”
You can consolidate media from a Project to a new Event, but it doesn’t trim.
There’s this (third party) application for clip based exporting in FCPX, but it only works in ref files it seems. Still it’s an interesting app to know about if you haven’t seen it before.
https://clipexporter.mindtransplant.com/
I’m sorry I keep being “that guy” that always chimes in on SAN posts. Although full capability/flexibility isn’t there yet, I feel it’s a really good start for “out of the box” support for file based SANs and sharing within an NLE. I do think it will get better, but it’s up to Apple. Better/easier Volume based support would be good too.
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I’m sorry I keep being “that guy” that always chimes in on SAN posts”
No! I find it interesting. I haven’t been working with a SAN for the last few years, other than when I sit in with a company that has one, but I’ve always been interested in networking, so I live vicariously through your posts.
-
[Chris Harlan] “No! I find it interesting. “
The weird thing about FCPX is that for every “how come this isn’t there?” like the lack of Volume (or hard drive) based “Location” type media management, there’s also a “wow, this is actually pretty cool” like file/directory based SAN Locations.
A work in progress is a great way to describe it.
Jeremy
-
I have SANmp running on 3 suites. I have also used both FCP7 and FCPX on the setup.
The limiting factor is that FCPX can not see a volume that is mounted “Read-Only” it must be “Read-Write”. There may be a work around, but frankly we didn’t have the patience for that. Since we use FCPX for the vast majority of our projects, and considering upgrading to more storage anyway, we chose to go with a new file-based SAN system (non-XSAN). Now all suites can access all projects and access all the footage when they need it.
There are a couple of all-in-one solutions out there now that have metadata controllers and such all inside the box. Worth checking out.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up