-
OT: And then there is this…
-
[Scott Witthaus] “But isn’t the multi-editor environment just a niche at the top of the pyramid?”
I don’t think so, no. With NLE cost of ownership (hardware + software) plummeting over the last 15yrs it’s more feasible than ever to have multiple editors working collaboratively on the same project or working with the same media pool on separate projects. For example, I used to work for a website that had a dozen editors sharing assets and cranking out web videos on a daily basis and there’s just no way to make that work w/o shared storage. And no way they could have done it w/o the relative inexpensiveness of FCP Legend running on off-the-shelf Macs. For another example, currently I’m doing some AE work on a doc at a small shop (4 people including myself) and they have 32TB of shared storage. I’m on two computers ingesting, prepping, exporting, etc., and an AP is on another computer logging footage. If I had to guess I’d say the shared storage is going to pay for itself inside a year or two due to increased productivity and because there’s no need to but a ton of drives so create multiple, local storage copies of all the media.
I’ve also worked at places that could have really benefitted from having shared storage but while the cost of shared storage has come down a lot in the last 10-15 years it hasn’t dropped as fast as computer and software prices have. It also still takes speciality knowlege to build and maintain. If there was a reliable, Plug and Play shared storage system you could pickup at Best Buy and then easily setup by just plugging in a couple of wires I think the adoption rate would be much higher. Most NLEs not really being designed for a multi-user environment is another hurdle because it adds to the complexity to the situation.
I think this is why a viable cloud-based shared storage solution for video editing is so sought after because it does create a plug and play experience for the end users (just connect to the Internet at a fast enough speed and you are good to go). The downside of course is getting your footage into the cloud in the first place.
Are there multi-editor environments that are so cost prohibitive that only a nice at the top of the pyramid can afford them? Of course, but there are single editor environments like that too.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “For another example, currently I’m doing some AE work on a doc at a small shop (4 people including myself) and they have 32TB of shared storage. I’m on two computers ingesting, prepping, exporting, etc., and an AP is on another computer logging footage. If I had to guess I’d say the shared storage is going to pay for itself inside a year or two due to increased productivity and because there’s no need to but a ton of drives so create multiple, local storage copies of all the media.”
I have 21 computers together using a 32Tb Terrablock storage system where the main NLE is X. Teams can spread out to multiple computers and do the same work you mention above (I think). Some are doing grfx, others are pulling music from DeWolfe, and others are keywording footage in X. All are accessing the same partition and adding material at the same time. Is this similar to what you describe above or are there folks actually cutting the same footage in the same project at the same time?
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
It’s funny to see this discussion of shared storage and cost as related only to Avid. A small production company I have worked with for years set up an FCP 7 shared environment completely based on FC Server a few years ago. Serious investment in iron and outside consulting. Then they got screwed when Apple pulled the plug on all of it. They would have been better going Avid or no sharing at all.
If you work on TV shows (yes, I know it’s a niche) there simply is no comparison with using Avid versus anything else. You really jump through hoops trying to create one-off systems and procedures and rules trying to create a similar environment with FCP legacy, FCPX, Premiere, etc.
Maybe Mark Raudonis could share his experiences on that point, having gone from Avid to FCP and back.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Part of this discussion has turned to criticizing Avid as it has been. That’s old news. What’s far more interesting is Avid – or at least Media Composer – as it could be. That’s where I believe a BMD acquisition of the IP for MC has a lot of possibilities. Granted, it’s pure sprculation, but it certainly has breathed life and growth into various other moribund brands.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “That’s where I believe a BMD acquisition of the IP for MC has a lot of possibilities. Granted, it’s pure sprculation, but it certainly has breathed life and growth into various other moribund brands.
“But if BMD owned it they would probably update the UI and we all know how Avid Editors would love that 🙂
-
[Oliver Peters] “[David Mathis] “I prefer the interface as is in Resolve. Avid seems to be from the dinosaur age when it comes to that.”
Why?”
Because you cannot slip a clip from keyboard in MC?
-
[Walter Soyka] “Maybe that’s only because Resolve is not (yet) an awesome NLE.
“At least the team making Resolve understands that a nudge is a nude, no matter roll, ripple, slip or slide so there is nod need to have four different shortcuts for it.
-
[Misha Aranyshev] “Because you cannot slip a clip from keyboard in MC?
“Sure you can. There’s even a keyboard shortcut you can assign to it so you don’t have to go into trim mode first. There’s no equivalent keyboard shortcut for slide, but there’s definitely one for slip.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[David Mathis] “I wonder about the performance of Nuke Studio as well though it does not have a big color correction tool set as Resolve does.”
NUKE STUDIO strikes me right now as a compositor with a timeline, geared really specifically for conform rather than editorial. I’m not aware of anyone using it as an NLE.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Scott Witthaus] “All are accessing the same partition and adding material at the same time. Is this similar to what you describe above or are there folks actually cutting the same footage in the same project at the same time?”
In my current situation it’s just me prepping footage but eventually it will be an editor and an AE working together on a single documentary. I’ve worked a lot in both situations though (people just sharing the same media pool while editing ‘individual’ projects and people sharing the same media pool while collaborating on the same project at the same time). At one place I worked at it would change depending on need, so mall projects would usually just have one editor working on them where as large projects could have 4-5 editors working collaboratively at the same time (someone gets Act 1, another person gets Act 2, etc.).
[Oliver Peters] “You really jump through hoops trying to create one-off systems and procedures and rules trying to create a similar environment with FCP legacy, FCPX, Premiere, etc.
“Right, and not having that extra busy work is one reason why MC functions so smoothly in a multi-editor environment.
For example, on my current gig it’s just me and two machines hooked up to a SAN and I’m prepping footage for a doc in PPro. I have Project A (main Mac) and Project B (helper Mac) and ultimately all the footage, sequences, etc., need to end up in Project A. There are basically four steps to my workflow, Ingest, Tag, Sync, Export and I’ll constantly bounce between between both projects to maximize what I can get done in a day. If Project A is syncing footage then I’ll use Project B to ingest and tag footage. If Project B is doing a lot of exports (I use Media Encoder but it can still slow the machine down) then I’ll use Project A to ingest footage. Part of my workflow involves tracking which steps are done in which project so I can make sure nothing gets overlooked and everything ends up back in Project A.
If I was in Avid I wouldn’t have to worry about micro managing separate projects, using the Media Browser to transfer from one project to another, etc., because it would all be happening inside of one project. And it’s not like you can’t use X, FCP Legend, PPro, etc., in a multi-editor environment (many people have, including myself, and have done so for years) it’s that Avid’s implementation is better because it’s been designed with that functionality in mind. I spent over five years working with FCP Legend and an Xsan and, no joke, the first day I was back on an MC/ISIS gig I said to myself, “Man I missed multi-user done right.” I know I’ve mentioned it before but being able to do things like update Avid projects by just dragging & dropping folders, bins, etc., via the Finder (or Windows Explorer) is amazingly simple and effective.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up