[David Parker]

I got that bug on one of the systems I installed MC6 on. I think it might be the geforce 7300 GT, the other system where it works fine is a Radeon HD 4870. Trashed all the prefs I could find, no better, uninstalled, and reinstalled MC6, no fix. Ended up just mirroring my two displays so I could run the tests I need to run, luckily I don’t need to actually edit with it.

[David Parker]

Ahh, well I am sure giving you a number first is what you prefer as an integrator, but for me actually what I am looking at is features first, price second.

The problem is, like everyone else in post, I are not sure what happens after FCP7, but I am not ready to commit to Avid. However I do need a SAN now, (on FCP7) and so I am looking for the solution that works now, and will work with either Premier or Avid later. The reason I am looking at features first, is, I don’t need full blown project sharing, I just need all stations accessing the same media. I am looking for the simplest way to do that (under the KISS principle, as well as for value). Yes I could get an ISIS 5000, and I am perfectly willing to do that, but I suspect it is overkill for what I want, and therefore fails on the value metric.

I am just looking for a little help figuring out how Avid works on the SAN, and particularly, what short of full blown project sharing exists. It seems there is a step in there that is volume level sharing, I just need a bit more info on the workflow there . . .

[David Parker]

Hi Mr. Zelin, I was hoping you’d drop by and give your very valuable input. (This is a new account, but I have been lurking around the cow for quite a while, and plenty long enough to appreciate the help you have to offer around here, and your unique style 🙂 )

Yeah, like I said in my original post, I am not familiar with the Avid MC workflow, and like anyone I want to hold on to my tried and true way of working, which with FCP is each editor has their own project, but all link to the same media. Steve mentions that with AMA that is posable, but as James brings up, that seems to be a not exactly recommended path.

You bring up an interesting point about volume level locking, and I would like to to explore that further: I have a been a little nervous about file level locking, and the need for a meta data controller as is, even if we stay on FCP (or switch to Premiere). It seems to me from the reading I have done that file level locking tends to be a bit more unstable then volume level.

The way we work now is generally with one station for ingest and a few edit stations, so I think volume level locking would be fine for us? The ingest can have write, and everyone else reads.

So in a Avid MC workflow on volume level locking, the ingest creates “bins” of new material, and the edits can all read those same bins? Can the ingest update those bins and the edit stations do some sort of refresh to see the new stuff? How can the edit stations pass back and forth the projects or timelines (in fcp terminology)? Like if we are working on a long form doc, and have two edits working on separate parts of the film, how do they eventually come together?

What would you recommend? Volume level or file level? If money was no object, it would probably be an editshare? I have no problem with spending real money on getting a solid solution, but like anyone, I am looking for the best value I can, meaning the most storage space for my money. But of course lots of storage that goes down all the time, or corrupts, or forces my editors to waste time in workflow is no good to me.