Emre –
Your firm is obviously on a much larger plane than mine, but still a few observations
with a 6000 tape library we are very quickly moving to get rid of them all. The space used to house them will be turned into edit bays to generate money. Big cost savings there.
Yet later on you talk about the safety and wonders of off-site cyber storage. I work in NYC where the cost of office space is at a premium and I store my tapes in an off-site warehouse where costs are minimal especially with the size of digital tapes.
Video tape cannot store project files …
Obviously not, but project files are tiny in comparison to media, perfect for digital off-site storage.
When you commit your tapeless content to tape you also loose all the metadata, clip based editing/re-linking and option of MXF aware database search.
If you create master files of your clips, that you later lay off to video tape, and edit with these master clips, you will have total re-linking capabilities. It is true as you pointed out that you will also lose all the MetaData.
different formats require decks.
DV, BETASP, DIGIBETA, MPEG IMX,DVCPROHD, HDCAM, HDCAMSR, HDV…etc Thats a lot of money to buy or rent.
All too true, but I’m assuming your talking about a facility that already owns a good number of those decks and is now having to deal with tapeless workflows. If your a start-up and if your clients are not bringing you tape then you don’t need all those decks for backup, just get a Panasonic HD 1400 for HD and an SD93 for SD, around 24K combined, and your all set.
In my original post I was just trying to suggest that archival storage is the unspoken spectre of tapeless acquisitiion. I know the future will be tapeless but I think that for the present, especially if your a small company, the rush to tapeless may be foolish.
When the time comes that remote digital archival storage becomes a finacial reality on a tight budget, then I’ll be all for it.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions