Mark Raudonis
3
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
“because the network REQUIRES an Avid project and Avid media”
Shane, my experience has been that this is NEVER an issue. It’s negotiable. They just want a project, any project. Brand name is less relevent.
If they insist, I tell them, ooops, we don’t use Avid, we only use FCP.
mark
-
Quick answer: This is a BAD idea!
mark
-
Christopher,
Do you know about Avid’s “Media Manager Select”. Sound like it does what you’re looking for.“https://www.avid.com/products/datasheets/mm_select.pdf
By the way, almost six years ago we switched to FCP-XSAN from Avid Unity in part to achieve exactly what you’re looking for. Did you know that you can “tap in” to an X-SAN using AFP or SMB using your “IT” internet config. We do this for our story departments. It’s economical because you do NOT need another X-SAN license, another Fibre drop, or even a copy of FCP if all they’re doing is watching.
DV quality will push the bandwidth limits of this process, but for us, we work primarily at off-line RT, which is an incredibly low bandwith codec. We have 20- 25 people all pulling off the SAN via the ethernet (in addition to all of our fibre connected clients).
Mark
-
Phillippe,
I’ll echo what everyone else here has said: It’s NOT necessary to transcode to prores just to work with XDCAM in FCP.
We do lots and lots of reality TV. (Like tens of thousands of hours per year of raw footage) Most is on the Sony XDCAM-HD disc based format, but we use the EX-3 as well. When working at full rez, we always import in using the native XDCAM codec, and set the timeline to the same. HOWEVER, we set the renders to Prores to take advantage of that for color, GRFX, etc.
Here’s something I think you should be more worried about: How are you going to archive all of that chip based media? Blu ray? LTO? Do you even have a plan?
Xdcam codec = no problem. Archiving chip based media = big Pain
Good luck.
Mark
-
[Simon Green] “I am cutting the offline together here and it is being onlined elsewhere and they are thinking about converting all of the footage to Pro Res HQ”
Let’s be specific about what they mean by “converting”.
We work with XDCAMHD (and the EX flavor) all the time. We bring it in the same way that you do. Our timeline is set to “Native XDCAM”, but the rendering is set to prores. This gives you the best of both worlds… a low weight codec for the bulk of the material, but a higher quality codec for the GRFX and other renders.
By the way, we do NOT use Prores HQ… just the regular full quality prores. For material originating on XDCAM, HQ is overkill.
So, in my opinion, it would be pointless to convert everything to PRORES HQ for final finishing. By the way, what are the details on how you’re finishing. That may explain why they want to convert. Without that info, I’m just guessing.
Mark
-
Great idea. I’d suggest a lower number of “votes”, like 3-5.
For this to be effective, the users must feel that they have a hand in making it work. If I’m one of three, I’ll take the time to “vote”. One of many… not interested.
Glad to see that you’re taking action. That’s what makes this forum stay as vibrant and relevent as it is.
Mark
-
Agree with Shane.
We do 3 to 5 hours (Final running time) a week of “off-line to on-line” mastering. We’ve built into our workflow a “check” procedure where every shot is checked against the off-line for accuracy. If it’s tape based… you’re going to see some slippage.
Recently, our workflow has changed to “file based” acquisition, and we’re finding the accuracy to be MUCH more consistent. So, if you’re moving tape, you need to expect to deal with some slippage.
mark
-
Two seats only, yes. Beyond that you’re into a whole ‘nother level of cost and complexity.
mark
-
chris,
While I appreciate your skepticism and conservative approach to the “cloud”, I think your resistance is futile. Your Board of ED IT guys will eventually get it right. Like many things hi tech, there will come a point where we can’t believe we ever lived without it.
Shall I make a list? The entire industrial revolution is about the evolution of technology and how it has constantly replace the preceding “state of the art”. After the caveman tasted “flame broiled wolly mammoth” how could he ever go back to raw meat? Leap forward thousands of years, and the argument still stands… once you’ve enjoyed the benefits of the “cloud”, how can you ever live without it?
We’re in the “early adopter” phase of “the cloud” now. You ain’t seen ‘nothing yet.
Has anyone tried out “Google wave” yet? The level of “real time” interaction and collaboration will quickly wipe out anyone’s fears about the cloud. The upside is just too good to ignore. Sure there are specific situations where it may not be appropriate, but mundane, day to day ops as we now know them WILL be moving to the cloud. I can see that groundswell happening. Better you prepare for it, understand it and embrace it than resist it.
Mark
-
Doug,
I’d suggest that BEFORE you start ripping everything out and reinventing your SAN, that you spend a few bucks and hire in an X-SAN expert to take a look at your system. You should NOT be getting the kind of performance problems you’re describing, and unfortunately, the reasons why are hidden in tiny little details.
I will guarantee that if you turn this SAN over to your IT department, you will have much WORSE peformance. No offense to your IT folks. I don’t know them, and I’m sure they’re great at what they do… which is NOT video.
Call some of the people that frequent this list: Shane, Bob Z, Matt… they will all tell you the same thing.
We’re driving our X-SAN much harder than what you’ve described WITHOUT the kind of “dropped frames” or permissions issues that you’re describing. You really need a pro to help set this stuff up. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about X-SAN, but I still call in the experts when needed.
Good luck.
Mark