What's Missing From The FCPx Conversation: Collaborative Editing and Storage

With all the talk about the New FCP, what nobody's mentioned here is what , if anything could/should be on the horizon from Apple about a Unity-style, shared editing solution.

If FCP is going to be a substantial re-write with modern code, wouldn't it be easier on all of us if a new, modern, slick shared editing solution came from one source? the vendor?

One way or another, the New FCP is going to make waves, and I hope that there is something along the lines of a 'Unity' or better, solution , from APPLE that takes editing in FCP to another level.


What do you guys think? Mark? (Raudonis)

Isn't there already XSAN?



www.strypesinpost.com

too complicated.

how about iServe®??

very simple system, like the Bob Zelin one, which is affordable, and seems simple.
only drawback is you need a dedicated MacPro to run it.

so make that a small box with a dedicated brain,
and a bunch of drives either in it or out of it, linked w thunderbolt.

you need to be able to dive into it;s brain from a separate Mac Pro, that could be an edit station.
maybe all hooked up systems can control it, or maybe one is the "master control" only (make that an option)
that'd be via T/Bolt as well

but really simple:
like Bob Z meets Drobo meets Apple design.


i'll have one of those, thank you


nick

strypes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't there already XSAN?


Yeah, but everybody has their own way of doing it. Plus Apple just exited the storage business. But they could still offer us a software package.

I've never gotten into the nuts and bolts of getting an XSAN up and running. Editshare does have a system that is modelled after the Unity (eg. Project file locking, volume allocation etc). Naturally it's not Apple, but like the Unity, it's pretty much a turnkey SAN system, and SANs are complicated.

>and a bunch of drives either in it or out of it, linked w thunderbolt.

I was talking to Carl from AJA at the Malaysian meet. and he mentioned something about not being able to assign an IP address to a device or something like that. So I believe you can daisy chain storage devices like FireWire, but you can't use it to hook up machines like in an Ethernet network or run shared storage off thunderbolt. I could be wrong about this, so feel free to correct me. Currently I see it as a faster, more versatile FireWire in most practical implementation, but with some differences.



www.strypesinpost.com

Quote

very simple system, like the Bob Zelin one, which is affordable, and seems simple.
only drawback is you need a dedicated MacPro to run it.

Actually you can edit on the same system that operates as the server its not a drawback at all.

All you need is a fast direct attached RAID to the main MacPro; capable of at least 100MBps per channel (Gigabit Ethernet is c. 100MBps) so for 4 clients thats 400MBps so a 5 Disk RAID 5 via a SAS RAID card may be fine.

I recently put in a system like this for a small shared edit suite setup in London based around 1 MacPro with 16TB RAID 5 (with hot spare) capable of c. 980 to 1200MBps and 2 iMacs connected via Gigabit Ethernet with all three Macs being used for Editing.

When sharing via Ethernet then you have 2 separate channels Gigabit Ethernet (GigE) on the MacPro and you can buy 2, 4 and 8 port Gigabit Ethernet Network Interface Cards (NICs) for relatively little. You can used an Ethernet switch, but you then share the line between however many connections you have attached.

If you make sure you buy a good quality CAT 6 or CAT 6a cabling (not CAT 5e) you will future proof your cables for using 10GBASE-T (IEEE802.3an) which is starting to appear (using the same RJ-45 connections as 100/1000BASE-T) for distances under 100m (under 50m for CAT6), instead of the horrendously expensive fibre based systems.


File-sharing is extremely easy with Macs and we all have in-built servers in the OS - something that will be boosted to a fully fledged server class system in Mac OS X Lion! [Looking forward to that].

I'll have to write an article one day on it - but its incredibly easy to do.

A couple of things make sure you keep your autosaves and caches on your local systems which frees up the bandwidth for reading shared footage data. Although not entirely necessary - rendering is best done to a local media drive until the final render or final output.

The main issues are file management and editors or people messing it up (in which case just don't allow the satellite edits suites write access and do media ingest in a very orderly fashion with correct transfer and logging. But honestly... if your editors don't know how to manage a simple logical file system then they need to go back to school and learn that first before touching a computer for work! No exceptions - the "I'm a creative" or "I don't have to do it on Avid - someone does it for me" line does not wash with me - an electrician knows how to use a screwdriver and multimeter - and editor must know how to use their tools of choice!

The only real issue with FCP is that you can't work on the same sequences or FCP files at the same time but you can copy the files and work on your own sections then simply copy them back into the master FCP project later.

It's not rocket science but you are best advised to get your head down and read all the boring nerdy-stuff regarding Networks if you want to build and run this type of thing yourself.

But to answer the Question - wait until Mac OS X Lion - I think collaborative workflows might come of age with that. Not to mention Time machine style Undo!!!



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

There is EditShare...which I'd LOVE to try, but never have.

I prefer Avid for shared storage, multi-editor working. So simple, and very easy.

All Unity really is is storage. The sharing capabilities are built into Avid MC and how it works. IT has a little to do with Unity...but really, you could do the same thing with any shared storage. At least in my experience. Unity does make things smoother. I wish I was an assistant when Unity came out...I'd know better WHY.

Yes, Mark will now chastise me for not liking FCP in shared multi-editor environments. Even if the FCP one is done well, Avid is easier.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

I've worked briefly on Editshare and I've worked on Unity, as well as a SAN for FCP. There are some features I like about Avid, but I think the media management is overhyped, or I've gotten too used to managing my media in FCP. I don't think FCP is bad in a shared storage environment. That said, I wonder if you can lock an FCP project to prevent people from saving over it.



www.strypesinpost.com

Overhyped?

You can match back to a master clip from a subclip. Can't do that in FCP, it won't let you. You can locate the parent clip, but it won't dump you to the point in the clip you are in the subclip. And you can load the source, but then if you have markers, they won't show up. Bou aren't accessing the master clip that has them, but rather the source file.

In FCP if you use multiple projects to organize things, say one project for footage, another for cuts... you cannot REVEAL MASTER CLIPS. Clip affiliation is broken across projects.

Avid will link a small clip to a larger clip of footage. Say you have a 2 min clip, but the media is gone. You can have it link to a 30 min media file, and properly, without issue. Can't do this in FCP without a third party plugin.

The CONSOLIDATE/TRANSCODE puts FCP's MEDIA MANAGER to shame. Speed changes? Stills? Not an issue at all. But, the MM is getting better.

But then FCP separates media by project...and THAT I like. A lot. Avid just dumps everything into common folders.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

I am with you Shane. Unity, in those specific instances that it gets used a lot, is killer.
Fast turnaround, multiple editors, high shooting ratio shows? Like reality TV, I wouldn't think of doing it without Unity and AVID MC.

But it is a very specific instance. Those shows are usually high enough budget to make it worth their while to invest in Unity systems. They are choosing the Good and Fast sides of the Good/Fast/Cheap triangle.

It can make features easier but so can a good assistant and shared drives. Unless you have to turn out the cut in record time you can manage without that extra expense.

I've always liked AVIDs media management even though it's huge folders of serialized files, managing it is very flexible. Having to import everything to get to that place can be a drag if you need a quick start but quick starts are another specific case that not everyone needs. AMA isn't something to build a giant project on yet, specifically multicam or mixed resolution offline/online workflows.

ak
Sleeplings, AWAKE!

>But then FCP separates media by project...and THAT I like. A lot

There wasn't a search tool in Avid. Not in MC5.1 at least. You can sift within a bin, but not across bins, and because of the way avid organizes media, the finder is virtually useless for doing keyword searches on clips, so you need to remember where your clips are, or you have to see it to match bin. Not so the case in FCP, as everything is stored as quicktime, and locating footage isn't an issue if it was properly logged. I just wish the Finder was better with reading QT metadata such as timecode, reel names, etc...

In FCP, I do timeline to timeline edits (due to the lack of the toggle source record timeline feature), and I usually keep my markers on the rushes timeline. So the markers bit doesn't really bother me too much. Great if it refreshes if someone adds a marker on the master clip. In fact, it would be really cool if you had an option to add a marker to the source file, so your assistant could make notes in a project and the notes can automatically refresh in the editors' projects. But of course, that's wishful thinking.

>In FCP if you use multiple projects to organize things, say one project for footage, another for
>cuts... you cannot REVEAL MASTER CLIPS.

Lol. That's not how it's supposed to work in FCP. You'll have your stuff in different folders, not projects. If you need to import footage from another project (eg. in the case of multiple editors), you import the bin into your FCP project, then insert it into the timeline. Avid does have that thing with bins and folders, and you cannot create a folder or a bin within a bin. FCP does not differentiate between the two, so you can create your folders, pop footage into it, create another folder to further organize the footage. But of course, there's pros and cons to this, as Avid bins are in a way, like an FCP project, but also different. I'm not sure if you can match bin to the rushes bin in Avid, if you simply grabbed a few clips from a timeline in another project, so the same concept apply, to some degree. On reveal master clip (the avid equivalent) sometimes I get an error saying that the bin isn't loaded in the project when it is and those aren't Unity bins. This part is probably a bug, but I've seen it quite a few times.

I'm still curious about the transcode/consolidate option. I ran it on some AMA media recently (trying desperately to un-AMA a project), and the clips still show up highlighted in yellow, even though the media drive location has changed. FCP's Media manager doesn't transcode stills, that part sucks. That said, I have used FCP's MM's trim tool to recapture a speed ramped clip from a timeline that was ported from Avid, and I was quite surprised it worked. Kudos to Auto Duck on this too.

The "pay now or pay later" with regards to converting to mxf before editing and editing QuickTime in FCP is a myth. In Avid, you really pay later especially if you AMA. Not so much the case if you are conscious about your formats in FCP. You only render the parts that don't match your sequence settings. For clip shows with fast turn around and random types of footage, FCP hasn't been half as bad as they said it to be. FCP takes formats a little like a whore, and I have gotten away by slapping in mpeg4s, NTSC in a PAL timeline, even H.264. I convert the different frame rates later, of course, but sometimes I simply render H.264 into the sequence. Not advisable, but not a show stopper, and you don't have to wait for the whole clip to transcode.

Don't get me wrong. I do like Avid, and all the little features that makes it such a joy- toggle source/record timeline, subclip handling, consolidate/transcode, adjustment fillers, auto patching, how you don't have to run through a gazillion list of formats to set up a project, etc... But I like FCP too, and I won't bat an eyelid cutting a show on either machine, as long as the project is properly managed and organized. You have to manage projects properly in any case, but you can get away with being slightly sloppier on an Avid. Some things I like better on an Avid, some things I like better in FCP, including the much maligned log and transfer (it's robust!). However, FCP/AE is a pretty cool combination and I like how the clips refresh when you make a new render to replace an existing mov in a timeline. Just my 2 cents.

It is pretty fun discussing the differences between the two softwares, because one trap that many of us fall into is that we tend to familiarize too much with one software and wish the other software worked like our ideal workstation, when in fact, we should really appreciate the differences and think different.



www.strypesinpost.com

strypes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That said, I
> wonder if you can lock an FCP project to prevent
> people from saving over it.

They ever can do dependent on their permissions.
But you can set the file to 'Locked' in the Finder, or make it a 'Stationary'

Andreas

What's a "stationary". I'm really not sure about setting permissions. I've run into issues where permissions don't necessarily reset when working with a shared folder in the finder. Sometimes on the SAN I get permissions issues, and I can't copy a file from the finder onto the desktop unless I restart the machine. But locking seems simple enough, and here's probably Mike's tip of the week- When working in a shared environment, lock the FCP project that contains graphic elements to prevent unnecessary changes.



www.strypesinpost.com

If you're on Final Cut Server you can keep projects 'checked out' to stop anyone messing with them. We use FCS, not to its full potential, but enough to see the benefits of that kind of shared system. It's good once you get your head around the thinking behind it.