Final Cut Server / XSAN

Who's using Final Cut Server? Is it working for you? Do you love it? You need to purchase Xsan separately, correct?

We're trying to make a decision here, any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

What do you want to do? Final Cut Server is NOT a SAN solution for multiple editors...so you know. It is a way to allow other NON-editors and edit stations access to the footage (or low res proxies of the footage) so that they can add notes, make quick edits and more (Jeff knows a LOT more about this).

What it ISN'T is a SAN solution for sharing media and projects for multiple editors. For that you need XSAN...and high speed storage that is sharable via Fibrechannel.


www.shanerosseditor.com

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

Quote

Who's using Final Cut Server?

Not at this precise moment, but I have.

Quote

Is it working for you?

Yup.

Quote

Do you love it?

In the same way a person might be said to love his pet tiger. It's a loving relationship based on a foundation of cautious respect.

Quote

You need to purchase Xsan separately, correct?

Final Cut Server and Xsan are unrelated products that can be used together, but don't have to be. If you want to own both, yes, you need to purchase them separately.

Quote

We're trying to make a decision here

About what? The way I see it (and I'm largely echoing Shane here) there are several decisions that would have to factor into buying Final Cut Server. First, you'd have to decide whether you need media asset management. Lots of projects simply don't need that. Second, you'd have to decide whether Final Cut Server can manage your assets in a way that's compatible with your workflow pipeline; FCS is very flexible, but it's not infinitely flexible. Third, you'd have to decide whether you're both willing and able to invest in the necessary integration to make FCS do what you want it to do. Right out of the box, FCS has very limited utility. It doesn't really do very much without configuration, and what configuration you'd need to do depends highly on your workflow. Finally, you'd have to decide whether you want to do the necessary integration in-house ? the learning curve for FCS is steep if you don't already have a very solid background in databases and media asset management, but it's not insurmountable ? or whether you'd be contracting that work out to an integrator.

Where along that flowchart are you right now? Are you at the "We require asset management and we're deciding between FCS and some alternative" stage, or the "We've heard of asset management and we're deciding whether it's right for us" stage? Or somewhere in between?

You dropped 2 terms that usually refer to 2 different things. Final Cut Server is an asset management software, which lets you keep track of your digital media, share notes, access common files, collaborate between producers, directors, assistants and graphics guys, etc..

A SAN, is a storage network that allows editors to have a centralized media volume for editing, usually of sustainably high speeds, with some kind of conflict manager which allocates rights and permissions to different workstations.

Some products let you do both- eg. EditShare, which also comes with Flow as an add on.

The question is (echoing both Jeff and Shane)- what are you looking for?



www.strypesinpost.com

Thanks guys, here's our situation:

We have one lead editor, one assistant editor and two After Effects artists, all in house, all working on the same program, often working on the same files.

We need to swap files often. I edit a sequence, then I hand it over to my assistant for color correction, then he gives it to the AE artist for graphics, then it comes back for audio sweetening. Sometimes the workflow changes depending on the deadline.

We are currently using the "drop box" method to swap quicktime files, and moving external drives around as well. There has to be a better way....!

Thanks again!

Not necessarily. Final Cut Server would drastically change your workflow, in ways you might or might not think are better.

Generally speaking ? and this is my opinion, not Apple's marketing word-of-god ? Final Cut Server is an appropriate solution in situations where other solutions break down because of scale.

If you have a large number of media assets ? say 100,000 or more, just to pick an order of magnitude ? then Final Cut Server is an appropriate option for keeping track of them all.

If you have a large number of people, such that the ordinary communication processes break down, then Final Cut Server is an appropriate option for managing collaboration and enforcing workflows.

Four guys, a handful of assets, no set workflow? No. FCS would cause more problems for you than it solves.

A SAN certainly would be useful in your situation, but only marginally so. It wouldn't totally change everything. And the cost-benefit ratio might not be to your liking. My rule of thumb is that unless somebody can approve the spending of $30,000 without having to think very hard about it, a SAN is not a good option. If that's a big number to you, then a SAN would be an expensive upgrade for you, and you should consider it carefully before investing, because it might be quite difficult to recover that investment.

$30,000, meaning all the hardware needed / fiber optic cables, ect?

Heh. No, that wasn't a price quote. It was, as I said, a rule of thumb. If you have to think before writing a $30,000 check, then SANs are generally expensive items for you. If $30,000 is how much you spend in a month on lunch for your clients, then a SAN would generally not be as expensive, relative to your overall cash flow picture.

See what I mean? I wasn't saying "it costs X," I was saying "if four zeros is a lot to you, then SANs are expensive."

There is never a fixed cost for storage. It always depends on your needs- whether you need Fibre Channel, GigE, how many seats, etc.. But the cost is usually in the 5 digit realm.



www.strypesinpost.com

I've only seen one instance of FC Server running in my entire city, and when I did, I said to the guy running it - 'Oh cool! So you're the go-to guy for FC Server if I meet one with problems.'

He said 'Please no..'

It's big, it's complicated, it's pretty amazing, it's a little bit scary. And I'm sure Jeff would love to install one for you if you went down that path. He's the FC Server go-to guy here.

Am I being punished, Jude?

She's not wrong, though. Final Cut Server can accurately be described as complicated and scary. You will not figure it out by pointing and clicking with the mouse. You might get sufficient functionality out of it (depending on your workflow) by using the user-friendly administration tool. You will have to dive into the internals if you want to do things like create new asset types or apply new metadata structures. If you want to do any automation, you must write your own scripts and tools.

But honestly, if you need what FCS does, none of that will slow you down. It's one of those "if you have to have it, you have to have it" things.

For a lower cost SAN solution than Apple's xSan check out EditShare and for a less massive asset management tool than FC Sever check out CatDV.

I know we all love Apple here but there are alternatives to the 'Big A' out there.


-Andrew