I think Sphere vs. Anywhere boils down to how you want to work remotely. It seems to me that Sphere is really designed for news operations.
You are working away from the station with local content. You need to access the server for archival material. When you are done editing remotely with a combo or full-res (local) and proxy (ISIS) media, you "publish" back to the server and - bandwidth permitting - the consolidated local files are uploaded to complete the package.
In this design Sphere is basically the same concept as what Quantel has also been marketing (and selling) for more than 2 years as QTube.
http://www.quantel.com/page.php?u=fc919cb52f36247c19a4fdade742b8ce
OTOH, Adobe Anywhere is designed for pure remote editing. It fits more into these scenarios:
1. You normally work at the facility and now you are at home and need to access an existing project.
2. You send pieces of the project to different editors working remotely and collaboratively.
3. You set up Anywhere *within* the facility where multiple rooms tap into Anywhere over a WAN. This approach would mimic how Quantel handles its news servers and not how Avid NewsCutter/ISIS work. Essentially each workstation is a *dumb terminal*.
The beauty of the Anywhere concept (so far in theory only, of course), is that a very lightweight machine - like a MacBook Air - can be the remote editing device, since all graphics-intesive, full-res operations are handled at the Anywhere server.
- Oliver
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (18) |
No comments:
Post a Comment