This IS the Avid L2: RE: Re: [Avid-L2] RE: File Base Deliveries

Thursday, October 17, 2013

RE: Re: [Avid-L2] RE: File Base Deliveries

Exactly Mike. Best archiving solution is carved in stone. Followed by properly stored paper. (neither works well for moving images and recorded sound) Followed by properly stored film. Followed by optical media, like BluRay (assuming there will be a drive to read it in 50 years). Followed by tape, and lastly hard drive.

Constant re-archiving well before the expected death of the existing archive media is required for any solution.

---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <avid-l2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I have D1 videotapes that date back to 1987, I threw one into an old deck the other day that hadnt been switched on in years and played it into Smoke. I used to have 1" and 2" tapes from 1980 I dumped them all to digibeta in 93 I spooled them around a year or so ago when doing a showreel.

I don't have any working hard disks more than 8 years old.

Its a worry...

Mike

On 10/17/13 9:47 PM, Edit B wrote:

Highly depends on what you call archiving.

All cam originals, transcoded Avid MXF and other assets?

Just a video/audio mixdown?

Consolidated final sequence?

So, this is not a normal question. Copy speed to LTO is high.

Exporting a final file from Avid takes time, but no money other than time of one computer.

I have had this conversation 10 years ago when i worked as a freelancer for a broadcaster.

Avid output to Digibeta, take the tape to the other side of the hallway were other guys ingested that tape for playout.

Even 10 years ago we had file based formats / transcoding software / networks.

Why have 2 different 50.000 dollar tape streamers to transport something stupid as a single file?

But the big difference in archiving to LTO is when you have to revisit a project.

Nice to have your entire sequence back and be able to step into effects for changes, alter titles, have unflattened sound, stuff like that.

You don't have that after ingesting a master video tape...

(The only reason for LTO is reliability, as we speak harddisk is cheaper than LTO tape...)

(oh, and harddisk is cheaper than video tape for many years...)

Bouke

VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
+31 24 3553311

----- Original Message -----

From: tcurren@...

To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 PM

Subject: RE: Re: Re: [Avid-L2] RE: File Base Deliveries

How long does it take you to archive a one hour show to LTO?

---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <avid-l2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

eeer, where did you get that?

LTO can run 1200 Mb per second. From my (slow) network connected drives i get real world performance to LTO of some 480 Mbits per second

HD video for delivery over here is 50 Mbits/s (XDcamHD), plus sound of course

IOW, LTO is about 9 times faster than RT.

But don't worry, FTP based delivery will be the future. No need for tape.

(But i agree it's not always practical, i have had glitches in Avid rendered MXF, so playing back the whole shebang for QC is still needed...)

Bouke

VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
+31 24 3553311

----- Original Message -----

From: tcurren@...

To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:27 PM

Subject: RE: Re: [Avid-L2] RE: File Base Deliveries

Only LTO is sooooooo much slower. Video tape is the original Real Time.

---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <avid-l2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Add the fact that LTO may soon be required delivery - your file based just became tape based again - linear tape.

Dom Q. Silverio

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Shane Ross <shanerosseditor@...> wrote:

My biggest issue with tapeless delivery is you cannot "insert edit" fixes. Say you misspelled someone's lower third, or you spot a glitch. You can't simply insert a fix, cut to cut. You have to re-output the entire file again.

Barring that, I love it. Cheaper by far (no $300-$400 tapes and you needing to deliver 4-6 tapes...and then the deck ownership, or even rental)...simply deliver your files on a $100 USB drive.

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:53 AM, "jeffsengpiehl@..." <jeffsengpiehl@...> wrote:

But also to people who've no clue on how to get a file to pass network QC. A broader market is possible, a stupider one however won't make the grade. You always get what you pay for.

---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <wilsonchao@...> wrote:

HD tape I/O required a $25,000 deck connected to a $5,000 Mac running a free/pirated application. By eliminating that expensive gear, the market for HD post was opened to a wider market.

On Oct 16, 2013 9:06 AM, "Tony Quinsee-Jover" <tony@...> wrote:

On 16/10/2013 05:57, tcurren@... wrote:
> And tape output is bad because....?

... because it was easy and reliable, silly.

Outputting now is so much more... adventuresome.

T.