BTW, it'd be so much better if BMCC employed Cineform RAW instead of DNG. Same precision, but much more mainstream workflow with Cineform - and no need for "proxy"! (as currently done with ProRes)
Other: BlackMagic Cinema camera!!!! 2.5k for 3k...
- Thread starter Mickey G
- Start date
BTW, it'd be so much better if BMCC employed Cineform RAW instead of DNG. Same precision, but much more mainstream workflow with Cineform - and no need for "proxy"! (as currently done with ProRes)
Looks pretty good. So Im gathering the cost of media is about half that of harddrives now? Do you have a backup of the backup: ie record TWO tapes for every long term storage.
3tb isnt very big anymore though - a 100tb solution would be better.
thanks
Except MacDrive (which is fine) you have also: http://www.macwindows.com/disks2.html + http://www.paragon-software.com/home/hfs-windows/download.html
Some maybe old, but some are being still developed.
adkimery
Veteran
When it comes to digital archiving, media lifespan doesn't mean as much as it does for analog archiving as 'file and forget' is not the right approach for digital. From what I've read is that you should migrate your files to new media and new formats every 5yrs so you don't end up w/having a archive full of content that's in a format no one supports anymore.
Randomfactor
Active member
Each tape is roughly £50.00 in the UK - will work out cheaper in the US (like nearly everything!).
The 3TB is compressed storage. The uncompressed capacity of LTO-5 is 1.5TB per tape. It's not advisable to compress archives of valuable media. Also, 1.5TB per tape is plenty. a 100TB tape is both impossible with this tech & would be a PITA to manage due to the potential for failure - imagine loosing 100TB in one swoop - ouch!. At least with the current tapes you can back up a days footage ( 90 mins RAW). Or if your shooting ProRes, you'll get about 15 hours on one tape!
I'd advocate making triplicates of all footage. 2 copies at a pinch. This is in addition to having all the rushes available on on-line storage such as either a SAS or Thunderbolt RAID for post.
Adam
Last edited:
Randomfactor
Active member
True. you need to consider migrating your footage every five years to a new generation format. This is a pain but it is essential. I didn't mean to imply that you can forget about your media for 30 years. What you've said is correct. The studios & any post production company handling Digital Intermediates follow this procedure.
For us indies, the upfront costs of the drive etc can be expensive but currently, there is no safer option. Also, LTO makes perfect sense for all your digital deliverables.
Adam
Harry Lime
Well-known member
The best longterm achival option is to generate a film negative from the digital files.
This is your doomsday-worst case-scenario-all-digital-media-was-wiped-out-in-an-EMP-blast-option.
Other then that it's tape backup and raid servers that are constantly migrated.
The major studios keep their negatives in abandoned saltmines on the east and west coast.
An estar based negative has a projected lifespan of over 300 years.
This is your doomsday-worst case-scenario-all-digital-media-was-wiped-out-in-an-EMP-blast-option.
Other then that it's tape backup and raid servers that are constantly migrated.
The major studios keep their negatives in abandoned saltmines on the east and west coast.
An estar based negative has a projected lifespan of over 300 years.
100 tb isnt too big for me. Ive got at least 30 tb sitting around now that needs bu.
This solution may be the best available now, but I still think its too small and too costly.
If you shoot 90 min of raw a day. thats $ 150.00 day , approx, tape costs for triplicate.
Plus your soon gonna have stacks of tape everywhere!
Randomfactor
Active member
This is only partially true. In reality this lifespan is way off base. Check out the kinds of battles that studio film restoration experts can have on their hands with material that is only 20 or 30 years old and has been stored correctly. The best preserved material can still require lots of painstaking restoration work. Having said all that, it is still considered the best way to archive. Thing is, that getting 35mm negatives struck for everything is way beyond most people's means and is impractical for storage.
Randomfactor
Active member
A four and a half minute roll of 35mm film costs around £155.00 excluding developing, printing & telecine. This is an absolute bargain compared to that and even to the cost of standard hard drives for backing-up any type of digital file. Plus you get the added security. Also the tapes take up way less space than drives. Secure(ish) 100TB storage media will not become a reality any time soon.
Last edited:
Randomfactor
Active member
RAID's should never be considered for archiving. They are on-line storage media and the reason for using RAID's in the first place is speed and redundancy while working.
Harry Lime
Well-known member
Well, that's the figure that Kodak claims. Kodak went to Estar sometime in the mid 90's. It's a polyester based material and a very different from the stocks that appeared after the switch from nitrate during WWII. But you're right that before estar color negative was pretty unstable and even after only 20 or 30 years you would see problems. Lot's of shrinkage problems, layers deteriorating at different rates bla bla bla...
Also keep in mind that these new digitally generated negatives are often stored as color separations, which are basically b/w. So, you're not going to have to deal with problems like a single layer in the negative disintegrating.
Not cheap and not for everyone, but at the moment if you want the ultimate in archivability, it's the only game in town.
Harry Lime
Well-known member
I'm talking about the big picture. Obviously you have to have a tape back up, but you will need to keep it online somewhere for an extended period of time, unless you don't plan on showing the material to anyone. It's not practical to reload from tape every time you need to access the material for distribution.
Martti Ekstrand
Veteran
And all I wanted was a camera to film my cat and flowers in the backyard.
Randomfactor
Active member
Read this on Engadget comments. If true I'll be kinda sad:
"I played with it and was super excited about the idea of a RAW camera from Black Magic. And then I panned it. Not quickly... just panned it. And the rolling shutter made a vertical line into almost a 45 degree angle across the screen. That was the end of my interest. I would subjectively describe the rolling shutter as worse than an iphone's.". Really hoping this is not at all true.
"I played with it and was super excited about the idea of a RAW camera from Black Magic. And then I panned it. Not quickly... just panned it. And the rolling shutter made a vertical line into almost a 45 degree angle across the screen. That was the end of my interest. I would subjectively describe the rolling shutter as worse than an iphone's.". Really hoping this is not at all true.
Cory Braun
Well-known member
The rolling shutter did not look great based off the sample footage but I didn't think it looked that bad. If that is the case though that's not good. I believe John said that the rolling shutter was similar to the GH2 (but I may be mistaken), and if that's the case, the GH2 can handle slow pans just fine.
Is the GH2 better than T2i rolling shutter? I have a T2i. Don't have too much problem with it. I tend to take care of how I am shooting.
J Davis
Veteran
Have owned both, never noticed one to be worse than the other.
John Brawley
Well-known member
It depends on what lens was on it.
All cameras in this price point have a skew of some kind. The longer the lens, the worse it appears. I saw shots of the 70-200 Canon on the stand. That's gunna skew for sure on a pan.
Yes the skew is there when you look for it. But I've gotten used to dealing with it on 5D's, GH2's and even on RED's. Even the Alexa has skew in the right conditions.
Right now I'm shooting a TV series with extreamly long lenses on Alexa. I've had a 150-600 with 2 2x doublers...thats 4X......thats a 600-2400mm lens....it skews when you do a slow pan....
It's great to have an 'ahh HA" and point out a fault with a camera, but really, it's no worse to my eye without empirical testing, than other cameras in this price range. If you're expecting better, then it isn't.
jb