I don't understand why most professional video editors edit (or want to) from a NAS. Did i miss something?

[Awman]

Hello

 

Can someone explain to me what are the advantages of editing (premiere or resolve) from a NAS vs Editing directly from a PC with Nvme (like for example 1 Nvme for OS + one Nvme 4Tb for the current projects + a nvme 1tb for the cache/scratch)? Because whatever yotuber video i watch or forum i read, the vast majority of professional video editors (those who edit commercials, weddings etc. not much those who edit for youtube cos the requirements are not the same) seem to edit from a NAS or to switch from editing from their internal storage to a NAS after some time...

That's so confusing to me that most of the pro editors ou even big companies like LTT edit from NAS... cos i see almost only disadvantages of doing that, so i'm thinking maybe i'm missing something?

 

EDITING FROM YOUR PC WITH A FULL NVME CONFIGURATION

- Way cheaper cos Nvme drives are becoming more affordable (i bought for example a Seagate firecuda 4Tb for 550€). The cost of the PC well, you need the PC anyway, so kinda irrelevant to include them in the comparison

- Way cheaper cos no need (better but not necessary if not editing from a NAS) for added 10Gbe or one of the very rare and expensive motherboard with 10gbe port, no need for 10Gbe switch either then

- No huge upfront cost. You can buy/build a cheaper NAS/Server because you end up using it only for archive/backup (also with an offline solution needed n both cases). You can even start with just external HDD as you don't have to edit from your HDDs.

- Editing from Nvme completely removes the need to use proxies for most case (or at least better quality proxies), you can work with RAW codec, 4K,6K,8K , multicam, all type of framerate. It's blazing fast

- If you are more than a freelance editor (2,3,4 editors), as you all have your PC with super fast Nvme and don't share bandwith etc., it makes editing a bliss no matter waht

 

EDITING FROM A NAS

- Higher upfront cost, cos you need to buy or build a more beefy NAS, faster HDD, turn all your network (switch, NAS, motherboard) to 10Gbe. Higher upfrotn cost for..; no advantages over Nvme internal editing, to me (to my understanding)

- You need more space, cos not only you edit from the NAS but also archive on it..; and have to build proxxies, which takes additional space...

- Editing at 1000Mbps max (for most video editor and "small" studios of 2-4 editors) shared between different editor if you are a studio vs 7000mbps for Nvme (for each) and soon up to 13000mbps with new Nvme Gen 5...

- If you want faster speed (not even Gen 3 nvme speed) you can upgrade to 25gbe ...; so that's additional cost (i know there are 100Gbe too... but who does that besides LTT? it's an elite thing to have hundreds of Tb NAS connected with 100gbe cards everywhere)

 

Why most Profesional Video Editors seems (it does according to all the profesional video editors i've seen on YouTube and forums) to have that type of workflow:

Computer (PC or Mac , Desktop) with just a Nvme for OS or something like that

>>> Transfering the clients files they want to edit on their 10gbe NAS with 7200rpm HDDs in Raid (not talking about the elite/video editing studio who have the option to go up to 100Gbe for a huge amount of money)

>>> Offline backup on a cloud service or alike

>>> Edit directly from the NAS (be it if they are freelance or video editing studios with multiple editors with sometimes, especially if more than one editor access want to work from the NAS at the same time, the need to build proxies... which can take a lot of time...)

>>> Archive stays on that NAS they edited from

>>> Deliver the finish projects from that cloud/Offsite backup solution

*For exclusive laptop users some seem to not go the "dit from a NAS" road but just fast external SSD and to use NAS just for archive)

 

When, TO ME (but i'm trying to understand if there's something i missed, it's so confusing to see most people using NAS for editing, that i'm really thinking there msut be a true advantage of doing that that outweight all the disdvantages) for freelances or even studios, the following workflow is not only way way cheaper but also gives you better performances:

Computer with at least 3 Nvme (1 for the OS/Apps, 1 for the current project files we work on for clients (there are 4tb ultra fast nvme for 600€ now so the "size excuse" is not possible anymore, and there are even 8Tb Nvme and the possibility sometimes to even add a fourth Nvme (so you can litteraly go from let's say 1x2tb for your project files to 2x8tb if the projects you are currently working on takes a gigantic amount of storage... 4tb for current client projects is cheap and would fit probably 99% of user case) + 1 Nvme for cache/Scratch

Or of course Laptop and editing from an external fast SSD (liek a 4Tb Sandisk that has speeds of 2000mbps... that's twice the speed of 10Gbe NAS if i'm correct)

>>> Transfering the clients files on the ARCHIVE/STORAGE ONLY NAS/Server (meaning besides transfering a bit faster the first time, you don't even need the 7200rpm HDD and the cost that comes with it nor the "all 10Gbe or 25gbe network/nas/card on the motherboard). You even have the choice to go for Raid or JBOD (after all with an offsite backup i find RAID redundancy not that necessary. You are suepr fexlible regarding your Archive NAS/Server

>>> Backup offsite on a cloud service

>>> Transferring the client files from either the SD Card (or whatever) or the NAS/Server if faster, to the PC (the only extra step vs the workflow above... but the extra step for the solution above is to have to create proxies most of the time)

>>> Editing from the PC that is blazing fast with the Nvme (no need for proxies, time saved)

>>> Deliver the finish projects from that cloud/Offsite backup solution

 

Reasons i'm anticipating (but again, maybe i'm missing something, i'm trying to understand):

 

Some RAW Codecs/files can take a lot of storage hence the NAS and working from a NAS!

My answer : There are motherboards with 3,4 and even 5 Nvme slots, not even counting those you can add with cards! For most users cases, active projects would fit on a 4tb Nvme and if not, well it means you are a successful editor cos you have so many projects you have to work on and switch between i guess, and then adding a second 4tb (or 8tb nvme whatever) solves the problem, all that keep blazing fast speed. 4Tb Nvme for projects files/clients files is enough for most users no? And if not you can add a second 4tb that's 8tb Nvme just for the project files! Still not enough? well, you can have 12 or 16Tb Nvme.. or more...

 

NAS offers redundancy!

My answer : yes, and redundancy becomes kinda mandatory if we edit from a NAS. Whereas a simple archive NAS/Server is way less costly cos you don't even need 7200rpm (you can but not mandatory as it's just for archive) and offer also redundancy if you want...you're more flexible.

 

For the price of a 4Tb fast Nvme i can buy almost 2x16Tb 7200rpm... that's 32Tb of storage vs 4Tb i can work from!

My answer : Work from.... way slower and with the need of proxies depending on the codecs... Also all profesional or enthusiasts but serious editors need a NAS or an archive solution (external HDD) so those HDD you have to buy, i have t buy them too... except that i can buy the slower/cheaper version and that as i don't have to create proxies, i also save storage. So let's say for 600€ (i'm from europe whoops, that's like 600 USD$) you got a 4Tb ultra fast Nvme + 2x16Tb for 500€ (removed from a Western Duo for example, that's cheaper)... 1100€ for my archive needs AND editing with a super fast 4Tb drive... vs like 800€ for your 2x16Tb 7200Rpm... and as in the case explained, it's just for archive, the fact that "you" use your NAS to also edit from, means that you'll probably need to invest in a new drive before i'll need (cos they'll wear out way faster + you can't turn off your NAS most of the time etc.)... also redundancy is hard to pass on when we edit from a NAS (meaning "you" need anyway extra HDDs) whereas with just archive, as i also have the cloud as an offline backup, it's up to me to chose if i want to use RAID (and therefore need also more drives) or not, whereas if you edit from a NAS it won't be wise to pass on.

Also, chances are that for your NAS you want to edit from, you'll need one or more SSD if not Nvme for the cache so....

 

Proxies are the keys, that's why we edit from 10gb NAS

My answer: Why chose proxies, when one can work without proxies -- without losing sometimes hours to create them -- very smoothly, with high capacity nvme? Isn't it like having 2 cars before you, one is a Ferrari, one is a toyota mini van... and the ferrari is cheaper than the toyota and cheaper to maintain!... but choosing the Toyota minivan?

 

Multiple editors can work at the same time from the NAS

My answer : Same when you work from your PC internal storage (or even for those who work with laptops, from twice as fast than a regular video editing NAS external... without the need of proxies...

 

Multiple editors can work on a same project at the same time

My answer : Why doing that? That's something i don't understand. Why, in video editing studios, each editors wouldn't be dedicated to his current project? Only case i see is if one is a pro color grader... but in that case, he'll start color grading once the projects are done, so no need to access the same files at the same time). Is there any case scenario (if possible a frequent one not like one in 10000 projects/clients it might be useful) to do that?

 

You need to archive your files anyway, on a NAS or external drives

My answer : a NAS dedicated to archive doesn't need to have 7200rpm HDD (you can, but not as necessary as with a NAS yo uedit from), 10Gbe or more ethernet and therefore the need to have everything (switch, PC etc.) 10Gbe or more and is way way cheaper

 

The worklfow is faster, and time is money

My answer : I do'nt agree that it's faster. You might save some time editing from the NAS cos you don't have to transfer the files then to your internal storage on your PC (or external Nvme if you prefer)... but you lose that time by creating proxies... which take also more space on your HDDs... all that for working on way way slower drives (on a regular case, a 10gbe case which most freelancer and studios seem to use, not talking about LTT type of companies who can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in ultra high end NAS full of hundreds of Tb of HDDs, SSS, Nvme all that in 100gbe network)

And time is money, but if a good chunk of the money you earn have to be reinvested in your NAS to upgrade the drives (cos they are working 24/7 unlike archive NAS where you do'nt need to have it 24/7 on... meaning by the time an archive nas/server HDDs would fail, those used in an editing NAS would have been replaced at least once in my opinion

 

Thanks in advance for enlighing me

 

[da na]

I'm by far not a professional editor, just a rather small YouTube channel but I can offer my own opinion here. I do animation and video editing. Video editing, I probably could do off of my 10/15,000 RPM drives in my server. I deal with 1080/60 video clips that are at most 10GB per file, so speed isn't too much of an issue there. However, it's a lot easier to edit off of my 128GB NVMe, I always finish editing whatever projects are on it and delete the raw footage before I fill up the drive. I could see the benefits of editing off a NAS with redundancy and all that, but over my gigabit LAN that wouldn't make sense for video when NVMe is an alternative. 

Animation is a totally different story. That's the biggest issue for me. I use Cinema 4D to render thousands of frames, each can be upwards of several hundred megabytes (for one image file). Then I have to put them together for the video. That's a big issue since I have thousands of files I need to access very quickly, but they're several hundred gigabytes in total. That's where my NVMe becomes too small, and for many projects I'm forced to edit off my server upon which the frames are rendered. I do have large HDDs in my workstation, but they don't do random read nearly as fast as my 15K's in the server. That's the biggest reason for editing from a NAS/storage server- big, (fast if done on a high budget) storage in a central place. 

For your argument of 7200RPM HDD, editing from 7K drives is pretty miserable. People dumping $10K+ on servers for editing are dealing with very, very, very large files. Editing off 7K drives feels sluggish, even just for 1080P - scrubbing on video is noticeably slower than even just a 10,000 or 15,000 RPM SAS HDD. That's why you want a high RPM drive or an SSD for raw files.

(I have all of my raw footage backing up, whether on NVMe or server drive.)

[Bitter]

I assume it's so that everyone has access to the same files if more than one person is working on a project at once.

[Imbadatnames]

Ease of access, one point of storage and of the Pc goes down you still have access to your files. You also can’t fit in enough drives into an PC to have a massive bank of storage with all the extra drives for redundancy versions of RAID such as 5 and 6. 

[ToboRobot]

6 hours ago, Bitter said:

I assume it's so that everyone has access to the same files if more than one person is working on a project at once.

Yes.

Centralized backup is also nice, and for the simplicity of managing large amounts of data.

It's faster as well, and editor time is valuable.

[divito]

I can't necessarily speak to the speed advantage/disadvantage, but editing off NAS is just a simpler workflow in general.

Rather than dealing with several network shares across multiple PCs in case of overlap in editors (and tracking who has what video at what time), and then having to transfer or setup automation to backup those files once they're complete, doing it from a NAS just cuts out those extra processes and gives more flexibility for redundancy regardless of whether the PC experiences a hardware or software issue.

Data lives in one location that everyone can access, that is essentially backed up at all times.

[Awman]

On 10/1/2022 at 5:42 AM, Mel0n. said:

I'm by far not a professional editor, just a rather small YouTube channel but I can offer my own opinion here. I do animation and video editing. Video editing, I probably could do off of my 10/15,000 RPM drives in my server. I deal with 1080/60 video clips that are at most 10GB per file, so speed isn't too much of an issue there. However, it's a lot easier to edit off of my 128GB NVMe, I always finish editing whatever projects are on it and delete the raw footage before I fill up the drive. I could see the benefits of editing off a NAS with redundancy and all that, but over my gigabit LAN that wouldn't make sense for video when NVMe is an alternative. 

Animation is a totally different story. That's the biggest issue for me. I use Cinema 4D to render thousands of frames, each can be upwards of several hundred megabytes (for one image file). Then I have to put them together for the video. That's a big issue since I have thousands of files I need to access very quickly, but they're several hundred gigabytes in total. That's where my NVMe becomes too small, and for many projects I'm forced to edit off my server upon which the frames are rendered. I do have large HDDs in my workstation, but they don't do random read nearly as fast as my 15K's in the server. That's the biggest reason for editing from a NAS/storage server- big, (fast if done on a high budget) storage in a central place. 

For your argument of 7200RPM HDD, editing from 7K drives is pretty miserable. People dumping $10K+ on servers for editing are dealing with very, very, very large files. Editing off 7K drives feels sluggish, even just for 1080P - scrubbing on video is noticeably slower than even just a 10,000 or 15,000 RPM SAS HDD. That's why you want a high RPM drive or an SSD for raw files.

(I have all of my raw footage backing up, whether on NVMe or server drive.)

Well that doesn't go against what i said, quite the opposite and you're not making a living of your video editing work right? You have a 128gb Nvme (which is extremely small amount of storage) and as you say you have to edit from your NAS becomes your Nvme is too small. Luckily, it can easily be avoided by swtching from a 128gb nvme to let's say a 1tb nvme (7000mbps nvme like the firecuda 530 are often on sale for 125$ which is quite chep now) or whatever size (2,4,8tb) if you feel an storage limitation regarding what you have to do.

[Awman]

On 10/1/2022 at 6:13 AM, Bitter said:

I assume it's so that everyone has access to the same files if more than one person is working on a project at once.

Why would anyone would need to access a same project, even less at the same time? I don't see any logical case besides splitting the editing itself and the color grading if it's someone's specialty, in that case, it can easily be done happen after the video is edited, no need to do it in parallel.

If you meant that multiple persons could need to access to some files at the same moment, well yeah, it can happen sometimes, but i don't see how it makes people chose to edit of those slow NAS vs just importing from a backup/archive NAS, the needed files on their computer internal ultra fast storage. Accessing files from a NAS =/= Why choosing to edit from a NAS vs fast internal nvme(s)

[Awman]

On 10/1/2022 at 12:04 PM, Imbadatnames said:

Ease of access, one point of storage and of the Pc goes down you still have access to your files. You also can’t fit in enough drives into an PC to have a massive bank of storage with all the extra drives for redundancy versions of RAID such as 5 and 6. 

It still doesn't answer my question regarding why people chose to edit from NAS when it's useless and make everything so much slower than using internet nvme + to jsut use a NAS for storage/backup (not editing from them)

 

But to answer what you said:

Ease of access/one point storage

> yeah, that's what an archive/backup server or NAS is for too, no need, if we follow logic, to edit from those NAS when you can do it so much faster from your internal nvme. 

 

"If the PC goes down"

> you still have access to your file if it's just a backup/archive NAS too, so i don't get that argument.

 

"You also can’t fit in enough drives into an PC to have a massive bank of storage with all the extra drives for redundancy versions of RAID such as 5 and 6. 

> I don't get that argument either, i never said i don't understand the use of a NAS/server for archive/backup (with raid, redundancy etc. also possible if desired), i even mentioned the need of a NAS for that purpose.

Furthermore, even if i'd personally would prefer if i need a lot of HDDs, to not have them in my PC and to build a custom NAS/server, it's totally possible to have 10,12 HDDs of storage in the same PC you're using for editing if that's what someone want to go for, all that with raid, redundancy, virtualization etc...

 

 

[Awman]

On 10/1/2022 at 12:58 PM, ToboRobot said:

Yes.

Centralized backup is also nice, and for the simplicity of managing large amounts of data.

It's faster as well, and editor time is valuable.

Well still not answering my initial question.

No one said "no NAS/no centralized backup" i actually said the opposite in my initial messages. Once again, i'm trying to understand the reasons and logic that most professionals, from solo freelancer to studios with 2,3,4,5 editors, go for the very expensive and slower way of editing instead of editing from internal nvme that are so much faster + to have their NAS JUST for archive/backup

[Awman]

On 10/1/2022 at 4:35 PM, divito said:

I can't necessarily speak to the speed advantage/disadvantage, but editing off NAS is just a simpler workflow in general.

Rather than dealing with several network shares across multiple PCs in case of overlap in editors (and tracking who has what video at what time), and then having to transfer or setup automation to backup those files once they're complete, doing it from a NAS just cuts out those extra processes and gives more flexibility for redundancy regardless of whether the PC experiences a hardware or software issue.

Data lives in one location that everyone can access, that is essentially backed up at all times.

"Data lives in one location that everyone can access, that is essentially backed up at all times."

> Same goes with a NAS used jsut for archive/backup and editing from internal Nvme

[Awman]

4 answers, and everybody is talking about why using a NAS as a centralized way to access files, nobody is answering the actual question of my initial post... 

My question is not about why professionals editors use NAS as a centralized storage access point (it's pretty obvious and logical why doing that) but why professionals video editors, from solo freelancer to studio of 2,3,4,5 editors, chose to edit (not access, EDIT) from their NAS when they can EDIT way way faster (from 3 times faster to soon - with the new gen 5 nvme - 13 time faster) and with less constraints (no need to create proxies for example), and for a way lower investment (cos you need more HDDs if you edit from your nas + more drives + to have everything 10gbe minimum (which is still so slow compared to nvme) by using internal nvme in their PC or even twice as fast as 10gbe connection, with external SSD like Sandisk Pro.

[Bitter]

Ok, everyone who does it that way is wrong and you're right. Mark yourself as the correct answer and let's move on with life. You know something everyone else hasn't figured out yet. Congratulations!

[Imbadatnames]

3 hours ago, Awman said:

It still doesn't answer my question regarding why people chose to edit from NAS when it's useless and make everything so much slower than using internet nvme + to jsut use a NAS for storage/backup (not editing from them)

 

But to answer what you said:

Ease of access/one point storage

> yeah, that's what an archive/backup server or NAS is for too, no need, if we follow logic, to edit from those NAS when you can do it so much faster from your internal nvme. 

 

"If the PC goes down"

> you still have access to your file if it's just a backup/archive NAS too, so i don't get that argument.

 

"You also can’t fit in enough drives into an PC to have a massive bank of storage with all the extra drives for redundancy versions of RAID such as 5 and 6. 

> I don't get that argument either, i never said i don't understand the use of a NAS/server for archive/backup (with raid, redundancy etc. also possible if desired), i even mentioned the need of a NAS for that purpose.

Furthermore, even if i'd personally would prefer if i need a lot of HDDs, to not have them in my PC and to build a custom NAS/server, it's totally possible to have 10,12 HDDs for storage in the same PC you're using for editing, all that with raid, redundancy, virtualization etc...

 

 

Because you don’t have doubles of everything then and it’s easier for file management? You can also use SSDs and 2.5-5Gb Ethernet. You can also get around 200MB on HDDs (1.6Gb)

 

Show me the Case that you can fit 12 HDDs in. 

[Imbadatnames]

3 hours ago, Awman said:

4 answers, and everybody is talking about why using a NAS as a centralized way to access files, nobody is answering the actual question of my initial post... 

My question is not about why professionals editors use NAS as a centralized storage access point (it's pretty obvious and logical why doing that) but why professionals video editors, from solo freelancer to studio of 2,3,4,5 editors, chose to edit (not access, EDIT) from their NAS when they can EDIT way way faster (from 3 times faster to soon - with the new gen 5 nvme - 13 time faster) and with less constraints (no need to create proxies for example), and for a way lower investment (cos you need more HDDs if you edit from your nas + more drives + to have everything 10gbe minimum (which is still so slow compared to nvme) by using internal nvme in their PC or even twice as fast as 10gbe connection, with external SSD like Sandisk Pro.

Ah yes those PCIE 5 drives that don’t exist yet to buy on expensive motherboards that require an entire platform upgrade and don’t exist on workstation chipsets like TRX. If you’re on a Mac Studio (the fastest video editing machine you can buy without going insane on budget) just screw you I guess.

[Awman]

1 hour ago, Bitter said:

Ok, everyone who does it that way is wrong and you're right. Mark yourself as the correct answer and let's move on with life. You know something everyone else hasn't figured out yet. Congratulations!

Are you 12 or something to reply something like that? Did you even bother to read my original message where i say i'm trying to understand why people chose to edit from NAS? 100% of the answers i received are commenting on the "access files from a NAS", which doesn't answer at all my question. I'm not saying i'm right in my original message, i'm sharing what what sounds more logical to me and asking (trying to understand, i was very clear on that ) why people edit from NAS. No one answered to that question sorry if it hurts your feelings i was hoping for an answer to my question.

[Awman]

1 hour ago, Imbadatnames said:

Because you don’t have doubles of everything then and it’s easier for file management? You can also use SSDs and 2.5-5Gb Ethernet. You can also get around 200MB on HDDs (1.6Gb)

 

Show me the Case that you can fit 12 HDDs in. 

No double of everything? So what to video editors edit from? If you are a studio with 3 editors, don't they have (3 of them) a PC? Am i missing something? 

"No matter what" (notice the quotes) a profesional editor would need a PC and a NAS for backup/archive at least, right? And if there are 3 editors, it means there are 3 PC + a NAS for backup/archive (a central access point for files for all the editors), "no matter what"...so... I still don't understand why choosing to edit from a way slower NAS (that also implies spending more money on it than both fast nvme in PCs + NAS jsut for archive/backup combined) vs from internal Nvme as you need the PCs anyway + a NAS (again that can be way cheaper) for just archive/backup/central access point for files we would to transfer on fast nvme in the PCs.

Are you telling me that people chose to downgrade their experience + spend way more moeny for... a bit of more of ease of managment? Is that it?

 

Regarding the PC case to fit 12 HDD or more, let's take for example the Fractal Define 7 XL (up to 18 HDD) ... Linus made a ... NAS video of it  

 

[Imbadatnames]

4 minutes ago, Awman said:

No double of everything? So what to video editors edit from? If you are a studio with 3 editors, don't they have (3 of them) a PC? Am i missing something? 

"No matter what" (notice the quotes) a profesional editor would need a PC and a NAS for backup/archive at least, right? And if 2 editors, 2 PC, but using the same NAS for backup/archive. so... still do'nt understand why chosing to edit from a NAS vs Nvme as you need the PCs anyway, an a NAS for editing instead of just archive/backup, would be so much slower and cost much more (even more with the 2.5/5gb).

Are you telling me that people chose to downgrade their experience for... a bit of more of ease of managment? Is that it?

 

Regarding the PC case to fit 12 HDD or more, let's take for example the Fractal Define 7 XL (up to 18 HDD) ... Linus made a ... NAS video of it  

 

Ah a case that doesn’t exist anymore. 
 

QoL is a thing 

[Awman]

27 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Ah yes those PCIE 5 drives that don’t exist yet to buy on expensive motherboards that require an entire platform upgrade and don’t exist on workstation chipsets like TRX. If you’re on a Mac Studio (the fastest video editing machine you can buy without going insane on budget) just screw you I guess.

OMG, why do you extract just that from what i said? Why not commenting on Nvme pcie 3 i mentioned (which are avaiable for all), the gen 4 (also avaiable for all, that i also mentioned) and comment only on the "up to gen 5 nvme soon" (i even said "soon")? Why turning my "gen 3 up to son 13 000 mbps with gen 5" and "you can buy cheap 4Tb nvme 7000mbps nme like the firecuda 530", you don't need a new PC and an entire new platform for that right? it's available right now, for consumer and prosumer, on workstation AND enthusiasts PC. So if you prefer, take the GEN 5 nvme i mentioned in a "up to" phrase out of the equation. Gen 3 or Gen 4 = still waaaaaayyy faster than 99% of NAS pro video editor use to edit their video

[Awman]

28 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Ah a case that doesn’t exist anymore. 
 

QoL is a thing 

It might not be available anymore where you live... but where one live (city or country) is not the center of the world right? In my country, first online store i checked, you can still purchase it. Furthermore, i took it as an example of PC case to handle 12 or more HDD, hence my "let's take for example"

 

and regarding the "double of everything"? Nothing more to add to what i said so i could understand better what "double of everything" means?

[ToboRobot]

10 hours ago, Awman said:

4 answers, and everybody is talking about why using a NAS as a centralized way to access files, nobody is answering the actual question of my initial post... 

My question is not about why professionals editors use NAS as a centralized storage access point (it's pretty obvious and logical why doing that) but why professionals video editors, from solo freelancer to studio of 2,3,4,5 editors, chose to edit (not access, EDIT) from their NAS when they can EDIT way way faster (from 3 times faster to soon - with the new gen 5 nvme - 13 time faster) and with less constraints (no need to create proxies for example), and for a way lower investment (cos you need more HDDs if you edit from your nas + more drives + to have everything 10gbe minimum (which is still so slow compared to nvme) by using internal nvme in their PC or even twice as fast as 10gbe connection, with external SSD like Sandisk Pro.

You are thinking that because editing files stored directly on a machine is faster than editing on a NAS, because of the raw speed of the storage.

But do you understand a professional workflow and how multiple editors, colourists, etc will work on a file collaboratively in parallel, rather than in series? 

If a task is 20% faster when done directly on storage, but you can only do one task out of a chain of many, does that matter?  Sometimes it's faster to have multiple slower CPU cores, than one really fast single threaded core...

Then you also have data protection/redundancy, which matters when you are working with digital files that could have cost millions of dollars to create.

Ingest takes time, so if your plan is to just put multiple copies on removable drives and move them around, that is an extra step to physically move them around a set or office and then to load them onto your fast storage.
 

[Bitter]

We've given you reasons why large professional organizations use NAS for editing workflow, you maintain that they're all doing it wrong. So yeah clearly you know something that LMG, Pixar, ILM, Disney, Discovery, etc all don't know. You had better run and tell them to get your reward. I'm sure multi million and billion dollar companies have trimmed the fat on their time expenses and are doing things in the most effective way. But yet here you are telling everyone they're all wrong? Ok, go on then.

[ToboRobot]

2 minutes ago, Bitter said:

We've given you reasons why large professional organizations use NAS for editing workflow, you maintain that they're all doing it wrong. So yeah clearly you know something that LMG, Pixar, ILM, Disney, Discovery, etc all don't know. You had better run and tell them to get your reward. I'm sure multi million and billion dollar companies have trimmed the fat on their time expenses and are doing things in the most effective way. But yet here you are telling everyone they're all wrong? Ok, go on then.

Yeah, I would love to see benchmarks for entire workflows.

I'm not a professional film editor but someone in my family is, and I am their tech advisor that helps them buy Mac Pros and now iMacs to integrate into studio film production environments.  Notice how he has downgraded from a Mac Pro to an iMac....

[Awman]

8 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

You are thinking that because editing files stored directly on a machine is faster than editing on a NAS, because of the raw speed of the storage.

But do you understand a professional workflow and how multiple editors, colourists, etc will work on a file collaboratively in parallel, rather than in series? 

If a task is 20% faster when done directly on storage, but you can only do one task out of a chain of many, does that matter?  Sometimes it's faster to have multiple slower CPU cores, than one really fast single threaded core...

Then you also have data protection/redundancy, which matters when you are working with digital files that could have cost millions of dollars to create.

Ingest takes time, so if your plan is to just put multiple copies on removable drives and move them around, that is an extra step to physically move them around a set or office and then to load them onto your fast storage.
 

But why would editors have to work in parallel on a same project exactly? That i don't get. That's exactly among the things i'm trying to understand.

If "I" have to edit of, for example, a wedding, why would anyone other than "me" work on that same project, at the same time? What other editors working with me, could do on the same project, that i can't do/would need someone else to do? As for the color grading part, that i mentioned also previously, it's a task that, for myself, makes much more sense to do once the final project is done, not in parallel.

 

Also, freelancer often chose too edit from their NAS... so there's no parallel tasks between multiple editors for them...

 

Regarding protection/redundancy, as said above, an archive/backup NAS (which we "need" anyway, but which is way cheaper) offer it too.

 

Regarding ingest, yes it takes time... but in exchange for lower ingest time, you often need to create proxies if multiple editors work from a same NAS, which takes a lot of time. So in each case something takes time (and in each case you need a NAS with redundancy/protection), right?. But in only one case you can edit with super fast storages.

[Awman]

7 hours ago, Bitter said:

We've given you reasons why large professional organizations use NAS for editing workflow, you maintain that they're all doing it wrong. So yeah clearly you know something that LMG, Pixar, ILM, Disney, Discovery, etc all don't know. You had better run and tell them to get your reward. I'm sure multi million and billion dollar companies have trimmed the fat on their time expenses and are doing things in the most effective way. But yet here you are telling everyone they're all wrong? Ok, go on then.

No. Not only you (you bitter) didn't give me reasons, but also i never mentioned only large professional organizations, so why is your answer focusing on that and excluding what i'm talking about initialy, aka freelancers and studios with 2,3,4 etc. editors not large organizations? I even kinda excluded large organization like LTT etc.  from the equation, if you took the time to read my messages before replying.

 

But despite that, if i still don't understand -- and i'm sorry if it hurts your feelings -- it's because thus far, no one answered my questions that could make me understand why most people take that route. 

I'm not telling you you are wrong and that i'm right, that's only in your paranoid mind. I'm not trying to convince you that i'm right and that you are wrong, also just in your paranoid mind. i'm trying to understand the LOGIC (i insist on the term the LOGIC) behind using a NAS to edit from vs internal nvme/scalable sizes + using a NAS jsut or backup/archive/ingest.

I don't know something like "it sure is way slower to edit from NAS and way more expensive, but editors (freelancers and studios with 2,3,4,5 editors) chose to do it because it has __insert very important advantage that counter balance the way slower speed vs internal nvme + the need to use proxies most of the time if editing from a NAS which counter balance the faster ingest time + the higher cost of an editing NAS vs jsut a NAS for archive/backup/ingest our files from/to, before editing from internal Nvme)__.

and "people need to access and work on a same project at the same time because one editor does X and the other has to do Y and the other Z, and those things can't be done by the same person, it has to be someone else doing it in parallel/or it's better that someone else do it in parallel because blablabla _insert reasons_".

 

All the answers thus far are "cos it's centralized storage" (so is a backup/archive NAS, so that doesn't answer my initial question) or "cos it offers redundancy (so does a backup/archive only NAS, so that doesn't answer my initial question) or "cos ingest takes time" (so does having to create proxies if we edit from a NAS, so that doesn't answer my initial question) or  "cos people can work on a same project at the same time" without ever explaining me (sorry if i'm dumb and try to understand) why would more than one person chose to edit a same project in parallel, that sounds so counter intuitive and counter productive to do so, but i'm trying to understand the logic behind working in parallel on a same project too.

 

Sorry, is it wrong to not understand and to try get answers (which i didn't get thus far, every answer talks about something else that what my original question is about) to allow me to understand the logic behind all that? Are you so intolerant that you can't handle that someone to whom you replied, but didn't answer at all to his initial question, still try to understand what has not been answered thus far?

 

I appreciate that you tried, but i see no point in trying to help someone if we didn't bother to read and understand the initial question and to give our answer based on that, not on something else someone never asked and not making him say things he never said etc. + to be immature when someone dare tell you that your answer doesn't answer the initial question.

Maybe my english is not clear enough (it's not my mother tongue) who knows, that might be the reason why.