Shouldn't This Not Work?

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by PTRAVEL, Jul 5, 2003.


    PTRAVEL Guest

    Last night, I was experimenting using my laptop to record video
    direct-to-disk. Today, I put my laptop on my 100 Mbit network, and just for
    fun, used Premiere on my video editing machine to pull in the clips so I
    could look at them. I expected the data transfer rate of the network to be
    too slow to permit me to play the clips without jumps or stalls. To my
    surprise, everything played just fine -- perfectly smooth, and with the same
    performance as if the clips were located on the drives on the video

    If I can work on clips across the network like this, then my temptation is
    to set up a machine as a "video server," supplementing the in-computer
    storage of my video editing machine with another terabyte or so of storage.

    Does this sound practical?
    PTRAVEL, Jul 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements


    FuzionPhaze Guest

    You can use a firewire network now, doubling-triping the speeds of regular
    100 tx.
    FuzionPhaze, Jul 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements


    Ed Anson Guest

    Do the arithmetic. Your 100 Mbit/sec network translates to about 10
    MByte/sec. Compare that with DV's 3.5 MByte/sec and you have bandwidth
    to spare. Not every computer can really support that bandwidth, but I
    guess yours can.

    It might be practical for playback, but I have my doubts about editing.
    Some editing operations might want more bandwidth than you have. But it
    doesn't hurt to try. [It's not like legal issues, where if you guess
    wrong you lose your house :-]
    Ed Anson, Jul 5, 2003

    MCL Guest

    In news:be7d1u$206t2$, PTRAVEL deftly typed:
    One question: Why?
    Keeping file on a server is usually done (that I know of) when a
    multiple of peoples might work on the same project from different
    machine. It doesn't sound like it's the case here, so if only a large
    amount of storage is necesarry, I'm thinking that it would be a lot
    cheaper to buy large HD for the machine you are working on, than to go
    through the expense of buying and maintaining a server on top of your
    workstation; and for very little benefit, if any. The cost of the server
    alone would cost you a few hundred Gig worth of hard-drive.
    MCL, Jul 6, 2003

    Larry Jandro Guest

    I routinely play clips across our home LAN. The only computer in the
    loop that can't handle it is an old Toshiba 200MHz laptop with basic
    graphic capability. That one is placed in the guest bedrom so that
    visitors have internet access while they're here.

    As another said, you might look at external firewire drives. they'll
    handle anything. You can get 160 Gigs for around $300-400.00, maybe

    Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

    Are you a Sound/Video/Lighting/Staging Freelancer..?
    If so, think about joining our mail list.
    Send an e-mail to:
    (Requests from Yahoo & Hotmail will be rejected.)
    Larry Jandro, Jul 6, 2003

    Radiobyfm9 Guest

    Sounds cool. Interesting to see the math involved. When I was working with
    the two NLEs at my old job, they were routed up with gigabit. I had a two clip
    PIP going RT on machine one from machine two's drives, and the same going on
    machine two from one's drives...Kinda cool for geekin' out. The trick was I
    couldn't record from one machine to the other's drives...Which I think was more
    of a permission's thing. Still kinda cool...They were loaded with some bad ass
    SCSI Raids...The stoarage cost more than the machines did.
    Radiobyfm9, Jul 7, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.