5 ms·

So lets say you release a 10 minute Youtube video. You now have 60 minutes of raw footage with multiple takes, you sitting in front of the rolling camera going

So lets say you release a 10 minute Youtube video. You now have 60 minutes of raw footage with multiple takes, you sitting in front of the rolling camera going over the script, ums and ahs, and maybe a take where the phone rang in the middle of a sentence. What are you going to use that footage for in the future, and is this hypothetical use case absolutely dependent on having raw 4K video? I understand that your answer is from a general video production standpoint, but my question was more in the line of "is this really necessary for this kind of content creation?". And yes, I did see the part about editing, but are you really editing nine days worth of footage at once? Would it make more sense to put less but faster storage directly in the workstation?

dylan604 4y ago
Again, you're limiting to just YouTube creator styles, and I'm including full on editorial for things like corporate training, episodic, feature, music videos, etc. That's my world. Obviously, the longer the final piece, the more footage necessary. However, something short like a music video can require a huge amount of footage that you might not consider. All of those quick edits of just a few frames to seconds of a shot wasn't that short from the camera. Some of those types of shots might not have ever been intended to be used and be something in between takes. It's all creative, so there are no rules in music videos. Doing that kind of editing does require access to all of that footage at any moment. If you're doing supervised sessions with the client sitting next to you means that they on a whim could decide they want to work on a totally different part of the content. When the client is footing the bill by the hour, you don't get to waste time "loading" content. It's really one of those things that until you've walked a mile in another person's shoes, it's best to not go blindly suggesting "better" based on one's limited knowledge. Asking questions for a better understanding is a totally acceptable way of learning, and I'm all for it. We're danger close to the former. Hopefully, I'm not sounding like an asshat leaning towards the latter.
- sorenjan 4y ago
  The article is written by a Youtuber for his Youtube content creation. If you're going to extend the scope to feature films and music videos because that's what you're used to, obviously my assumptions won't be valid. I'm not biking to work on a $15k carbon fiber bike or storing my left over dinner in a walk in freezer either. And I repeat another point. Using his own numbers, this editing NAS has space for over 220 hours, more than 9 consecutive days. What kind of music video production even has that much video footage? Like I wrote in my initial comment, I fully understand using plenty of uncompressed video while editing, it's the saving of hundreds of GB per finished and delivered Youtube video I question.
  - geerlingguy 4y ago
    I typically have 5-10 videos in production in a given week (doesn't mean I'm working on them actively, but I'll sometimes shoot parts of different videos depending on the schedule). Some videos are 10 minutes, others are more like 20. On average I end up with 100-200 GB/video by the end. So you're correct that I don't need 14TB (that's overkill) for now... but anyone who plans storage knows you're better front loading the extra capacity if you can afford it, because needs always seem to grow faster as time goes on (e.g. 4K to 8K, ProRes LT to something with more color space maybe...). And right now I keep all my "A-roll" (scripted takes, usually with about double the run time of the actual video), but I'm considering setting up a script to automatically convert those clips to H.265 afterwards so I can still have reasonably good archival footage but at like 1/100th the file size. All B-roll shots (Dolly shots, handheld closeups, illustrations, etc.) I save at full original resolution, because they are often useful in follow-up videos. But that's usually only like 30-40% of that 100-200 GB per project. (Edited to add: sometimes there's a unicorn video that also has raw Timelapse footage where you roll at normal rate then generate a Timelapse afterwards (and use some of the real-time footage). Those can have hours of footage and a couple have gotten beyond 400 GB. But I try to limit that just because of the hassle. Easier to have one camera devoted to the Timelapse, and another for some other shots for real-time use.)
    - dylan604 4y ago
      slight nitpick, as timelapse is an actual thing for me. your sped up footage isn't timelapse. tomato/tomahto, old dog says words have meanings, blah blah. On tape, we'd call that varispeed playback. Now it's more of a timewarp (even if you don't do the ramping). Please, don't cheapen my career shooting actual timelapse! ;P
      - geerlingguy 4y ago
        Note that I shoot both, depending on the project needs ;) I usually like to use my Nikon D700 for that.
    - sorenjan 4y ago

dylan604 4y ago

Again, you're limiting to just YouTube creator styles, and I'm including full on editorial for things like corporate training, episodic, feature, music videos, etc. That's my world. Obviously, the longer the final piece, the more footage necessary. However, something short like a music video can require a huge amount of footage that you might not consider. All of those quick edits of just a few frames to seconds of a shot wasn't that short from the camera. Some of those types of shots might not have ever been intended to be used and be something in between takes. It's all creative, so there are no rules in music videos. Doing that kind of editing does require access to all of that footage at any moment. If you're doing supervised sessions with the client sitting next to you means that they on a whim could decide they want to work on a totally different part of the content. When the client is footing the bill by the hour, you don't get to waste time "loading" content. It's really one of those things that until you've walked a mile in another person's shoes, it's best to not go blindly suggesting "better" based on one's limited knowledge. Asking questions for a better understanding is a totally acceptable way of learning, and I'm all for it. We're danger close to the former. Hopefully, I'm not sounding like an asshat leaning towards the latter.

sorenjan 4y ago
The article is written by a Youtuber for his Youtube content creation. If you're going to extend the scope to feature films and music videos because that's what you're used to, obviously my assumptions won't be valid. I'm not biking to work on a $15k carbon fiber bike or storing my left over dinner in a walk in freezer either. And I repeat another point. Using his own numbers, this editing NAS has space for over 220 hours, more than 9 consecutive days. What kind of music video production even has that much video footage? Like I wrote in my initial comment, I fully understand using plenty of uncompressed video while editing, it's the saving of hundreds of GB per finished and delivered Youtube video I question.
- geerlingguy 4y ago
  I typically have 5-10 videos in production in a given week (doesn't mean I'm working on them actively, but I'll sometimes shoot parts of different videos depending on the schedule). Some videos are 10 minutes, others are more like 20. On average I end up with 100-200 GB/video by the end. So you're correct that I don't need 14TB (that's overkill) for now... but anyone who plans storage knows you're better front loading the extra capacity if you can afford it, because needs always seem to grow faster as time goes on (e.g. 4K to 8K, ProRes LT to something with more color space maybe...). And right now I keep all my "A-roll" (scripted takes, usually with about double the run time of the actual video), but I'm considering setting up a script to automatically convert those clips to H.265 afterwards so I can still have reasonably good archival footage but at like 1/100th the file size. All B-roll shots (Dolly shots, handheld closeups, illustrations, etc.) I save at full original resolution, because they are often useful in follow-up videos. But that's usually only like 30-40% of that 100-200 GB per project. (Edited to add: sometimes there's a unicorn video that also has raw Timelapse footage where you roll at normal rate then generate a Timelapse afterwards (and use some of the real-time footage). Those can have hours of footage and a couple have gotten beyond 400 GB. But I try to limit that just because of the hassle. Easier to have one camera devoted to the Timelapse, and another for some other shots for real-time use.)
  - dylan604 4y ago
    slight nitpick, as timelapse is an actual thing for me. your sped up footage isn't timelapse. tomato/tomahto, old dog says words have meanings, blah blah. On tape, we'd call that varispeed playback. Now it's more of a timewarp (even if you don't do the ramping). Please, don't cheapen my career shooting actual timelapse! ;P
    - geerlingguy 4y ago
      Note that I shoot both, depending on the project needs ;) I usually like to use my Nikon D700 for that.
  - sorenjan 4y ago