Marquis Broadcast, specialist in content workflows and media integration software, and Object Matrix, a leading developer of media archive systems, have announced a joint technology partnership. The two companies are providing a new cost-effective solution for broadcast and post-production workflows, using Marquis’ Parking archive and retrieval software and Object Matrix’ MatrixStore near-line archive system. Powered by Marquis Broadcast’s Media Highway Technology, the new development takes advantage of Parking’s easy to use edit sequence archive and restore functionality and MatrixStore’s secure, cost efficient near-line storage.

Users are able to move entire sequences, including edit decisions, subclips and metadata, from dedicated Avid or Final Cut Pro storage to the MatrixStore environment in a simple one-click process. No specialist knowledge of storage or archive management systems is required. At any time in the future, sequences, together with all metadata including essence and edit decisions, can be retrieved and dropped directly into the editing system.

The joint development offers a number of significant benefits to broadcasters and post-production companies, for example, workflow efficiency and resource management are improved as valuable online edit storage is freed up. The process of archiving is fast and easy as Parking wraps the sequence elements and metadata into a standard TAR file as they are transferred to MatrixStore. Similarly, the process of file restore is also fast and efficient as Parking eliminates the need to re-ingest and conform media before editing can begin. Furthermore, by providing easy access to media, the Parking/MatrixStore system provides customers with a very productive and flexible working environment. This means that more time is made available for the creative processes and therefore the final product is often of a higher quality.

“We are delighted to be working with Object Matrix,” said Granby Patrick, Technology Director, Marquis Broadcast. “Customers are always looking for ways to improve the cost efficiency of their broadcast and creative workflows while maintaining a flexible approach to resource management. We believe that the Parking/MatrixStore solution will improve workflow efficiency by simplifying the storage and retrieval of content, giving users the ability to respond to their customers’ requirement quickly and easily.”

Full press release here..

The View from OM

As I mention in the press release we are delighted to be working with the team at Marquis. The ‘ecosystem’ around MatrixStore is expanding allowing customers to ensure their content is protected from ingest to archive using existing systems in their workflows.

CatDV Asset Management application has been serving clients in the digital broadcast arena for the last 8 years providing a complete range of scalable solutions for all video logging and media management tasks.

Clients using CatDV include: BBC Natural History, ITV, Setanta Sport, Volvo Round the World Ocean Race, Rollo Films (UK) & Red Bull (Germany) Irwin Entertainment, Film Archive Inc and Nascar.

By adding MatrixStore into the CatDV work flow, users benefit from fast, secure, reliable near line and/or deep archive to disk, simplified workflows, better data reuse and, ultimately, better productivity.

MatrixStore is fully integrated into CatDV so that writing to/reading from the archive is a one click operation:

When data is archived to the MatrixStore, critical metadata is extracted from CatDV and is stored alongside the actual asset, providing not just a backup to the asset manager, but also allowing the complete archive to be independently searched for assets stored (whether stored from CatDV or from other sources).

In fact, at the time of storing, an option is provided to the user to add extra metadata information along with an option for whether to copy or to move the asset to the archive:

The asset(s) are then moved to the archive, with an option to cancel:

And that’s it! Using MatrixStore and CatDV allows you to add Petabytes of secure, reliable nearline or deep archive storage space to enhance your workflows and productivity whilst keeping your valuable assets completely safe.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or suggestions.

Dev Team.

Simply enter the amount of terabytes of data you need to protect, choose a node configuration and away you go.

You can get it by clicking on the image below:

The View from OM

Please provide feedback if this works (or not) for you.

Do you need to:

• Backup Final Cut Server databases?
• Backup Final Cut Server proxies?
• Bind strategic metadata together to Final Cut Server assets and productions?
• Archive entire productions in a single mouse click?

Then Object Matrix have provided free scripts and plug-ins here for you.

NB: please enquire if you require customized scripts for FCSrv related tasks.

The backup scripts are free of charge*, and modifiable/usable against any ftp server. The production archiving scripts are proprietary to OM and MatrixStore*.

*Please see individual license files for exact license details.

Have fun!!

Dev Team

Useful links

Backup to FTP Scripts (dmg) (UPDATE 17/Oct/2008)

Archive to MatrixStore Plugin (dmg)

Final Cut Server and MatrixStore (blog entry)

Email questions to Object Matrix

MatrixStore Plugins Overview

MatrixStore plugins for Final Cut Server are a set of scripts and utilities that provide extra features to FCS extending its usability and allowing a seamless integration of MatrixStore as an archive device into your workflows.

• Allow binding strategic metadata together with Final Cut Server assets and productions along the whole process from creation through edition to archiving by storing that metadata with their archived copies on MatrixStore device. Once archived, the user has the ability to find assets and productions easily on the archive device – MatrixStore using the search-driven Dropspot application.

• Provide easy backup of Proxies together with FCS database. By using Final Cut Server Backup function and MatrixStore plugins, the user can automate archiving FCS database and Proxies and keep them together in case of unexpected events and failures. Restoring the whole FCS without time-consuming re-creation of Proxies is a huge advantage and allows to save time, especially for installations with vast array of assets.

• Provides the possibility to archive whole Final Cut Server productions (project) directly from Final Cut Server client application to MatrixStore device, which is extremely useful for project-oriented users.

Installing MatrixStore Plugins for Final Cut Server

You can install MatrixStore Plugins on any Mac running Final Cut Server.

Please note that a MatrixStore cluster must be installed with vaults and vault users created before this process.

You must also install MatrixStore Connect as described in its users guide and create at least one account. Connect presents MatrixStore vaults as FTP accounts to Final
Cut Server.

DMG and Installer

Mount the MatrixStore Disk Image on your computer, go to “FinalCutServer integration” directory, run MatrixStore-FCS Plugins Installer.pkg and complete the installation process.

The installer installs all the necessary files in:
/Library/Application Support/MatrixStore/FCS Support

You can access the log files here:
/Library/Logs/MatrixStore/FCS Support/logs/

To finish installation you have to follow the instructions in Backing up Final Cut Server and Archiving Final Cut Server Productions.

For someone to sit down and argue that one technology is less expensive than another is a foolish way to work and here is why…

Let’s start at the middle. In general, I’ve been glad to see that over the past decade, the argument has moved from the headline cost of buying the nuts and bolts of the archive solution to “total cost of ownership” – however, we all know there are some major problems with that:

1. There is little if any consensus about what makes up TCO
2. Most TCO comparisons are woefully weighted towards one solution or another and/or extremely limited in scope
3. You pretty much have to break laws to even publicly publish/compare price lists (how crazy is that!)
4. Most importantly, TCO is only PART of the story – why then is it treated like the nirvana to reach in calculations?

How can we calculate TCO? How long should an analysis period be? Can there be a single formula when no two organisations are alike?

TCO is a Predictive Model – That’s Problem #1

By looking at TCO we open up a whole can of worms; Nostradamus might have been pretty good at seeing into the future, but, whilst in hindsight we can see who the prophets were; you kind of need to be a prophet yourself in order to correctly chose who the prophets of today are! So I don’t like to guess too much about the future, other than to extend trends seen today.

Perhaps the hardest part to put down in a TCO model is the analysis period. 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? They make a massive difference to the end calculation.

100 years? It would seem ridiculous to me try to base a comparison on 100 years. But it’s an easy mistake that’s made. Easy that is, because for sure, in the case of something like a film archive, we want to plan on keeping the films we make for at least that period, but totally ridiculous, because of course archive technologies are going to evolve beyond what we can imagine today in that period.

I’d go for 10 years. But that’s a generalisation. Every situation is different.

Why is the Storage world Stuck on TCO Anyway?

I don’t like TCO in isolation.

There’s also something I call TOO: Total Opportunity of Ownership.

There’s an opportunity being missed every time a piece of data isn’t re-used, there’s an opportunity to reuse data in a variety of ways, an opportunity to take all those creative assets and to make them more available for internal and/or external reuse. Digital assets can be veritable gold mines.

So move aside TCO. And welcome in TVP (I’m in acronym mode today!)

The Total Value Proposition = TOO – TCO.

The value of an archive shouldn’t be measured in its cost – it should be measured in its value, which equals the opportunity it presents less its cost.

Menno talks about that in his 5 minute video about the 25 years of archived broadcasts at EO in the Netherlands here:

Back to TCO, what should it include?

To repeat: no two organisations are the same. But nevertheless, a few pointers to some of the things that I include when calculating TCO:

• The Analysis period
• Initial storage requirements
• Annual growth requirements
• Base hardware and software costs
• Capacity % utilised of storage media
• Annual predicted % change in cost of media
• Replication cost (comms link vs manual actions)
• Employees required / costs / % annual change
• Energy usage / energy cost rises / better future energy efficiency % changes
• Servicing costs / employee training
• Failover facilities

Comprehensive enough? Probably not! Some might want to simplify the TCO equation, but to do so is to risk making a TCO argument that doesn’t calculate TCO at all.

NOTE: in any period of analysis above 10 years – the overwhelming cost turns out to be not hardware, software or energy, but (if there is a bit of a difference in the amount required between two solutions): manpower.

What Should go into a TOO Argument?

The benefits of one archive over another may well outweigh the TCO argument by a large factor.

What if one solution allows better, more frequent reuse of data over another? What is the yearly, monthly or even daily benefit of that?

Does the solution allow you to reuse your pool of created intellectual assets for new purposes, either internally or externally? Can a value be put on that?

I’ve captured all of the above calculations (and more!) into a spreadsheet – you can download it here.

In any analysis period of more than a few years:

The overwhelmingly significant numbers that affect the TVP are the manpower required and opportunities gained/lost. After that the picture comes down to a straight head-to-head.

Archiving Film

Not all archiving is alike. Take film and broadcast production. A film today can be stored on tape but that task is growing in size and complexity.

Traditional complexity of storing film on tape is well known. Once a film has been shot it will be stored as film on an original colour negative (OCN). Generally, the OCN is considered too delicate to be used more than absolutely necessary, so it needs to be stored, at correct temperatures, and in multiple locations. Film also needs to be stored in conformed OCN, Color Match, and Color Separation type formats. Film must be handled carefully, stored at correct temperatures, re-scanned, fetched, stored, restored… etc, etc: all requiring manpower.

And the amount of data to be stored is growing. Take Pirates of the Caribbean III as an example, which is said to have used up 90TB of disk space. Pirates of the Caribbean II (same basic technologies) is said to have taken ‘only’ 60TB. Add to that changes in technology and it is clear the figure will continue to grow:

One hour of uncompressed ultra high dev video (UHDV) consumes 12 terabytes. In-use 3D videoing techniques will consume even more since they take multiple shots from the same position.

I could go on (and I do!) but I’m sure you know the story of HD, etc.

It is straightforward therefore to conclude that film and broadcast will continue to push at the limits of what can be achieved by an archive.

So, what’s the Right Solution?

• Total Value Proposition = TOO – TCO
• The analysis period is a key input to calculating this
• Manpower and Opportunities Gained/Lost could outweigh all else
• Avoid solution/vendor tie in that don’t allow you to easily move on when that times comes
• Do not pay a premium for hardware/software – you may need a lot more storage in the years to come

Of course headline cost matters.

But we’d argue strongly that as data is captured digitally, edited digitally, so of course, store it digitally and the opportunity of reuse will outweigh all other factors.

External References

What’s in a terabyte:
3D broadcasting is here:
Menno video:

Quotes

We’ve been using a couple of outstanding tools that have streamlined the release of MatrixStore 2.0 and our new web presence. Basecamp and Highrise from 37Signals.

We moved our development center from Brussels to the UK during the final months leading up to launch which meant the team was split between the two centers. Basecamp particularly was a lifesaver. The ability to have a central place for discussions, files and to-do’s where the guys could collaborate on new ideas or find the information they needed was invaluable. It slashed the email deluge and kept us productive in a very important phase of our development process.

One unexpected advantage was collaborating with our partners and suppliers. With Nick and Dominic who designed our new site based in Cornwall, our Motion Graphics guy Ben in SOHO, London, me just out of London and the rest of the team in Wales (and Spain and Belgium and …) we found Basecamp’s ability to invite external teams into parts of the project really useful.

Latterly I’ve been relying more on Highrise keeping track of all the interactions and to-do’s with customers, prospects and partners. The ability to cc a copy of an important email directly onto the recipients Highrise record rocks. And all with a web-based interface that I’m sure even Stevie J would approve Highly recommended.

Just perfect for some of our testing and demo’s. Want to get to know MatrixStore better? Have a go yourself:

Instructions:

Mac Mini’s are great to learn more about MatrixStore without having to buy a bunch of Xserves, but don’t use them to protect production data.

Here’s our configuration tool as a Dashboard Widget: MatrixStoreConfigurator.wdgt.zip   

It’s a great tool for printing a parts list of all the hardware and software required to build a MatrixStore. You can configure and price each configuration in your chosen currency (USD, Euro, GBP). Enjoy!