Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
FORUMS:listlist (w/ descriptions)archivetagssearchhall of famerecent posts

speed of free "FTP" sites

COW Forums : Digital Delivery

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Bob Zelinspeed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 16, 2010 at 10:38:50 pm

Hi -
I keep getting different suggestions, as I try this. I have started with Pogoplug (which is amazing, and only costs 88 bucks), but It's too slow. Some people say "You Sent It" is much faster (is it ? I will try this tomorrow) - and some people say that http://www.dropbox.com
is faster than ftp. Is this all nonsense, or is it true. Are there services out there (with a regular broadband internet connection - not T1, T3, or DS-3) that will allow a big 2 Gig file to move quickly across the internet ?

Bob Zelin



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jay MahavierRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 16, 2010 at 11:42:05 pm

For free? Not that I am aware of. But we have been using DigiDelivery in house for years and are very happy with it. I would say that it's paid for itself in shipping cost and turn around time. And for the last couple of years we have been working with facilities that have systems from Aspera. You can really move a huge chunk of data quick.

Jay


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John HeagyRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 17, 2010 at 1:33:55 am

Can't get somethin' for nothin'...

The speed depends entirely on your internet connection. Aspera and Signiant aren't doing anything magic. It's really just a different transport protocol, UDP instead of TCP. FTP favors data integrity over speed, and checks that each packet is received. This takes more time as the distance increases (RTT). In fact, if your just sending across town, you will not notice a big difference. UDP transfers are less dependable and verify by Hash, or just file size, after the transfer is done.

John Heagy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris BlairRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 17, 2010 at 2:32:01 am

Ok...I'll bite...I went to the Aspera website and noticed no pricing for DigiDelivery, which usually indidcates it's "expensive." Wasn't it originally part of Avid/Digidesign? Also...they talk about software, but all the links I found show a hardware device as well. Seems that adding software alone would still be heavily dependent on your connection speed. I can see somehow speeding upload 2, 3, maybe even 4 times faster somehow, but you're still talking about hours to upload a mutli-gigabyte file.

Also..how much does one of these systems cost...and will a cable system or TV station take the extra step of downloading the file from the email link? Most stations and cable systems we deal with (scores of them) want the media file loaded directly onto a server because their systems are automated...meaning they "watch" for the file, once it's there, it's automatically moved to a playout server or to another encoding step in the system.

I also Googled for costs of Aspera or DigiDelivery and couldn't come up with anything...which is also usually a flag that it's pricey.

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John HeagyRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 17, 2010 at 3:25:44 am

[Chris Blair] "Wasn't it originally part of Avid/Digidesign"

That would be Signiant, and it is very expensive. It a very system centric with managers and agents, the Avid roots do show. Aspera is more like a fast FTP and less expensive. The Aspera Point to Point client is $700 and is needed to receive a file. The sender would pay much more for a server system.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David JohnsonRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 17, 2010 at 2:28:08 am

Howdy Bob,

Dave from RJ here.

I'm struggling with the same issue since our IT department won't let us use our FTP anymore so I've been trying a bunch of different file transfer sites. I don't know whether any are faster than FTP or which is faster than the other, but so far I've noticed other pros and cons that can be important.

Most have free transfer up to 2Gb, but a couple go to 5Gb. Some delete files after x days, some don't. Some are secure, some aren't. Some have plugins for one-click transfer from certain programs (Word, Photoshop, etc.).

So to complicate your tests, here are some more options:

http://www.filedropper.com/
http://www.filestube.com/
http://www.mediafire.com/
http://www.megaupload.com/
https://mozy.com/
http://www.pando.com/
http://rapidshare.com/
http://www.yousendit.com/
http://www.zshare.net/


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris BlairRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 17, 2010 at 2:41:07 am

Last year we spent some time uploading hundreds of media files to a client in the Middle East...including the contents of DVDs which were anywhere from 1-2GB. We tried several of the services David listed (and a few more) and we found the upload speed was almost wholly dependent on our connection speed....meaning they were no faster (in our experience) than using straight FTP software and connecting to a server somewhere. There might've been small differences, but nothing significant enough to switch to them over using FTP software....other than the alleged security some claim to provide (suspect at best considering how cheap most are to use).

The issue really isn't "are there faster methods?" There are. The issue is "are there faster methods that don't cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to implement?" Unless you're delivering a very high volume, T3 lines and something like Aspera Digidelivery are likely out of reach of most medium to small shops.

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 17, 2010 at 10:38:36 am

[Bob Zelin] "Are there services out there (with a regular broadband internet connection - not T1, T3, or DS-3) that will allow a big 2 Gig file to move quickly across the internet ?"

Bob, I agree with Chris -- you may be limited by the local connection speeds.

There are numerous suggestions here about expensive services, or packetizing transfers. These may be useful if you are doing a single-point to multi-point transfer, but if you are going from one single point to another, you will never go faster than the slower site's Internet connection.

You could try running a speed test like this one at both the sending and receiving sites:

http://speedtest.net/

Your file transfer will never go faster than the sender's upload speed, or the receiver's download speed (whichever is slower).

Since my delivery requirements are entirely point to point, and most of my clients are already using FTP, I have brought my FTP server in-house (I use CrushFTP on an old G5) and cut my transfer times in half. When I used an external service, I had to upload the file to a remote server, wait for it to finish, then tell my client to download it. Now, I just have to copy it across my fast internal network and tell the client it is available. Only a few of my clients have a fast enough Internet connection themselves to max out my bandwidth.

I am considering running Marco Solario's MediaBatch on my server to allow Web access instead of just FTP.

A couple notes on security:

FTP is insecure. The password is passed in plaintext, so anyone watching the traffic can easily sniff the username and password. I suggest that my clients to use SFTP (though there is a slight amount of overhead for the encryption), but I support FTP connections because it's what most people use.

Exposing a server to the Internet is dangerous, and your server will be constantly under attack. Good security practices are a must.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Tim WilsonRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 17, 2010 at 11:21:14 am

[Chris Blair] "Unless you're delivering a very high volume, T3 lines and something like Aspera Digidelivery are likely out of reach of most medium to small shops."

I don't remember the original pricing from Avid, and the hand-off to Aspera happened after I left, but there was a configuration designed and priced especially for medium shops that I remember thinking would pay for itself pretty quickly in some circumstances -- including the original intent, which was to send large music files between studio locations.

FWIW, we started using Digidelivery in-house for large files not long before I left, and when they say that you can transfer files across the country at the same speed you do locally, they're not kidding. It really did feel like magic.

Affordable or not, it definitely ain't free, and for optimum performance needs hardware at both ends.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Erik FreidRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 18, 2010 at 12:01:33 am

UDP allows a much larger fie size (i have see 300GB+) and faster speeds, even over a home line (I use FIOS) it improves a bit, and anything 5MB up like T1 is fast. Yes, Signiant, Aspera, File Catalyst, etc are very expensive to implement for occasional use, or a small business. But there are facilities you can go to that offer private networks for delivery content or to access to a remote file accelerator server via java app from your office if you look around.

I think FTP although prevalent is showing its age, in the day of cheap storage no one is worried about file size until delivery.

Erik Freid | MediaSilo, Inc
207 South Street | Third Floor | Boston, MA 02111
t. 617.423.6200, m. 617.306.8632, f. 617.507.8577
http://www.mediaSilo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris BlairRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 18, 2010 at 12:26:50 am

Eric Freid: Yes, Signiant, Aspera, File Catalyst, etc are very expensive to implement for occasional use, or a small business. But there are facilities you can go to that offer private networks for delivery content or to access to a remote file accelerator server via java app from your office if you look around.

I think that's what Bob is asking in the original question...exactly WHERE do you find these facilities or remote file accelerator servers via java apps? Believe me...I've searched...and searched some more. I've found stuff about DigiDelivery (originally when it was associated with Digidesign I believe) and File Catalyst, but even those two provide virtually no information on pricing and you can search all day long and not find anything about their cost anywhere on the web. Not to mention both of their websites are written in uber geek-speak. I understand some of it, but a large part of it is way too technical for the average Joe facility owner.

For that matter...care to explain what a "remote file accelerator server via java app" is??

Another thing I don't quite understand is how having an FTP server in-house speeds uploads to a remote FTP site? TV stations and cable systems WILL NOT connect to your FTP server and download a file you've placed there. They want the files loaded to their servers so their automated systems can grab the file and do it's encoder voodoo on it, then automatically place that file on the playout server. We have exactly ONE TV station that will take a file off of our FTP, and it's only because they're a tiny station in a 100+ market and don't have an FTP site of their own.

Somebody care to explain how having your own FTP server speeds an upload to a remote FTP site??

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 18, 2010 at 10:39:46 am

[Chris Blair] "Somebody care to explain how having your own FTP server speeds an upload to a remote FTP site??"

Of course it doesn't! Since the question was about "free" FTP sites, though, I thought the suggestion of eliminating the middleman would be worthwhile. Like any of the other suggestions in this thread, it may not be suitable for all clients and workflows.

Bob wasn't very specific in his requirements, and he's getting suggestions from YouSendIt to Aspera. Of course an in-house FTP server won't compete with Aspera on speed (price is another matter) -- but it will be faster than YouSendIt, and with a web interface, it could be just as client-friendly.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Erik FreidRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 18, 2010 at 2:21:27 pm

Hi All,

There are companies like mine (feature release September) that host a UDP server on the cloud, though their service you can have access to it and send data faster than FTP and larger files. Basically a java app opens in your browser that is a UDP based and can talk to the remote server, you choose your file to upload and an email address for the receiver. Upload the file to the server, an email with a one time link will go to the receiver, they click on it, another java app opens up on their end that can talk to the server with UDP, and they can download the file the same as you uploaded it. FIle size is no limit, but the network connection on either end is the biggest bottleneck, you cannot go faster than your connection on either end. The file lives on the server 72 hours for the recipients to download it, and you can have multiple recipients if needed.

It is similar to CNN's new newsfeed service they are using to replace Pathfire satellite delivery for all non live content.

Alas it is not free, but cheaper than FedEX overnight delivery and much faster.

Erik Freid | MediaSilo, Inc
207 South Street | Third Floor | Boston, MA 02111
t. 617.423.6200, m. 617.306.8632, f. 617.507.8577
http://www.mediaSilo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bob ZelinRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 18, 2010 at 7:50:28 pm

Erik -
please email me with your contact information at

maxavid@cfl.rr.com

Bob Zelin



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris BlairRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 19, 2010 at 12:29:59 am

Eric Freid: FIle size is no limit, but the network connection on either end is the biggest bottleneck, you cannot go faster than your connection on either end

I'm a little confused. If the bottleneck is the connection speed on each end...then how is it faster than FTP. Is it the UDP protocol? That's the way Aspera, File Catalyst and others explain their huge increases in speed....some sort of combination of low latency and reduction of packet loss (I have no idea what that means). But their products include software and/or hardware/software combinations on your host computer...and if I read it right...the receiver needs to have the ability to receive UDP based files (with the same software maybe?).

So without software on either end, how exactly does this cloud/java deal work? And if it does work as advertised, how would it work in a situation where a production entity is uploading a file (TV spot, promotion, program etc.) to a broadcast entity like a network affiliate, cable system or network?

The reason I ask is because of the way most broadcasters expect delivery...which is to have the file uploaded to a specific directory on a specific FTP server.

In that scenario..would the cloud/UDP/java deal work?

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Dan SchanlerRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 19, 2010 at 3:41:39 pm

[Chris Blair] "Eric Freid: FIle size is no limit, but the network connection on either end is the biggest bottleneck, you cannot go faster than your connection on either end

I'm a little confused. If the bottleneck is the connection speed on each end...then how is it faster than FTP. Is it the UDP protocol?"


Yeah, I was wondering the same thing you mentioned Chris.

After reading Eric's post a couple times, he wrote "they can download the file the same as you uploaded it" Do you mean to say they can download simultaneously as the upload is taking place? And then the bottleneck is not waiting for each client to finish UL then DL, but whichever of the sides is slowest...?

Are there any FTP programs that allow - for lack of a better phrase - simultaneously updating real time file transfers?

Dan Schanler
NYC


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Erik FreidRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 19, 2010 at 4:45:07 pm

Hi Dan,

By nature these UDP systems need a server on both ends for the TCP verification. To make this service available to everyone everywhere without the need for everyone to buy a 20K server & license we have set up our system as such:

We host a server on Amazon EC2
From MediaSilo you access a Java applet that allows you to communicate with it and upload a file to the server where it will remain for up to 72 hours, you also enter an email address of the recipient(s). After the upload is complete an email goes out to the receiving parties as soon as it is available. This email contains a link that will open a Java applet on the receivers end that contacts the server and commences the download. After the download is complete the link auto-expires for security reasons.

If both parties have only a 1.5 Mbit/s connection FTP may be better for your needs speed wise, but if the file is larger than 2-4GB then our system is better regardless of speed, because the file will actually get there unlike with FTP.

Hope this helps.

Erik Freid | MediaSilo, Inc
207 South Street | Third Floor | Boston, MA 02111
t. 617.423.6200, m. 617.306.8632, f. 617.507.8577
http://www.mediaSilo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Erik FreidRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 19, 2010 at 4:30:01 pm

First, understand the difference between UDP and FTP: FTP basically sends out a small packet of data waits for verification from the server then sends more it is relatively slow to do and there is a file size limitation of usually 2GB unless the ftp server is running 64bit then you can be pretty stable to 4GB before it fails. UDP sends out larger packets to the other side and does not do verification, it just sends and sends. It is faster because it does not verify packet receipt in the protocol, and sends larger packets. Companies like Aspera, FileCatalyst, etc use a secondary TCP stream (from the hardware server to another server or from the Java applet running) to verify deliver which does not slow down the transfer.

All that said, if you have a slow connection you cannot go faster than your bandwidth. FTP maxes out at about 1.5 Mbit/s regardless if you have more bandwidth, UDP depending on the controls set on the software and license purchased can go up to 50-100 Mbit/s. I have seen a transfer freeze an entire networks internet access because it took up all the available bandwidth and everyone complained that their internet was unusably slow in the rest of the facility, but you were getting 80 mbit/s on the UDP transfer (1 GB every 2 minutes). Most of the new systems let you set a "speed limit" on the transfer to avoid this flooding of the gates so to speak.

Our system is designed as a point to multi-point delivery system for large files, not as a replacement for an FTP transfer to an FTP server. So we may not be what you are looking for in your specific scenario.

Erik Freid | MediaSilo, Inc
207 South Street | Third Floor | Boston, MA 02111
t. 617.423.6200, m. 617.306.8632, f. 617.507.8577
http://www.mediaSilo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris BlairRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 20, 2010 at 1:47:08 am

I'm still a little confused about the statement:

if you have a slow connection you cannot go faster than your bandwidth

Aspera and File Catalyst claim that their solutions work in the real-world roughly 100 times faster than the physical connection speed rating itself. So if you have a T1 at 1.5Mb/sec, they claim you can still achieve 150Mb/sec tranfer rates with their UDP implementation, even if it's completely software based.

That said, both of their solutions and yours note that you have to upload the file, resulting in an email being sent to the recipient with a link for him/her to click on and download the file.

This scenario will not work for the majority of people in this and other forums looking a faster solution to sending TV spots and programs to televisions stations, cable systems and networks. Why? Because they want the file placed in an exact directory on a specific server where their automated systems can see it, grab it and then do whatever needs to be done to prep it and get it to the correct server for air.

This solution might be great for sending large files and projects to colleagues or clients, or for sharing raw footage etc. But from our nearly decade of experience sending digital files for television broadcast, this method just ain't gonna fly for small to medium companies sending content to scores of stations, cable systems and occasioanlly networks.

For that matter, neither will Aspera or File Catalyst's solutions.

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Erik FreidRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 20, 2010 at 1:37:55 pm

Thanks for the feedback Chris,

And you are correct, we are not targeting your need in this offering. Our service as a whole is about production workflow and collaboration not delivery to station. In our ExpressBox service we are competing with FedEX and counter to counter delivery for people who need to get a DVD image, graphics package, or source file footage from one place to another, quickly and cheaper than a Fed Ex overnight charge or counter to counter. If you need to send out a DVD FedEx overnight (in the US) it will run you about $30-40, to send the same file though us is about 25, and it will get there in a few hours not 13+ hours. Counter to counter is about 150+ and it will still get there later than via our delivery.

I believe that there is great value in offering this to many people on the Cow even if it does not fit your specific need.

Erik Freid | MediaSilo, Inc
207 South Street | Third Floor | Boston, MA 02111
t. 617.423.6200, m. 617.306.8632, f. 617.507.8577
http://www.mediaSilo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris BlairRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 21, 2010 at 12:22:08 am

Yes....that's a good deal and an excellent alternative to sending hard discs or tape drives etc.

Are you aware of any services that speed digital delivery to stations, cable systems and networks that doesn't require the use of email and links on both ends? This is the big issue that many, many people here on the Cow are now facing...which is increasing demand for digital delivery of TV spots, programming etc.

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Erik FreidRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 23, 2010 at 1:47:41 pm

Hi Chris,

Off the top of my head only DG Fastchannel or SmartJog. For DG you need to go to a facility who has their gear, and I believe it is pretty pricy. SmartJog is also pricey but I believe then have a similar Java app to ours through Signiant, but not sure if it can connect to a FTP on the other end. they call it a Drop box. look here http://www.signiant.com/smartjog/

Any service I would ask for a free trial and find a station where you know an engineer to clock the real world transfer speeds. As earlier discussed if there is a bottleneck you may not see the promised performance.

Another topic for this forum may be how to lighten the payload, IE smaller files and what codec is a best balance between what stations will air, quality wise, and file size to make delivery faster. We have had some clients forward to their stations H.264 @ 700KB/s @ 720p and make air. With no quality issues raised

Erik Freid | MediaSilo, Inc
207 South Street | Third Floor | Boston, MA 02111
t. 617.423.6200, m. 617.306.8632, f. 617.507.8577
http://www.mediaSilo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris BlairRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 25, 2010 at 12:51:11 am

Yeah...Signiant doesn't sound like a solution...as it appears form their very confusing and decidedly "techy" description that both end points need software of some kind from them.

Not to mention their ridiculously complicated description turned me off after about 2 paragraphs!

We're already using H.264 for delivery to some stations and cable systems, but many, many of them won't take H.264, only accepting MPEG2 of one flavor or another. Frankly, I can't believe that you can deliver 700KB/s files in H.264 without them ending up looking like dog poo compared to the original file.

You may not be seeing any "quality issues raised" but I guarantee you the people that poured their heart and soul into making the spot aren't the ones doing the judging. There are huge cable systems out there (see Insight and Comcast) that don't notice that the fields are reversed on spots, including their very own, very highly produced promos! So forgive me if I don't have much confidence in the people on the station or cable end who are providing the feedback. I'm seriously not trying to be a smart_ss either...it's just that after 25 years of delivering spots to stations and consistently being shocked at how bad they look when they actually air, I've become a little bit cynical.

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Erik FreidRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 25, 2010 at 1:59:42 pm

I do't blame you for the cynicism, But we can be our own worst enemy when it comes to QC. All of us in the industry have a very critical eye, but at the delivery end 99.9% of the population can't tell, and it is getting worse with youtube, etc being shown on air.

Remember broadcasters only have 19 megabits (HD @ 1080i is 12.9 Mb alone) of bandwidth on DTV and most split that up for multicasting at least 1 SD & HD channel. Then the cable and satellite distributors have only 39 Mb to crunch ALL of their signal so you figure a couple of hundred stations 700 KB is looking average. So with that in mind even SD DV25 has more data than what is being shown on air in HD anywhere.

As far as MPEG-2 preference it is because of the playback servers, most are probably either Omneon or GV both play MPEG-2 native so they do not have to transcode the file for air saving them transcode time. H.264 MPEC-4 AVC is an excepted standard as of 2008.

At the end of the day I spent most of my career in Film and DI workflows (2K data) so it all looks pretty bad to me given my exposure to truly beautiful work, but again 99.999% of people who consume media couldn't care less or tell the difference between uncompressed HD, Film acquisition, video acquisition or a really good HULU video. if the content sucks it just sucks.

I feel your pain,

Erik Freid | MediaSilo, Inc
207 South Street | Third Floor | Boston, MA 02111
t. 617.423.6200, m. 617.306.8632, f. 617.507.8577
http://www.mediaSilo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bob ZelinRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 28, 2010 at 10:04:46 pm

Rapidly, I am realizing that the # 1 company I did not pay attention to close enough all these years was Telestream, who may become the new "Sony". This is what "the big boys" use, and this is what manufacturers specify, when you have "XYZ" format, and you have to deliver a video "just get a Telestream Flip Factory", or run Ad Manager at your place.

While these products are a fraction of the price of a Sony SRW-5500 VTR, it's the same mindset. Stop thinking so much, and just do what we say - use the equipment that everyone is specifying. Of course, none of my clients want to spend this kind of money (or buy an SRW for that matter) - with all the "free" or near free stuff available to them - "oh, you don't need a Flip Factory, you don't need Episode, you can get XYZ instead".

Like I said - Telestream is on my radar. And yes, I started asking about Digital Delivery on the Business and Marketing forum, because I am rapidly realizing that no matter what concensus these esteemed
forums feel, every on air playback server seems to standardize on MPEG-2. This is what IMX was about all these years (and I never understood what those VTR's were for all these years).

Bob Zelin



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris BlairRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 30, 2010 at 3:04:53 am

But I'm not sure I understand how Telestream can help "speed" delivery to stations, networks and cable systems. There are several encoding apps (not just Telestream) that have presets for the various playback servers in use at stations, and even Telestream based stations and cable systems STILL re-encode to whatever format that fits their playback servers, which are typically hardware based systems.

Certainly Telestream is in heavy use for ingest, distribution, traffic management etc. at stations, but from my reading and discussions, it does not solve the problem of affordable delivery TO the station, nor does it solve the issue of quality and limited encoding passes since these stations STILL almost always encode the delivered spots to yet another format once it hit's the telestream watch folders on their servers.

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John HeagyRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 29, 2010 at 1:46:25 am

Signiant does not require software for the remote client. Once a Signiant installation is in place, all that is needed is an internet connection and a login account. Once logged into the website one can send or receive files to and from the installation. The WAN acceleration is done via a java app.

It's a complicated installation... but is robust.

Aspera requires an ftp client like app when we tested it 1 year ago.

Signiant is an enterprise solution and scales well when one wants to deliver files far and wide within an organization. It's also possible for separate organizations to "join the collective" to help automate things.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Erik FreidRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Aug 30, 2010 at 2:08:49 pm

John,

The issue this discussion is having is not the client end of Signiant/Apera it is that the stations they are delivering to do not have either of these ( or may have one flavor or another, no standardization). Any local network has no need of accelerated file delivery because, well they are local. Why plunk down ~50K for a server and software license when you are receiving content but not sending it out, and as such do not care as it is not their problem? No ROI for the stations to hop on the file acceleration bandwagon. Now ESPN uses Signiant between their East Cast and West Coast studios, but they also have dual 10GB fiber lines (one each way) between them, we are taking 2000 unique clips a day generated and shared, they need it. KLOCAL or WLOCAL just don't and leave the burden on the content deliverer, or use a company who built their own network like DG or SmartJog.

an example of how a network can use file delivery see http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/453935-PBS_Makes_Progress_on_File_...

PBS is moving to satellite delivered non real time file delivery, with a ground feedback loop to make sure content is there. One distribution point, 170 or so stations. No more satellite fade, or missing a feed, (or forgetting to hit record on the deck. Huge transcoding back end as well.

Erik Freid | MediaSilo, Inc
207 South Street | Third Floor | Boston, MA 02111
t. 617.423.6200, m. 617.306.8632, f. 617.507.8577
http://www.mediaSilo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Stephen NikiforowRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Mar 2, 2011 at 12:11:30 am

We have Aspera at my company and are about to get Signiant as well - we also have FTP (Serv-U) and TeleStream Flip Factory.

Aspera is UDP and also heavily uses data compression to get fast XFER rates. I don't know how they compress already compressed video so well but I guess that's the magic.

Signiant already looks like a headache - their specs say it cant be run on virtualized server (say what?) and needs "an outward-facing ip address" - whatever the F that means... U also need to answer a questionnaire - very sketchy so I dont hold out much hope but that's what our new masters use so so be it.

As for TeleStream Flip Factory it's very useful and this is DEF where things are heading - u transcode and dump to external sources, whether they be ur client or the ever-expansive cloud (hopefully Google Docs / DropBox opens up WEBDAV for non-paying customers).

I will say for Flip Factory tho that if u get the base system everything beyond the most basic stuff is a frickin registry entry (no UI, seriously!) and I guess this is why they want u to pay 7 large for their Vantage product, so it is what it is. There are also some stability issues with it tho that drives the guy who manages it kind of bonkers.

Also maybe it's cause this thread is a little old (sorry for the necromancy) but DropBox is pretty good for free storage I hear and u can use WEBDAV via a 3rd party (free trial) so that's nice.

Issue with FTP is that nobody can make money off it. We have Serv-U FTP and it is basically bulletproof (which was another FTP name). The issue is client support is hobbled (intentionally I believe) these days b/c everyone wants you to pay for a client and to be tied into their platform. So clueless ppl will try to use their Safari or IE browsers and the sad fact is that they are barely functional anymore. Sad really, it used to be so simple and functional and nearly free...



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bob BaeRe: speed of free "FTP" sites
by on Jun 19, 2013 at 4:44:37 pm

An open source alternative to Aspera is a tiny program called xc. At http://github.com/speedops/xc


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Post removed.

Post removed.

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]