FORUMS: list search recent posts

Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?

COW Forums : Panasonic Cameras

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bob Cole
Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 7, 2008 at 6:24:34 pm

Not a Panasonic HVX/P2 user as yet, but this forum seems to be the best place to ask this question.

For archiving I've narrowed the choices down to some form of data tape. I am wondering whether the Quantum LTO-3a drive at >$7k is worth it. I understand it is MXF-aware but don't feel that is important to me at this time. Is there a cheaper networkable tape backup system that someone can recommend?

Thanks!

Bob C

MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 7, 2008 at 9:04:19 pm

DLT is the other option...simple DATA backup.



Shane



GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Noah Kadner
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 7, 2008 at 10:43:09 pm

If you can afford it- go LTO3. It's faster, more spacious and much easier to deal with than DLT. And you can go cheapish with it. Dell makes some drives that are cheaper than the Quantum MXF aware ones.

-Noah

My FCP Blog. Unlock the secrets of the DVX100, HVX200 and Apple Color and Win a Free Letus Extreme.
Now featuring the Sony EX1 Guidebook, DVD Studio Pro and Sound for Film and TV.
http://www.callboxlive.com


Return to posts index


Helmut Kobler
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 7, 2008 at 10:46:22 pm

You might also look into LTO-4. It's more expensive, but doubles the storage capacity (thereabouts). Also, I vaguely remember coming across an LTO-4 drive that was priced not TOO much higher than LTO-3 counterparts.






Return to posts index

Doug Nichol
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 8, 2008 at 5:00:58 am

I have the LTO-3 HH and it works great. It costs around $2,500 - a lot cheaper than the MXF version. I use it to back up all my P2 footage and Final Cut projects - works great.


Return to posts index

Bob Cole
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 8, 2008 at 9:55:27 am

[Doug Nichol] "I have the LTO-3 HH and it works great. It costs around $2,500 - a lot cheaper than the MXF version. I use it to back up all my P2 footage and Final Cut projects - works great."

That drive connects via SCSI or SAS. I haven't been in Mac-land for long so I'm curious -- which interface are you using? Did you install internally or externally? I'm also interested in adding an external SATA RAID; is it possible to add both the LTO-3 HH and a SATA RAID?

Thanks for the reply -- this sounds promising.

The biggest advantage, for me, of the LTO-3a ($7K) would be the fact that it connects to the entire network via gigabit ethernet. Is there any intermediate product which does that? I could almost buy individual HH's for three of my computers for that price.

I have tried contacting Quantum and going through their website. Strange that I'd learn more about Quantum from a COW P2 forum than from the Quantum website. A comment in case Quantum is listening, which I doubt: they don't seem interested in explaining their products to the pro video community -- or perhaps they want us all to buy the most expensive solution.

Bob C

MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650


Return to posts index


Doug Nichol
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 8, 2008 at 3:38:15 pm

I have a SCSI card that I bought from ATTO to hook the LTO3 drive to my MacPro (Intel). I also have an XServe Raid hooked up through the Fiber Channel card so that works for my storage. If you are a facility with multiple edit bays then obviously it's better to spend the money for the network enabled MXF drive, but if you just have one edit system you can make the LTO-3 HH work fine - it's really fast as well. You need to but the program Retrospect ($100) to make the Quantum drive work - you use Retrospect to make your back-ups.
Good luck.
Doug


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 8, 2008 at 9:48:16 pm

[Doug Nichol] "You need to but the program Retrospect ($100) to make the Quantum drive work - you use Retrospect to make your back-ups. "

See that's another advantage of the more expensive system. No retrospect. It's all FTP based and can be accessed from any web browser anywhere or taken to any facility/field shoot anywhere. With Retrospect, you're locked to retrospect.

Also, (and I am not sure about this) but doesn't MXF aware allow to restore partial tapes (or really only the data you need) instead of restoring all 300 or 400 GBs of the tape? Might want to check on that too.

Find a reseller, a video reseller that deals with Quantum, don't try and talk to Quantum themselves, they seem to have no real question answerers, especially when it comes to video.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jesse Rosen
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 9, 2008 at 1:50:39 am

Just a warning about Retrospect: in the past (haven't re-tested in the past year or so) Retrospect would not back up an empty folder. This would play havoc with some implementations of P2 workflow. I'd highly recommend BRU instead, or go for the network drives. Actually, there are some issues to be aware of with the network drives as well - there are certain characters that aren't compatible with its internal file system. Use a real FTP client to backup, not the built-in JAVA-based one - you don't get good error messages with it.

--
Jesse Rosen
Director of Technical Development
Abel Cine Tech, Inc.
http://www.bustedskull.com


Return to posts index


Doug Nichol
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 9, 2008 at 3:48:55 am

Thanks for the info. I made some tests - backing up a bunch of P2 material onto the LTO 3 then re-importing it and it worked well. Retrospect released a new version late last year so maybe it fixed the problem... But thanks for the info anyway. I just use the drive to back up raw P2 footage and then also to archive Final Cut projects when I'm finished with them.


Return to posts index

Doug Nichol
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 9, 2008 at 3:56:00 am

Just checked out the BRU website - looks like a better program than Retrospect... thanks for the tip Jesse


Return to posts index

Lars Wikstrom
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 9, 2008 at 9:00:04 pm

I have a VXA-320 firewire tape drive. Cost was only $850 when I bought it last Christmas. Works just fine with Retrospect and I can restore just 1 file and not the whole tape drive. Backing up already compressed video footage I get 160 gigs per tape.

I love the drive and never had a problem with it. Plus it is fireiwre and you don;t have to install any 3rd party cards.

-Lars



Return to posts index


Shaun Harrison
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Mar 24, 2009 at 8:12:00 pm

Hi Lars,

I know this post is over 6 months old, but I'm really interested to know more about the VXA-320 tape drive. Is it portable? Therefore could be plugged into a MacBook Pro on location for back-up? And does it just mount like a standard external firewire drive would?

I would be grateful if you could help me in any way, I have a shoot in 2 weeks and want to create tape back-ups on location.

Would be great if you could e-mail me to give me further information - pictopictures@me.com.

Thank you in advance for your help and I look forward to hearing from you.
Shaun.



Return to posts index

Doug Nichol
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 10, 2008 at 9:43:16 pm

Jesse,
One question. I've looked through the P2 backups I've made to the LTO3-HH using Retrospect and you are right - a couple of the empty folders were not copied over. Everything made it expect the "Proxy" and the "Voice" folders which were both empty on the original files. I did another test and restored a back-up of archived P2 material from the LTO tape to my Xserve Raid. I then opened Final Cut did a Log and Transfer and everything was imported fine into a project. If the "Voice" and "Proxy" folders are empty in the P2 contents folder do you really need them? Also I looked into the BRU application, but it doesn't back up to XServe Raid and only backs up 160-300G? My LTO tapes hold 400G of material. The new version of Retrospect seems to work great, but you are right about it not copying empty folders. Let me know your thoughts . Thanks.
Best,
Doug Nichol


Return to posts index

Matthew Romanis
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Jul 12, 2008 at 12:40:34 am

We have been using the LTO 3a now for 7 months and find it very useful. The MXF aware side of things is of little use to FCP, but the network connection is terrific. The Browser based interface is a little ordinary, a bit slow sometimes, and not being able to change window size is little irritating when navigating lot's of folders. But in general very good and worth the bucks as a long term storage solution.



Return to posts index


Glenn Jones
Re: Archiving: LTO-3a vs. the cheaper spread: MXF important?
on Oct 20, 2008 at 1:37:18 pm

Hi Everyone

This is a commerical post - but am sure it will be welcomed!

Anyone in the UK needing MXF Aware, Quantum products?

I am a reseller, and am being supported on price by Quantum, which means I can currently knock off aorund 16% from the usual prices.

I also have ex-demo and refurbished units REALLY cheap

please let me know

GLENN JONES
01204 557666
http://www.craystone.co.uk





Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2019 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]