Cantemo Portal Backend Organisation vs CatDV
I am trying to get a little more information on the way in which portal manages the assets at the file level. From what I have understood so far, Portal does not let you reference files in your own file/folder level structures, as say CatDV or other NLE's does.
Just trying to understand the implications of this where you would have a very organized system level folder structure that you wanted to keep but still have portal manage the assets.
Am I correct in thinking that approach to this from Portal is different to that of CatDV?
Neo Verite Limited
Cantemo Portal supports in-place ingest, meaning it does not modify your current folder structure by moving or renaming a file, but instead just indexes it.
The question is how to distribute new files that are not already on the file system, e.g. files ingested through web upload or transcoded files.
Using the Cantemo Rules Engine you can set predefined rules which automatically distribute the files based on metadata.
1) Lowers version of each asset should be placed in the Lowres storage group.
2) If an asset is marked as "important", make sure to have at least 3 copies for the highres file in the Highres storage group
3) Move all highres files older than 60 days to the near line storage
Using our API's you can go even deeper than this and fully control the file names and directory structure. This enables the system to create new files in a certain folder structure derived from the asset metadata, e.g. /2013/Oct/23/highres/my_media_file.mov.
Hope this makes sense.
Good to hear from you again and thanks for clarifying that in place ingest is possible.
Neo Verite Limited
One very important difference in these 2 systems is the ingest or import method, which varies more than the file/folder structures.
A large difference is that in Portal, a storage location is made "importable" to the server and all the assets in that storage are in the import window and you search or filter for specific assets to bring into the database. So if you have a volume that's available for import, every asset in that volume will appear in the import list, unless you filter it. (You can see this in the software better than I can state it.)
This differs from the more "drag and drop" ingest used by a lot of CatDV users in CatDV Pro.
The CatDV Worker Node can of course watch a folder or drive but if it does, then it imports all assets in that storage by default, unless you filter as well. In the end, it's really about how you integrate your system in both products.
If I had to characterize the methodologies used by the two systems, CatDV can lean more to a "put things where you want them and catalog them" workflow, whereas Portal comes more from the more traditional DAM viewpont of "give us your assets and we'll manage them."
It's important to note that both systems can do "the other" of those 2 approaches, with integration. But the approach starts from a different place with with each software package.
Also, know that Portal is running on CentOS/RedHat so take that into account as you'll want to have either storage shared via SMB/NFS or a fiber system that's compatible with a Linux client. All operations are performed from a web browser. CatDV has OS X and Windows client software and automation engines but no Linux client support.
Thinking about this, if you want to import/catalog assets from an external drive it must be mounted to the Portal server and configured as a "storage". There is no "hey, let's catalog this firewire drive!" But that's true of any larger DAM system. They assume a stable mount point and storage configuration. CatDV allows for more looseness, for better or worse, depending on your point of view. (Sysadmins hate "loose", editors seem to LOVE/Demand it.) ;)
Ironically we use CatDV in a more traditional way in a lot of our larger deployments, stabilizing the file structure to increase the ability to automate and better control the assets. In Portal systems we've seen work done to accommodate more of a "user's choice" of file structure. I tend to believe that the bigger the system and organization, the more you need to control the assets. This seems to be true throughout the industry as a lot of the larger DAM products use this methodology.
If you spend a million dollars on a DAM, you don't get to put stuff where you want to. You're paying them to manage them well for you. ;)
As in all things, some good planning and a strong deployment team are key to sort all of these things out and get the system you need.
I've rambled long enough. I'm tired. ;)
bryson "at" northshoreautomation.com
As always Bryson, your insight is much appreciated. I'm starting to see scenarios where both can be viable, separately and together, especially on some bigger installs.
Neo Verite Limited