[bob1029]

I spent some time a while back thinking about a web-native video editing tool with very lightweight client demands. This came up after watching all those LTT videos about their storage & networking misadventures around the editors. It seems something approximating this (or superior to it) has already been developed.

The way you develop & manage the proxies appears to be the biggest part of the battle in making things go fast. There's no reason for editor workstations to be operating with the full res native material unless theres a targeted reason to do so.

[viraptor]

LTT is probably not a good/representative example for anything. They'll do infra stunts for content, then it will fail and they'll get content from the failure and content from the new thing. It's in their interest to be slightly on the bleeding edge and slightly janky while having access to subsidised hardware.

And I mean that in a completely positive "it's awesome" way. Just... not the problems anyone else should be facing.

[kjeldsendk]

Before Covid your idea was the one everyone was pursuing, including AVID with a embarrassing system that i never saw a in a satisfying version.

With Covid remote access became the norm and the online/proxy workflow more or less died. Avid still has a working version (better than the original) but it's widely used.

Proxies are used for several reasons, expensive storage, heavy codecs at high bitrates or multicams.

They are typically avoided whenever you can because the online part of a proxy based workflow can be a challenge. And especially if you have tight deadlines you want all the variables out of the way.

[DidYaWipe]

That is a pile of contradictory statements. And since you're upset by that idea and unwilling to re-read what you wrote, here's some spoon-feeding:

"With Covid remote access became the norm and the online/proxy workflow more or less died"

No; remote access DEMANDS a proxy workflow, since you're not going to edit full-resolution files over the Internet. So it did not "die;" just the opposite. Witness the entire "camera to cloud" marketing mania that swept NAB a few years ago. That's based entirely on the rapid upload of proxy files to begin editing ASAP.

From NAB last year: “We introduced the [Blackmagic Camera] iPhone app a little while ago,” said Bob Caniglia, director of sales for the company in North America. “You can shoot with that phone, work with the cloud service, share proxies. The camera to Blackmagic cloud to Resolve workflow started with the camera app. The Ursa Broadcast G2 [camera] is now in beta for that software too. That's a good direction on where we're going.”

Does that sound like it died? Or https://blog.frame.io/2024/04/11/visit-us-at-nab-2024/

But back to your assertions: "Proxies are used for several reasons, expensive storage, heavy codecs at high bitrates or multicams. They are typically avoided whenever you can because the online part of a proxy based workflow can be a challenge"

That makes absolutely no sense. You just claimed that proxies are used to avoid "heavy codecs at high bitrates" but then claim "the online part of a proxy based workflow can be a challenge." But you neglected to provide a single example of what's so "challenging" about it, especially when you just cited proxies as an advantage.

Thus, since you pushed the issue, we see that in fact it is you who has no idea what you're talking about. But hey, keep insulting other users.

Or... if you prefer to be informed: https://filmmakermagazine.com/120946-new-remote-tools-workfl...

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/cameras-support-expanding-...

and many many more...