By Mike McCarthy

Cloud storage has been around for at least a decade, but I have been slow to really embrace it. This is for two reasons: trust and bandwidth. But as both of those concerns get alleviated over time, and cloud-based solutions (even beyond storage) continue to mature, I am beginning to move toward more cloud-based functions and workflows. There are a lot of different options out there for cloud storage, and they are not very similar to each other, so there are a lot of data and variables to sort through when trying to find the best solution for your needs. This piece is intended as an introduction to some of the things to consider when weighing those disparate options.

First you have to trust that your data will be available when you need it, which is a legitimate concern, and outages do happen, even in the most redundant systems. But if you add cloud storage to an existing backup and archiving plan, it is nearly all benefit. It is one more copy of your data at a separate location on a separate system. If the cloud copy fails, you should still have your own local copies. And if all your local backups fail or are destroyed in some cataclysmic event, then you should still have access to your versions stored in the cloud. Admittedly, there is higher risk of a lapse in data security with an extra copy in a separate location you don’t control, but a data breach is of less concern in my world than data loss. (I work with media, not health care records or national security.)

Second, bandwidth can be a concern, depending on your level of internet connection. By some twist of fate, I have nearly always had terrible internet options, even when in the middle of LA, and definitely more so living in a rural area for the past decade. But I got fiber this summer, and that has been a game-changer, allowing me to experiment with true cloud-based workflows. You do need a high-bandwidth connection for most serious cloud workflows. How much is enough will depend on your specific workflow, but I would recommend at least enough for one stream of your primary format, and more is always better. My 300Mb connection is fine for HD, but I would upgrade to 1Gb if I was doing 4K ProRes from the cloud.

So once those two concerns are addressed, we have to start looking at what we want to accomplish via the cloud. I have used Dropbox for many years, primarily for documents and project files and less so for media due to my bandwidth limits. Dropbox was originally focused on syncing files between different systems or locations, but now it comes with advanced collaboration functions, including file sharing and review and approval tools. This is not to be confused with Box, which focuses more on collaborative documents but can also be used for media files. Dropbox for business starts at $20 per month and is cheaper per terabyte than other options, but it costs more per user than many competing solutions.

Google Drive can be used for video files but is rarely the best option for those types of files unless absolutely necessary. Downloading large numbers of files through Google’s web app zips the contents, which is undesirable for frame sequences or other workflows with many files. But $10 per month for 2TB is a reasonable price as an intro to cloud storage. I have little experience with Microsoft’s OneDrive, but I would expect similar limitations and results.

Then there are options like Frame.io, which are very review- and approval-focused but can also be used for transferring and sharing files, especially with the camera-to-cloud functionality. It is much more optimized for large (>100GB) files if needed and costs as little as $15 per month for 2TB, but charges are multiplied per user.

Adobe’s other option is Creative Cloud Storage, which is primarily designed for documents and images and is the backbone of Lightroom and Photoshop’s cloud functionality. Frame.io is usually a better option for videos, while Creative Cloud storage is better integrated with the other apps and is included with the commercial Creative Cloud software subscription.

LucidLink is a very video-centric cloud storage option. Similar to the Google Drive app, LucidLink makes the data available to the system as a standard drive letter (on PC), and it caches data locally that it expects to use. But it is much more intelligent than Google Drive.

There is also a Premiere Pro integration via a panel in the application that allows users to automatically download and cache the source files or frames for full sequences or selections of timelines. Of course, you need the right amount of bandwidth to download the files in the first place, but LucidLink is smart enough to cache assets in a given sequence to allow smooth playback and doesn’t delete any cached files until the cache is 80% full. So it could cache your entire project locally but maintain sync with other users in various locations. It costs as little as $20 per terabyte per month.

Blackmagic Cloud is a locally hosted storage solution that users buy the hardware for. That hardware then uses Dropbox or Google Drive to sync the data between multiple locations. It is not a cloud solution in and of itself, but it can be used as a local extension of existing cloud solutions.

Amazon’s S3 and other similar object-based storage solutions from Wasabi, Backblaze and other vendors can be useful for video files in certain large-scale workflows. Wasabi is $7 per terabyte per month, and Backblaze is $6 per terabyte per month, while S3 Standard is $23 per terabyte per month plus egress charges. These object storage services usually are not limited by number of users but have fewer workflow integrations than the full-service solutions above. There are, of course, many other options out there; these are just the ones I have some level of familiarity with.

Many of the other options run on Amazon S3 or Wasabi under the hood, but many of the proprietary implementations are incompatible with each other in the way that they store and access data. For example, Frame.io just added support for Amazon S3 storage, but it won’t allow you to access your existing library of S3 media in the Frame.io application. LucidLink is similar in that the encrypted data stored in the cloud isn’t accessible by other cloud services.

There are large-scale media applications, like Cinnafilm’s PixelStrings, that can access files stored on S3 directly, which is where many large companies now store their media. These applications are clearly the path of the future. I envision a day when all of my source files are stored on LucidLink to be accessed and edited in my Adobe apps, and anything I place into a Frame.io folder (or bucket) would be accessible to that service. And if I wanted to convert a file in PixelStrings, that application can access any of my cloud files to process them. So solutions have matured over the past decade, but they still have a ways to go.

Mike McCarthy is a technology consultant with extensive experience in the film post production. He started posting technology info and analysis at HD4PC in 2007. He broadened his focus with TechWithMikeFirst 10 years later.