Upload the library, or index the storage you have.
A SaaS media asset manager catalogs media you upload into the vendor's application. An index of the storage you already have leaves the masters on your NAS or RAID and reads them there. Uploading fits a cut you are ready to review. Indexing fits a library your edit already depends on. Many teams need both. They are different jobs.
Updated
Two different jobs
A SaaS media asset manager and a system that indexes storage you already have are often compared as if they were the same product with a different address. They are not. One is built so media is uploaded, or synced, into the vendor's application, and the catalog lives there. The other is built so the catalog is a reading of the NAS or RAID the team already uses, and the masters stay there.
Both can be honest choices. They fail when a team picks one to do the other's job. Uploading a cut so reviewers can comment is a review workflow. Indexing the camera originals already on a NAS so a producer can find a shot is an archive workflow. Many in-house teams need both, and they get into trouble when a single hosted library is asked to be the review room and the vault.
What you gain by uploading
A hosted catalog is easy to hand to someone outside the building. A link opens in a browser. The vendor runs the application, so the team is not housing a server for that particular tool. For a small set of cuts, selects, or proxies, the upload is a manageable task. People who will never mount the office share can still watch and comment.
That advantage is strongest for a version, a review cut, or a proxy someone already decided to publish. Asking the same tool to hold the whole library means a second home for clips the edit still reads from the NAS, and someone has to know which home the next project should relink to. If the hosted copy became the copy that matters, leaving later is another migration.
What you gain by indexing the storage you have
The files editors already use stay the files the archive knows about. Media Nexus installs on hardware the team controls, reads the approved volumes, and does not rename, move, or delete originals. Transcripts, tags, frame grabs, and proxies are created so the library can be searched and played. The path in the edit can remain the path on the RAID.
You can index a volume someone would never patiently upload. The whole approved share becomes searchable, not only the bins a person had time to export. Naming can stay messy, because the search is no longer only the file name. A sentence from an interview, or a frame someone remembers, can find the master where it already sits.
The costs are real as well. You need hardware you control and read access to the volumes. People outside the company do not get a public link for free. Remote access is something you build, to the system you own, for the people who should have it. The NAS is still yours to protect: indexing it does not back it up, and it does not tell you which shuttle drive left with an editor. That second question is drive custody.
Frame.io, as a concrete comparison
Frame.io is a clear example of the upload-and-review shape. A team uploads a cut or a proxy, and reviewers comment in a browser. That is a good way to review a version. It is a different job from indexing camera originals that already live on a NAS. Adobe describes Frame.io as a place to upload videos, graphics, and scripts, then share feedback on them (Frame.io for teams). Held to that one platform, the same split is a review tool beside a searchable footage archive.
A factual way to hold both: keep a review tool for approvals on the cuts you choose to upload, and keep the archive on the storage the masters already occupy. One does not have to replace the other. What does not work is expecting the review tool to become the system of record for every file on the RAID, or expecting an in-place index to be the comment thread on a cut you sent to a client. Searching footage on the NAS describes the archive job. On-prem media asset management describes where that archive runs.
How to choose
| Question | Upload to a SaaS MAM | Index the storage you have |
|---|---|---|
| Where the masters live | In the vendor's application, after you upload them. | On the NAS or RAID you already use. |
| What has to happen before search | The files you want in the catalog have to be uploaded. | Nothing moves. The index reads the volumes you approve. |
| Where the edit points | A second copy, which the next project may have to relink. | The path the project already uses. |
| Someone outside the building | A browser link is the point of the tool. | You choose who can reach the system you own, and which proxies you send. |
| What it is for | A cut, a select, or a proxy you decided to publish. | The library on the share, including files nobody had time to export. |
| Backup | Not a backup of your storage. | Not a backup of your storage. Indexing does not duplicate the NAS. |
Choose a hosted upload when the work product is a version you are ready to publish and the reviewers will never mount your share. Choose an index of your own storage when the library is already on a NAS or RAID, the edit depends on those paths, and search has to see the masters where they already sit.
You can test the second one on your real media before you pay. The Free Build is the Archive Pilot: Vaultline builds the archive on the storage you already have, and you keep it only if you want it. Build before you buy is the intake for that build. There is no checkout step standing in front of the archive. Why that order matters and what you own afterward are the rest of the offer.
Asked plainly.
Is a SaaS MAM the wrong tool for an in-house team?
No. It is the wrong tool when the job is the whole library of masters on a NAS. It is a reasonable tool when you are publishing a cut or a proxy for people who will never mount your share. The mistake is asking one of those jobs to do the other.
Where does Frame.io fit?
Frame.io is an upload-and-review tool. A team puts a cut or a proxy up, and reviewers comment in a browser. That is a useful way to review a version. It is a different job from indexing years of camera originals that already live on a RAID.
If we index in place, can we still review a cut with someone outside?
Yes. You can still upload the version you want reviewed. Indexing the archive does not forbid a review link. It means the masters do not have to move off your storage just so the catalog can see them.
Does keeping the files on the NAS mean they are backed up?
No. An index tells you what the approved volumes hold. It does not duplicate them. Backup of the NAS is its own decision. Drives that never made it to the NAS are a custody question. Relay is a later build Vaultline scopes for a client after the archive, and drive tracking is one of its features.
Can we try this on our real media before we pay?
Yes. The Free Build builds the Archive Pilot on the storage you already have. You use it, then you decide whether to keep it. Build before you buy is the intake for that build, and it does not start with a card payment.