Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

New DaVinci Resolve for Mac Configuration Guide Available

Alexander Ibrahim said:
?..but Color doesn't hold me back yet. Its very fast, and operates at or near real time most of the time, until render time of course.
Click to expand...

Alexander,

Lots of good comments, but I did find this statement kind of amusing. Very fast and operates at or near real time... Most of the time. Well... Which one is it? : )

In the color grading world, fast = realtime or faster. End stop.

Lucas
 
You can't just buy Resolve on Linux, you have to pay a reseller to build you a PC which they charge 3 x what the PC actually costs

Putting the cost of a Linux Resolve in the same price bracket as Baselight and Lustre
 
That's one of my biggest issues I have with BMD/DaVinci right now is the whole authorized OEM/VAR system integrator thing. I've looked at systems from two separate approved vendors and they're nowhere near what I would build and yet their charging a 500% mark-up on the hardware. If I were still in the custom workstation biz, which I used to be, I would get approved as a Resolve system vendor. Would do the same for Scratch, too. At least with Scratch, Assimilate sells the software-only license. It keeps system integrators more honest.

IMO, with the pricing from most Resolve authorized system partners, there is little advantage to the Linux version over the Mac version. Spend $12K or so on a $3K system just so you can buy a $30K software license that gains you what? ...The ability to realistically use 2, maybe 3, more GPUs in the same system and a platform that lacks real support for finishing to ProRes and many other common formats that clients demand.

Overall, I think OSX is a superior platform on which to run Resolve. It's just the current system offerings from Apple lack enough internal expansion to be the robust solution a lot of us would like. I think that will change with the next revision of the Mac Pro. After all, the Sandy Bridge platform gives us several more PCIe lanes. As a side note, Intel has confirmed that Sandy Bridge will have integrated USB3. If all this does happen, with the next Mac Pro revision, what I would like to see from DaVinci is the ability to run Resolve with more GPUs. Even if it comes at a higher price. I'm not a huge fan of that sort of business model, but I'm less enthused about the model where one platform is restricted and another is not, and yet the unrestricted one comes at a much higher price on top of artificially inflated system hardware that we should not be forced to buy.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
That's one of my biggest issues I have with BMD/DaVinci right now is the whole authorized OEM/VAR system integrator thing. I've looked at systems from two separate approved vendors and they're nowhere near what I would build and yet their charging a 500% mark-up on the hardware. If I were still in the custom workstation biz, which I used to be, I would get approved as a Resolve system vendor. Would do the same for Scratch, too. At least with Scratch, Assimilate sells the software-only license. It keeps system integrators more honest.

IMO, with the pricing from most Resolve authorized system partners, there is little advantage to the Linux version over the Mac version. Spend $12K or so on a $3K system just so you can buy a $30K software license that gains you what? ...The ability to realistically use 2, maybe 3, more GPUs in the same system and a platform that lacks real support for finishing to ProRes and many other common formats that clients demand.

Overall, I think OSX is a superior platform on which to run Resolve. It's just the current system offerings from Apple lack enough internal expansion to be the robust solution a lot of us would like. I think that will change with the next revision of the Mac Pro. After all, the Sandy Bridge platform gives us several more PCIe lanes. As a side note, Intel has confirmed that Sandy Bridge will have integrated USB3. If all this does happen, with the next Mac Pro revision, what I would like to see from DaVinci is the ability to run Resolve with more GPUs. Even if it comes at a higher price. I'm not a huge fan of that sort of business model, but I'm less enthused about the model where one platform is restricted and another is not, and yet the unrestricted one comes at a much higher price on top of artificially inflated system hardware that we should not be forced to buy.
Click to expand...

Nail on the head...
 
I'm sure BM would love to do this and will be able to do it at a better price. The current Linux solution is pretty exotic (i.e. low volume). It's up to Apple right now.
 
Lucas Wilson said:
I'm confused... What solutions?

Lucas
Click to expand...

The ones I was making up and babbling about.

A BlackMagic i/o card with a GPU on board, and their own video cards for the Mac with two GPU's, on for GUI and one for Resolve.
 
Lucas Wilson said:
Alexander,

Lots of good comments, but I did find this statement kind of amusing. Very fast and operates at or near real time... Most of the time. Well... Which one is it? : )

In the color grading world, fast = realtime or faster. End stop.

Lucas
Click to expand...

We differ on the definition of fast.

I find that for most systems the performance is limited by the operator not the computer.

I can live with my corrections playing back slower than real time. I just need a responsive GUI while I am working... and the system isn't playing while I am working.

I can live with a render at the end in order to get my full quality color correction.

There are a lot of clients who don't need real time performance.

Of course, they are also expecting to pay less for color correction. Probably because they don't have a lot of money.

Could I work faster with a faster system. Sure. I don't think that's true of every colorist, and it wasn't true for me either once upon a time.

Will my client base pay enough to justify a faster system? I don't know. I certainly can't justify a Linux Resolve or a Baselight or anything like that.

Not only that, but my objective is not to be a full time colorist. So, I don't want to sink that kind of cash into a dedicated tool. Not when I have Leica PL mount lenses I want to buy.

A dedicated OS X Resolve machine... maybe just maybe, but I have a lot of other things on the wish list.

A mixed use Resolve/FCS/Nuke/Storm/Modo/Maya/RedCine system? Absolutely yes I can use and afford that.

But, to really use it I need 5 PCIe slots, or for someone to get me an extra GPU somewhere in the system for Resolve to use.

Or as I said originally... I can wait for technology to catch up and offer other solutions. Lightpeak and USB3 seem to be the imminent changes that might make Resolve viable for me. The next generation of Intel chipsets has more available PCIe capacity. Hopefully Apple will give us a slot or two.
 
I don't need realtime playback to work faster (it helps though), but I need realtime playback to judge image quality. Color processing can bring out noise, compression artefacts and other defects in an image, which is sometimes impossible to judge without realtime playback.

Can you grade without realtime monitoring? Sure. It's just one of those things that help you judge image integrity. Like a good monitor, controlled room lighting etc.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Why?

I'd expect BlackMagic to buy GPGPUs in bulk from nVidia, and to pay for engineering support like any other card manufacturer.

Someone needs to make these solutions. Neither Apple nor nVidia seems interested.
Click to expand...

I suggested this to the company who used to make the GPU and currently making video I/Os two years ago....but hasn't happened yet.
 
Barend Onneweer said:
I don't need realtime playback to work faster (it helps though), but I need realtime playback to judge image quality. Color processing can bring out noise, compression artefacts and other defects in an image, which is sometimes impossible to judge without realtime playback.

Can you grade without realtime monitoring? Sure. It's just one of those things that help you judge image integrity. Like a good monitor, controlled room lighting etc.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle with everything you wrote, but unless I'm missing a huge part of the picture, Resolve isn't giving me full precision rendered results in real time.

So, ultimately I need to see the rendered output to make a final decision as to the results.

If I am wrong, then pipe up someone!
 
Kaku Ito said:
I suggested this to the company who used to make the GPU and currently making video I/Os two years ago....but hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...

At this point it really seems a natural for BlackMagic to take a whack at.

I think they have the expertise to develop and a business interest in such products.

AJA could probably develop the hardware, but I don't think they have a product they are looking to support with that sort of hardware... although perhaps OpenCL will make a video i/o board with an integrated GPU a more general proposition than just "Resolve acceleration."

Matrox might also be able to develop a solution, but they compete in GPU's with nVidia and ATI... so unless they develop a whole new generation of GPU's and get Apple and BlackMagic to support it, the business case is hard.

I can't really think of anyone who is as well placed from both a business and expertise perspective to develop this sort of product.
 
pvillow said:
What do you mean?
Click to expand...

I mean that while I expect Resolve to work in real time, I do not expect to be looking at full precision fully rendered color corrections, but rather some proxy of those corrections.

So, for example, if I am set up to work at 32bit precision color, I don't expect to be looking at fully rendered color corrections on my preview monitor while I work in real time. Instead I expect to be looking at 10 bit half resolution color corrections.

I still expect some sort of export process at the end to get the full quality of what Resolve can do.

At least on the Mac version... I suppose with enough hardware the Linux version may well deliver exactly that- full precision fully rendered color corrections in real time. I know other DaVinci products did exactly that in the past.

If Resolve is delivering full precision & full resolution in real time all the time with no export on OS X that is a bigger deal than I thought, and may be more worthy of a dedicated computer and workspace.
 
I'd also like to vote for support for Euphonix control panels- especially MC Color and MC Transport... but I'd love user configurable support for all the panels. I can definitely see some ways to use the faders here and there.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
I mean that while I expect Resolve to work in real time, I do not expect to be looking at full precision fully rendered color corrections, but rather some proxy of those corrections.

So, for example, if I am set up to work at 32bit precision color, I don't expect to be looking at fully rendered color corrections on my preview monitor while I work in real time. Instead I expect to be looking at 10 bit half resolution color corrections.

I still expect some sort of export process at the end to get the full quality of what Resolve can do.

At least on the Mac version... I suppose with enough hardware the Linux version may well deliver exactly that- full precision fully rendered color corrections in real time. I know other DaVinci products did exactly that in the past.

If Resolve is delivering full precision & full resolution in real time all the time with no export on OS X that is a bigger deal than I thought, and may be more worthy of a dedicated computer and workspace.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, DaVinci Resolve uses 32bit floating point processing for all grading calculation and all resolutions. If you check your config page the only option available for image processing is only 32bit floating point.

About proxy resolution, what I understand is this: If you never enable your realtime proxy it means you see a full resolution from your decklink output.
And if you never set your RED setting to Full Res Premium it means you're not see a full res-full quality debayering.

If I'm not wrong the new update v7.0.2 will give you an option to enable the video monitoring in 10bit or 8bit. But it's only for monitoring, if you rendering or playout to tape using power mastering or batch output it will be still 10bit.

There is one thing that sometimes a lot of people misunderstand, the term "rendering" in DaVinci Resolve is completely different from rendering in FCP or AVID or other NLE. The word "Render" in DaVinci Resolve is the same thing as exporting in FCP or AVID. If you want to export your final grading to QT movie or DNxHD or some image sequence, you have to RENDER, there's no option to EXPORT in DaVinci Resolve. That's why they called it "Render" page.


But that's what I know, don't quote me on this, I know nothing about all these things.
Maybe someone from BMD DaVinci guys can give you a better explanations.
 
pvillow said:
AFAIK, DaVinci Resolve uses 32bit floating point processing for all grading calculation and all resolutions. If you check your config page the only option available for image processing is only 32bit floating point.

About proxy resolution, what I understand is this: If you never enable your realtime proxy it means you see a full resolution from your decklink output.
And if you never set your RED setting to Full Res Premium it means you're not see a full res-full quality debayering.

If I'm not wrong the new update v7.0.2 will give you an option to enable the video monitoring in 10bit or 8bit. But it's only for monitoring, if you rendering or playout to tape using power mastering or batch output it will be still 10bit.

There is one thing that sometimes a lot of people misunderstand, the term "rendering" in DaVinci Resolve is completely different from rendering in FCP or AVID or other NLE. The word "Render" in DaVinci Resolve is the same thing as exporting in FCP or AVID. If you want to export your final grading to QT movie or DNxHD or some image sequence, you have to RENDER, there's no option to EXPORT in DaVinci Resolve. That's why they called it "Render" page.


But that's what I know, don't quote me on this, I know nothing about all these things.
Maybe someone from BMD DaVinci guys can give you a better explanations.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting clarification for me- sorry if I was being dense everyone.

As of this moment Resolve can't use Rocket for output though, correct? If so, are there any plans to enable Rocket for output?
 
Hi, In Resolve the Rocket is an input processing card. By this I mean it accepts the r3d we offer from the disk and it presents the full debayer RGB images to the Resolve image processing. There is no application to the use of Rocket output, as all its doing is making RGB. As Peace mentioned, we use that RGB, in what ever resolution it originated, and generate a 32 bit floating point image, which we process, and then you select if you want to view that in 8 or 10 or 12 bit on your monitoring display.
Within the CPU and GPU capabilities of your system, your file type, resolution etc, it's real time at this full res. If you did have 20 color corrections on a clip and it did slow down, just select 'On the Fly' proxy and Resolve makes, in realtime as the images are playing from disk, a proxy of the source image so there is enough processing power to continue to work in real time.
Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top