Davinci built in scopes vs external scopes

[Andrae Palmer]

What are the disadvantages of using the scopes that are builtin to Davinci Resolve vs something like Scopebox? Is it that the built-in scopes take up CPU resources?

 

[luigivaltulini]

ciao Andrae,
I tried with and without a scope, I saw no differences.
Perhaps, with little performance computer losing some frames.
You see a difference?

ciao
Luigi

 

[Christopher Barrett]

That's exactly what I'm wondering right now too. Also, Black Magic makes a USB3 to SDI Scopebox... How about that?

 

[Paul Nordin]

I've got Black Magic' Ultrascope on a PC next to my DaVinci. The scopes are -perhaps- a little more accurate, but realistically, I don't see much difference in the actual display. I've got a Citrix expansion chassis with two 285s and a RedRocket in it so performance is already amazing and the software scopes of Resolve have zero discernable performance impact from what I can percieve. The big difference is in being able to get reports out and set alarms, plus I can use the scopes outside of just Davinci...basically anytime I'm sending SDI out of the BM card, I get the same hi-quality scopes. This includes After Effects, Premiere Pro, FCP, and live capture/playback from camera when in the studio.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

The scopes in apps like Resolve are VERY good.

The scopes in external boxes are more accurate - especially if your workflow or delivery involves sending things out of the computer via SDI or some other means. What Resolve is doing on your box in digital space is almost certainly a bit different than what is going out via HD-SDI. So ... if you are finishing and delivering HDCAM SR over SDI, then you should be using external scopes.

There is a tiny little processing hit for scopes, and scopes in lots of applications like Final Cut for example, lose resolution on playback. (Have a look at the number of points in a static frame versus those during playback.)

Finally there is the display of the information. If you are like me, then you have not quite enough screen real estate for post. (This is most true in my NLE (FCP)) I can solve part of that with another monitor ... but if I can have dedicated scopes on their own display that's even better. Right now I have software scopes only ... and just two monitors plus external picture display. I hope to get a dedicated scope display and a third computer display, which will put me at 6 displays in my suite.

Now, for myself I prefer a combined hardware software approach, like the Black Magic Designs Ultrascope. Even better are the high end dedicated hardware scopes (Tektronix, Harris et. al)- those offer a good number of dedicated analysis modes that can tell you all sorts of interesting things about your picture.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

Thank you very much Alexander.... you definitely answered the question that I posted. Currently I'm using two 30" Apple Cinema Displays and a FSi 24" LM-2461W. I just posted this Tout video of my displays: http://www.tout.com/m/u1llbe

It's great to know that I can stick with these and that they are accurate. i'm not doing SDI out deliverables currently. The only issue I have is where do I put all these monitors... lol... my desk is so small.

ciao Andrae,
I tried with and without a scope, I saw no differences.
Perhaps, with little performance computer losing some frames.
You see a difference?

ciao
Luigi

I haven't noticed a difference but then again my 12 core is a beast.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

That's exactly what I'm wondering right now too. Also, Black Magic makes a USB3 to SDI Scopebox... How about that?

Great portable solution ... but it lacks optical connections, and it doesn't have as much display flexibility as the PCIe UltraScope.

Still, coupled with a cheap USB3 equipped laptop its a fantastic tool, especially for field use.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Thank you very much Alexander.... you definitely answered the question that I posted. Currently I'm using two 30" Apple Cinema Displays and a FSi 24" LM-2461W. I just posted this Tout video of my displays: http://www.tout.com/m/u1llbe

It's great to know that I can stick with these and that they are accurate. i'm not doing SDI out deliverables currently. The only issue I have is where do I put all these monitors... lol... my desk is so small.

You are more than welcome Andrae!

I have a HON "Curved Extension" Desk that is 60" Wide and 30-36" deep. (The "client side" of the desk is curved ... I just use that for more real estate though.) I like the desk, but it would be better for its intended use - as a working desk for client meetings and such. Its just a touch crowded - but honestly a little more organization might cure that.

I want to buy a sit/stand desk though. I hurt my back when I played hockey, and sitting all the time during post can be a killer. (as can Steadicam! Which is why I no longer own one- which I am starting to regret.)

I'm thinking about buying a kit and building my own. Being a film guy ... I'd probably incorporate a few cardellinni's and VESA to baby pin adapters to secure monitors, leaving almost the entire Desk surface for control surfaces and such.

I'm also thinking about upgrading to 27" or 30" monitors for the computer side - again more resolution and thus more screen real estate.

I haven't noticed a difference but then again my 12 core is a beast.

You can measure the additional CPU requirements ... but unless your system is on the edge of being unable to perform properly you won't notice it. It's really a minute thing.

 

[Dave Blackham]

The DaVinci scopes are good but they do use some resources to run them. Make sure you use Displays that are matched to the Davinci spec or you will have serious horse power loss. I don't know why this is but am told its in hand to fix. We use our Davinci systems with two displays one set with the Scopes running on one and the GUI on the other. The big advantage is that you can measure what you are processing internaly at the resolution you working at and not just measuring the HDSDI output on the video card at some other resolution. We deliver DPX sequences or data not tape so good 'internal' measuring tools are really important to us.

 

[Peter Chamberlain]

Dave is correct, the internal scopes do use some CPU cycles and are resolution independent but also offer the ability to see the levels with or without the display LUT which is important if you are using a display LUT to match a film print out process. There is a checkbox on the config/luts tab.

 

[Stephen Strangways]

I wasn't terribly impressed with the resolution of the built-in scopes. They seemed to be skipping quite a few lines, at least on the system I was running it on. The solution I turned to was Scopebox, running on a G5 with a Kona card that otherwise was being used solely for outputting Betacam SP tapes. Having the spare computer made the software an affordable solution (especially after they dropped the price at NAB) and I'm quite pleased with their resolution.

 

[Marc Wielage]

The DaVinci scopes are good but they do use some resources to run them. Make sure you use Displays that are matched to the Davinci spec or you will have serious horse power loss. I don't know why this is but am told its in hand to fix. We use our Davinci systems with two displays one set with the Scopes running on one and the GUI on the other. The big advantage is that you can measure what you are processing internaly at the resolution you working at and not just measuring the HDSDI output on the video card at some other resolution.

We had trouble trying to keep Resolve with two simultaneous desktop monitors. While the internal Resolve scopes react much faster, I found it was better to take the Resolve output through a third-party box (like an Ultrascope) and rely on that instead for scope outputs. Even with the lag time due to processor delay, I found we got a more accurate representation of what the Resolve was really doing to the HDSDI output this way. To me, a Mac is working hard enough as it is to keep up with 2K data and a half dozen or a dozen nodes without also tasking it with generating a scope output. Under light duty situations, it might work OK.

There are issues with the Ultrascope -- for example, I'd like to "mix and match" and choose only two or three of the displays, like just a regular RGB parade scope, a "zoomed in RGB" scope for checking black level, a regular Vectorscope, and a "magnified" Vectorscope to help zero in on black balance and white balance -- but at the moment, we're limited to all six scopes at the same time. I think their boards are hard-coded to this. The much more-expensive Tek scopes ($20K) will do this with ease; this is clearly a case where you get what you pay for. But the Ultrascope as it is now will work fine if you're concentrating on 1080 24p delivery and screening.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

One thing to consider with internal vs. external scopes is what they visualize for you. With the internal software scopes, they can represent high bit depth or RAW data when applicable. External scopes can only analyze or represent what comes through on the HD signal output. This can be a good thing, too -- depends what you need. External scopes are great for monitoring output for broadcast delivery, for example. Not as great if you need to analyze for a larger resolution, gamut or color space for film out.

 

[jake blackstone]

To me, a Mac is working hard enough as it is to keep up with 2K data and a half dozen or a dozen nodes without also tasking it with generating a scope output. Under light duty situations, it might work OK.

Scope outputs are generated by separate GUI GPU. Nodes are rendered by entirely different GPUs. Therefore, extra scope displays has nothing to do with number of nodes...

 

[jake blackstone]

One thing to consider with internal vs. external scopes is what they visualize for you. With the internal software scopes, they can represent high bit depth or RAW data when applicable. External scopes can only analyze or represent what comes through on the HD signal output. This can be a good thing, too -- depends what you need. External scopes are great for monitoring output for broadcast delivery, for example. Not as great if you need to analyze for a larger resolution, gamut or color space for film out.

Also, internal scopes can monitor before or after the display LUT.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Scope outputs are generated by separate GUI GPU. Nodes are rendered by entirely different GPUs. Therefore, extra scope displays has nothing to do with number of nodes...

So are you saying the internal Scopes would not have an adverse effect on performance if the GUI GPU was a high perfomance card such as a 4000 rather than say a 120 ? I had thought scopes were a driven by the core processors.

 

[jake blackstone]

So are you saying the internal Scopes would not have an adverse effect on performance if the GUI GPU was a high perfomance card such as a 4000 rather than say a 120 ? I had thought scopes were a driven by the core processors.

Why using more powerful GPU would have an adverse effect? Actually, by doing that and spending a lot more money on FX4000 would result in almost no performance gain, other than slightly snappier GUI. Most of the core processing is used for debayer.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Why using more powerful GPU would have an adverse effect? Actually, by doing that and spending a lot more money on FX4000 would result in almost no performance gain, other than slightly snappier GUI. Most of the core processing is used for debayer.

My point was and this is so far as I was told, not gospel. The scopes are displayed by the GUI GPU but display info generated from the core processing. If Im right and I might not be, a more powerful display GPU would not be of benifit. However if the Display GUI is more powerful and it does generate the scope display info then it should help performance. When I last tried this a system using a 4800 and GT120 with dual displays worked fine with all scopes on one display al be it at slightly less than real time replay with Prores HD material and several nodes about 21FPS. What did make a huge difference was the positioning of the scopes on the display for reasons I don't know and how many scopes were displayed. We used all 4 and running either Prores or DPX made no difference to replay speed. If any one can verify this it would be of help.

The system was running a Tek 7100 external display and also the internal scopes. They both lined up to the same bars and appeared to indicate identical measurements.

 

[teo]

I have been working on station with Ultra Scope on separate PC and both solutions have their pros and cons... but in my suite I use internal Resolves scopes. I have an older 2008 MacPro so scopes in 10bit video output mode are doing mess to Resolve so it kills realtime playback. If I use them and 8bit video output than all works OK. OK, but I like to have an option to displays scopes only when playback is paused. So the 10bit playback would work, while scopes would be like only on still frames.

Internal scopes are better option for me. I like to resize and reposition scopes in other way that UltraScope does.

 

[Dave Blackham]

I have been working on station with Ultra Scope on separate PC and both solutions have their pros and cons... but in my suite I use internal Resolves scopes. I have an older 2008 MacPro so scopes in 10bit video output mode are doing mess to Resolve so it kills realtime playback. If I use them and 8bit video output than all works OK. OK, but I like to have an option to displays scopes only when playback is paused. So the 10bit playback would work, while scopes would be like only on still frames.

Internal scopes are better option for me. I like to resize and reposition scopes in other way that UltraScope does.

In V 7.1 Ive not checked this on V8 yet. One thing that helps, both displays need to be the same resolution as recomended in the manual, make sure they are positioned exactly correctly on the second display as if they are too high or to low on the display weirdness happens with playback.