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 :)

Davinci for Mac Configuration Guide

jonnycom said:
but not sure how the get the HDMI from the Decklink out. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Best way is probably to snake HDMI cables out through the top optical bay on the system. Otherwise you'll have to modify your case to make an opening. So not as easy as routing out the SDI for the Rocket, where it's just 23AWG coaxial cable that you can put new BNC ends on after running it through any of the hundreds of little holes on the Mac case... I know quite a few people routing Rocket SDI cables out the front optical bay as well...

How long are the internal HDMI connectors included with the Decklink card? What connectors are used on the card itself? Are they standard HDMi or mini HDMI?

As for the expander route, I'm still undecided. I'm going to take an '09 Mac Pro and make it my DaVinci system and I'm deciding if I want a nice RAID and LTO backup right on the system. If I do, I'll need an expander. Otherwise, I can get by with 4 drives in RAID-0 inside the system and will have to backup over ethernet.
 
Tony Bacak said:
how about this expansion box?
http://www.cubixgpu.com/
GPU rendering fun:)
Click to expand...

That's primarily designed for applications like unbiased 3D renderers (see Octane Render) that dump a bunch of static data to the card(s) and then render for minutes, hours, whatever.

The bandwidth to/from the cards is not very high, so it wouldn't work well for video. But it is a great solution for unbiased rendering.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
How long are the internal HDMI connectors included with the Decklink card? What connectors are used on the card itself? Are they standard HDMi or mini HDMI?
Click to expand...

Less than foot long, but they plugged in, so they can be removed and the new cable can be plugged in directly into the card. It's a standard HDMI
 
With most any expander, actually any I've ever encountered, it's always best to keep your performance cards in the main system. Even if the bandwidth is there, the latency can really screw with you.

For this application, running Resolve on a Mac, I think I would only consider an expander if I wanted to also run a decent RAID and have localized backup or other SAS/SATA connectivity. Would move the RED Rocket into the expander, as the Rocket has already proved itself to work well like that. I would probably put a SAS or SATA HBA in the expander for extra storage and LTO. Or perhaps place the small nVidia card in the expander and use a better SAS RAID card in the main tower.

Once again, I don't think stacking multiple GPUs, even if you can find a good way to do that on the Mac, will buy you a whole lot with DaVinci. The Mac version is a single GPU license. And even if they impose that restriction based on hardware practicality, one would have to wonder if it even scales well beyond one CUDA GPU node, or even attempts to scale at all...

Good to know that the Quadro 4000 is just around the corner. I'll sit tight with my GTX285 for now and see how the 4000 compares. I'm also hoping we'll see a Mac version of the 480 or 490 cards. The 480 should be about the same as the 4000 in performance. Maybe a bit better in some cases as it has a faster memory clock. Kinda like comparing the GTX285 with the FX4800... The GTX285 performs equally well in most cases, sometimes even better. It has less memory, but a faster memory clock and nearly identical everywhere else. What you gain by the Quadro are the extra overlay planes, hardware lights, multiple stencil buffers... Stuff that most applications actually don't use. I haven't found any real advantage to running a Quadro card for CUDA applications, unless you need the larger onboard memory. Quadro are better suited to applications like Maya and XSI that use the extended OpenGL hardware functions that the regular GeForce cards don't have. Or if you're running something like SCRATCH and you want the SDI daughtercard option.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I'm also hoping we'll see a Mac version of the 480 or 490 cards. The 480 should be about the same as the 4000 in performance. Maybe a bit better in some cases as it has a faster memory clock.
Click to expand...

I have a GTX 480, and since it's the same Fermi chip, the Quadro 4000 looks like a $1200 waste of money to me. 480 CUDA cores vs. 256? I think I'll pass. The extra 512MB of memory is nice, but I'm doing crazy out-of-core stuff now with the 1.5GB in the GTX 480. It's all about intelligent memory management at that size anyway, so adding 33% more RAM when your data set is already 100x bigger than the GPU memory isn't going to change much, if anything.

As for "high-end" applications, I run Houdini with the GTX 480 just fine. It's got 10-bit output. It's fast as hell (and just about as hot :laugh:).

I'm extremely disappointed with the state of the art in graphics hardware on Mac OS X. No one should be carrying water for Apple here; the situation sucks and Apple's not interested in improving it. :banghead:
 
Has anyone tested the Kona 3 with Resolve? I have heard it's not supported.... but BMD has said they want to support non-BMD cards. Does that mean it's in the works or no dice?
 
Hi,
Can anyone help explain why I would need a decklink or Kona for HDSDI out if the Redrocket has HDSDI out already? I realize it won't output HDSDI while viewing on the computer, but I've always had tearing issues on the computer monitor, never HDSDI out which is my preference.
Not questioning the facts, just curious.
Thanks,
 
Regarding the HD-SDI out with Rocket. DaVinci Resolve uses Rocket early in the image processing pipeline and the CUDA grading is after, followed by the video out. Rocket SDI out is not supported as its prior to correction.
Peter
 
Just discovered limitations of my 8 core mac. (model from 2007)
I don't understand why it's not compatible...
It's quite beefed up and I really really don't want to buy a new one...
any workaround suggestions?
 
albert rudnicki said:
Just discovered limitations of my 8 core mac. (model from 2007)
I don't understand why it's not compatible...
It's quite beefed up and I really really don't want to buy a new one...
any workaround suggestions?
Click to expand...

Not sure about the 2007 but I'm going for it on my 2008.

So far I have 4 x Hitachi 2TB drives in software RAID 0. Plus another internal SATA "Media" drive in slot 4 that is easily removable (when the machine is shut down). My boot drive is a 120GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 2.5" SSD mounted in the optical bay.
Already have the Rocket. And I got the GT 120 coming next week.

All I'm waiting for is support for the Quadro 4000, and confirmed 10-bit RGB output to my Dreamcolor from the Decklink's HDMI slot-filler.
 
We're also going for it with a 2008. 4x1 TB internal software RAID 0, plus a boot drive (soon to be replaced with an SSD) in the second optical bay. GTX285, GT120, Decklink Extreme 3 and RedRocket. We'll be taking HD-SDI out of the Decklink into an AJA Hi5 3G, and then the 10-bit HDMI out of that into a Dreamcolor and a consumer plasma.

From what I've seen reported elsewhere, real-time R3D playback is a bit iffy on 2008 models without Rocket, but will probably be OK with Rocket. We're prepared to run out and buy a new tower if necessary, but I'd really like to hold off for next year's models with (I'd assume) USB 3 and/or Light Peak, seeing as how there are no slots left for a RAID card.
 
Chris Kenny said:
I'd really like to hold off for next year's models with (I'd assume) USB 3 and/or Light Peak, seeing as how there are no slots left for a RAID card.
Click to expand...

Exactly!



One question for the BM guys... What about 30" LCD's for the GUI?

I only have a 30" LCD and a Dreamcolor. The manual isn't clear. Is 1920 x 1200 the maximum resolution supported for the GUI? In other words would I have to run my 30" LCD at 1920 x 1200 instead of the native 2560 x 1600?
 
I am not even sure if I can run gtx 285 on my mac pro....
Can anyone report if they had it running on the 1.1 mac pro model?

Thanks

Albert
 
Tom.Wong said:
considering BM bought da vinci, it's very unlikely kona will ever be supported for Resolve.
Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

FWIW, I was told specifically by one Davinci fellow, and one Black Magic fellow at NAB that they understood how many people already owned Kona's and that they were planning of supporting it, just not in the v 1.0 release.

Cheers,

Steve
 
Curran Giddens said:
One question for the BM guys... What about 30" LCD's for the GUI?

I only have a 30" LCD and a Dreamcolor. The manual isn't clear. Is 1920 x 1200 the maximum resolution supported for the GUI? In other words would I have to run my 30" LCD at 1920 x 1200 instead of the native 2560 x 1600?
Click to expand...

Good question. I was wondering that myself as I await the arival of the new 27" Apple monitor.
 
Curran Giddens said:
Exactly!

One question for the BM guys... What about 30" LCD's for the GUI?

I only have a 30" LCD and a Dreamcolor. The manual isn't clear. Is 1920 x 1200 the maximum resolution supported for the GUI? In other words would I have to run my 30" LCD at 1920 x 1200 instead of the native 2560 x 1600?
Click to expand...

Currently, only 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 resolutions are supported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top