Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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, game changer or game over?

Hi Andrae,
thats the version 6.-- linux manual, from the black magic reps fcp-super-meet video the interface is much better and there are even more features than in that manual. A few days ago i was afraid they just gave us the same ugly complex linux interface but i was wrong, they actually put some muscle into this thing. Black magic has some new inexpensive hard ware cards that makes ingesting directly into Resolve even easier, complete with hardware scopes. Only BM sells a multichannel stream 3D stereoscopic card for $495.
 
We are building a non Linux system and will post results
in May. Going to put it head to head with Color suite and give people a
choice - choices are always good.
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
We are building a non Linux system and will post results
in May. Going to put it head to head with Color suite and give people a
choice - choices are always good.
Click to expand...

Tim that sounds really cool, but this is the assimilate scratch forum, we should be comparing it with scratch not color
 
Arttie Puig said:
Right, 50K soft + killer panel on Linux (expandable), against $75K (or 50K) soft only Scratch running on Windows (non-expandable). See the big difference?

Besides, even if its soft only, daVinci is far superior than Color as far as tools and capabilities.
Click to expand...

How many more times and how many more ways do you need to say the same thing? You think Resolve will put Assimilate out of business. We get it. I was trying to expand this into a more sensible and general conversation, and offer a view from another end of the industry. That's clearly a conversation you don't seem to want to take part in.
 
Oh wow Andrae! I'm looking through the manual the resolve thats have a full multitrack timelime now
 
I was reading the manual I got to page 81, my head really hurts. This calls for a Noah Kadner video tutorial. I am a director not a colorist/engineer just simplify the stuff for me so I can get my vision across.
 
shashbugu said:
Oh wow Andrae! I'm looking through the manual the resolve thats have a full multitrack timelime now
Click to expand...

No, not at the moment when you see two tracks is because there is a dissolve, is like in an AB Edl, but hopefully when they implement the xml importer there will be one
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
We are building a non Linux system and will post results
in May. Going to put it head to head with Color suite and give people a
choice - choices are always good.
Click to expand...

Tim.
If you're talking about the Mac version it would be very difficult feat to achieve, as that version is only planned to go on sale in June-July:-) As far as head to head goes, why bother? The answer is already obvious to anyone, who has used both of those systems in the past already. Especially after having seen 1/2 debayer, 6 layer of color grade, 2 keys and defocus playing back unrendered in real time on a Mac version...
 
Jorge Torrens said:
No, not at the moment when you see two tracks is because there is a dissolve, is like in an AB Edl, but hopefully when they implement the xml importer there will be one
Click to expand...

At least according to the director of BL software development, the answer is no on both. No multitrack layer timeline and XML support planned at this time.
 
shashbugu said:
I was reading the manual I got to page 81, my head really hurts. This calls for a Noah Kadner video tutorial. I am a director not a colorist/engineer just simplify the stuff for me so I can get my vision across.
Click to expand...
At least it's a professionally written manual, for a colorist consumption, as usual for DaVinci. Try reading Scratch. Your head will explode. Only engineer may make some sense out of it. It is plain awful...
 
lots of taking peoples comments out of context here. Remember, Color is part of a suite, not a stand-alone, so it was never intended to be what Resolve is. Personally I'm a huge fan of DaVinci and have actually finished features with it, so I don't have to read the manual. I work in FCP and Color regularly as well. The larger important discussion here was never about comparing Color to Resolve apples for apples, it was about whether you can simply just go out a but a $1000 piece of software and feel like you have beaten the high priced finishing environments at their own game. Even though Resolve at $1000 can do much more than Color alone, remember you get Color in the context of the entire FCP suite which is really an offline cutting tool trying to become an affordable finishing solution as a package. To work with 4K and DPX in real time requires investment in hardware, no way around that. It's right on the Resolve page that they are not claiming the $1000 software solution get's you there, you need the Linux level, according to them. And given that Scratch is only software, why would anyone say it's not expandable on the hardware side? If Scratch is over priced for what it does, the marketplace will take care of that. Right now if you drop $50,000 on Resolve you get an amazing package, no doubt, and you would need closer to $80,000 for equivalent power in Scratch (regardless of the different strengths and weaknesses in the software) so really apples to apples, Scratch and Resolve are not as far apart in cost as being made out here. I agree that Resolve is offering a better product at a better price, but again, the original debate in this thread was based on whether inexpensive software solutions are bringing expensive finishing environments to their knees, something that sounds more like a political ideology about health care or redistribution of wealth vs professionals trying to help each other find the best work flow solutions for the money. There is no free ride in either discussion, but technology and competition move us all in the best direction.
 
lionel2p said:
From what lot of people saw at NAB, Resolve is real-time on HD and even 2K on DPX sequences (if you have the raid for), like a Luster or a Scratch.
Click to expand...
I don't know why people keep referring to Mac Resolve as an HD or 2k system. Again, from the conversation with BM director of software development, there is no reason, why you couldn't do a grade in HD or 2k and then render it out as 4k finish. It's just, that at this point it's not capable of REAL TIME 4k, but otherwise, 4k and beyond is not a problem. Just like any other high end systems we know... What? Color can't do 4K? Ooops... Said that, there is a caveat, BM hasn't tested the 4k render yet. As was explained to me, they were just barely able to make the deadline of Mac port for the NAB. The real writing and testing of Mac resolve just starting now.
 
jake blackstone said:
At least it's a professionally written manual, for a colorist consumption, as usual for DaVinci. Try reading Scratch. Your head will explode. Only engineer may make some sense out of it. It is plain awful...
Click to expand...

I hear you on that one, I am not a colorist the terminology is insane. But i sure am glad when i come to you I can pay you 50 bucks an hour and not 450.
 
jake blackstone said:
Tim.
If you're talking about the Mac version it would be very difficult feat to achieve, as that version is only planned to go on sale in June-July:-) As far as head to head goes, why bother? The answer is already obvious to anyone, who has used both of those systems in the past already. Especially after having seen 1/2 debayer, 6 layer of color grade, 2 keys and defocus playing back unrendered in real time on a Mac version...
Click to expand...

This is definitely interesting to me. What format and data rate was this being achieved with and what processor level on the Mac? According to the Resolve site, the Mac solution is geared toward SD and HD, the Linux is needed for 4K R3D or 2K DPX.
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
choices are always good.
Click to expand...

Most definitely Tim.. your studio is positioned well on the high end and also you adapt to new tech realities... your looking at this from the right point of view... which is "functionality". I'm thinking the Davinci could at least help out with conforming.

Paul Buhl said:
Right now if you drop $50,000 on Resolve you get an amazing package, no doubt, and you would need closer to $80,000 for equivalent power in Scratch (regardless of the different strengths and weaknesses in the software) so really apples to apples, Scratch and Resolve are not as far apart in cost as being made out here.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? At 50k the Resolve system is way more powerful than a 70k Scratch software. Scratch can't even get the same equivalent 4k Realtime not to mention the grading panel.
 
Paul Buhl said:
lots of taking peoples comments out of context here. Remember, Color is part of a suite, not a stand-alone, so it was never intended to be what Resolve is. Personally I'm a huge fan of DaVinci and have actually finished features with it, so I don't have to read the manual. I work in FCP and Color regularly as well. The larger important discussion here was never about comparing Color to Resolve apples for apples, it was about whether you can simply just go out a but a $1000 piece of software and feel like you have beaten the high priced finishing environments at their own game. Even though Resolve at $1000 can do much more than Color alone, remember you get Color in the context of the entire FCP suite which is really an offline cutting tool trying to become an affordable finishing solution as a package. To work with 4K and DPX in real time requires investment in hardware, no way around that. It's right on the Resolve page that they are not claiming the $1000 software solution get's you there, you need the Linux level, according to them. And given that Scratch is only software, why would anyone say it's not expandable on the hardware side? If Scratch is over priced for what it does, the marketplace will take care of that. Right now if you drop $50,000 on Resolve you get an amazing package, no doubt, and you would need closer to $80,000 for equivalent power in Scratch (regardless of the different strengths and weaknesses in the software) so really apples to apples, Scratch and Resolve are not as far apart in cost as being made out here. I agree that Resolve is offering a better product at a better price, but again, the original debate in this thread was based on whether inexpensive software solutions are bringing expensive finishing environments to their knees, something that sounds more like a political ideology about health care or redistribution of wealth vs professionals trying to help each other find the best work flow solutions for the money. There is no free ride in either discussion, but technology and competition move us all in the best direction.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I wouldn't compare $50k linux version to Scratch. I would compare the $1k to it. At this point both Mac Resolve and Scratch systems use only one GPU and can't be expanded. With linux version, just plug in more GPUs and all of a sudden you have more power. No additional purchase of license required. Can you do that with Scratch? Even $30k Mac version gets you get an amazing panel, not Wave. Apples to apples...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top