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 Resolve V7.0 Supports Rocket

M Most said:
Yes, it is available now. You're paraphrasing where it's not necessary. The correct statement is "Baselight can work with any codec that's available on the Mac via the Kompressor option."



That is not the case, as stated above.
Click to expand...

OK Mike. You know very well, that Cineform has no connection to Mac whatsoever. So, can Baselight read and write Cineform? AFAIK it's not, unless it happened very recently.
 
Bruce Allen said:
Hey Ketch - if you get Red Pro Primes instead of those stupid-expensive Leicas, you could buy the kickass DaVinci system AND have money left over to hire good colorists to grade your first feature or two :P

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

Ha ha, true Bruce,

even so I sure not believe the new Cine Lenses form Leica to be stupid.. but no worry for now I'm only stacking up on RPP's and RPZ's ;~).

Lenses never have anything to do with other expenses for me, but serious about getting the perfect system in reason to what it will be used for on Italy, and even so I don't intend to ever become a Pro Editor or Colorist want to get something that I can also use fro personal small projects and or Teasers.

For this I have to make the right decision on what system to configure as far as a new MAC PRO Monitor, likely 3 or 4 new 27" plus what ever monitor I need to go with.

Don't worry plenty of opportunities for you to visit an work in Italy.. I hope ;~)
 
jake blackstone said:
I believe they have, as I tend to believe the information from the manufacturer and not from Rory:-)
Click to expand...

Peter chimes into that thread and confirms that yes, the linux software is only available from resellers selling it as a full system package.
 
jake blackstone said:
OK Mike. You know very well, that Cineform has no connection to Mac whatsoever. So, can Baselight read and write Cineform? AFAIK it's not, unless it happened very recently.
Click to expand...

Cineform has been available on the Mac for some time as a Quicktime codec. You need the Neo package (I think) in order to encode, but it is implemented via Quicktime and is thus available to Baselight via Kompressor, provided you're using .mov wrappers (not .avi).
 
M Most said:
Cineform has been available on the Mac for some time as a Quicktime codec. You need the Neo package (I think) in order to encode, but it is implemented via Quicktime and is thus available to Baselight via Kompressor, provided you're using .mov wrappers (not .avi).
Click to expand...

I think NEO by itself costs more, than Resolve license:-)
Does that mean, that Baselight can only read Cineform through the networked Mac with a Kompressor? Reminds me very much Autodesk implementation for Lustre with a Wiretap. I'm sure the network costs aren't trivial too. And, I believe you need NEO for encoding and decoding. So, I guess, now we're comparing a system, that cost over $100k to a $10k system?:-)
 
jake blackstone said:
I think NEO by itself costs more, than Resolve license:-)
Does that mean, that Baselight can only read Cineform through the networked Mac with a Kompressor? Reminds me very much Autodesk implementation for Lustre with a Wiretap. I'm sure the network costs aren't trivial too. And, I believe you need NEO for encoding and decoding. So, I guess, now we're comparing a system, that cost over $100k to a $10k system?:-)
Click to expand...

i'm not comparing anything. You stated that Resolve on a Mac was the only system that could read the formats you listed, and I responded to that. As for the Kompressor requirement, as far as I know, Cineform is not available in a Linux implementation at the moment, so, yes, Kompressor and a Mac are Filmlight's solution. What you haven't mentioned is that Resolve on Linux has the same issue, but doesn't have a solution.

At this point in time, of course, Baselight has one other advantage over Resolve on a Mac - it exists and is available.
 
M Most said:
i'm not comparing anything. You stated that Resolve on a Mac was the only system that could read the formats you listed, and I responded to that. As for the Kompressor requirement, as far as I know, Cineform is not available in a Linux implementation at the moment, so, yes, Kompressor and a Mac are Filmlight's solution. What you haven't mentioned is that Resolve on Linux has the same issue, but doesn't have a solution.

At this point in time, of course, Baselight has one other advantage over Resolve on a Mac - it exists and is available.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're correct, I did make this statement. I made it, because I'd looked everywhere, including FilmLight and Cineform sites and nowhere can I find any mention of Baselight working with Cineform. But, if you're telling me, that it works, then I stand corrected.
As far as Linux having the same issue, here is the pertinent part of the announcement from this morning. http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/277/929
"Linux support Cineform file playback inc. stereo "
As far as it "exists", Resolve is in hands of various colorists beta testing right now. If "available" is all the advantage, that Baselight can muster, it's a pretty thin one and short lived...
 
Jake, I would humbly suggest that you test drive a Baselight, any of them, before you imply that the availability of baselight is the only advantage it has.... it makes you look a tad un-informed/unexperienced. (like a teenager saying his supped up Subaru has the same horsepower as a Porsche Turbo ;-) )

There are too many things that separate a BL from a resolve, way too many to list.

My favorite is the Formats editor and its mappings, I make workflow magic thanks to just that :-) :-) :-)
 
M Most said:
Yes, it is available now. You're paraphrasing where it's not necessary. The correct statement is "Baselight can work with any codec that's available on the Mac via the Kompressor option."
Click to expand...

But Mike, to be fair... that's like saying:

"SCRATCH can work with any codec that's available on the Mac... via a separate workstation tied to SCRATCH with a 10G connection and a Telestream license loaded onto that workstation for fast, relatively transparent transcoding."

Kompressor is a separate option - cleverly integrated - but it is what it is: a separate workstation loaded with transcoding software that can convert Quicktime into something efficient that a Baselight can read.

http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/pdf/datasheets/FL-BL-DS-0319-BLKompressor.pdf

All things considered, it looks like Resolve on Mac will be great for Quicktime work. Of course, it does need to ship first... : )

Lucas
 
But Lucas, Why would anyone really care if its an attached MAC doing the decoding/encoding work? For me, as long as it works, It works PERIOD.

There are many advantages to offloading processor intensive work to another system, and keeping your hero system free (besides the OBVIOUS advantage of accessing the codecs).

Dont get me wrong, I dont have the kompresor option, nor have I needed it, but the Fimlight solution is rather elegant. You must agree. To take it to the extreme, the only real/legal way Scratch could write prores files would be with a similar solution( same thing goes for ALL OTHER systems that are not Mac BASED, including the RESOLVE on MAC OSX). Props to the fimlight dudes who at least came up with a solution instead of just saying it cant be done since apple wont license the necessary files, which is the answer I got when I wanted Rocket Fuel to do ProRes files... I would have rather have someone say, Yes, you CAn do prores with rocket fuel, but you need to buy X or Y extra option/system. (and I DID inquire and intend to buy a couple of those systems, ProRes was the deal breaker, at least to my clients for their off-line, and I DO know about optional codecs, but my client didn't want anything BUT proRes.)

Plain and simple, no system is perfect for everyone, take your pick, and live with the compromises...
 
Frank Cueto said:
But Lucas, Why would anyone really care if its an attached MAC doing the decoding/encoding work? For me, as long as it works, It works PERIOD.
Click to expand...

People only care because of the significant extra cost associated.

And yes - I agree that it's pretty clever and kudos to the Filmlight guys for coming up with the best available solution for their customer base given the Apple-imposed limitations of Quicktime!

Seeing Kompressor for the first time awhile ago made me go look at how to integrate a separate Mac workstation with SCRATCH. The sincerest form of flattery... : )

Frank Cueto said:
Plain and simple, no system is perfect for everyone, take your pick, and live with the compromises...
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
jake blackstone said:
As far as it "exists", Resolve is in hands of various colorists beta testing right now. If "available" is all the advantage, that Baselight can muster, it's a pretty thin one and short lived...
Click to expand...

You seem to want to make my simple statement into some sort of argument for or against something (I'm still trying to figure out what), and you seem to want me to take some kind of side. I'm not for or against anything other than stating facts and having those facts known. I'm not for Resolve, or for Baselight, or against Scratch, or pro Lustre, or anti Nucoda. These are all tools that do an excellent job and all are used by various companies for various reasons. They all have strengths, weaknesses, and price tags. Which one is chosen depends on a company's workload, existing equipment, personal preferences of the colorists, prior experience, and particular needs. Why you seemingly want to make it a contest is something I really don't understand.
 
And in hind-sight, Scratch can use red-rocket (or MULTIPLE RED ROCKETS, props to them!!!!) and Baselight still can't do this today...

But this thread is about Resolve, A tool, that definitely aint my favorite, but it is indeed an AMAZING option for all those using color, specially at $995.00! Shit, I have 10 chairs more expensive than that! Props to BM Design. I still remember my hollywood card set (three of EM!) being 5K! nowadays they can do that for $200, in HD-SDI to boot :-)


Amazing times indeed.
 
Frank Cueto said:
And in hind-sight, Scratch can use red-rocket (or MULTIPLE RED ROCKETS, props to them!!!!) and Baselight still can't do this today...
Click to expand...

Today, August 17, 2010, that is true. :wink5:

Infer from that what you will.
 
M Most____________ ;-)
 
B&H has estimated arrival for Resolve as September. Is this in line with what people are hearing? That would be fine by me.
 
Frank Cueto said:
Jake, I would humbly suggest that you test drive a Baselight, any of them, before you imply that the availability of baselight is the only advantage it has.... it makes you look a tad un-informed/unexperienced. (like a teenager saying his supped up Subaru has the same horsepower as a Porsche Turbo ;-) )

There are too many things that separate a BL from a resolve, way too many to list.

My favorite is the Formats editor and its mappings, I make workflow magic thanks to just that :-) :-) :-)
Click to expand...

Frank.
You assume, that I had never operated BL, right? Well, I used to owned BaselightHD and loved it. May be you should get off your high horse and try something else, like...Resolve?:-)
While we're at it, I also drive Lustre, FilmMaster and little Scratch. Does that qualify me to make an informed decision on merits of different grading platforms? While we're at it, which statement made me sound uninformed?
 
M Most said:
You seem to want to make my simple statement into some sort of argument for or against something (I'm still trying to figure out what), and you seem to want me to take some kind of side. I'm not for or against anything other than stating facts and having those facts known. I'm not for Resolve, or for Baselight, or against Scratch, or pro Lustre, or anti Nucoda. These are all tools that do an excellent job and all are used by various companies for various reasons. They all have strengths, weaknesses, and price tags. Which one is chosen depends on a company's workload, existing equipment, personal preferences of the colorists, prior experience, and particular needs. Why you seemingly want to make it a contest is something I really don't understand.
Click to expand...
It's not a contest in any way whatsoever. I simply made a statement, that at this price Resolve on a Mac is a remarkable achievement, period. You keep stating the obvious, implying, that it all insignificant, as long as Resolve isn't shipping. Well, I'm not looking forward to mastering yet another color grading software. I wish, that I could just continue operating Lustre, but I have to be a realist. Very soon Resolve will become the most popular color grading software and for a good reason. So, if I want to continue to stay relevant as an artist and a business owner, I don't have a choice. I must adapt. I know, today creatively with my Lustre I can run circles around Resolve, but it doesn't matter. I have to jump through multiple hoops just to conform the material. And, unfortunately, I do get every conceivable type of material. I don't have a choice. And in order to deliver Prores, with Lustre, I have to do 3 renders- DPX, Uncompressed QT and finally Prores. Now with Wiretap and Backburner available with Smoke on a Mac, it's a bit easier, but it's still a major pain. If I can use just one render to deliver my material in any form my client asks and save countless hours of render time, that I know I can't charge for, what do you think I would choose?
So, now it's no contest in my opinion...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top