DaVinci Resolve V7.0 Supports Rocket

[Helge Løken]

I was an early adopter of Decklink HD... and a fan of BMD. I'm excited about Resolve for sure.

Follow up questions... why two cards? Is this for the full blown configuration with three displays? Can I run with a single 30" display? If I am able to use my Kona 3 that would feed my reference monitor. If I end up with two gfx cards and a Kona that might barely leave room for an ATTO board. A rocket is out of the question. Looking for some clarification for those in the know.

As far as I'm aware you use one card for the GUI / Display out and one for processing. The speed of card #1 doesn't matter, BMD recomends the GT120. Resolve is designed to use one display, either a 24" (1920x1200/1080) or a 30".

Just to reiterate a point that has been made earlier; Resolve requires a CUDA enabled nVidia card. Today that means the GTX285 or Quadro4800 - the GTX285 is the faster option. However, you should hurry if you want to pick one up as they are no longer being manufactured. Rumors suggest there will be a new high-end gaming card + a quadro/fermi nVidia option for the mac in the near future but I have no information about when (or if) this might happen.

 

[OlaHaldor]

I wrote about the requirements at the Cow, and will post them here..


As far as I have read either on the Cow or this forum, these are the specs:
Either a...

• Mac Pro 2009 2x Quad 2.26GHz or better
• Mac Pro 2010 (no more details at this point)

running Mac OS Snow Leopard (10.6.4)
Mac Pro 2008 has been tested and works, but is not supported nor encouraged to be used with DaVinci for proper performance.

...equipped with

• GeForce GT 120
• GeForce GTX 285 or Quadro 4800
• Decklink HD Extreme 3 or HD Extreme 3D for SDI/HDMI monitoring. Other vendors will be supported when they get going on the SDK

Control panel support

• DaVinci Resolve
• Tangent Wave

Other vendors have been mentioned in video presentations and forums, such as

• JL Cooper
• Euphonix
• Other Tangent panels

Support for these will be added after release of DaVinci for Mac. Exactly when haven't been mentioned or discussed anywhere. Only thoughts and wishes from loads of users.

Licensing
You're limited to using DaVinci on a Mac with a DaVinci license dongle attached to a USB port

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Mike is giving the perspective of large, established post houses. I thought I'd give another.

...

I think you pretty much hit the nail with a huge hammer!

 

[Luca Immesi]

Thank you guys for all the valuable informations. Although I think resolve on mac is a great opportunity I think for now I will stay with redcinex, redrocket and color for low end job and I'll go to post houses for bigger works.

 

[David Birdy]

I think you pretty much hit the nail with a huge hammer!

Yes this IS what we have been waiting for...but when will we have a system to test??

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I'll jump in DaVinci Reslove train when AJA Kona 3 will be ready to work and also with the lowest CPU/GPU configuration

MacPro 2008/32GB RAM/Nvidia Geforce 8800 GT (also CUDA enabled card), Tangent Wave, 2GB AVID Video RAID, HP DreamColor 30 bit 24" LCD...

Just to give a try out...

 

[OlaHaldor]

Nvidia Geforce 8800 GT (also CUDA enabled card)

Well, that's only partly true... It does is in fact have CUDA, but it's not enabled under Mac OS X. As you can see here, CUDA is only enabled for GTX285 and Quadro4800.

Edit
Nevermind, I see it's listed under "Supported products", however, I'm not sure what good it will do compared to a GTX285.

I guess you could get the application running with 8800GT and either a GTX285 or Quadro4800, but you will not get any processing power from the 8800GT except for monitoring the GUI of DaVinci. You would still need a second graphics card to at least get any kind of realtime performance. I have the 2008 model myself, and recently ordered a 2009, so I can check in both if you're interested. It's basically a matter of swapping the GTX285 from one to the other Mac.

 

[Curran Giddens]

I have the 2008 model myself, and recently ordered a 2009, so I can check in both if you're interested. It's basically a matter of swapping the GTX285 from one to the other Mac.

I would be interested in this test as well. I have the top-of-the-line 2008 model. It is a 3.2GHz 8-core and I have zero plans on upgrading to a 2009 or 2010 model. The next model should have more PCIe lanes available....

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I would be interested in this test as well. I have the top-of-the-line 2008 model. It is a 3.2GHz 8-core and I have zero plans on upgrading to a 2009 or 2010 model. The next model should have more PCIe lanes available....

You have any info on PCIe's?

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I can get new MacPro whenever I need it but always like first to "squeeze" the last drops from older hardware.

NVIDIA CUDA 3.1 FOR MAC RELEASE

Version:
3.1
Release Date:
2010.07.15
Operating System:
Mac OS
Language:
English (U.S.)
File Size:
13.7 MB

GeForce 300M series:
GT 320M, GT 330M

GeForce 200 series:
GTX 285 for MAC

GeForce 100 series:
GT 120

GeForce 9M series:
9400M

GeForce 8 series:
8800 GT

GeForce 8M series:
8800M GTS, 8600M GS

Quadro FX series:
FX 5600, FX 4800 for MAC

 

[Curran Giddens]

You have any info on PCIe's?

No, but the current intel motherboard is limited to 40 lanes, and that is what Apple gives us within those 4 slots. I read somewhere that the next motherboard will have more lanes available. Just hoping that Apple splits them up into more than 4 slots....

 

[Curran Giddens]

Here is where I read that bit of info:

There will also be a new south bridge that doubles the PCI-E lanes per host from 40 to 80, which means that a system can host up to 5 PCI-E X16 slots on a single south bridge.

...

We all like to gripe about the lack of PCI-E slots in a Mac Pro, but we also have to acknowledge the shortcomings of the chipsets available. Currently, we are limited to 40 lanes, which is two X16 slots and 2 X4 slots -- or what we have with the current Mac Pro. Yes, there are PC workstations out there that have more slots, but they still have to divide that up between the 40 lanes available on the Intel chipsets.

 

[M Most]

Mike is giving the perspective of large, established post houses.

Well, yes. I thought I made that pretty clear. But when someone says that a particular device is going to "take over the industry", well, the most visible segment of that industry IS the large post facilities - or to be a bit more accurate, the post companies that service the higher budgeted and thus most demanding segment of that industry, regardless of size. Comments like the one I responded to do, intentionally or not, give a very wrong impression at times because they contribute to misunderstanding and hype about how that end of the industry actually works. That's how we got to a point as much as 2 or 3 years ago where half of Europe seemed to think that all US prime time television was being shot on HD cameras when in fact almost 90% of prime time dramas were still being shot on film. That is no longer the case, but it's a good example as to how uninformed comments on Internet forums lead to incorrect information being passed off as fact. I was just trying to do some fact checking to avoid that scenario, although it's sometimes pretty difficult to tell people things they don't want to believe, even if it's true.

 

[jake blackstone]

Well, yes. I thought I made that pretty clear. But when someone says that a particular device is going to "take over the industry", well, the most visible segment of that industry IS the large post facilities - or to be a bit more accurate, the post companies that service the higher budgeted and thus most demanding segment of that industry, regardless of size. Comments like the one I responded to do, intentionally or not, give a very wrong impression at times because they contribute to misunderstanding and hype about how that end of the industry actually works. That's how we got to a point as much as 2 or 3 years ago where half of Europe seemed to think that all US prime time television was being shot on HD cameras when in fact almost 90% of prime time dramas were still being shot on film. That is no longer the case, but it's a good example as to how uninformed comments on Internet forums lead to incorrect information being passed off as fact. I was just trying to do some fact checking to avoid that scenario, although it's sometimes pretty difficult to tell people things they don't want to believe, even if it's true.

If by "someone" you mean me, then I disagree with your mischaracterization of my earlier statement. I said "Very soon Resolve will become the most popular color grading software and for a good reason." That's a bit of a stretch to make that statement into "take over the industry". Not the same thing by a long shot.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

I don't think he meant you Jake.

Jay

 

[Frank Cueto]

And by "for good reason" you mean because its price?

I apologize if I sound like an elitists, but making something cheaper is not a good measurement of quality... RESOLVE has existed for quite some time already, and it didn't gain real momentum. It seems that thE only way to move forward was to sell the company, and re-release the system at a drastically reduced price point. So its kinda going the same way as Final Touch, couldn't gain traction, got sold, and re-released at a drastically reduced price. Albeit, DaVinci has a great name and tradition (got one myself here, an OLD OLD DUI, still going strong).

I would like to know, what did all the major houses that used to have 2K's saw in the resolve that made em go look elsewhere?

At least to ME, when we evaluated RESOLVE, and coming from a post house with DaVinci, we where no-where near as impressed as we where with Pablo/Lustre/Baselight.

We could consider our selves fortunate that price is not as a BIG part of our decision making, if it was, well.... it could have been a different story...

 

[jake blackstone]

And by "for good reason" you mean because its price?

I apologize if I sound like an elitists, but making something cheaper is not a good measurement of quality... RESOLVE has existed for quite some time already, and it didn't gain real momentum. It seems that thE only way to move forward was to sell the company, and re-release the system at a drastically reduced price point. So its kinda going the same way as Final Touch, couldn't gain traction, got sold, and re-released at a drastically reduced price. Albeit, DaVinci has a great name and tradition (got one myself here, an OLD OLD DUI, still going strong).

I would like to know, what did all the major houses that used to have 2K's saw in the resolve that made em go look elsewhere?

At least to ME, when we evaluated RESOLVE, and coming from a post house with DaVinci, we where no-where near as impressed as we where with Pablo/Lustre/Baselight.

We could consider our selves fortunate that price is not as a BIG part of our decision making, if it was, well.... it could have been a different story...

Oh, I totally agree. From what I saw, Resolve has a lot of work before them, even after a major V7 rewrite. They had totally missed the boat by clinging to an outdated hardware architecture and design philosophy. They ended up in a situation, that Kodak had found itself a few years back. DaVinci was a leader in color grading, but they were afraid of killing their golden goose-2K. That's why they came up with crazy products, like Splice, just to prolong the shelf life of 2K. Meanwhile competitors, unburdened by those considerations pushed on and left DaVinci for dead. DaVinci finally changed the direction and were one of the first to fully embrace the power of GPU, but it was too late and company died. So, yes, right now, operationally Resolve is not quite up to par with Baselight or FilmMaster. But Resolve has great foundation, company is listening to prospective users, they have financial means to sustain and implement necessary improvements and did I mention the price? I'm optimistic on Resolve outlook and willing to give them a second look.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Well, yes. I thought I made that pretty clear. But when someone says that a particular device is going to "take over the industry", well, the most visible segment of that industry IS the large post facilities - or to be a bit more accurate, the post companies that service the higher budgeted and thus most demanding segment of that industry, regardless of size.

What does "most visible" mean? Yes, for most of the content that receives major theatrical release or runs in primetime on major networks, Resolve for Mac probably doesn't change anything. But then there are the other 99% of projects. Downplaying the industry impact of a tool because it isn't going to make much difference for the comparatively tiny number of very high-end productions makes no sense. This is an industry forum. People aren't getting excited about this tool on behalf of the producers of CSI or whatever. They're getting excited about this tool because they see how it's applicable to their own work.

The other point I'd make is that while wider access to tools like Resolve (or the Red itself) might not have much immediate impact on how high-end production is done, it will absolutely have a long-term effect on the structure of the industry, which eventually will impact the high-end.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

it IS impacting the high-end. What's the bet that you'd see a 50k euro Alexa from Arri without the RED already now. And as MMost pointed out: 90% of American network drama is NOT shot on film anymore...

This is technology that trickles UP, not down the foodchain...

 

[Chris Kenny]

it IS impacting the high-end. What's the bet that you'd see a 50k euro Alexa from Arri without the RED already now. And as MMost pointed out: 90% of American network drama is NOT shot on film anymore...

This is technology that trickles UP, not down the foodchain...

I'm talking more about structural changes than just about adoption. Yeah, some high-end projects are shot on the Red (and even more are shot on digital systems in general), but cheaper availability of tools hasn't really changed the structure of the industry in a way that has impacted the high-end.

Yet.