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

Tim Whitcomb said:
DaVinci on MAC is Vaporware at the moment. It is not going to work like people think until they spend close to $30,000 MINIMUM not including client monitoring. mark my words... make that LUCAS's words.
Click to expand...

Explain please. I can understand the need for let's say $10 to $15,000 but what do you spend the rest of the money on?
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
DaVinci on MAC is Vaporware at the moment. It is not going to work like people think until they spend close to $30,000 MINIMUM not including client monitoring. mark my words... make that LUCAS's words.
Click to expand...

You got it Tim. I iCal'ed it in my calendar so I can remind you about this conversation in a couple of months. I'm sure you can remember when people were saying same thing, when Red announced RED camera specs and it's price. Both BM and DaVinci engineers are incredibly well regarded in the industry and it may be foolish to call their product vaporware. I know it is painful to think, that a system on a Mac, costing less than $10k can perform ALMOST as well as $400k Pablo. And it can write Prores files to boot:-)
I know every company in grading business praying to god, that it is vaporware. But even, if this was the case, this announcement already made these companies adjust their business model. FilmLight already dropped the price of their lower end Baselight HD with Blackboard to $90K, which only a year ago was at least $250k. Now DVision is doing the same with their flagship product-FilmMaster. It is priced at the same magical price of $90K, including the panel. So now, both products are actually almost the same price as Resolve on Linux. So, CUDA all around!:-)
 
jake blackstone said:
I know it is painful to think, that a system on a Mac, costing less than $10k can perform ALMOST as well as $400k Pablo.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect Resolve on Mac to perform anywhere near a Pablo. Perform as good or better than Color with more features is more realistic.

Dusty
 
Last edited:
Dustin Cross said:
I wouldn't expect Resolve on Mac to perform anywhere near a Pablo. Perform as good or better than Color with more features is more realistic.

Dusty
Click to expand...

Yes, one GPU is no match to brute force of $400k proprietary hardware with one or two Red Rockets. So, yes, no 3D, no real time multiple 4K streams. I'm OK with that for now, until nVidia releases more powerful GPU. Other than that, what are you alluding to? Company 3 also would like to know:-)
 
Dylan Macleod said:
Need I state the obvious and say; It is not how much the knobs cost that is important - but the talent of the person turning those knobs.
Click to expand...

My grading tools are important to me. I need to be able to do, what client's asking me to do and not to give excuses why it can't be done. No matter how talented you are as a DP, if you need 14mm lens, 100mm just will not do. You need the tools and Resolve is giving it to you at an incredibly low price. If you still feel, that only Pablo can do the job, then there is something wrong...
 
Dustin Cross said:
I wouldn't expect Resolve on Mac to perform anywhere near a Pablo. Perform as good or better than Color with more features is more realistic.

Dusty
Click to expand...

The Pablo strength is in its feature set, it includes COLOR, some basic FX, Editorial and Titles all in one little unit. If you are doing DI work and have to do a lot of cutting, or some basic effects, thats where the strength of the Pablo lies.

The Pablos aren't that much faster or as equally fast as any parallel CUDA system out there, which Baselight is the best example. On top of that if you consider the ingest and export times required to get the media on and off the system, its even slower yet. Its like SMOKE of FLAME where you gotta get the media on the STONES.

I have sat in front of the Pablo and the Fastest Baselight. The baselight is way way faster, but AGAIN thats not the PABLO's strength.
In terms of DaVinci versus the Color Capabilities of PABLO, for HD, you won't be able to tell any difference. The DaVinci will preform as good or better than the Pablo, since the DaVinci will be as fast as Pablo for HD and DaVinci is an open system and doesn't require it to trans-coded into the system before it can be manipulated. (this is just my guess, but going off of my NAB demo and the beta reports, but this seems to be true)

But again, they are two totally different systems. Its like why use an Atomic Missile to kill a mosquito.

Of the Pablos that are in good use in LA, they Post feature after feature after feature, back to back non-stop, if you are in that boat, where a Pablo would be beneficial, a desktop DaVinci system wouldn't suffice anyway.

So why compare the two?

Anyway, this is just the beginning, the industry is in a freefall, and its getting harder and harder to justify the high end system prices. if you where to break apart a Lustre or Baselight, its just high end PC/LINUX guts with great software, so as the Software falls and falls in price, and Parrallel CUDA GPU's becomes the standard for image manipulation, custom hardware and secretive software solutions will die.

IMHO
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
DaVinci on MAC is Vaporware at the moment. It is not going to work like people think until they spend close to $30,000 MINIMUM not including client monitoring. mark my words... make that LUCAS's words.
Click to expand...

Even if it was 30k for a system, which it won't be, that is still cheap for what it can do. If it can go against a 120k Baselight for a 200k Lustre, how is that not a good deal?

Here is a quote from a beta tester.
BM Davinci beta handled my conform with ease. Looking forward to the release version on the mac. Very fast, intuitive and responsive toolset.
Click to expand...
 
Alex Hastings said:
The Pablo strength is in its feature set, it includes COLOR, some basic FX, Editorial and Titles all in one little unit. If you are doing DI work and have to do a lot of cutting, or some basic effects, thats where the strength of the Pablo lies.

The Pablos aren't that much faster or as equally fast as any parallel CUDA system out there, which Baselight is the best example. On top of that if you consider the ingest and export times required to get the media on and off the system, its even slower yet. Its like SMOKE of FLAME where you gotta get the media on the STONES.

I have sat in front of the Pablo and the Fastest Baselight. The baselight is way way faster, but AGAIN thats not the PABLO's strength.
In terms of DaVinci versus the Color Capabilities of PABLO, for HD, you won't be able to tell any difference. The DaVinci will preform as good or better than the Pablo, since the DaVinci will be as fast as Pablo for HD and DaVinci is an open system and doesn't require it to trans-coded into the system before it can be manipulated. (this is just my guess, but going off of my NAB demo and the beta reports, but this seems to be true)

But again, they are two totally different systems. Its like why use an Atomic Missile to kill a mosquito.

Of the Pablos that are in good use in LA, they Post feature after feature after feature, back to back non-stop, if you are in that boat, where a Pablo would be beneficial, a desktop DaVinci system wouldn't suffice anyway.

So why compare the two?

Anyway, this is just the beginning, the industry is in a freefall, and its getting harder and harder to justify the high end system prices. if you where to break apart a Lustre or Baselight, its just high end PC/LINUX guts with great software, so as the Software falls and falls in price, and Parrallel CUDA GPU's becomes the standard for image manipulation, custom hardware and secretive software solutions will die.

IMHO
Click to expand...
So now we're on the $1000 per hour room, cutting. I thought we were discussing merits of DI systems? Nevertheless, if it ever comes to needing to do a little finishing, then there is always a possibility of installing a Smoke on the Mac and it will smoke Pablo's feature set for about 1/20 of a price, all in one neat little package.
 
I guess what I don't fully understand about this argument between High end systems like Lustre and Pablo vs Resolve on Mac is it's really not relevant to anyone but the user and their budget range. If you have the cash or make enough money color grading for a living why wouldn't that studio have a higher cost tool that professionals trust? Regardless of what the cost is, if the tool gets the job done and makes money for you, that's what it's all about, otherwise your just satisfying an expensive hobby even with the "low"'cost point of Reslove on the Mac. Think about what it takes to make Resolve on the Mac a workstation that professionals will feel comfortable finishing their projects with you;
1. Resolve for Mac $1k - MacPro $4K - FX 4800 - $1,500
2. Control surface - Wave $1,500 or DaVinci panel $30k
3. RAID - $2,500 - $7,500
4. GUI monitor - $500
5. Critical Viewing Monitor - Dreamcolor $2k - Cinetal $20k
6. Projector +Screen for film work - low end $10k - $150k
7. Calibration - $1,500 - $2k for calibration + Cinespace LUT's for accurate color reproduction across all monitoring sources.
8. SDI card - BlackMagic or AJA - $1 - $3k + AJA Mini Converter - $650
9. SDI - HDMI cables - $250-500
10. A facility to house your setup - $800 - $2,500 a month
11. Insurance - Varies greatly on the type of insurance you carry. Ballpark for just gear coverage - $1,500
12. Furniture - desk, chairs, couch coffee table etc etc.

I won't include any custom build out you would most likely do to your facility to cater it to your specific needs or lighting you may need to implement. And there is much, much more.
Now ask yourself, without these BASICS of a PROFESSIONAL DI facility, how do you expect clients to pay for your service? No one is going to pay any kind of money to you, consistently without feeling confident in not just you but your facility that represents you. And for me that's the point, consistentcy and reliability with people dedicated to the craft, not a fly by the night "colorist" with a Resolve installed on his Mac in his/her bedroom.
I respect the individuals who will use this great opportunity to learn the craft through the price point of the DaVinci on the Mac and make some money back to pay off their education if you will from some small indie type gigs but for me the software is the most minuscule piece of the overall business model.
Just some food for thought.
 
I don't think anyone is going to build a coloring suite with Mac Resolve. I think its more about being able to do more in house. Its about being able to offer a cheap grading service to indies, its about being able to do more when there are not other options nearby.
 
Jay Gannon said:
I don't think anyone is going to build a coloring suite with Mac Resolve. I think its more about being able to do more in house. Its about being able to offer a cheap grading service to indies, its about being able to do more when there are not other options nearby.
Click to expand...

I'm sure someone will, count on it. And that's not a bad thing. In fact, if the software runs reliably and DPX 1080p is what you'll be doing a lot of coloring on it makes sense to a small production house. My point above is that regardless of the kind of work you are doing clients of all budget ranges still want and deserve the color accuracy and experience that drives the system.
For example, I went to college at the Academy of Art University in SF CA. We shot primarily film at that time and after shooting my final 35mm film project I had the option of getting it transfered on the school telecine or paying $450/hr at what was then "Retina". I opted to go to Retina cause I wanted my project to pop off the screen and stand out in comparison to the other projects. I told the post-producer and colorist I could only afford two hours of work done which they agreed to. The project came out looking beautiful, better than I imagined it could. The schools tools were just as capable of creating great images but the colorist at the school was not. Not to mention the schools tools were not properly maintained at the time.
Although I didn't necessarily want to pay the extra money for the professional color session I was so glad I did. It elevated my project and ultimately it was the Colorist coupled with the proper tools in the proper environment that was to thank for it. The lesson I learned that day a long time ago was that it's not just having one or another it's the whole package that makes the difference. It was worth every penny.
 
they will. give them time. give graphics cards time. in 5 years, there will be many a davinci software suite up and running. cuz in 5 years, they will be realtime, and the difference won't be as big.

look at editing. when final cut came out, it's slow, non-realtime performance was a joke to pros. now, the industry has shifted that way, and AVID themselves have stepped up to that same plate and are working within that 'software only' system.

color suites like resolve and online suites like smoke are the first of many. sure, version 1 sucks. wait till 5 years from now when the graphics cards have caught up, and the companies have found better ways to make it happen via software.

like final cut 4 with the RT engine. that suddenly made it possible to do bigger shows on an off-the-shelf desktop.

will big theatre releases be graded on davincis on a mac? of course not. but iPad content? surely.....
 
Yes I was talking about here and now however. I agree the landscape is changing and that in 5 years everything will be software only, this is the first hint of that.
 
Chris Parker said:
they will. give them time. give graphics cards time. in 5 years, there will be many a davinci software suite up and running. cuz in 5 years, they will be realtime, and the difference won't be as big.

look at editing. when final cut came out, it's slow, non-realtime performance was a joke to pros. now, the industry has shifted that way, and AVID themselves have stepped up to that same plate and are working within that 'software only' system.

color suites like resolve and online suites like smoke are the first of many. sure, version 1 sucks. wait till 5 years from now when the graphics cards have caught up, and the companies have found better ways to make it happen via software.

like final cut 4 with the RT engine. that suddenly made it possible to do bigger shows on an off-the-shelf desktop.

will big theatre releases be graded on davincis on a mac? of course not. but iPad content? surely.....
Click to expand...

Where I would disagree with you is in the fact that just because the hardware gets faster doesn't mean everything else that takes up hardware bandwidth just stops evolving. Look at RED for example and their new, higher data rates and resolutions that will surface by end of the year this year alone (maybe). Sure 5 years from now 4K 2:1 @ REDCODE 28 on the new 60 core MacPro will be no sweat but will it be just enough at that time to deal with the current data requirements that will keep improving as well? Usually, the answer is no or just barely. As hardware gets better, faster, stronger so will the requirements of the data we are ingesting into that hardware which will probably be just enough to keep up with what the current technologies are that are pushing those boundaries such as REDCODE and Uncompressed formats are doing to todays machines.
 
jake blackstone said:
I know every company in grading business praying to god, that it is vaporware. But even, if this was the case, this announcement already made these companies adjust their business model.
Click to expand...

Alex Hastings said:
Anyway, this is just the beginning, the industry is in a freefall, and its getting harder and harder to justify the high end system prices.
Click to expand...

DaVinci was for sale for a long time. It was very well known in the industry and many companies had the opportunity to bid on the DaVinci name and IP involved with DaVinci. The logical outcome was that some company was going to pick up the DaVinci brand and IP. Next logical step was some kind of radical price drop in the product. There had to be.

The fact that it was Blackmagic and that the price drop was so radical... that was a surprise. But the overall business behind it was not a surprise and any manufacturer that has not seen the overall trends in the industry and has not been preparing for them is going to be a victim of natural market forces.

Business models for color systems have been changing for awhile. BMD/DaVinci was not the cause, but rather an effect. Color is going down the well worn path that Prepress... and Audio and Editing and Compositing and Paint, etc. have already been down. Commoditization. Not a surprise, not difficult to predict. But have to be intelligent in response and evolution as a company selling in that space.

I feel that Apple Color in many ways *saved* the industry. Lots of people on the manufacturer side wailed and moaned about Color and how it was going to destroy the industry. Bull. What Color did was incredible... it validated "Color Correction" as a distinct and separate part of the process, worthy of its own application and its own attention. Prior to Color, the process of Color Grading as a distinct and individual task in Post Production was almost exclusively the realm of the major markets and the perceived "high-end." Apple, in one fell swoop, validated Color Grading and drastically expanded the potential market for other vendors. Blackmagic is doing the same, but in a slightly different way.

I welcome what Blackmagic is doing. Will it be competition? Sure. But overall, it will provide more opportunity and more growth for companies that are prepared for market evolution.

Best,

Lucas


Lucas Wilson
------------
Director, Business Development
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA
 
jake blackstone said:
You got it Tim. I iCal'ed it in my calendar so I can remind you about this conversation in a couple of months. I'm sure you can remember when people were saying same thing, when Red announced RED camera specs and it's price. Both BM and DaVinci engineers are incredibly well regarded in the industry and it may be foolish to call their product vaporware. I know it is painful to think, that a system on a Mac, costing less than $10k can perform ALMOST as well as $400k Pablo. And it can write Prores files to boot:-)
I know every company in grading business praying to god, that it is vaporware. But even, if this was the case, this announcement already made these companies adjust their business model. FilmLight already dropped the price of their lower end Baselight HD with Blackboard to $90K, which only a year ago was at least $250k. Now DVision is doing the same with their flagship product-FilmMaster. It is priced at the same magical price of $90K, including the panel. So now, both products are actually almost the same price as Resolve on Linux. So, CUDA all around!:-)
Click to expand...

Praying to god? Painful to think? That's a bit dramatic mate, dont you think? I may have exaggerated a bit, my price INCLUDES critical monitoring. (Scopes, Monitor, etc)

Our Pablo is a cash machine in our market. It is NOT just a color grader, we do compositing and killer FX and finishing, S3D toolsets and DELIVERABLES... because it is ALL ABOUT THE OPERATOR... who with 21 years experience, blows peoples minds every time they walk into the suite.

Heavy Iron will always have its place. Quantel is definitely not scrambling to lower prices, We use light iron as well, on a TON of indies, depends on the budget... but even our APPLE Color Suite cost over $25,000
with MAC TOWER (Memory) and RAID and PLASMA, Silverado COLLOR-RIG and ,... LEGAL SOFTWARE and PLUG INS. CONTROL SURFACES, Not including furniture.

My point is that its not a $1000 solution... and it has yet to work... but I hope to heck it DOES come out. It will NOT threaten our Pablo suite... it WILL replace our COLOR suite.

Trust me, legions of aspiring colorists are far more delusional than high end post houses who have invested in Heavy Iron... because we have also invested in top artists to justify the expense.

peace and love
 
Alex Hastings said:
Even if it was 30k for a system, which it won't be, that is still cheap for what it can do. If it can go against a 120k Baselight for a 200k Lustre, how is that not a good deal?

Here is a quote from a beta tester.
Click to expand...

I think its a great deal, Im speaking to the legions of aspiring colorists who think if they spend $1000 on software and buy a graphics card that they can compete with the above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top