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 :)

New DaVinci Resolve for Mac Configuration Guide Available

anyone running on nVIDIA Quadro FX 4800....any good?
 
Raphael Varandas said:
anyone running on nVIDIA Quadro FX 4800....any good?
Click to expand...

The GTX285 will be a bit faster and a lot cheaper if you don't already have a card and need to buy one. Otherwise, go for the Quadro 4000 that should be available for the Mac in about 10 days.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
The GTX285 will be a bit faster and a lot cheaper if you don't already have a card and need to buy one. Otherwise, go for the Quadro 4000 that should be available for the Mac in about 10 days.
Click to expand...

Next 10 days! Great news!
 
Kaku Ito said:
Next 10 days! Great news!
Click to expand...

Er... Based on originally announced availability. We'll see if it actually happens... It was supposed to be available the last week of October...

Peter also said there's more CUDA card support options coming soon. Personally, I'd wait just a bit. Best case scenario is we'll see support for the nVidia 480 or 490 cards.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Er... Based on originally announced availability. We'll see if it actually happens... It was supposed to be available the last week of October...

Peter also said there's more CUDA card support options coming soon. Personally, I'd wait just a bit. Best case scenario is we'll see support for the nVidia 480 or 490 cards.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see, I got my GT285 in time so no problem right now, but my customers are bugging me.
 
OK... so questions...

Does anyone know how long before Resolve will support MC Color and the other Euphonix Artist series interfaces?

Do I have to use an Nvidia GT120 as my GUI video card?

Is there some reason I can not install two GTX285's or a GTX285 and a Quadro? I mean aside from losing the extra slot? (Those more powerful cards use two slots correct?)

What about the Nvidia QuadroPlex cards? Can they be used on OS X? Can we get improved GPU performance with those beasts?

Here is my "thinking":

I could build a low end Mac Pro with two GTX 285 cards and a Decklink.

That would make a fantastic general purpose system suitable for working with ProRes and other "low end" codecs on FW800 drives and internal SATA drives.

From waht I can see, systems similar to this could readily work with RED footage for a 2K or 1080p finish to ProRes or similar codecs. With the advent of 3TB drives... you might be bandwidth limited, but it should make for a fine system for a lot of projects end to end... including a ProRes4444 finish.

It would also make a fantastic assistant system to "offline" work meant for finishing on a more powerful Linux Resolve.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
OK... so questions...

Does anyone know how long before Resolve will support MC Color and the other Euphonix Artist series interfaces?

Do I have to use an Nvidia GT120 as my GUI video card?

Is there some reason I can not install two GTX285's or a GTX285 and a Quadro? I mean aside from losing the extra slot? (Those more powerful cards use two slots correct?)

What about the Nvidia QuadroPlex cards? Can they be used on OS X? Can we get improved GPU performance with those beasts?

Here is my "thinking":

I could build a low end Mac Pro with two GTX 285 cards and a Decklink.

That would make a fantastic general purpose system suitable for working with ProRes and other "low end" codecs on FW800 drives and internal SATA drives.

From waht I can see, systems similar to this could readily work with RED footage for a 2K or 1080p finish to ProRes or similar codecs. With the advent of 3TB drives... you might be bandwidth limited, but it should make for a fine system for a lot of projects end to end... including a ProRes4444 finish.

It would also make a fantastic assistant system to "offline" work meant for finishing on a more powerful Linux Resolve.
Click to expand...

You can install 2 GTX 285s, but it will not do you any good. Resolve on a Mac limits number of GPUs to just one, not counting 120. 120 is just for display purposes, freeing 285 to do it's GPU thing. If the power, that's you're after, then wait for FX 4000. That should give you almost double the power of 4800 or 285. And it's single width and no extra power connectors needed to boot...
And BTW, present systems, even with 285, work just fine with 2k and HD in real time. No need to reinvent the wheel...
 
AFAIK it's not BM's fault that you can't get multi-CUDA support under Mac OS X, it's up to Apple. I suppose BM would gladly sell you a multi-card system under OS X instead of Linux – probably would sell much higher numbers.

That said, the performance I get with a single GTX 285 (GT 120 for GUI) and a RED Rocket is quite impressive.
 
Just a question here - and maybe I'm just a bit lost - where does the RED Rocket fit in the equation with Resolve? Is it required? Is it 'just' being used to accelerate the extraction of the RGB image that is sent to Resolve? I have a Rocket and am looking into Resolve and just want to understand what is really needed.
 
Resolve decodes r3d with or without the Rocket in real time. Colorists have Red default, camera, project and clip controls for the full range of variables so you can change ISO or contrast per clip if you like. All parameters are saved with the project. The Rocket permits this operation to be with premium debayer and at a higher resolution compared to the CPU only non Rocket configs so you are correct its extracting the RGB, faster. If you have a Resolve, Rocket is plug and play.
Peter
 
What performance are you getting with 2k dpx files ?
I´m more than happy with r3d performance on my Mac Pro with a GT 120, Rocket and GTX285, but if i load a 2k dpx sequence, playback is arround 20fps, from an internal Raid0. I get the red GPU bar in the viewer window.
Am I doing something wrong ?
I did make sure that the Monitor is NOT connected to my GTX 285 ?

Which perfomance do you guys get with 2k dpx files, how many nodes until playback drops below realtime.

thanks
Manuel
 
Manuel Wenger said:
What performance are you getting with 2k dpx files ?......playback is arround 20fps, from an internal Raid0.
Click to expand...

You don't have a fast enough drive array. You need a fast external array. Of course, if you have a video I/O card, like a Decklink, then you don't have enough slots on the Mac Pro with the RR card to add a controller card.

- Oliver
 
That´s what i thought, i was just worried about the red GPU bar in the viewer.
How many nodes can you add in realtime 2k on a Mac config with a fast enough external Raid.

We´re looking into PCI expansion right now for extending our Mac, and we are just about to go with the Cubix Extender. Thanks to Torrey from Silverado to giving us some info about the Cubix.

Manuel
 
I am running resolve for mac with a FX4800 I just added a GT 120 and I can't see any performance increase.

Does anyone know if the debayer settings when set to half res in the config menu. Then renders the final output at this res or does it go up to full debayer.
Paul
 
Paul Harding said:
I am running resolve for mac with a FX4800 I just added a GT 120 and I can't see any performance increase.

Does anyone know if the debayer settings when set to half res in the config menu. Then renders the final output at this res or does it go up to full debayer.
Paul
Click to expand...

Depending on your Mac configuration and model, with both cards installed you should have real time, no render needed performance at 1/4 res. With just FX4800 you will not get real time performance. If you get same performance with and without 120 card, then something is wrong. Are you saying, that you're getting real time performance with just FX4800 present?
 
Uli Plank said:
AFAIK it's not BM's fault that you can't get multi-CUDA support under Mac OS X, it's up to Apple. I suppose BM would gladly sell you a multi-card system under OS X instead of Linux – probably would sell much higher numbers.

That said, the performance I get with a single GTX 285 (GT 120 for GUI) and a RED Rocket is quite impressive.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, your information is incorrect. Blackmagic DOES limit Resolve on OSX to just one GPU:cursing:
 
Something I am unclear on... the config manual states we need a GT120 for GUI and a GTX285 or Quadro for Resolve.

Does it matter what card I use for the GUI? Earlier I mentioned two GTX285s... one for GUI and one for Resolve. I'm thinking about Motion and Premiere running on the same machine.

In fact... I even wonder if you could I use an ATI card for the GUI? (Which would accelerate Motion... but not Adobe Mercury apps)

I'm also interested in the performance people are getting with Resolve on current MacBook Pro Core i7 machines. I need to handle a mix of h.264, DVCPRO HD, AVC Intra, XDCAM and ProRes in the field, and occasionally full grades on smaller projects while I am traveling. Obviously I don't expect to replace a Mac Pro... but is it faster than Color in that environment, and how much faster.

Finally I am a bit confused about file based output. Resolve renders full precision in real time... but are "final" exports also sped up? I am thinking about ProRes or Cineform finishes for the most part.

So, as I do my homework, I'm wanting to retract earlier statements about Resolve.

I still think there are configuration issues with the limited slots, but Resolve has surprised me already a couple of times in ways that make it worth the hassle.
 
Dwaine Maggart said:
An updated version of the DaVinci Resolve for Mac Configuration Guide has been posted on our website. You can find the PDF on the DaVinci Support page. Or here:

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/downloads/davinci/pdf/DaVinciResolveMacConfigGuide.pdf

We've received a lot of requests by owners of Early 2008 Mac Pro computers wanting to use Resolve. Resolve 7.0.2 added this support and this edition of the configuration guide provides details of which models are certified and what settings need to be changed. Compressed formats may or may not be processed in realtime depending upon the codec used. Compressed file formats place higher demands on the CPU than uncompressed formats. Of course uncompressed file formats require a fast disk array to cope with the high read and write data rates.
If you are regularly using compressed file formats, a certified 2009 or newer series Mac Pro is recommended for realtime performance.
Dwaine Maggart
Blackmagic Design DaVinci Support
Click to expand...

I have an early MAC 2008 so Resolve should finally work fine with it. Does anybody has an experience working with R3D files in such a system. Is it real time?

My system has 6GB, but the recommended is 8GB for early 2008. Does that mean that Resolve will not work with 6GB.

Is there anything I should be aware about early 2008 Mac working with Resolve, beside the common requirements for all Mac systems?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top