New DaVinci Resolve for Mac Configuration Guide Available [Archive]

Dwaine Maggart

10-05-2010, 07:37 PM

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

roryhinds

10-05-2010, 09:30 PM

Do you know with AJA support is coming?
Is there a demo license version available like Smoke?

Jody Neckles

10-05-2010, 11:59 PM

Do you know with AJA support is coming?
Is there a demo license version available like Smoke?

Indeed I would like to try before I buy and I would also like to know about timeframes for AJA support. Thanks

Ido Karilla

10-06-2010, 01:58 AM

Thank you for the update on the 2008 machines!

Any word on wether the Nvidia quadro FX 5600 will do the job on a mac 2008?

I suppose there are many of us early 2008 users that have the 5600 and would love to keep instead of switching to the 4800.

P.S

An update on the aja kona 3 status of support would also ease the decision.

Thanks.

Peter Chamberlain

10-06-2010, 04:10 AM

Ido Karilla

10-06-2010, 04:19 AM

Hi, at this time I do not have a schedule for Resolve to use the AJA card. Regarding FX5600, its a non certified and certainly non tested config. Resolve is tuned for real time performance with the certified configurations as per the config guide.
thanks.
Peter

Thank you Peter,

As things stand, any chance for a demo licenses to test un certified configurations before buying?

Thanks again.

Alexander Ibrahim

10-06-2010, 04:38 AM

My first time reading the config guide.

As awesome as the notion of having a Resolve for $995 its evident that the hardware of a MacPro isn't really up to the task. Its on the edge, and there are a lot of limitations.

I have a lot of trust in BlackMagic and Apple, but my experience is that technologies that are just over the minimum performance cause a lot of headaches.

In 18 months or so the hardware under the Resolve will be a lot more capable and deliver vastly better performance.

Two key technologies should emerge in that time:

Lightpeak- this is important to help deal with the expansion limitations of the MacPro

New GPUs- potentially powerful enough so that we can use a single graphics card.

Additionally there should be a new generation of CPU's and other normal improvements. Hopefully those improvements will include the availability (and possibly the ubiquity) of USB 3 on Macs.

So... while I may acquire Resolve soon, I won't be implementing it as my main color correction solution until performance is better without such strict performance requirements- or until I can afford a Linux license and a full blown Resolve. (In which case my OS X license will be used as an assistant's station.)

So, while Resolve is almost certainly in my future, Color will remain my weapon of choice for now.

On another note... I don't expect rapid support for AJA, or any third party i/o, in Resolve. AJA competes with BlackMagic in the i/o card market- so it makes no business sense to make supporting competitors products a priority.

Even when BlackMagic does support AJA and other third party i/o, I would just look at a BlackMagic card as part of the hardware requirements, particularly for a dedicated color correction station.

jake blackstone

10-06-2010, 08:19 AM

I won't be implementing it as my main color correction solution until performance is better without such strict performance requirements
Please name one other real time color grading solution, where it's up to the user to select any desired hardware.

roryhinds

10-06-2010, 09:35 AM

Surely is the 4800 is supported then the 5600 should give similar if not improved performance.

Curran Giddens

10-06-2010, 12:53 PM

What is the difference between the DeckLink HD Extreme 3D and the DeckLink HD Extreme 3D+ ?

Alexander Ibrahim

10-06-2010, 04:42 PM

Please name one other real time color grading solution, where it's up to the user to select any desired hardware.

Color

Don't get me wrong... I know Resolve is at a different level, but Color doesn't hold me back yet. Its very fast, and operates at or near real time most of the time, until render time of course.

A Rocket is more important to my work, as is an HBA and a video i/o card. Add in the "GUI" video card and you've used all the PCIe slots on current Mac Pros.

So, right now at least, my main complaint is that Resolve requires a dedicated video card in order to operate.

Another minor gripe is that ATI cards are not supported. I double checked- ATI cards are all that ships with Mac Pro computers today.

I think in the next year or so we should see hardware fast enough so that Resolve will be able to use a second video card, but not require it.

If Blackmagic is interested in having me purchase and use Resolve professionally in the near term, then I need a little bit more help.

How about a Decklink 3D card with a CUDA GPU on it intended for Resolve? Use the CUDA part to accelerate other applications using the card for i/o as best possible- no point in having it idle when Resolve isn't running... but the main point is to simplify both Resolve installs and make them both higher performance and more reliable.

What about a BlackMagic video card that has multiple GPU's on board intended to support Resolve and standard OS X use? The sort of solution Apple provides for MacBooks - but with desktop processors?

If I was building a dedicated Resolve station, then I'd be happy to buy a BlackMagic Decklink 3D+CUDA and one or more of the BlackMagic video cards to get better Resolve performance. I get the notion though that Resolve for Mac doesn't support using more than one GPU.

It's certainly not impossible to satisfy me today, but it may not be worthwhile to BlackMagic. I think the Decklink+CUDA card would be a real hit- especially if BlackMagic can use the CUDA with general OS X media apps.

I also think that a BlackMagic multi GPU video card would be a hit... Apple is really creating a market with its poor selection of video cards. Also it strikes me that the cooling provided for one GPU is excessive- spread it out over two GPU's and it seems more efficient.

It does strike me that such deviecs also provide a continuing revenue stream for BlackMagic. If I buy a Decklink 3D, I'm set for a very long time. If I buy a DeckLink 3D+CUDA, I may well have to replace that card more often.

In closing, I think the hardware available falls a bit short today, but I remain excited about Resolve for Mac. I think there are solutions... one of which may simply be waiting for hardware to get better.

There are a couple of other things I would like while I am asking...

I'd love a BlackMagic portable i/o device for Macs... something that uses ExpressCard, USB3 or LightPeak. (Yes I know about the Windows USB3 widget... and I'm sort of jealous)

Work with RED to get more magic Rocket juice into BlackMagic i/o cards.

jake blackstone

10-06-2010, 05:03 PM

Color

Don't get me wrong... I know Resolve is at a different level, but Color doesn't hold me back yet. Its very fast, and operates at or near real time most of the time, until render time of course.

A Rocket is more important to my work, as is an HBA and a video i/o card. Add in the "GUI" video card and you've used all the PCIe slots on current Mac Pros.

So, right now at least, my main complaint is that Resolve requires a dedicated video card in order to operate.

Another minor gripe is that ATI cards are not supported. I double checked- ATI cards are all that ships with Mac Pro computers today.

I think in the next year or so we should see hardware fast enough so that Resolve will be able to use a second video card, but not require it.

If Blackmagic is interested in having me purchase and use Resolve professionally in the near term, then I need a little bit more help.

How about a Decklink 3D card with a CUDA GPU on it intended for Resolve? Use the CUDA part to accelerate other applications using the card for i/o as best possible- no point in having it idle when Resolve isn't running... but the main point is to simplify both Resolve installs and make them both higher performance and more reliable.

What about a BlackMagic video card that has multiple GPU's on board intended to support Resolve and standard OS X use? The sort of solution Apple provides for MacBooks - but with desktop processors?

If I was building a dedicated Resolve station, then I'd be happy to buy a BlackMagic Decklink 3D+CUDA and one or more of the BlackMagic video cards to get better Resolve performance. I get the notion though that Resolve for Mac doesn't support using more than one GPU.

It's certainly not impossible to satisfy me today, but it may not be worthwhile to BlackMagic. I think the Decklink+CUDA card would be a real hit- especially if BlackMagic can use the CUDA with general OS X media apps.

I also think that a BlackMagic multi GPU video card would be a hit... Apple is really creating a market with its poor selection of video cards. Also it strikes me that the cooling provided for one GPU is excessive- spread it out over two GPU's and it seems more efficient.

It does strike me that such deviecs also provide a continuing revenue stream for BlackMagic. If I buy a Decklink 3D, I'm set for a very long time. If I buy a DeckLink 3D+CUDA, I may well have to replace that card more often.

In closing, I think the hardware available falls a bit short today, but I remain excited about Resolve for Mac. I think there are solutions... one of which may simply be waiting for hardware to get better.

There are a couple of other things I would like while I am asking...

I'd love a BlackMagic portable i/o device for Macs... something that uses ExpressCard, USB3 or LightPeak. (Yes I know about the Windows USB3 widget... and I'm sort of jealous)

Work with RED to get more magic Rocket juice into BlackMagic i/o cards.
As I said, "real time" color grading solution. Color is not by a long shot...

jake blackstone

10-06-2010, 05:05 PM

Color

How about a Decklink 3D card with a CUDA GPU on it intended for Resolve?

I'm sure nVidia would have something to say about this idea...

Jay A. Kelley

10-06-2010, 05:23 PM

Until it moves to PC.. I am not a customer.

Jay

Shane Betts

10-06-2010, 06:15 PM

Until it moves to PC.. I am not a customer.

Jay

Fair enough... But the alternative would be?

I say this so often to Mac die-hards, what difference does it make what OS you're working on? Your platform is not Mac or Linux or Windows, it's Resolve, or Avid or whatever. The price of Davinci on Mac is so incredible in comparison with other tools of it's ilk, the cost of a Mac Pro, IMHO, pales somewhat into insignificance (and that's saying something).

Just my 2c worth.

Greg Huson

10-06-2010, 07:31 PM

Until it moves to PC.. I am not a customer.

Jay

You sound like a Mac Head!

Think of it as a single-purpose system on a unix-derivative operating system. Put a sticker over the mac stuff, add dell monitors... and don't tell yourself it's a mac.

Get over it. If it ran on a PC, that wouldn't stop me from setting one up.

Jay A. Kelley

10-06-2010, 08:49 PM

Hey Greg...

It's not loyality.. It's money. I am PC based, and I get more bang for my buck on this side of the pond. I have considered a MAC, and I still do, but between my pocket-book and the lack of activity at Apple in terms of updating their hardware, I just cannot do it.

Also, my business does not need this type of color correction... Yet..

I have looked at this though, and considered it... But for now, it's too much for me to switch... Unless they create a PC version, then I'll buy it in a heartbeat

Jay

shashbugu

10-06-2010, 09:07 PM

Until it moves to PC.. I am not a customer.

Jay

Funny! If I were a PC user I would buy a Mac just to use Resolve and Storm.

Alexander Ibrahim

10-06-2010, 10:11 PM

Also, my business does not need this type of color correction... Yet..

I have looked at this though, and considered it... But for now, it's too much for me to switch... Unless they create a PC version, then I'll buy it in a heartbeat

If you don't need this level of color correction then why do you care what software is available on what platform at what price? Why would you buy it if you don't need it?

Look, if you want to use Resolve, the cheapest way to do so is to buy a Mac Pro that meets the specs and a Resolve License. That would run in the $7000 range.

The next cheapest option will involve a computer built pretty much to the same specs as the Mac Pro, running Linux with a $30000 license of Resolve, and a $30000 hardware console.

Feel free to price out a Baselight or Lustre system.

As far as the Mac vs. Windows argument... its tiring.

Windows doesn't support the applications I need... so its not an option. So, if Apple considers porting Final Cut Studio to Windows, BlackMagic ports Resolve and Foundry ports Storm, then I'll consider switching.

No no... don't hold your breathe.

Alexander Ibrahim

10-06-2010, 10:21 PM

I'm sure nVidia would have something to say about this idea...

Why?

I'd expect BlackMagic to buy GPGPUs in bulk from nVidia, and to pay for engineering support like any other card manufacturer.

Someone needs to make these solutions. Neither Apple nor nVidia seems interested.

Lucas Wilson

10-06-2010, 10:56 PM

?..but Color doesn't hold me back yet. Its very fast, and operates at or near real time most of the time, until render time of course.

Alexander,

Lots of good comments, but I did find this statement kind of amusing. Very fast and operates at or near real time... Most of the time. Well... Which one is it? : )

In the color grading world, fast = realtime or faster. End stop.

Lucas

Lucas Wilson

10-06-2010, 10:57 PM

Someone needs to make these solutions. Neither Apple nor nVidia seems interested.

I'm confused... What solutions?

Lucas

roryhinds

10-06-2010, 11:36 PM

You can't just buy Resolve on Linux, you have to pay a reseller to build you a PC which they charge 3 x what the PC actually costs

Putting the cost of a Linux Resolve in the same price bracket as Baselight and Lustre

Jeff Kilgroe

10-07-2010, 01:14 PM

That's one of my biggest issues I have with BMD/DaVinci right now is the whole authorized OEM/VAR system integrator thing. I've looked at systems from two separate approved vendors and they're nowhere near what I would build and yet their charging a 500% mark-up on the hardware. If I were still in the custom workstation biz, which I used to be, I would get approved as a Resolve system vendor. Would do the same for Scratch, too. At least with Scratch, Assimilate sells the software-only license. It keeps system integrators more honest.

IMO, with the pricing from most Resolve authorized system partners, there is little advantage to the Linux version over the Mac version. Spend $12K or so on a $3K system just so you can buy a $30K software license that gains you what? ...The ability to realistically use 2, maybe 3, more GPUs in the same system and a platform that lacks real support for finishing to ProRes and many other common formats that clients demand.

Overall, I think OSX is a superior platform on which to run Resolve. It's just the current system offerings from Apple lack enough internal expansion to be the robust solution a lot of us would like. I think that will change with the next revision of the Mac Pro. After all, the Sandy Bridge platform gives us several more PCIe lanes. As a side note, Intel has confirmed that Sandy Bridge will have integrated USB3. If all this does happen, with the next Mac Pro revision, what I would like to see from DaVinci is the ability to run Resolve with more GPUs. Even if it comes at a higher price. I'm not a huge fan of that sort of business model, but I'm less enthused about the model where one platform is restricted and another is not, and yet the unrestricted one comes at a much higher price on top of artificially inflated system hardware that we should not be forced to buy.

Curran Giddens

10-07-2010, 05:23 PM

Uli Plank

10-08-2010, 12:03 AM

I'm sure BM would love to do this and will be able to do it at a better price. The current Linux solution is pretty exotic (i.e. low volume). It's up to Apple right now.

Alexander Ibrahim

10-08-2010, 01:58 AM

I'm confused... What solutions?

Lucas

The ones I was making up and babbling about.

A BlackMagic i/o card with a GPU on board, and their own video cards for the Mac with two GPU's, on for GUI and one for Resolve.

Alexander Ibrahim

10-08-2010, 03:24 AM

Alexander,

Lots of good comments, but I did find this statement kind of amusing. Very fast and operates at or near real time... Most of the time. Well... Which one is it? : )

In the color grading world, fast = realtime or faster. End stop.

Lucas

We differ on the definition of fast.

I find that for most systems the performance is limited by the operator not the computer.

I can live with my corrections playing back slower than real time. I just need a responsive GUI while I am working... and the system isn't playing while I am working.

I can live with a render at the end in order to get my full quality color correction.

There are a lot of clients who don't need real time performance.

Of course, they are also expecting to pay less for color correction. Probably because they don't have a lot of money.

Could I work faster with a faster system. Sure. I don't think that's true of every colorist, and it wasn't true for me either once upon a time.

Will my client base pay enough to justify a faster system? I don't know. I certainly can't justify a Linux Resolve or a Baselight or anything like that.

Not only that, but my objective is not to be a full time colorist. So, I don't want to sink that kind of cash into a dedicated tool. Not when I have Leica PL mount lenses I want to buy.

A dedicated OS X Resolve machine... maybe just maybe, but I have a lot of other things on the wish list.

A mixed use Resolve/FCS/Nuke/Storm/Modo/Maya/RedCine system? Absolutely yes I can use and afford that.

But, to really use it I need 5 PCIe slots, or for someone to get me an extra GPU somewhere in the system for Resolve to use.

Or as I said originally... I can wait for technology to catch up and offer other solutions. Lightpeak and USB3 seem to be the imminent changes that might make Resolve viable for me. The next generation of Intel chipsets has more available PCIe capacity. Hopefully Apple will give us a slot or two.

Barend Onneweer

10-08-2010, 08:30 AM

Kaku Ito

10-08-2010, 04:46 PM

Why?

I'd expect BlackMagic to buy GPGPUs in bulk from nVidia, and to pay for engineering support like any other card manufacturer.

Someone needs to make these solutions. Neither Apple nor nVidia seems interested.

I suggested this to the company who used to make the GPU and currently making video I/Os two years ago....but hasn't happened yet.

Alexander Ibrahim

10-08-2010, 06:15 PM

I don't need realtime playback to work faster (it helps though), but I need realtime playback to judge image quality. Color processing can bring out noise, compression artefacts and other defects in an image, which is sometimes impossible to judge without realtime playback.

Can you grade without realtime monitoring? Sure. It's just one of those things that help you judge image integrity. Like a good monitor, controlled room lighting etc.

I agree in principle with everything you wrote, but unless I'm missing a huge part of the picture, Resolve isn't giving me full precision rendered results in real time.

So, ultimately I need to see the rendered output to make a final decision as to the results.

If I am wrong, then pipe up someone!

Alexander Ibrahim

10-08-2010, 06:22 PM

I suggested this to the company who used to make the GPU and currently making video I/Os two years ago....but hasn't happened yet.

At this point it really seems a natural for BlackMagic to take a whack at.

I think they have the expertise to develop and a business interest in such products.

AJA could probably develop the hardware, but I don't think they have a product they are looking to support with that sort of hardware... although perhaps OpenCL will make a video i/o board with an integrated GPU a more general proposition than just "Resolve acceleration."

Matrox might also be able to develop a solution, but they compete in GPU's with nVidia and ATI... so unless they develop a whole new generation of GPU's and get Apple and BlackMagic to support it, the business case is hard.

I can't really think of anyone who is as well placed from both a business and expertise perspective to develop this sort of product.

Peace Villow

10-08-2010, 08:32 PM

Resolve isn't giving me full precision rendered results in real time.

What do you mean?

Alexander Ibrahim

10-10-2010, 03:55 AM

What do you mean?

I mean that while I expect Resolve to work in real time, I do not expect to be looking at full precision fully rendered color corrections, but rather some proxy of those corrections.

So, for example, if I am set up to work at 32bit precision color, I don't expect to be looking at fully rendered color corrections on my preview monitor while I work in real time. Instead I expect to be looking at 10 bit half resolution color corrections.

I still expect some sort of export process at the end to get the full quality of what Resolve can do.

At least on the Mac version... I suppose with enough hardware the Linux version may well deliver exactly that- full precision fully rendered color corrections in real time. I know other DaVinci products did exactly that in the past.

If Resolve is delivering full precision & full resolution in real time all the time with no export on OS X that is a bigger deal than I thought, and may be more worthy of a dedicated computer and workspace.

finalcolor

10-10-2010, 06:00 AM

great I like learning it!

Alexander Ibrahim

10-10-2010, 06:34 AM

I'd also like to vote for support for Euphonix control panels- especially MC Color and MC Transport... but I'd love user configurable support for all the panels. I can definitely see some ways to use the faders here and there.

Peace Villow

10-10-2010, 08:22 AM

I mean that while I expect Resolve to work in real time, I do not expect to be looking at full precision fully rendered color corrections, but rather some proxy of those corrections.

So, for example, if I am set up to work at 32bit precision color, I don't expect to be looking at fully rendered color corrections on my preview monitor while I work in real time. Instead I expect to be looking at 10 bit half resolution color corrections.

I still expect some sort of export process at the end to get the full quality of what Resolve can do.

At least on the Mac version... I suppose with enough hardware the Linux version may well deliver exactly that- full precision fully rendered color corrections in real time. I know other DaVinci products did exactly that in the past.

If Resolve is delivering full precision & full resolution in real time all the time with no export on OS X that is a bigger deal than I thought, and may be more worthy of a dedicated computer and workspace.

AFAIK, DaVinci Resolve uses 32bit floating point processing for all grading calculation and all resolutions. If you check your config page the only option available for image processing is only 32bit floating point.

About proxy resolution, what I understand is this: If you never enable your realtime proxy it means you see a full resolution from your decklink output.
And if you never set your RED setting to Full Res Premium it means you're not see a full res-full quality debayering.

If I'm not wrong the new update v7.0.2 will give you an option to enable the video monitoring in 10bit or 8bit. But it's only for monitoring, if you rendering or playout to tape using power mastering or batch output it will be still 10bit.

There is one thing that sometimes a lot of people misunderstand, the term "rendering" in DaVinci Resolve is completely different from rendering in FCP or AVID or other NLE. The word "Render" in DaVinci Resolve is the same thing as exporting in FCP or AVID. If you want to export your final grading to QT movie or DNxHD or some image sequence, you have to RENDER, there's no option to EXPORT in DaVinci Resolve. That's why they called it "Render" page.

But that's what I know, don't quote me on this, I know nothing about all these things.
Maybe someone from BMD DaVinci guys can give you a better explanations.

Alexander Ibrahim

10-10-2010, 12:35 PM

AFAIK, DaVinci Resolve uses 32bit floating point processing for all grading calculation and all resolutions. If you check your config page the only option available for image processing is only 32bit floating point.

About proxy resolution, what I understand is this: If you never enable your realtime proxy it means you see a full resolution from your decklink output.
And if you never set your RED setting to Full Res Premium it means you're not see a full res-full quality debayering.

If I'm not wrong the new update v7.0.2 will give you an option to enable the video monitoring in 10bit or 8bit. But it's only for monitoring, if you rendering or playout to tape using power mastering or batch output it will be still 10bit.

There is one thing that sometimes a lot of people misunderstand, the term "rendering" in DaVinci Resolve is completely different from rendering in FCP or AVID or other NLE. The word "Render" in DaVinci Resolve is the same thing as exporting in FCP or AVID. If you want to export your final grading to QT movie or DNxHD or some image sequence, you have to RENDER, there's no option to EXPORT in DaVinci Resolve. That's why they called it "Render" page.

But that's what I know, don't quote me on this, I know nothing about all these things.
Maybe someone from BMD DaVinci guys can give you a better explanations.

That's an interesting clarification for me- sorry if I was being dense everyone.

As of this moment Resolve can't use Rocket for output though, correct? If so, are there any plans to enable Rocket for output?

Peter Chamberlain

10-10-2010, 06:59 PM

Hi, In Resolve the Rocket is an input processing card. By this I mean it accepts the r3d we offer from the disk and it presents the full debayer RGB images to the Resolve image processing. There is no application to the use of Rocket output, as all its doing is making RGB. As Peace mentioned, we use that RGB, in what ever resolution it originated, and generate a 32 bit floating point image, which we process, and then you select if you want to view that in 8 or 10 or 12 bit on your monitoring display.
Within the CPU and GPU capabilities of your system, your file type, resolution etc, it's real time at this full res. If you did have 20 color corrections on a clip and it did slow down, just select 'On the Fly' proxy and Resolve makes, in realtime as the images are playing from disk, a proxy of the source image so there is enough processing power to continue to work in real time.
Peter

jake blackstone

10-10-2010, 09:09 PM

There is no application to the use of Rocket output, as all its doing is making RGB.

Storm delivers graded image on Rocket SDI output.

Alexander Ibrahim

10-10-2010, 09:26 PM

Hi, In Resolve the Rocket is an input processing card. By this I mean it accepts the r3d we offer from the disk and it presents the full debayer RGB images to the Resolve image processing. There is no application to the use of Rocket output, as all its doing is making RGB.

The Rocket hardware is capable of output is it not? Storm is using Rocket's SDI output, so why can't Resolve?

I'm not being flip... if you really can't use Rocket's output, I'd really like to know why.

It occurs to me that if Resolve could output via the Rocket's SDI, then one could solve the problem of limited PCIe slots on the Mac Pro for RED workflows.

I recognize that this might affect sales of Decklink cards. So, make it a separate software update and charge for it. Maybe $250?

Jeff Kilgroe

10-10-2010, 09:28 PM

Storm delivers graded image on Rocket SDI output.

Storm is also a special case in terms of how The Foundry is working with RED. I think many of us are expecting the RED SDK to change significantly with the release of Epic/Scarlet, but that's all speculation.

Currently, there are no SDK functions to gain full access to the Rocket frame buffer and allow output anything other than the RGB images it creates onboard. You can apply looks or color LUTs and scaling/crops or other onboard transformations for output. But the SDK currently does not allow taking any image modified on the system to be dumped back to the Rocket for output. And does not allow direct access to the frame buffer there for modifying that image data that could be output via the SDI or other outs on the Rocket.

jake blackstone

10-10-2010, 10:48 PM

Storm is also a special case in terms of how The Foundry is working with RED. I think many of us are expecting the RED SDK to change significantly with the release of Epic/Scarlet, but that's all speculation.

Currently, there are no SDK functions to gain full access to the Rocket frame buffer and allow output anything other than the RGB images it creates onboard. You can apply looks or color LUTs and scaling/crops or other onboard transformations for output. But the SDK currently does not allow taking any image modified on the system to be dumped back to the Rocket for output. And does not allow direct access to the frame buffer there for modifying that image data that could be output via the SDI or other outs on the Rocket.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact, that's it is technically possible and already doable. I do realize, that to do simple primary and may be secondaries corrections is not quite the same as pulling keys or creating masks. So, it's possible, that's it's not quite the same situation...
Nevertheless, at one point Scratch also was special case...

Peter Chamberlain

10-11-2010, 01:40 AM

Hi guys, so its technically possible to get SDI out with limited grades but just not possible to use the power of the CUDA processing to feed back into the Rocket. As I said, the Resolve application is post the Rocket, not within it. Once we extract the RGB, then we can provide the many layers of grades in real time. It then needs to go to the UI and then the SDI output. Using the Rocket to output the SDI is not an option in this configuration. Not to mention Deck control, PowerMastering, Timecode slave syncing etc.
Rgds, Peter

Jeff Kilgroe

10-11-2010, 10:12 AM

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact, that's it is technically possible and already doable.

Technically possible, yes. Doable, not at this time. As Peter points out:

Hi guys, so its technically possible to get SDI out with limited grades but just not possible to use the power of the CUDA processing to feed back into the Rocket.

When/If RED gives us SDK functionality to feed RGB image data BACK onto the the Rocket, this will be possible. However, it remains to be seen just how practical it will be within the Scope of an application like Resolve. SCRATCH is still a special case with RED and could probably gain the ability to do this with the Rocket as Foundry has done. However, SCRATCH does not output via the Rocket and yet the software supports multiple Rockets for input processing.

jake blackstone

10-11-2010, 11:22 PM

Technically possible, yes. Doable, not at this time.
SCRATCH is still a special case with RED and could probably gain the ability to do this with the Rocket as Foundry has done. However, SCRATCH does not output via the Rocket and yet the software supports multiple Rockets for input processing.

Scratch hasn't been special case for a while now. Lucas himself a while ago pointed out, that Scratch uses Rocket the same way as the next guy, with standard SDK- for real time debayer only, with actual grading done from good old DPX...
As I said, simple primary and metadata grading doable now with Rocket SDI out, but not for more sophisticated stuff, yet.

Nik Skjøth

10-12-2010, 04:55 AM

Davinci has for me been a very interesting software ever since it was announced that it was taken over by BMD.

However the more I read about it, it's looking less and less appealing. Unfortunatelly.

At this point BMD will for me be remembered as the company that thinks, scalable windows have gone out of fashion. pun pun.

Shane Betts

10-13-2010, 05:34 AM

Storm delivers graded image on Rocket SDI output.

Ha! I love this. BMD started this (again) with Resolve, a high end grading solution for a bargain price. The Foundry isn't resting on their laurels and have come up with another bargain priced application - albeit a simpler grader but with many other powerful features. We are the guys who win in this kind of battle. Bring it on!

BTW, my 2cw on the whole question of renders in Resolve. The application is actually performing renders so you can see the results of your work - it's just that those renders are done in real time by the GPU - so you don't notice it happening. No render bars, no spinning clocks, just play and there it is - not on disk but in the stream - but it's a render nonetheless.

Resolve takes the image off disk (if it's an R3D, debayers it in Red Rocket), applies the FX (the grade) to the RGB, passes it out to the graphics card, where the CUDA engine renders it to a finished stream, which is then brought back in from the graphics card (not out) and then passed out via the Decklink card. It's a cool trick that, I think, only Smoke and Resolve can currently do on the Mac (could be wrong on that one). So, in order to output from the Rocket, Resolve would need to bring the rendered RGB stream back from the CUDA card and have the Rocket accept that in again and play it out. Hmmm.

Anyway, like I said bring it on. The more the merrier.

Rick Turners

10-13-2010, 07:41 PM

So I am picking up Resolve.. the stores nearby do not have the GT 120, FX 4800, or GTX 285. (nor do they plan on getting more)

I am pointed to a sketchy ebay link where I can get a GTX 285..

I can only imagine that, not only is BMD hoping for nVidia to release more cards for Mac, but everyone who hopes to get this running on a mac at all.. its not exactly easy.

Does anyone know of anyone selling a GT120 + BMD DL EXTREME 3D + GTX 285 + Resolve in a nice little package?

It seems to be the scarceness of the necessary cards and lack of support for other cards that is making people question.

Shane Betts

10-13-2010, 08:19 PM

Try Silverado. I think they were selling a package.

But yes, it seems as though BMD and their Davinci restructuring could be caught out by Apple's crappy development of their Pro gear. Lack of slots is also a major issue. Would be a shame if Resolve gets sunk by Apple's negligence but it wouldn't be the first product to die that death.

Kaku Ito

10-13-2010, 09:19 PM

The rumor is that the new Quadra 4000 will be for Mac, too.

So I am picking up Resolve.. the stores nearby do not have the GT 120, FX 4800, or GTX 285. (nor do they plan on getting more)

I am pointed to a sketchy ebay link where I can get a GTX 285..

I can only imagine that, not only is BMD hoping for nVidia to release more cards for Mac, but everyone who hopes to get this running on a mac at all.. its not exactly easy.

Does anyone know of anyone selling a GT120 + BMD DL EXTREME 3D + GTX 285 + Resolve in a nice little package?

It seems to be the scarceness of the necessary cards and lack of support for other cards that is making people question.

Rick Turners

10-13-2010, 10:26 PM

That's the rumor! Hopefully it'll come to fruition soon and be supported.

Kaku Ito

10-14-2010, 06:41 AM

That's the rumor! Hopefully it'll come to fruition soon and be supported.

I know how you feel especially when we don't see any official announcements on the nVidia website.

Aleksandar Colancevski

10-14-2010, 10:09 AM

Or make a Hackintosh.:-))

albert rudnicki

10-14-2010, 10:24 AM

"I am pointed to a sketchy ebay link where I can get a GTX 285.."

I just got one and everything works as it should.
playing Red raw with effects in 24fps.(Davinci)
All other software works just the same, premiere/ mercury is smooth.
Also the service the guy gave me was very good.

I am running mid 2010 mac pro 2.4Ghz (8 core) with 12 Gig of Ram

PS I am not affiliated with him in any way.

jonnycom

10-14-2010, 10:31 AM

albert rudnicki

10-14-2010, 10:34 AM

II am looking for a way to get a reference monitor working without using my decklink.
I don't have the space for it and I thought perhaps I could use one of the DVI port to give me the monitor out.
At the moment I only use one port on gt120.
Any thoughts?

My reference monitor is a JVC and it has all possible inputs, but thats irrelevant since i only need DVI.

Kaku Ito

10-14-2010, 10:36 AM

The Quadra 4000 is also for the mac and now starting to ship, I will put mine in tomorrow. I will try to test the speed difference between the GTX 285 that we are using now and the 4000 which cost almost 400% more then the 285. Hopefully we will see a 400% speed increase as well....

I hear the GPU has to be fine tuned for the application so you might see Quadra 4000 working great after Resolve go through another update, this is my opinion of course.

Jose Lomeña

10-14-2010, 11:13 AM

The Quadra 4000 is also for the mac and now starting to ship, I will put mine in tomorrow. I will try to test the speed difference between the GTX 285 that we are using now and the 4000 which cost almost 400% more then the 285. Hopefully we will see a 400% speed increase as well....

400% more money??... 250% here... if you see specification it's slower than gtx285. I think you will loose speed with this card, maybe I'm wrong.
If you want more speed go to quadro 5000 or 6000... but drivers?...

please post your speed test!

saludos

David Battistella

10-14-2010, 11:24 AM

All I can say is that that is one of the best manuals I have seen because it not only tells you easily and honestly how to and what to use, but it does it in a really nice layout.

This is the kind of info people were screaming for from RED when it was released and also with the REDRocket.

There's still time....

David

Jean Déraps

10-14-2010, 11:38 AM

Albert, who did you buy your card from on eBay?

albert rudnicki

10-14-2010, 11:52 AM

Albert, who did you buy your card from on eBay?

Jean
His ebay name is macvidcards

A.

Raphael Varandas

10-17-2010, 12:01 AM

anyone running on nVIDIA Quadro FX 4800....any good?

Jeff Kilgroe

10-17-2010, 05:41 PM

anyone running on nVIDIA Quadro FX 4800....any good?

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.

Kaku Ito

10-18-2010, 05:41 AM

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.

Next 10 days! Great news!

Jeff Kilgroe

10-18-2010, 07:04 AM

Next 10 days! Great news!

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.

Kaku Ito

10-18-2010, 08:06 AM

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.

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

Alexander Ibrahim

10-25-2010, 10:05 PM

jake blackstone

10-25-2010, 11:25 PM

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.

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...

Uli Plank

10-25-2010, 11:40 PM

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.

Jean Déraps

10-26-2010, 09:17 PM

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.

Peter Chamberlain

10-27-2010, 03:55 AM

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

Manuel Wenger

10-27-2010, 04:28 AM

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

Oliver Peters

10-27-2010, 05:05 AM

What performance are you getting with 2k dpx files ?......playback is arround 20fps, from an internal Raid0.

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

Manuel Wenger

10-27-2010, 06:03 AM

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

Paul Harding

10-27-2010, 07:33 AM

jake blackstone

10-27-2010, 05:12 PM

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

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?

jake blackstone

10-27-2010, 05:14 PM

Alexander Ibrahim

10-27-2010, 11:10 PM

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.

Kujtim Ereqi

10-28-2010, 05:52 AM

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

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?

Paul Harding

10-28-2010, 11:20 AM

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?

I have a 8 core 2009 mac 16 gig ram and slots are filled as per BMD manual. Best I can get at Quarter res is 18 fps with or without the 120 installed.

Paul

jake blackstone

10-28-2010, 12:52 PM

I have a 8 core 2009 mac 16 gig ram and slots are filled as per BMD manual. Best I can get at Quarter res is 18 fps with or without the 120 installed.

Paul

I have the same configuration Mac with 120, with 6Gb of RAM and I get real time performance at 1/4 res R3D with at least 5-6 nodes . Obviously, if all you're getting is 18FPS, there is something wrong. BTW, BM recommends RAM to be multiples of 6GB, ie. 6,12, 18 or 24GB.

jake blackstone

10-28-2010, 12:56 PM

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?

I believe, starting with Resolve version 7.0.2, Mac 2008 allows real time performance, but only at 8 bit display. At 10 bit you will not get real time performance, with maximum 17-18 FPS playback. Not sure where you got 8GB requirement. The 6GB is minimum requirement and with that Resolve runs just fine.

Paul Harding

10-28-2010, 02:59 PM

Curran Giddens

10-28-2010, 03:13 PM

Not sure where you got 8GB requirement.

BM recommends RAM to be multiples of 6GB, ie. 6,12, 18 or 24GB.

But for 2008 Mac Pros BM recommends multiples of 8GB.

jake blackstone

10-28-2010, 03:55 PM

But for 2008 Mac Pros BM recommends multiples of 8GB.

Hm, interesting. I haven't heard about it. Can you tell, where you got this info?

jake blackstone

10-28-2010, 03:57 PM

Jake I might have been runing 10 bit will test to make sure tomorrow
Thanks for the info.
Paul

On 2009 you should be able to run it in 10 bit.

Curran Giddens

10-28-2010, 04:08 PM

Hm, interesting. I haven't heard about it. Can you tell, where you got this info?

Peter posted it here in this thread:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=647228#post647228

I think it is also in the new Mac Config. Guide for 7.0.2.

jake blackstone

10-28-2010, 04:56 PM

Peter posted it here in this thread:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=647228#post647228

I think it is also in the new Mac Config. Guide for 7.0.2.

Good to know, that it's different for 2008 vs 2009 Mac. But, if anyone should know, Peter definitely would:-)

Jeff Kilgroe

10-28-2010, 09:02 PM

I have the same configuration Mac with 120, with 6Gb of RAM and I get real time performance at 1/4 res R3D with at least 5-6 nodes . Obviously, if all you're getting is 18FPS, there is something wrong. BTW, BM recommends RAM to be multiples of 6GB, ie. 6,12, 18 or 24GB.

Huh???

And yeah, Peter said this:

Its actually the Nehalem architecture in the 2009 MacPro that prefers the system ram in lots of 3. For those trying 2008 MacPro, 8GB is likely to be better.
Peter

Which does not make sense. There is no lots of 3 anything with the Nehalem Mac Pro. It's still a dual-channel architecture with 4 sockets per channel. The only exception to that is if you buy a single processor (quad core) Mac Pro, but at that point you're just eliminating the secondary memory channel, effectively cutting your memory capacity and bandwidth in half.

In the Mac Pro, the best performance comes from fully populating both memory boards, saturating both channels. Or populating them equally. So, if you want 6GB, the best performance comes from using 6x1GB modules, leaving the 4th socket on each memory board empty. 12GB via 6x2GB DIMMs. 18GB is only possible with a mismatch, which throws the memory boards out of full sync mode. 24GB possible as 6x4GB... But fully populated RAM boards means 8, 16 or 32GB capacities, operating at maximum performance in this system. So I guess I'd like to understand why Peter has said this...

Helge Løken

10-28-2010, 09:41 PM

Which does not make sense. There is no lots of 3 anything with the Nehalem Mac Pro. It's still a dual-channel architecture with 4 sockets per channel. The only exception to that is if you buy a single processor (quad core) Mac Pro, but at that point you're just eliminating the secondary memory channel, effectively cutting your memory capacity and bandwidth in half.
.

You sure about this, Jeff? I'm pretty sure that from the 2009 Mac Pro onwards there's tripple channel memory, and this seems to be confirmed on bearfeats (http://www.barefeats.com/nehal02.html). I remember that there was quite a confusion about why apple made 8 slots rather then f.ex 12.

With regards to the Mac Pro 2008 the reason you won't get better perfomance with 10bit monitoring is that there's not enough internal bandwidth to move data quickly enough from the GPU to the monitor output. 8 bit monitoring should give you real time perfomance.

I've got the 2009 Mac Pro 8x2.66 Ghz with 12GB memory, GTX285 and GT120. I've not done much RED grading yet, but all the ProRes444 and ProRes422 HQ work I've done is giving me excellent, real-time performance. However, I do find that a restart before each new job is a good rule-of-thumb.

Jeff Kilgroe

10-29-2010, 10:57 AM

You sure about this, Jeff? I'm pretty sure that from the 2009 Mac Pro onwards there's tripple channel memory, and this seems to be confirmed on bearfeats (http://www.barefeats.com/nehal02.html). I remember that there was quite a confusion about why apple made 8 slots rather then f.ex 12.

Nehalem Xeon and Core i7 both support dual and triple channel operation, that's true.

In a single-processor Mac Pro, you [obviously] get single channel operation with one DIMM installed. Dual channel operation when you install two or four DIMMs. Triple channel when you install 3 DIMMs. So yes, in a single processor '09 and '10 Mac Pro, you will get the best RAM performance with 3 DIMMs -- 3, 6 or 12 GB.

In a dual-processor Mac Pro, it interleaves in dual channel between the two memory interfaces. Or defaults to single-channel if there is a mismatch in the number or capacity of DIMMs. Technically, the only possible way that triple-channel can be supported with two active memory controllers is to have three slots on each board populated. The memory controller in the Nehalem in combination with the 5520 chipset is indeed capable of this, but I have been told that the way the memory planes are implemented on the Mac Pro, that it is not allowed. I may have been told incorrectly, but my own testing biases me toward this.

There's tons of speculation on the net and people claiming this and that. I've done my own benchmarks and see no difference in my '09 Mac Pros by pulling the last slot-4 DIMMs from each memory board, which should enable triple-channel. I bought into the whole triple channel theory a year ago and put 6x4GB modules in an '09 Mac Pro. Is it any faster than the tower next to it with 16GB (8x2GB)? No, unfortunately it's not faster in any benchmarks I've tried. Nor in real world practice in rendering or general use. So.... Do what makes you happy I guess. Just be sure to set up for dual channel. If you want to try the triple-channel thing, then go for it. RAM prices work out similarly either way. IMO, 24GB in a new 2010 Mac Pro would be a good amount to have if you're running any software that can utilize all the cores such as 3D rendering apps, etc.. 12GB is a little on the light side in a system with 8cores or more. So I don't see any practical purpose to attempting the triple-channel setup unless you're using 4GB or 8GB DIMMs.

Dustin Cross

10-31-2010, 03:40 PM

Alexander Ibrahim

11-02-2010, 05:53 PM

Is it possible to use one of the nVidia Telsa cards with Resolve? Say a GT120 for monitors & Tesla C2050 for resolve? Would it be any faster? Seems that using a GPU with monitor outs doesn't make sense when you can't connect a monitor to it.

Dusty

I don't think there is a Tesla card for OS X systems

That said... I think that a Tesla might be readily supported if one was available.

The net effect though is that it costs very little to add monitor ports compared to building the card.... as you can see from $20 video cards with dual dual DVI outputs and an HDMI.

So, a mac version of a Quadro 4000 will give you roughly the same performance for Resolve, and because of market forces will be cheaper than a Tesla 2050.

I'm kind of excited about the Quadro 4000, because I can run two cards, and have one on the system for Motion etc.

Now if it would only hurry up and actually arrive for the Mac.

Gabriele Turchi

11-02-2010, 06:44 PM

i don't get why the 5000 for mac will not be released ...
or it will ?

thanks

g

Alexander Ibrahim

11-02-2010, 08:30 PM

i don't get why the 5000 for mac will not be released ...
or it will ?

thanks

g

Nvidia has said that the 4000 will be released for the Mac... but they have said nothing about their other Quadro products.

Nvidia hasn't mentioned anything regarding their other product lines like Tesla or QuadroPlex.

Usually not mentioning a product means it won't be available... and I would make my plans on that assumption.

Just to be clear... if you are building a Resolve system today, you should buy a combination of the GTX 285 for Resolve and a GT120 for the UI.

The Quadro 4000 is expected "any minute" and should outperform both the current model Quadro 4800 and GTX 285... but it is not available now, so don't count on it in the near term.

Gabriele Turchi

11-02-2010, 08:33 PM

thanks alexander ,
i have the 285+ 120 already ...and i am looking forward to the 4000...
but i am not expecting a quantic jump in performance as the 6000 would be ...

but i hope that actually the bigger memory and the newer architecture will make the 4000 a faster tool for resolve

g

Brice Ansel

11-03-2010, 02:54 AM

Alexander Ibrahim

11-03-2010, 03:44 AM

Maybe it's a silly question, but I was wondering if a MXO2LE could take the place of a DeckLink HD to feed screens?
I actually ask to a representative at BM booth IBC this year with no luck, he even didn't know what was an MXO2LE.
Cheers.

Reading the configuration manual... I don't think the MXO and MXO2 devices can work with Resolve.

I'd definitely plan on a Decklink card.

Brice Ansel

11-03-2010, 05:18 AM

Here is a spec sheet I found, it's called MXO2LE VS Deck link HD
A funny one thought.

1. Matrox MXO2 LE works with Mac Pros and
MacBook Pros – DeckLink HD Extreme works only
with towers.

2. Matrox MXO2 LE fits in a single PCIe slot –
DeckLink HD Extreme occupies one slot plus an
additional bracket for the HDMI option.

3. Matrox MXO2 LE is a professional breakout box – DeckLink HD Extreme does not have a breakout box option.

4. Matrox MXO2 LE provides 10-bit HDMI monitoring with a unique color calibration tool that turns your HDMI
screen into a professional-grade video monitor – DeckLink HD Extreme does not offer a calibration utility.

5. Matrox MXO2 LE provides 10-bit realtime hardware upscaling, downscaling, and cross conversion on input
and output – DeckLink HD Extreme depends on your CPU for some scaling operations.

6. Matrox MXO2 LE provides analog component, Y/C, and composite output simultaneously via
separate, dedicated connectors – DeckLink HD Extreme has only three connectors used for a component output
or Y/C and composite output.

7. Matrox MXO2 LE supports eight channels of HDMI embedded audio – DeckLink HD Extreme supports only
two channels.

8. A version of Matrox MXO2 LE is available with Matrox MAX technology for faster than realtime H.264
encoding for Blu-ray, the web, and mobile devices – DeckLink HD Extreme does not offer this important benefit.
October 22, 2009 – Matrox Electronic Systems Ltd. reserves the right to make changes in specifications at any time and without notice. The information provided by this document
is believed to be accurate and reliable but is subject to change based on subsequent software releases. No responsibility is assumed by Matrox Electronic Systems Ltd. for
its use;

So as a conclusion I guess we can write a new Number :sneaky2:

9.Decklink HD will give you the possibility of running Davinci Resolve
MXO2LE does not offer this important benefit.

Sheers
Brice

Oliver Peters

11-03-2010, 05:28 AM

This is what the DaVinci folks have told me regarding video I/O cards. At the moment, BMD has not released any hardware SDKs for Resolve. This means that Resolve will only work with Decklink cards and either the Tangent Wave or BMD control surface. That's because BMD has written direct drivers for these hardware options. There are plans down the road to release a hardware SDK.

- Oliver

Brice Ansel

11-03-2010, 05:37 AM

Thanks Oliver,
now the question is, how long will the road be for the SDK to pop up.
Hope sooner than later.
Cheers
Brice

Steve Sherrick

11-03-2010, 05:45 AM

Thanks Oliver,
now the question is, how long will the road be for the SDK to pop up.
Hope sooner than later.
Cheers
Brice

Long enough to sell a few more BMD I/O cards. :biggrin:

Sorry, couldn't resist. I don't stand by that statement at all. I know nothing of their plans.

Brice Ansel

11-03-2010, 05:57 AM

Alexander Ibrahim

11-03-2010, 09:39 AM

Hé hé,
yes business is business, and we can't blame them to make money.
But they can't blame me to try saving money using my MXO2LE.
Probably the Red companie's fault.
I always have that little music playing into my head: obsolesence is obsolet.
Brice

I have to say that the Matrox MXO2 i/o option is VERY good.

The major downside is its lack of support for Resolve.

One unnoticed downside is that the Matrox i/o boards only support 10 bit 4:2:2 input and output. That is just unacceptable for some tasks.

Another un-noted downside is that the Matrox's inputs and outputs aren't as high grade as those on BMD or AJA boards. That is to say that the i/o, even in similar modes (i.e. limiting the BMD cards to 422 to match the Matrox) is not as technically precise. There are all sorts of little foibles that can creep in to the Matrox i/o.

If you are delivering to high end clients the difference can be critical... especially if its going to a broadcast chain. Its less critical if you are just using the card for monitoring and delivering file based renders, or if your final delivery is direct to a video format like DVD or BluRay.

A final and important difference... the BlackMagic cards support 3D, as does Resolve itself. If 3D is part of your life, or if you think it will be, then the DeckLink 3D is probably the smartest and most cost effective solution out there today.

So, I would expect that for most RED users the MXO2 solution is an excellent offline solution, while the BMD and AJA i/o boards are more well suited to online and finishing.

Of course, in today's markets the definition of online and offline are variable depending on the clients and deliverables. If your delivery is web based, broadcast video monitoring of any sort is a luxury, not a requirement. You would be better off finding a way to stream that HD-SDI output to your iPad via h.264 wireless. Well that or you could just watch the NLE program window on your computer monitor.

Dustin Cross

11-03-2010, 10:00 AM

Alexander Ibrahim

11-03-2010, 05:22 PM

I have BMD and MXO LE with Max. I use the Black magic card way more than the MXO. I really only use the MXO for h.264 rendering and since you can't use Max and output at then same time, I find then MXO not so useful. plus I get better performance from apps using the Decklink than the MXO. Haven't used Resolve yet though.

MXO is good for laptop, but I think I adjust getting a Max card for tower.

Dusty

I have not seen a meaningful difference in application performance between the BMD i/o cards, the AJA i/o cards and the Matrox.

Its the technical results where I have noted some differences- and even those just on tests on scopes. For most people its a solid 4:2:2 card, and I think it can serve as a great offline card for most everyone.

I can't say enough how much I value the single PCIe card solution with a BoB.

Of course BMD offers that too in its MultiBridge products. If 4:4:4 is of any utility to you then MultiBridge is a no brainer. Its priced pretty close to the Matrox MXO2 Rack.

My only criticism of that product line is that it does not yet support 3D, from what I can tell on the site. I guess that's a wish list item as well.

I do have another wish list item for the MultiBridge... make a version of the interface card with a GPU onboard for Resolve and hopefully other applications. Provided I can keep my MultiBridge BoB, I can upgrade interface cards every few years.