What are the disadvantages of using the scopes that are builtin to Davinci Resolve vs something like Scopebox? Is it that the built-in scopes take up CPU resources?
|
|
06-02-2011, 12:36 PM
What are the disadvantages of using the scopes that are builtin to Davinci Resolve vs something like Scopebox? Is it that the built-in scopes take up CPU resources?
06-02-2011, 12:56 PM
ciao Andrae,
I tried with and without a scope, I saw no differences.
Perhaps, with little performance computer losing some frames.
You see a difference?
ciao
Luigi
06-02-2011, 12:59 PM
That's exactly what I'm wondering right now too. Also, Black Magic makes a USB3 to SDI Scopebox... How about that?
06-02-2011, 01:04 PM
I've got Black Magic' Ultrascope on a PC next to my DaVinci. The scopes are -perhaps- a little more accurate, but realistically, I don't see much difference in the actual display. I've got a Citrix expansion chassis with two 285s and a RedRocket in it so performance is already amazing and the software scopes of Resolve have zero discernable performance impact from what I can percieve. The big difference is in being able to get reports out and set alarms, plus I can use the scopes outside of just Davinci...basically anytime I'm sending SDI out of the BM card, I get the same hi-quality scopes. This includes After Effects, Premiere Pro, FCP, and live capture/playback from camera when in the studio.
06-02-2011, 01:18 PM
The scopes in apps like Resolve are VERY good.
The scopes in external boxes are more accurate - especially if your workflow or delivery involves sending things out of the computer via SDI or some other means. What Resolve is doing on your box in digital space is almost certainly a bit different than what is going out via HD-SDI. So ... if you are finishing and delivering HDCAM SR over SDI, then you should be using external scopes.
There is a tiny little processing hit for scopes, and scopes in lots of applications like Final Cut for example, lose resolution on playback. (Have a look at the number of points in a static frame versus those during playback.)
Finally there is the display of the information. If you are like me, then you have not quite enough screen real estate for post. (This is most true in my NLE (FCP)) I can solve part of that with another monitor ... but if I can have dedicated scopes on their own display that's even better. Right now I have software scopes only ... and just two monitors plus external picture display. I hope to get a dedicated scope display and a third computer display, which will put me at 6 displays in my suite.
Now, for myself I prefer a combined hardware software approach, like the Black Magic Designs Ultrascope. Even better are the high end dedicated hardware scopes (Tektronix, Harris et. al)- those offer a good number of dedicated analysis modes that can tell you all sorts of interesting things about your picture.
06-02-2011, 01:50 PM
Thank you very much Alexander.... you definitely answered the question that I posted. Currently I'm using two 30" Apple Cinema Displays and a FSi 24" LM-2461W. I just posted this Tout video of my displays: http://www.tout.com/m/u1llbe
It's great to know that I can stick with these and that they are accurate. i'm not doing SDI out deliverables currently. The only issue I have is where do I put all these monitors... lol... my desk is so small.
I haven't noticed a difference but then again my 12 core is a beast.Originally Posted by luigivaltulini
06-02-2011, 01:57 PM
Great portable solution ... but it lacks optical connections, and it doesn't have as much display flexibility as the PCIe UltraScope.
Still, coupled with a cheap USB3 equipped laptop its a fantastic tool, especially for field use.
06-02-2011, 02:46 PM
You are more than welcome Andrae!
I have a HON "Curved Extension" Desk that is 60" Wide and 30-36" deep. (The "client side" of the desk is curved ... I just use that for more real estate though.) I like the desk, but it would be better for its intended use - as a working desk for client meetings and such. Its just a touch crowded - but honestly a little more organization might cure that.
I want to buy a sit/stand desk though. I hurt my back when I played hockey, and sitting all the time during post can be a killer. (as can Steadicam! Which is why I no longer own one- which I am starting to regret.)
I'm thinking about buying a kit and building my own. Being a film guy ... I'd probably incorporate a few cardellinni's and VESA to baby pin adapters to secure monitors, leaving almost the entire Desk surface for control surfaces and such.
I'm also thinking about upgrading to 27" or 30" monitors for the computer side - again more resolution and thus more screen real estate.
You can measure the additional CPU requirements ... but unless your system is on the edge of being unable to perform properly you won't notice it. It's really a minute thing.I haven't noticed a difference but then again my 12 core is a beast.
06-02-2011, 02:46 PM
The DaVinci scopes are good but they do use some resources to run them. Make sure you use Displays that are matched to the Davinci spec or you will have serious horse power loss. I don't know why this is but am told its in hand to fix. We use our Davinci systems with two displays one set with the Scopes running on one and the GUI on the other. The big advantage is that you can measure what you are processing internaly at the resolution you working at and not just measuring the HDSDI output on the video card at some other resolution. We deliver DPX sequences or data not tape so good 'internal' measuring tools are really important to us.
06-02-2011, 07:49 PM
Dave is correct, the internal scopes do use some CPU cycles and are resolution independent but also offer the ability to see the levels with or without the display LUT which is important if you are using a display LUT to match a film print out process. There is a checkbox on the config/luts tab.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
