Clayton Burkhart
Forum Replies Created
-
PS> following up on the 2770 iMac idea…
If one was able to use external vid cards like the GTX285 or Quadro 4000 in a TB breakout box scenario as mentioned by the OP, would the AMD Radeon HD 6770M on the iMac 27″ be able to function with it? Not even sure if that card is Open CL or not…
-
What about the GUI interface problem (requiring a minimum size larger than most macbooks)?
Seems like a great solution for iMac’s though. I would certainly prefer a 27″ iMac with a 2nd video monitor than a tower these days…
-
Does anyone know if Resolve can be run on an Quadro FX 5800 card? I know it is not in the configuration guide, but wondering if it wouldn’t be compatible anyhow…
-
[Christopher Tay] “You won’t be able to put 2 x Quadro4000 cards in the Mac Pro”
According to page 16 of the Resolve Configuration guide, you absolutely can put 2 Quadro 4000 cards in (slots 1 and 2).
-
So basically what you are saying Sascha is that if one uses CS5 and Davinci equally, the best configuaration are actually 2 Nvidia Quadro 4000 cards, one for driving cpu permutations for Adobe 64bit + UI and the other for driving Davinci?
-
I am particularly concerned about this last point related to the notion that Davinci doesn’t like screen sizes which are less than 1920. I have an FSI grading monitor, the 1770W – which is a grade 1 monitor but less than 1920 in size. If this is not acceptable then I am certainly going to have to rethink Davinci. Too many hardware requirements without having to now purchase a 24″ FSI as well. Does anyone know if the new Resolve is compatible with the FSI 1770?
-
It asks for a serial number for Resolve Lite, which is absurd. Has anybody at BM bothered to check their own download site?
-
Resolve is one big Color FX room. It is node based and not only that but you can apply everything in any order you desire with parameters that are much more complete.
-
Face detection functions by tracking groups of pixels, it is far more accurate than a simple selection of HSL values. Even if we were only to have tolerance adjustable sliders with the face detection algorithms, the tracking and the quality of selection would be far more accurate than a garbage mask and an HSL selection. Values bleeding into the background are particularly troublesome with the more traditional methods.
I guarantee that the correction software that incorporates this kind of technology into it’s product would have an instant fanbase, especially with large production houses who deal with these kind of issues every day. In terms of time savings it would be a godsend for them.
-
Frankly, some of the hostility in the responses I am seeing is amazing to me. I am not talking about some kind of automated process out of laziness. I am talking about using a legitimate technology as a timesaving device for isolating faces, because a great majority of the work we do is correcting faces. The capacity to create automated masks defining the borders of a face already exists, why not use it?
There is nothing particularly noble in having to do this by hand, frame by frame, if it can be done more expediently. Think about that the next time you find that an elliptical blur is not accurate enough and you have 20 seconds of footage with an underexposed face against a beige wall, which is not only moving as a target, but shifting between profile and straight on.