[Ola Haldor voll]

Hmmm, interesting… So then it all comes down to how much CPU power you really need then.. ? The 2008 and 2009 models are very different in CPUs. As I’ve understood this – the 2009 has a i7-ish XEON, while the 2008 has a Core 2 Quad-ish CPU. But if it’s possible to use either one, I’ll stick to the old one and save some more money for a Resolve panel instead. Muhahaa.

[Ola Haldor voll]

Well…..

Blackmagic UltraScope – Minimum System Requirements

Operating System
Mac OS X 10.6.2 Snow Leopard

Mac Pro
2 x 2.8 Quad-Core Intel Xeon
RAM
4 GB or more

Graphics Card
Blackmagic Ultrascope requires a graphics card that supports OpenGL 2.1 or better. The following graphic cards have been verified to be compatible:

EVGA GTX 285

Screen Resolution
1920×1200
1920×1080
1280×800 (via 2-Up interface)

I still don’t know if there’s any scopes in DaVinci, and by the looks of it I can have DaVinci interface on one monitor and UltraScopes on the other. All I have to do is use the second SDI monitor output from the Decklink card and loop it to the UltraScope card. Nice!

[Ola Haldor voll]

As the AppleStore states, a Mac Pro 2009 is required.

[Ola Haldor voll]

I’ve also pre-ordered, and by the looks of it (from a video I found on these forums) I need at least a GeForce GT120, and for that, I need at least a Mac Pro 2009 model. Mine is early 2008, so I’ll need to get a new Mac to get DaVinci up and running in the first place. I don’t mind, I just wish there was some specifications and system requirements on their website so we can plan ahead and get what we need and be ready to install the software from day one!

[Ola Haldor voll]

I’ve seen in writing and heard from a BMD rep at NAB in several videos that Decklink HD Extreme is supported, and I would think the others in this price range is too.

[Ola Haldor voll]

The GT120 mainly handles the GUI display and currently is the only other graphics card supported, and is required.

In other words, you’re saying we need a GeForce GT 120, which requires at least a Mac Pro early 2009 model?

Interesting.. if so I won’t be able to run Resolve from day one.. Better start saving up for a new Mac Pro asap then.

[Ola Haldor voll]

Um.. well.. didn’t “they” say that when Color was known to be part of FCS too? I started my color grading career because of Color. I knew Final Touch existed, but I simply couldn’t pay the price.

When Color came with FCS, I ordered an upgrade right away and got going with it. As things developed, I started offering color grading as another of my services, and ever since, I’ve been busy with different kind of projects. I don’t think the DP or director is too interested in doing it themselves.

ONE time have I been struck by the “You’re too expensive, so I’ll do it myself”, but then again, he was the director, producer, DP, editor.. everything.. Not a team player.

[Ola Haldor voll]

Good answer. Brings a few new thoughts to the table.

[Ola Haldor voll]

As of this video ( https://www.macvideo.tv/editing/features/index.cfm?articleId=3222371 ) they’re looking into it. Promising news.

So it’s not a matter of “if”. Support for third party panels will be there. The thing is: will it be trowing money out the window buying a Da Vinci panel vs. something else.

What I’m thinking is that the only reason to get a Da Vinci panel is to let go of the Wacom and keyboard as main tools for this circus we’re doing – but can the price difference really make up for it ?

[Ola Haldor voll]

I’m considering what panel to get for the moment of truth: the unboxing of Da Vinci in my very own suite at work.

I’m drooling after the Da Vinci panel of course, but will it justify the price tag vs. the Euphonix? I had the pleasure of testing the Euphonix panel a few days and I was very pleased by the size and ergonomics.

The news about Da Vinci caught me off guard, thus I have not ordered a panel yet. Therefore I’m thinking about “going all the way” with the Da Vinci panel.

So, again. will the price tag really justify the difference and between these two ?