[Toby Risk]

Wow, this is a real stinker.

The one config you don’t say you’ve tried is the Nvidia on it’s own in slot 2.
Without the ATI occupying the power or bandwidth I wonder what the result is. I wonder also if by just doing that, it will kick the PCIe firmware hard enough that if it shows up as x16 on it’s own, it may remember that setting for slot 2 when you replace the ATI back into slot 1.

Otherwise i think you are into trying different card combinations.

Toby

Colourist | Editor | Post-Production Consultant — 23 years at the post-production coalface, and still loving it.

[Toby Risk]

Cool. Thanks.

Soon Please 😉

Toby

Colourist | Editor | Post-Production Consultant — 23 years at the post-production coalface, and still loving it.

[Toby Risk]

Do I need to worry about overloading the x4 slot?

Nah!, it’ll just limit it to 4 x max speed, but it may give you a pointer as to the cause of the problem.

The other thing I might try is to run in a bit of extra power for either the 5770 or the 4000 from somewhere.

Regards

Toby

Colourist | Editor | Post-Production Consultant — 23 years at the post-production coalface, and still loving it.

[Toby Risk]

Just as a matter of interest,
If you put the Quadro in Slot 3, does it come up as x1 or x4?
If you remove the ATTO and/or Decklink is there any change?
Are you able to try a different model of an ATI card in Slot 1?

Cheers
Toby

Colourist | Editor | Post-Production Consultant — 23 years at the post-production coalface, and still loving it.

[Toby Risk]

Hi
I have the JL Cooper MCS SPectrum/3000 combo which was the predecessor to the Eclipse.
It’s a fine control surface for the money, not up to the feel of a CP200 or the functionality of the DaVinci panel. But it gets the job done fine. The key mapping is pretty extensive for Resolve, but obviously there are limitations given the quantities of knobs and buttons available on the panel.
Mine works via ethernet not usb.
Cheers

Toby

Colourist | Editor | Post-Production Consultant — 23 years at the post-production coalface, and still loving it.

[Toby Risk]

Hi
I have a 2008 3.1 2×2.8Ghz quad core mac pro running Resolve 7.1 with a FX4000 with no problems.
Here’s my config
ATI 2600HD Slot 1 ( i know it’s not spec but it works just fine for the GUI) feeding 1 monitor for the GUI.
PNY Quadro FX4000 for Mac Slot 2 (i know this is a dumb question but you have checked the power cable for the Quadro is plugged in correctly right?)
Highpoint Rocketraid 3522 Slot 3
BMD HD Extreme 3 in Slot 4.
If it works for five minutes only and then goes down, it could be a power or heat issue.

Good luck

Toby

Colourist | Editor | Post-Production Consultant — 23 years at the post-production coalface, and still loving it.

[Toby Risk]

All other things being equal, I’d buy Scratch.

The main reasons being that on the PC version you can use the top end Nvidia cards with SDI daughterboards.
I also like the GUI on Scratch. I am constantly straining to read all the tiny labels and text on the DaVinci GUI, but in Scratch they are big and friendly, allthough in later releases the sheer number of options mean the menu structure has become quite convoluted.
Currently the Scratch conform and alternate clip versions are more powerful and easier to use, but this is an area where Resolve V8 may overtake Scratch with it’s multilevel timeline.

Scratch Finishing allows you to ‘finish’ the sequence whereas with Resolve currently you have to use another finishing tool to put the final text and overlaid graphics on it.

But things are not equal as the Scratch is 17 x the price of DaVinci. They both have there place. Scratch is more expensive but you can perform more of your workflow in the one tool. DaVinci has the edge with pure grading tools, but it’s only an slight edge.

Toby

Colourist | Editor | Post-Production Consultant — 23 years at the post-production coalface, and still loving it.

[Toby Risk]

“We saw it from companies with Avid suites when FCP came along”

Interesting point. The result was that we saw NLE development stagnate for 12 years.

Avid focussed on their hard core users, offering small incremental tweaks. FCP updates allowed users to throw anything on a timeline and to hell with the mess and disorganisation it created. This left Adobe with plenty of time to catch up which they eventually did.

Finally, we have just seen some real innovation in NLE’s with FCP X and its magnetic timeline. This one development will save millions of hours of Editor’s time and will result in better quality edits, as Editors can concentrate on editing and not timeline management.

Apple have finally put some resources into FCP because their position is finally being threatened with Avid MC’s price drop and compatibility with AJA hardware, and Adobe’s powerhouse in CS5. To top it all the Mac hardware platform lacks support for the fastest GPU’s out there. Without FCP X Apple will lose a lot of MBP and Mac Pro sales.

In response to FCP X, Avid and Adobe will have to innovate as well, which is fantastic, albeit a long time in coming.

This sort of innovation could have happened 7 years ago had FCP and Avid been competitive.
It didn’t, and they weren’t, because Apple didn’t need to price FCP at a point to make a profit and fund R&D, they priced it to sell hardware. Now they are at risk of losing hardware sales, they have been driven to do it.

All along Avid’s NLE was a better editor, maybe not as flexible but quicker to operate and far more robust in terms of media management. But the price positioning of FCP could only have resulted in 1 of 2 outcomes. 1) Avid didn’t feel they needed to innovate hugely because they were continuously told by their user base that their’s was the better product. 2) If Avid had entered a price war with Apple they would have lost and the chances are they would not have remained in the NLE business.

Is either of those scenarios what you want to happen to Assimilate, Iridas, Baselight, Quantel, Mystica and the others.

Time will tell whether the BMD pricing of Resolve will cause the same effect with colour grading systems.

So far I am pleased to say they are doing just the opposite, but we are still in their growth stage with the software. I wonder what will happen when DaVinci’s penetration flattens off, or when BMD gets bought by a much larger entity with more control from accountants not engineers or creatives.

Time will tell.

PS. Don’t believe this ‘democratization’ crap. It’s marketing speak. FCP and now DaVinci are primarily being driven by the prospect of hardware sales.

Colourist | Editor | Post-Production Consultant — 23 years at the post-production coalface, and still loving it.

[Toby Risk]

I thought I should weigh in here as this is a topic very close to my heart. Although I understand the motives behind pushing a free version of a software product. Increasing the talent pool, increasing market penetration, establishing a larger user base etc etc.. In the real rough and tumble competitive world of post-production it can be a self defeating exercise.

Those of us who have invested considerable sums of money in a grading infrastructure will now find ourselves competing against college kids who have been given a MBP for Christmas. Whilst some of these folks may rise to be among the hottest grading talent in the industry, and good luck to them, most will not.

I have seen this time and again with ‘Editors’ and I believe that the availability of low cost prosumer tools and software has created this situation. There are many media graduates out there who are willing to take the odd editing project for what is little more than pocket money and perform at best an average job on the product.

Eventually, working in an environment without peers, mentors or clients who push the boundaries of the craft, they will are not able to improve their equipment or increase their skill or income significantly from the first cash job they did. They usually become disenchanted, and leave the industry to persue other careers.

Meanwhile, the perception of value of the Editing and Grading craft is being reduced further and we are all constantly chasing ever decreasing budgets.

In a perfect world, clients would only care about who the Editor and Colourist is and couldn’t give a gnats ***** for the tools they use. In a perfect world we wouldn’t be competing against guys who have no real long term commitment to the craft. In reality I know this is not going to happen. But by making these tools so accessible, our craft is moving steadily down the value chain.

No I don’t wish for the bygone days of million dollar installations, but pricing software at a level so vastly disparate from the hardware required to run it at it’s optimum, I believe is damaging the industry.

I would have quite happily paid 5K to 10K USD for Resolve, which I believe would have priced it at a level beyond casual users, and enabled me to justify investing more in the auxillary equipment, as I would be able achieve a ‘reasonable rate’ for what I am doing.

Saying all that, the DaVinci team at BMD are doing a great job with the product, I just feel that the positioning of the product is to akin to FCP. Whilst that may not be a bad thing on the surface, it has far reaching consequences on our industry.

Just my two penneth.

Toby

Colourist | Editor | Post-Production Consultant — 23 years at the post-production coalface, and still loving it.

[Toby Risk]

Hi Rick

You may want to take a look at the EDL Export screenshot in this zip file, which should get you a working EDL. The other shots are for matching an EDL to DSLR footage.

1596_davinciconform.zip

Toby

Colourist | Editor | Post-Production Consultant — 23 years at the post-production coalface, and still loving it.