Help! DaVinci Resolve and Hardware Specs etc

[Oliver Daniel]

I am an iMac User, and I currently edit music videos for a living using Final Cut Pro X, which is a near perfect editor for (usually) fast turnaround videos. I get by using many plugins to help with looks and grading.

 

I regularly use the GH3 and FS700, but find myself using more footage each day from 10 bit cameras. I have not shot raw yet, but I intend to use it as a tool when needed in future.

 

My work usually requires heavy colour grading for strong, stylistic shots (with great results on 8bit!) but as I'm getting better at grading and more interested in colour, I find my hardware cant even keep up in FCPX, let alone anything like DaVinci Resolve, which I intend to learn and use in the very near future. 

 

My business intends to keep using cmas such as the GH3 for lower end, simple work - but we are going to invest in 10bit + in Q1 2014 as we aim to bring our strong visual artsy style into the cinematic. (we also have allsorts of grip equipment to achieve such shots and a BeStedy gyro unit coming!)

 

I have enough computer tech to get me by and make basic decisions on hardware. As some of you guys are more computer-technically knowledgable than me, I need some advice about upgrading/buying new hardware to support heavier post work. 

 

My current Mac (model 27 inch, 2011) spec is:

• 3.1 GHz Intel Core i5
• 12GB 1333 Mhz DDR3 RAM
• AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1024 MB
• 1TB HD

 

I know thats pretty crap right now for what I want to achieve, but I do get by currently and get some great, distinctive results. Its been successful so far!

 

Before anyone says, I'm stubborn or won't ever consider using a PC as I've been hypnotised by Apple. I'm open for using Adobe Premiere as I know they have added intuitive features (better multicam and controls), but I'm Apple all the way. No PC. 

 

I know the Mac Pro has been announced, but don't have the knowledge to know if its worth the money over say a souped up iMac. 

 

For upgrade or new Mac (budget aside but not ridiculous), what would you advise me? 

 

Thanks in advance. 

 

 

[Axel]

I can't give advice, since I am in a similar situation as you (amateur, but with some cinematic taste and education, quite ambitious, neither poor nor wealthy). So I just share my thoughts.

 

First of all, as I see it, the platform only matters if you are willing to give up FCP X. 

 

Adobe has it's own virtues, but having access to both softwares (my best friend uses Premiere CC on a PC) and having used a classic NLE (FCP 'legacy') for more than ten years, I am convinced that FCP X makes so many things such a lot easier in every respect. And that nobody so far can explain to me the advantages of the traditional MOi (Yeah, I know, if a production is dependant on in-house workflows, slowly developed over years).

 

On the other hand, for serious work with dedicated software like Adobe, nobody can explain the advantages of OSX on a Mac. Not as long as you are not willing to pay substancially more for nicer design - but in many cases lower performance. The performance-argument only doesn't count if you put efficiency into the calculation. Which again means FCP X.

 

Resolve, as I have learnt, needs RAM as well as GPU. So since your GPU is too limited to really unleash the beast and you don't want to change the platform, your options (like mine, I have a MacPro early 2009 with only Nvidia GT 120, which means 512 MB) are:

 

> Buy a used classic MacPro - 'cheese grater' - for round about 1200-1500 € (as you know, old Macs sell better than old PCs)

> Insert a second 2GB graphic card, better yet a 4GB graphic (like the GTX 680 Kepler, ~600 €, all 'certified' Nvidia cards are ridiculously expensive), use the smaller one for GUI only.

> Stuff at least 16 GB of RAM into it. 

 

This will be way over 2000 € in any case.

 

If you spent that much, you'll expect FCP 10.1 to take advantage of the second graphic card too. PC users stare at render benchmarks and compare CPU horsepower, which is less important for FCP X, which likes memory and GPU the most and, wisely configured, has finished rendering before you finished editing (somewhat exaggerated, I know). But we don't know yet if it will.

 

The new MacPro will. I think that even the basic modell (3000 bucks) will be the absolute overkill for anything, as long as you don't change to 4k production. Of course it would be naive fallacy to think you get a working system with that. You have to take into account all the Thunderbolt periphery that's also needed. To me it looks as if such a device with external raids was on the mind of the FCP X engineers from the start. What is the first thing you are prompted to do? Assign harddrives. Other software let's you first navigate to drives and folders, here you are asked to manage them.

 

That's where I stand with my considerations.

[Nikkor]

I don't agree on the nvidia 680, it's good for games but for cuda stuff I think it's slower than the 580.

[Axel]

I don't agree on the nvidia 680, it's good for games but for cuda stuff I think it's slower than the 580.

That's why I feel so uncertain about what to do.

[Oliver Daniel]

Cheers for that information, its much appreciated. 

 

I know sod all about graphics cards, I try to read into it but totally switch off. When it comes to cameras, I'm engrossed like a beast!

 

My work is very serious, pro-level stuff. I've got clients paying in the thousands for their videos on a regular basis (of those thousands I see only a fraction, expenses and all), and I get by with what I have now, but with progress comes a time when you need to step up another level. Its a personal artistic thing mostly, besides from the fact I'm trying to attract bigger clients! 

 

I'm interested in 4k only for its downsampling to 1080p and re-framing options. If the GH4 rumours are true, I'll likely buy it - so if anything, I would give 4k a go. But its not that important really. More interested in awesome 1080p and 10 bit grading (and a bit of raw)

 

I'd like to know if anyone could be kind enough to advise me (again, I won't go PC, its like changing back to Y-fronts, it wont happen)

• Could I boost up my current Mac (and to what cost)
• Or would it be worth buying a new iMac or MacPro (what would an investment an a MacPro mean for me? Longevity? Power?)

 

Cheers

[Oliver Daniel]

Just to show you an example of the work I do and how far I've pushed it, here is my showreel: 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0eo6BDuUGQ

 

 

In the showreel, I was the camera operator, the DOP, the editor and colorist of every single video you see here. All 8-bit cameras on FCP7 and FCPX.

 

And I want to push this further now with more power behind the hood!! 

[Julian]

My work is very serious, pro-level stuff. I've got clients paying in the thousands for their videos on a regular basis (of those thousands I see only a fraction, expenses and all), and I get by with what I have now, but with progress comes a time when you need to step up another level. Its a personal artistic thing mostly, besides from the fact I'm trying to attract bigger clients! 

 

So get a MacPro (new one). Sounds like you can justify it for the kind of work you do. Starts at $3/€3K. With the kind of (compressed) files you are using you don't need to max it out with all the upgrades like a 12 core CPU.

 

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/22/mac-pro-2013-launch-date/

Basic configuration with 3.7Ghz Quad Core, 12GB, 256GB SSD seems fine. Not sure about the GPU's, it's a Dual AMD FirePro D300 (2x2GB). If you pay more you'll get better GPU's. The $4K version with 6-core CPU, 16GB, 2x D500 GPU's (2x3GB) sounds killer. I'd say wait for some some reviews to see what you need exactly and how they perform. You do need an external storage solution but that makes sense anyway.

 

Upgrading an excisting iMac is kinda impossible. You need a better graphics card. There are external options that work via Thunderbolt I think. But your mac probably doesn't even have thunderbolt. Also not sure if this is a great idea - you could look into it though.

 

Buying and old MacPro seems like waste of money to me. They still might be powerfull now, but spend the extra for a new one and you're futureproof.

 

The MacPro is a lot of money, but it's an investment over time. GPU wise an iMac is never going to get close, unless you go for an external GPU solution.

 

If you want to go cheap, the PC route gives much more options though...

[Axel]

I second that.

 

In the meantime, I recommend Alexis van Hurkmans Ripple Training on Resolve. With your affinity to color grading, you will learn it in a week or so. You will see how very limited FCP X is when it comes to serious grading, especially with Resolves aid of organizing nodes (instead of just stacking corrections), tracking vignettes and much finer controls. And then, if you suffer because you see a preview of, let me guess, three to six fps, you will know that working in realtime is no inappropriate luxury. 

[HurtinMinorKey]

So get a MacPro (new one). Sounds like you can justify it for the kind of work you do. Starts at $3/€3K. With the kind of (compressed) files you are using you don't need to max it out with all the upgrades like a 12 core CPU.

 

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/22/mac-pro-2013-launch-date/

Basic configuration with 3.7Ghz Quad Core, 12GB, 256GB SSD seems fine. Not sure about the GPU's, it's a Dual AMD FirePro D300 (2x2GB). If you pay more you'll get better GPU's. The $4K version with 6-core CPU, 16GB, 2x D500 GPU's (2x3GB) sounds killer. I'd say wait for some some reviews to see what you need exactly and how they perform. You do need an external storage solution but that makes sense anyway.

 

Upgrading an excisting iMac is kinda impossible. You need a better graphics card. There are external options that work via Thunderbolt I think. But your mac probably doesn't even have thunderbolt. Also not sure if this is a great idea - you could look into it though.

 

Buying and old MacPro seems like waste of money to me. They still might be powerfull now, but spend the extra for a new one and you're futureproof.

 

The MacPro is a lot of money, but it's an investment over time. GPU wise an iMac is never going to get close, unless you go for an external GPU solution.

 

If you want to go cheap, the PC route gives much more options though...

 

 

With the mac pro you will still be bottleneck with storage reads, and you don't need the killer server processors unless you plan on doing 3D rendering. The 4700 series CPU on the iMacs will be more than enough for encoding.

 

I'd go with the top speced iMac with Nvidia 780M, you'll be fine. Importantly you'll need some sort of Thunderbolt RAID array if you want to work with raw or high bit depth 4K.  They are expensive, but fast storage is a must, and only second in importance to a good GPU. 

[Oliver Daniel]

Thanks for the kind advice so far! Really appreciate it. 

 

With the mac pro you will still be bottleneck with storage reads, and you don't need the killer server processors unless you plan on doing 3D rendering. The 4700 series CPU on the iMacs will be more than enough for encoding.

 

I'd go with the top speced iMac with Nvidia 780M, you'll be fine. Importantly you'll need some sort of Thunderbolt RAID array if you want to work with raw or high bit depth 4K.  They are expensive, but fast storage is a must, and only second in importance to a good GPU. 

 

The Mac Pro does seem beastly. I don't understand them as much as I do an iMac, and I would definitely prefer that over the cylinder-tower -dustbin due to overall cost, considering the need for a decent Thunderbolt array and displays. Which one? Pegasus? Lacie 2Big?

 

I don't plan to do 3D stuff, I have no interest in it apart from creating graphical titles or processing plugin effects in a few keyframes. Any serious VFX work gets outsourced and always will do. 

 

My focus is heavy, highly stylised colour grading with a cinematic edge. Having raw and 4k power is definately something I'd rather have than not. So if a top spec iMac is more than capable then I'd prefer that. Compression will only get better, so I thing a model like this will have more longevity.

 

Thanks for the heads up on tutorials also Axel, will definitely do that! 

 

When it comes to programs such as DaVinci, what is the major difference for my use, between the Lite version and the full version? 

[Oliver Daniel]

A sort-of top specced iMac comes in at around £2700 and the starter Mac Pro £2499 for UK prices. Obviously they will offer options to soup up the Pro machine,which will be more money. Its all about the return on the investment really. 

 

I think I'm going to wait and keep out a keen eye on what the peeps say. This computer world is barmy. 

[Julian]

With the mac pro you will still be bottleneck with storage reads, and you don't need the killer server processors unless you plan on doing 3D rendering. The 4700 series CPU on the iMacs will be more than enough for encoding.

 

I'd go with the top speced iMac with Nvidia 780M, you'll be fine. Importantly you'll need some sort of Thunderbolt RAID array if you want to work with raw or high bit depth 4K.  They are expensive, but fast storage is a must, and only second in importance to a good GPU. 

 

When is storage read speed going to be a problem? You can hook up external raid configurations, ssds, or whatever with tunderbolt at speeds the same as internal drives.

 

The CPU on the iMacs is fine, it's all about the GPU's. If you do serious work in Resolve with a decent amount of nodes, you'll need GPU power for realtime playback. A 780M is a GPU made for laptops, it's not going to come any near a discrete GPU card, or a double one like in the MacPro. Yes, the MacPro might be overkill, but I think the built in GPU in an iMac is'nt very futureproof. Enough to work with a few nodes on relatively simple stuff, but what if you want to do something complex, with speed? We're talking about a pro environment here...

 

Also an iMac with a lot of options is pretty expensive, so why go that route?

 

 

When it comes to programs such as DaVinci, what is the major difference for my use, between the Lite version and the full version? 

 

The lite version does 1080p max, but apart from that it is the full thing - which is pretty amazing indeed :)

[Axel]

The lite version does 1080p max, but apart from that it is the full thing - which is pretty amazing indeed :)

No longer. Since #10 the resolution is unlimited for lite (I think, read their spec sheet for confirmation). Limitation: No noise removal, no 3D.

New in 10: Can make speed ramps. Important for music videos. Spares you one roundtrip. Workflow: You make the edit decision in FCP X, but delete the clip again leaving a gap as placeholder. You connect the clip @100% with the gap clip and then export the project to Resolve, where you rebuild the ramp (not yet in the tutorial, found out myself).

EDIT: This sounds unnecessarily complicated. You could ask, why don't you just re-import the baked-in time-clip before exporting to Resolve?

Because I try to establish a workflow for raw, proxy of course, in advance, for when my Pocket arrives.

[HurtinMinorKey]

When is storage read speed going to be a problem? You can hook up external raid configurations, ssds, or whatever with tunderbolt at speeds the same as internal drives.

 

That was my point: the internal drives are usually are not fast/large enough. You need to go external. Also, the 780M may not be the most overpowered out there, but if you are working in something like Prores, it'll run a dozen nodes just fine.

[Axel]

For my purposes, adding some graphic power really seems enough. It's just about Resolves real time.

 

However, I can't help but being very impressed by the extreme power of the new MacPro. 16 simultaneously running Multicamera streams in 4k? 

 

Some PC tinkerers boasted they could build such a machine with the original components (which are third-party) for a fraction of the price. They ended with 2/3 of the Apple price, a big housing, lots of ventilators ('no one in his right mind allows one fan to cool such a system! What if it brakes?') and no Thunderbolt. On paper. And no OSX. And very probably no 16 pips 4k ...

 

EDIT: The critics assume that the multiclip runs in 1/32 resolution, which would prove nothing, since many existing systems could perform that*. Sounds reasonable. So let's not be carried away (I tell myself).

 

*EDIT2: Could they really? Isn't this rather about data rates than about resolution?

[Oliver Daniel]

I just couldn't use a PC. Maybe this sounds shallow or totally head shaking to some, but i just can't. The whole experience of using a Mac is miles better and worth the money on a psychological level!

 

I think I have decided to wait on a new Mac purchase, although I'm warming to the Mac Pro - because overkill sounds great. Just enough power isn't enough. I think it will suit my needs well and into the future. 

 

Monitors...... haven't though about this one yet....

[Francisco Rios]

Does anybody knows if is it posible to use the imac 27 as a monitor with these new Mac Pro?

I think maybe somebody of us got already an imac. These monitor is great and would be even more if we can use it as a monitor with a Mac Pro, so we can save some money. :-)

Best.

[Axel]

I think I have decided to wait on a new Mac purchase, although I'm warming to the Mac Pro - because overkill sounds great. Just enough power isn't enough. I think it will suit my needs well and into the future.

 

Michael Cioni, post production supervisor and workflow advisor for quite a lot of fat cinema releases (see imdb), appears in a vimeo clip dealing with "noteworthy innovations in production & post". The whole video is quite interesting, but particularly what he says about FCP X. Starting at 13'42" he explains that this is the only NLE so far that actually intelligently organizes your sources from the moment you plug in your card(s) or SSD(s). 

 

The instant preview without useless folder structures but instead with the most advanced tagging system conceivable makes editing so logic, that even starters (perhaps better than experienced cutters) learn it within minutes, and, quoting from this article:

In fact, in one afternoon, my 21 year old Bulgarian assistant got further ahead processing footage in FCP X than the entire Avid Unity department had gotten to that point in a week.  In 5 hours, she had processed, synced, and made Multicam Clips for 7 days of 5k Epic footage within FCP X for a 100 million dollar feature film.  Prior to this project, she had no feature film editing credits.

 

 

That is what the new MacPro will be good at: Editing. There are really much faster beasts on the market when the render benchmarks count. And it will be not so good with Premiere. There is not yet clarity about CUDA vs. OpenCL, but aside from this, Premiere can't at the same time preview, qualify, tag, import, backup and edit the sources - and switch at any time between connected volumes. It is, like AVID, a timeline that happens to have an, er, media browser.

http://vimeo.com/73797466#