HurtinMinorKey

No, it's not.  
 
Hack the Planet.
 
 
 
Your examples don't really impress me as much as maybe you were hoping.  One, I'm a licensed Houdini user and one of their, or used to be, top users worldwide, so I've never cared much what Maya ran on or how much it cost.  Too limited.  Two, I was one of the first Nuke users on the planet, version one, when it existed as a command-line only program in 1993 and nobody outside 300 Rose Ave.  could run it on anything but overpriced IRIX boxes.
 
I know full well what R+D and product development costs.  I'm also smart enough to recognize double-dipping.  It's their prerogative to do as they please and it's the consumer's prerogative to beware, be educated and more clever than they're being assumed to be.

To add to this - I am so disgusted by my C100 which has much worse AVCHD than the FS100 or 700. No-one who has bought it is admitting this on-line  - but it looks awful. Skin tones are horrific. If only the ML team could hack this!

A wise man once said, "They're not gonna kill shit, they're not gonna do shit. What can they do? They're a bunch of fuckin' amateurs"
 
FU Canon

A wise man once said, "They're not gonna kill shit, they're not gonna do shit. What can they do? They're a bunch of fuckin' amateurs"
 
FU Canon

More like $5K gets me 4k and c-log. The 1DX already comes with crappy "1080p" 4:2:0 and it only costs $6700.

I fuckin hate this camera. $12K, and it only records 1080 in 4:2:0 on board.  You have to be shitting me.

First and foremost, it does a good job telling the entire story in 77mins.

If you haven't ever seen the cartoon version of The Hobbit, then its well worth a look.
Here's some reasons why:
 
http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/brilliantbutcancelled/2012/12/5-reasons-to-re-watch-the-anim.php

As for the most important spec, does it come with a cool NASA logo?

The full frame video looks exactly like the 5D3.

I fuckin hate this camera. $12K, and it only records 1080 in 4:2:0 on board.  You have to be shitting me.

Although Xeon processors have a bigger cache, which makes them faster at some tasks, their biggest advantage is that they allow for more ram. But these days I think 32GB of RAM is plenty for editing video.

I thought the whole reason to be on Mac was to avoid the "hassle" of windows.  This hackintosh stuff all sounds like a big hassle. Just suck it up and come back to windows. 

Please don't confuse the i7 processors with the Xeon processors found in MacPros
 
i7 which are "desktop"
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/compare-intel-processors.html?select=desktop
Xeon which are "server" class processors
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/compare-intel-processors.html?select=server
 
You really haven't built a MacPro. You're closer to a 2011 iMac (Sandy Bridge i7) with some modifications.
Granted the MacPros haven't had a processor upgrade since 2010 (except for a minor speed bump). I'd expect the 2013 MacPro replacement will be using at lease Sandy Bridge Xeons. Xeons tend to be 1 generation behind. Current i7 is Ivy Bridge. Current Xeon is Sandy Bridge.
 
You might find this article interesting
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/review/2157358/intel-xeon-e5-2670-vs-core-i7-3960x-review
 
If you look at PCs with Xeon comparable Xeon processors, they are comparable to MacPro (when they were comparable in 2010) and my hunch will be in 2013 when MacPros get replaced.

I don't know. I'm talking about the best from each era. Budget has a lot to do with it, and so does the amount of time spent on it, and style/skill of the artists.  I feel like the T-Rex in Jurassic Park(1993) looks more realistic than any of the hulks.  Golem looks really good in some scenes from LOTR, but the Warg riders look stupid. 
 
I guess what I'm really saying is that given how good things looked 10 years ago, i thought they'd be much closer to having seamless CG characters.

SlashCam doing damage at EOSHD!  "all hells nawh!"

To clarify, two people use this account. My wife (Caroline) and I (Peter).  If the post is argumentative and or about tech it is usually me. If it's about style and/or has proper grammar, it's definitely her.   

The only thing that was truly "scary" about that clip is how good the ungraded footage looks. FUnkin Redonkulous.

The only thing that was truly "scary" about that clip is how good the ungraded footage looks. FUnkin Redonkulous.

These days, the marginal benefit per dollar spent on a lighting set up easily exceeds what you get from incrementally better camera tech.  I like to light things with a three light kit.
 
[url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/527159-REG/Arri_571979W_650W_Fresnel_Compact_3_Light.html"]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/527159-REG/Arri_571979W_650W_Fresnel_Compact_3_Light.html[/url]
 
You can always find cheaper generic versions of these too.
 
Most on camera lights these days are LED, and while they give you a nice soft light, they still don't have the best color.
 
I like this for on-camera:
[url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/185678-REG/Lowel_ID_02_ID_Light_100W_Focus_Flood.html"]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/185678-REG/Lowel_ID_02_ID_Light_100W_Focus_Flood.html[/url]

[url="https://vimeo.com/54325017"]https://vimeo.com/54325017[/url]

This footage looks better than anything I've seen from the FS700.

But, BMC still kicking both their asses.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1352923463' post='21648']
Haven't people been editing 4K Redcode Raw for years on Mac? The top of the line iMac has only a 2GB (mobile) card. Even the outdated pro has only 1GB (deskop) cards.
[/quote]

Different software uses different hardware acceleration. DaVinci Resolve supports (pretty modern) CUDA hardware.
Maybe it can be used without it (using CPU power instead.. but not sure..), but overall that support looks like big positive rather than negative thing. It's like DirectX for 3D in the past:
- First there were 3D games using mainly CPU
- Than showed up 3D games which needed GPU with Direct3D support and moved load from CPU to GPU. The improvement was amazing.

Today DaVinci moves load from CPU to GPU in video editing - thay do whole rendering calculations in GPU instead of CPU.
The modern hardware (CUDA) allows to build cheap powerfull workstations and go futher only by adding more graphic cards (which is widely supported today) rather than using whole CPU power (not to mention pricy multi CPU systems).

(ATI alternative to CUDA is unfortunately weaker.)

So please stop blaming DaVinci programmers that Mac's can't be customized and outdate so quickly.
If you have old PC, you could just swap your graphic card (for 300$) and enjoy smooth real-time 4K raw editing.

Now you know that you get iMacs stability and look(design) not for free.. You sacrifice customizability.


I'm happy to see computer hardware progressing so fast. It wouldn't be so fast without customizability of PCs (which make progress easier).
If 20 years ago there were only iMacs on the world (no PCs), you would be still playing 3D games using only CPU :). Because everybody would say: "That stupid NeedForSpeed Direct3D doesn't work on my almost new iMac with fastest CPU! Do they think I'll buy a new one just for 3D card? F...k them, let's play Saper!"


PS: I do have MacBook and I like it. But for workstation/server I would prefer PC.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1352900067' post='21621']
Images look stunning. Your review did a great job pointing out it's strengths. Using RAW makes it so much easier to get the exposure curve you want. Great stuff. I almost fell out of my chair looking at the shots of the ferris wheel. Couple questions about the hardware.

1.) Why are you convinced the workflow bottlekneck is in the GPU, and not in the CPU or Cache?
2.) Can you please provide the basic specs of your PC?
[/quote]

The CPU is a general purpose processor and raw needs a greater data throughput like 3D rendering does, or texture mapping in games. The GPU is purpose built for this kind of heavy number crunching so better suited to chewing through video than the CPU. But you need CUDA which adds a more programmable interface between the app and the GPU. ATI uses Open CL which is similar but not as well supported in Resolve.

Basic specs are i7 3.4Ghz 2700k, GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1.5GB, 8GB RAM.

Ideally you want to upgrade graphics to GeForce GTX 580 or 690 3GB and have 16GB RAM with an 480GB SSD boot drive.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1352900067' post='21621']
Images look stunning. Your review did a great job pointing out it's strengths. Using RAW makes it so much easier to get the exposure curve you want. Great stuff. I almost fell out of my chair looking at the shots of the ferris wheel. Couple questions about the hardware.

1.) Why are you convinced the workflow bottlekneck is in the GPU, and not in the CPU or Cache?
2.) Can you please provide the basic specs of your PC?
[/quote]

DaVinci Resolve uses actually 2 graphic cards:
- first for interface (probably may be simple integrated card)
- second with CUDA for rendering (using only CUDA cores, other graphic functions are useless)

So if you want smooth/fast preview and rendering - CUDA card is most important.

Of course you will need pretty good other component to not cripple your PC - fast CPU, HDD(SDD), lot of RAM.

Good info you can find in: http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/4805318/Resolve_Win_Config_Guide_2012-08-30.pdf or on their forum.

One River Media recently released a pretty good comparison video re 12 vs 8 bit color for grading with the bmcc.
http://vimeo.con/52269416