3 monitor set up?

curious if there is a way to do a 3 monitor set up, 1 color page, 1 scopes and timeline, and one full screen?

curious if there is a way to do a 3 monitor set up, 1 color page, 1 scopes and timeline, and one full screen?

Yes, but it's called "dual display" I think. The 3rd display is connected to your decklink device and isn't counted. That's how I'm using Resolve.

I think though, in the color tab, it's not scopes and timeline, but scopes and still image gallery. To really see the timeline one needs to go to the edit tab and the timeline shows up where the color controls were.

There's not much customization of the GUI allowed in Resolve.

i dont have a decklink i wasnt sure if there was a way to do it without it, i have a laptop, calibrated monitor hooked up via displayport and another monitor via HDMI, i can get 2 sreens but the third is a duplicate

i dont have a decklink i wasnt sure if there was a way to do it without it, i have a laptop, calibrated monitor hooked up via displayport and another monitor via HDMI, i can get 2 sreens but the third is a duplicate

The Intensity Shuttle (USB3) can act as a Decklink I believe.

[Peter Chamberlain]

Resolve supports single or dual UI screens. The calibrated viewing monitor source needs to come from a BMD video card.

im only using a total of 2 screens, my laptop and a Benq hooked up with displayport. would i still need a card? if so.. would The Intensity Shuttle (USB3) work?

really? you have to buy a $200 product just to use a 3rd screen? there has to be another way.

really? you have to buy a $200 product just to use a 3rd screen? there has to be another way.

the nice addition is that the third monitor will be calibrated and resolve will be in total control.

That is THE main advantage. Any professional post/color house works in that way.

really? you have to buy a $200 product just to use a 3rd screen? there has to be another way.

Actually, you can buy the Mini-Monitor for under $130 if you shop around. (I've seen them for as little as $80 on eBay on occasion).

This is covered on pp. 667-668 of the Resolve 14.3 manual: "Limitations When Grading With the Viewer on a Computer Display." This goes into some detail why you cannot accurately monitor directly from the computer and operating system. You have to have a color-managed output, like one from a Blackmagic display card, preferably on a calibrated external Rec709 display.

Many post houses routinely have dedicated scopes (outside Resolve), a video card providing a "hero" display for grading, and one or two monitors for the GUI. A lot depends on how you want to work, how much space you have, and your available budget.

Marc is absolutely on-point, so don't let Peter Chamberlain's unwitting sweeping generalization scare you away from considering Blackmagic Design's budget-friendly option, the MiniMonitor -- provided your computer's Display Port is actually Thunderbolt 2 compliant (such a port is often marked nearby, with the Thunderbolt logo).

Resolve supports single or dual UI screens. The calibrated viewing monitor source needs to come from a BMD video card.

So by "card" I want to believe Peter C. is including under that category, the nifty little, Thunderbolt 2 based UltraStudio MiniMonitor.

It works beautifully, too -- being powered from the mini-display Thunderbolt 2 port on my now-aging gaming notebook, to feed a calibrated big screen Bravia.

RS 14.3.0.014 | MiniMonitor | DTV 10.9.7 | Win64 8.1 | ASUS ROG G751JL, Intel i7HQ, 24GB, 1TB HDD, 500GB EVO 850 SSD, GTX965M | Mackie MCU Pro | Softube Console 1 | Shuttle Pro 2

There were so many people already asking for this kind of improvements, whiteout any concessions on BMDs side, that it looks quite pointless to debate it again.

but i really have to disagree with a few statements here in this thread, and also like to encourage those others, which once again articulated a very natural and legitimate desire.

sure -- if you work in professional studio environments on expensive professional equipment, dedicated SDI-video-output-solutions are more a less the most obvious choice. but this doesn't have to be true for much more moderate demands of video production on common desktop machines, notebooks and more affordable IPS computer screens.

SDI output is more ore less useless for this kind of work, and HDMI connections are also a very problematic choice, because many affordable screens do not accept 10bit connection over this kind of wiring. display port connections are a much more suitable type of transport for higher bitdepth at nowadays common frame rates and resolution between computers and screens. and this alternative works in fact much more reliable and compatible with most affordable IPS computer screens, than any of the more broadcast oriented approaches. even by utilizing just an intel iGPU you can draw by this means in up to 12bit depth and all common frame rates and resolutions on this kind of devices in the meanwhile.

and although many of this mentioned screens are in fact not as good and color accurate as their tech specs and PR may promise, because the often use quite limited 8bit+FRC panels in practice, it's still useful to use all this actual technical possibilities and bitdeph surplus of the connection, to make at least use of them in the most efficient possible way. nobody sane will misunderstand this kind of compromises as an suitable and equal replacement for much more expensive high end equipment, but it may work in an acceptable manner for much less demanding practical work.

and if we talk about satisfying solutions of monitoring, the output connectivity is only one piece of the whole game. screen resp. output calibration should be IMHO seen as a much more important aspect!

and as most of this cheaper display options do not support hardware calibration at all or handle it in unacceptable insufficient manner, software calibration resp. the use of compensation LUTs e.g. in resolve shouldn't be rejected out of hand. in fact, it may lead even to much better actual results than a LUT-box in the middle, which often can not max out all the available higher bitdeph because of the already mentioned common HDMI obstacles.

It's therefore not just a naive desire of ordinary users, which simply would like to use this most obvious choice of connectivity in practice, it also makes a lot of sense from a technical point of view! i'm also quite sure, that off the shelf common computer hardware and its video output capabilities will supersede the actual solutions in professional video production envrionments in the long run too. but the latter is just my personal expectation. you don't have to agree on that.

it's really a pity, that BMD doesn't allow their users to utilize this alternative form of monitoring just as another possible option. i really don't know any other serious video processing solutions, which wood look similar restrictive in this regard. no matter if you look at the cheap and simple ones, or at the real prestigious high end solutions, the all support both modes of monitoring and let the users choose, which one fits better to their actual needs! resolve is really the only one, which still isn't able to handle this kind of frequently requested option in a more flexible but yet suitable manner.

I again point to the manual as to what the manufacturer and designers of Resolve actually recommend. Anybody who chooses to try to color correct off a computer display does so at their own risk.

I would also refer the user to Alexis Van Hurkman's Color Correction Handbook and Steve Hullfish's Art & Technique of Digital Color Correction. Both of these books have the same advice on using a color managed output and a calibrated display. There are ways of doing this simply and economically.

output calibration should be IMHO seen as a much more important aspect!

And in a way, this is exactly why BMD makes it a condition to utilize a video I/O solution, whether it is an outboard Mini-Monitor, UltraStudio or a PCIe card, or what have you. It appears to be beyond the consumer-commodity-based manufacturer's mindset to sort out display spaces, gamuts and industry conformance. History to date, they just don't care, (Fred and Marge can't tell the difference) and it eats into their margins. The other issue is that the graphics displays that are being sold for a few hundred dollars can't even approach the overall linearity that a grade-spec display is expected to achieve.

Yes, there is a way to use a calibration strategy on the preview UI; a good probe, CalMan or Lightspace in order to intervene ie: override an operating system's ColorSync and internal management with something like Client3 ICC manager... that is budgetarily the same as doing it right in the first place, though.

jPo, CSI

And in a way, this is exactly why BMD makes it a condition to utilize a video I/O solution, whether it is an outboard Mini-Monitor, UltraStudio or a PCIe card, or what have you.

The first time I used a Mini Monitor with Resolve I was puzzled as to why the monitoring output was always different from the actual output-- turns out I had to set the monitor's gamma to MAC when connected to the Mini Monitor rather than PC which is the default and gives correct colours through standard GPU output. So much for all this "accuracy" people keep harping on about on this forum!

Let's skip all the nonsense and address the elephant in the room: BMD just wants to keep selling Mini Monitors, Decklinks and UltraStudios.

What about BM implementing proper GUI preview using OpenGL with color management separated from OS+ proper refresh rates switching and locking to display (aka Flame)? GPUs are way more powerful and capable today than any SDI card. Time to end this "SDI preview" legacy, so people can have nice RGB 10/12bit preview out of GPU without any RGB<->YUV conversions, additional delay, resource stress and expense
DisplayPort ot HDMI are more than enough for most small/mid studio needs.

I would be way more happy to pay 500$ for such a Resolve than be forced to keep buying SDI cards (+BM could probably make more money on it than on actual cards).

So by "card" I want to believe Peter C. is including under that category, the nifty little, Thunderbolt 2 based UltraStudio MiniMonitor.

It works beautifully, too -- being powered from the mini-display Thunderbolt 2 port on my now-aging gaming notebook, to feed a calibrated big screen Bravia.

So are you using that Bravia for color grading?

I'm a bit confused about my options for an UltraStudio to connect to a monitor for grading HD-only video: BMD's website says the UltraStudio 4K is ideal for color-grading, but the MiniMonitor is way less expensive and smaller and I'm hoping that'll do the trick. I have an Eizo CG277 10-bit monitor, which isn't suitable for professional color grading but should work for my nonprofessional purposes. The 4K and the Mini are the only two Ultrastudios with regular Thunderbolt connections instead of Thunderbolt 3, and I'm using a Mac Pro 2013 so I only have Thunderbolt 2.

I have an Eizo CG277 10-bit monitor, which isn't suitable for professional color grading but should work for my nonprofessional purposes.

Well- it's good monitor and accurate when calibrated. It supports all bits needed for video signals (many refresh rates, etc) has good 10bit panel. It even accepts 4K signal and scales to its 2K panel.
Do you expect Bravia to be more accurate/pro?

[
Do you expect Bravia to be more accurate/pro?

No, I was just trying not to claim that the Eizo is a "professional" grading monitor -- I read a very detailed review the other day saying that it is not suitable for critical grading purposes. But it's half the price of a comparably sized FSI monitor, so I compromised.

I think you have done right thing.
I wonder what is actually so much worse in it compared to FSI LCD standard model.
When it comes to accuracy I doubt FSI is any better.

I'm a bit confused about my options for an UltraStudio to connect to a monitor for grading HD-only video: BMD's website says the UltraStudio 4K is ideal for color-grading, but the MiniMonitor is way less expensive and smaller and I'm hoping that'll do the trick.

It depends on your requirements. Mini Monitor will do 10-bit HDMI 4:4:4 or 10-bit SDI 4:2:2 at up to 1080p30. If that's all you want, then you don't need a more expensive model.

Lets not forget that their are several reasons someone might want to use more than 2 screens, that has nothing to do with grading.

So by "card" I want to believe Peter C. is including under that category, the nifty little, Thunderbolt 2 based UltraStudio MiniMonitor.

It works beautifully, too -- being powered from the mini-display Thunderbolt 2 port on my now-aging gaming notebook, to feed a calibrated big screen Bravia.

So are you using that Bravia for color grading?

I'm a bit confused about my options for an UltraStudio to connect to a monitor for grading HD-only video: BMD's website says the UltraStudio 4K is ideal for color-grading, but the MiniMonitor is way less expensive and smaller and I'm hoping that'll do the trick. I have an Eizo CG277 10-bit monitor, which isn't suitable for professional color grading but should work for my nonprofessional purposes. The 4K and the Mini are the only two Ultrastudios with regular Thunderbolt connections instead of Thunderbolt 3, and I'm using a Mac Pro 2013 so I only have Thunderbolt 2.

In all candor, the UltraStudio MiniMonitor-driven, color-calibrated big screen Bravia is being used for visual checks against my "technically illegal" use of a gaming notebook's* HDMI-connected, color-calibrated consumer-grade 28" Samsung UHD display (the upper half of which accommodates Resolve's Timeline Viewer(s), while the remainder comprises the EDIT page or COLOR page timeline); Scopes, Mixer and Gallery are targeted onto the notebook's native HD display.

But you sound as if you *could* buy the actual 4K card. I'd do it, if the additional performance is deemed useful.
~~~
*nVidia GeForce GTX 965M graphics powered notebook, when grading footage (non-professional).

I had to set the monitor's gamma to MAC when connected to the Mini Monitor rather than PC which is the default and gives correct colours

Curious. "PC" was expecting what? Full range RGB 0-1024? Seems like this is another factor that the consumer/commodity market does not consider or is perhaps even aware of... especially in light of how "my colors are different" is a new thread 2 or 3 times a day on every forum.

jPo, CSI

Curious. "PC" was expecting what? Full range RGB 0-1024?

PC gamma is 2.2, Mac gamma is 1.8, as far as I know.

I think rather "was" (prior OS X v10.5.x).
Also, what do you mean by Mac gamma?

This is some summary, which is also bit outdated:
https://documentation.apple.com/en/fina ... tasks=true

Modern MOV files also don't use gamma tag anymore, but "colr" atom which is made of four fields: a color parameter type and three indexes. The indexes are to a table of primaries, a table of transfer function coefficients, and a table of matrixes.
The 'colr' extension supersedes the previously defined 'gama' Image Description extension. Writers of QuickTime files should never write both into an Image Description, and readers of QuickTime files should ignore 'gama' if 'colr' is present.

Current Mac screens are also 2.2 gamma based as far as I understand it. 1.8 is a relict and should be forgotten.

Also, what do you mean by Mac gamma?

I mean this setting on Dell monitors.

1.8 is a relict and should be forgotten.

If it should be forgotten, why does a BMD Mini Monitor output it by default? I get way higher delta E values in PC gamma than in MAC gamma, so obviously it's closer to the actual values (also subjectively). This doesn't happen with the built-in GUI viewers. Also, why should I have to suffer unnecessary YUV conversion and chroma subsampling when both my timeline and my monitor are 4:4:4 RGB? Or should I invest in a more expensive Decklink model for that privilege? Come on.

There has to be some other key issue with your monitoring in this case, maybe levels.
Welcome in the pro world- world of YUV

Hi guys, SO I just wanted to be sure of the answer here. I see everyone saying that you need the BMD video card to have a third, calibrated, monitor hooked up for grading.

However, Im not grading with resolve I'm building effects in the fusion tab. Also, my geforce 1080 card supports up to 4 monitors (I currently use 2).

So is there a way to have a third monitor (non calibrated) hooked up for doing effects easier? I'd love to hook up my LCD TV so I can mask and rotoscope easier.

Configure your computer at the operating system level to support 3 monitors. Then resize the Resolve user interface to a sized window that fits just one of the screens. Detach what resolve windows that you can and place those on other monitors. I do this with the Scopes. Resolve however is very limited in the ability to separate its many working areas into separate windows.

Since this came to the top, can we use the USB 3 connected Intensity devices for this kind of "accurate" output?

I again point to the manual as to what the manufacturer and designers of Resolve actually recommend. Anybody who chooses to try to color correct off a computer display does so at their own risk.

I would also refer the user to Alexis Van Hurkman's Color Correction Handbook and Steve Hullfish's Art & Technique of Digital Color Correction. Both of these books have the same advice on using a color managed output and a calibrated display. There are ways of doing this simply and economically.

The beauty is that those things can be measured and verified, so we can talk about technical facts and not random cargo cult found in books. If that's the thing we want to do, we can also argue that the earth is flat, because some popular book says it is.

output calibration should be IMHO seen as a much more important aspect!

Yes, there is a way to use a calibration strategy on the preview UI; a good probe, CalMan or Lightspace in order to intervene ie: override an operating system's ColorSync and internal management with something like Client3 ICC manager... that is budgetarily the same as doing it right in the first place, though.

jPo, CSI

At least for Windows that's non-sense. There is no OS color management to override and you also don't need any software to do so.

Generate a 3D LUT for Resolve, don't do a VCGT, done.

We should start a petition, write to the CEO or whatever to get this feature working!

I wish there was a way to unlock panels and move them to different screens without additional hardware, which require specific PC hardware to work.

I think this is in the Top 5 Most Often-Asked Features for Resolve, and the short answer is if this were simple to do, it would've been done long before. My opinion (and I'm just a user, not a programmer) is there are certain aspects of the GUI that are difficult to break apart because it would affect performance, like playback speed and other issues like this.

What is true is that we had the ability to reposition every single part of the GUI in the forerunner to Resolve, daVinci 2K. But that required massive dedicated hardware and tons of GPUs, I think half a rack and 50 pounds worth of gear totaling about $250,000-$300,000. Current Resolve does much, much more than this for a fraction of this cost.

I work around this apparent limitation by creating multiple workspaces and using whichever specific feature I need to see on the page. We recently switched to a 4-monitor setup at our facility:



This the 2-up GUI display, with a center display for scopes (from another computer), and then the hero display in the middle. There's good and bad with this approach, and we're still in the process of tweaking it.

We recently switched to a 4-monitor setup at our facility:

You should calibrate the white point on your GUI monitors, the left and right are warm while the middle one is cool. Also the middle one seems mismatched with the reference. It only takes 5 minutes (just adjust the RGB gains) but will make sure your vision isn't constantly in a mixed adaptation state.

Marc,

Not to get too far off topic, but are you driving the scopes from the full screen feed (assume a Decklink card)?

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that in Windows 10 you can extend the display area to another Windows 10 computer (like a tablet). Since the scopes can be popped out and re-positioned, I've thought about doing this to see how well it works. Can also do this with other software to allow an Android tablet to do the same thing, but the software was breaking some things on my tablet so I never got to try it. New tablet in the mail so that will get tried (just for fun).

And just to bring things back on topic... I flipped through the new 2700+ page Resolve 15 usert manual looking for the answer to the Intensity USB question. Still no idea if these devices are officially supported for a full screen output from Resolve to a calibrated HD monitor (can only get HD out of them over USB3).

Back in summer 2016, when I started using Resolve after many years of producing my HD, multicamera BDs/DVDs with classical music - just like so many others I couldn't accept the fact that an extra video device (in case of UHD/4K@50p, only a then USD 1,000 Decklink 4K Extreme 12G with mezzanine HDMI) was essential for OS color-independent, 10 bit monitoring. Andrew, Mark and many other gurus on this great Forum (sorry - I most certainly omitted somebody, who patiently participated in my thread on the subject at that time) must have a good laugh trying to convince me of the simple fact that the 10-bit Quadro card I outfitted my first Resolve machine was not enough to preserve the full 10-bit path from Resolve internals to my grading monitor But they were successful; after providing me with endless explanations, test procedure proposals and tools - I finally accepted that I simply must live with the fact that a BMD video capture & output device is necessary to take the full potential of Resolve's great playback engine, if I want to trust my preview especially from the Color page...

But you know what? Even though - as I mentioned - only one of the most expensive Decklink models would let me work with my demanding video formats, I never regretted the investment for a single second! I'll tell you more: even though Andrew (if I remember correctly) was advocating strongly for the use of OpenGL 10-bit capabilities of nVidia Quadro GPUs in Scratch - comparing grades I'm able to achieve using SDI monitor on Deckling with those on the same monitor, but using the Quadro as the system's secondary monitor, I will always like Decklink more! Exactly the same impressions in Nuke Studio...

But the quality of color in my grades (including PQ ones, where possible) is not the only aspect where my Decklink shines over Windows 2nd monitor - for reasons I cannot explain, all 3 systems (Resolve, Scratch and Nuke) playback fps performance is much more solid using a dedicated preview device (Decklink) to drive my hero display, and GPU left for acceleration jobs solely.

And now - the best part of it: again comparing those 3 systems, definitely the fastest (only calling for caching when really heavy effect are used - like TNR or some OFXes) is Resolve; no question about it... So perhaps we should stop alluding to making HW money as the sole reason for BMD sticking with the "old-fashioned" system architecture of Resolve? I admit 2.5 years ago when my experience was none, and I was made to come to terms with yet another expenditure in the form of my Decklink, but after those 2.5 years of gaining experience I'm taking all those suppositions back.

Of course, YMMV and I'm not pretending the above is always as I described it - or for that matter, that it will not change in time (who knows - perhaps it will, and quite soon, too). With the current state of affairs though, I find the BMD solution - as implemented in the ever-growing DR system - definitely the best to work with.

Piotr

We should start a petition, write to the CEO or whatever to get this feature working!

BlackMagic's business model:

“DaVinci Resolve is our purest expression of that philosophy because we can give most of this away for free. We then make money when people become successful and purchase control panels, capture cards, cameras and other items from Blackmagic Design so we can use that money to keep DaVinci Resolve moving forward. I think that’s a better business model because for us to make money our customers MUST succeed. If they don’t, we don’t get any money!”

source: https://www.filmink.com.au/renaissance- ... i-resolve/

There have already been answers many times for a 2/3/4 monitor set up:
- 1/2/3 or more screens on the same GPU
- another(s) (reference) on a card BMD => calibration: good colors and exact reflection of what is on your TL.

Why insist or get fake?

(...)comparing grades I'm able to achieve using SDI monitor on Deckling with those on the same monitor, but using the Quadro as the system's secondary monitor, I will always like Decklink more! Exactly the same impressions in Nuke Studio...
Piotr

First of all, I truly respect and value everyone’s unique experience and opinions on this forum. But then I really wish the video enthusiast world would establish similar standards to communication to what the audio enthusiast world has for decades: https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=TOS_8

Placebo, cargo cult, and warm fuzzy feelings making X much better than Y is toxic for any serious discussion. In particular it’s not rocket science to feed color ramps through two different outputs, capture them, subtract A from B, then B from A and see if there are any non-zero pixel values. This is about the least amount of research I’d expect from anyone claiming that output X is “better” than output Y.

A similar thing can be done with DisplayCal and a probe, which anyone in this forum likely owns anyway, if no capture device is available or it can’t do 10 bit.

Color is science, not religion.

If two outputs produce the same pixel values at the end of an HDMI cable, there is none that is that better.

If a probe returns the same measurement for a long series of color patterns for two output feeding the same panel, there is none that is better.

@peterjackson,

You really need to look at the Davinci Resolve pipeline processing to understand why a BMD card is needed (calibration, LUTs, etc ...).

It's just at the software design level that's going on.

Hope this help.

@peterjackson,

You really need to look at the Davinci Resolve pipeline processing to understand why a BMD card is needed (calibration, LUTs, etc ...).

It's just at the software design level that's going on.

Hope this help.

Looking forward to your measurements. I think I have a fairly well understanding of calibration, profiling and LUTs. Otherwise I would not have written the post above.

Looking forward to your measurements. I think I have a fairly well understanding of calibration, profiling and LUTs. Otherwise I would not have written the post above.

I do not have time to play: I bought a Decklink and Calman Studio card for a long time ...
Not disappointed!

You can calibrate as many times as you want: if it is not behind a BMD card: it's worthless ...

Looking forward to your measurements. I think I have a fairly well understanding of calibration, profiling and LUTs. Otherwise I would not have written the post above.

I do not have time to play: I bought a Decklink and Calman Studio card for a long time ...
Not disappointed!

You can calibrate as many times as you want: if it is not behind a BMD card: it's worthless ...

Your world would probably collapse, if you indeed would subtract a series of color ramps. Never do it. It’s ok. Take the blue pill and stay in wonderland

curious if there is a way to do a 3 monitor set up, 1 color page, 1 scopes and timeline, and one full screen?

Full screen ?

Maybe see: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=68164&p=478497&hilit=full#p478497

Looking forward to your measurements. I think I have a fairly well understanding of calibration, profiling and LUTs. Otherwise I would not have written the post above.

I do not have time to play: I bought a Decklink and Calman Studio card for a long time ...
Not disappointed!

You can calibrate as many times as you want: if it is not behind a BMD card: it's worthless ...

Your world would probably collapse, if you indeed would subtract a series of color ramps. Never do it. It’s ok. Take the blue pill and stay in wonderland

Me too I like Matrix ..

FYI,

I asked BMD support and the Intensity Shuttle USB will work with Desktop Video to give you that desired output, but due to limitations in the connection, you can only get 1080 30P or less (includes 1080i 59.94). Just thought I would update the question. I'll but one soon.

The post saying that it made playback smoother is really interesting and will make my purchase happen sooner, my computer needs all the help it can get until I can upgrade or add a desktop.

Also did you know, that among other features in Displaycal, it will work through Resolve to calibrate your reference monitor (or projector)? In other words, I'm mostly with Peter on the calibration and profile (LUT) front. My experience with high end broadcast monitors and comparing to calibrated computer monitors tells me that I can get similar results once the file is exported from the software, and played back through a playout server. The most recent playout server is an Avid Airspeed 5500 (4 channel in and out, HD). Maybe just an SD or HD thing, I've never had the opportunity to work with any P3 displays or workflows (yet). I can also get still images to look close to the print by understanding the process and working within those limits. It's all transforms and look up tables, if the math is good, and the table measured properly, you can get good results.

Displaycal is my new friend, been using Xrite and Gretag (before the purchase) software and hardware for years on monitors and printers.

FYI, Displaycal is my new friend, been using Xrite and Gretag (before the purchase) software and hardware for years on monitors and printers.

The author of DisplayCal, Florian Höch, is on this forum as well and has created presets for Resolve.

I'd love to see someone who invested in top end commercial calibration software to create a LUT with it as well and post both LUTs to diff them.

FYI, Displaycal is my new friend, been using Xrite and Gretag (before the purchase) software and hardware for years on monitors and printers.

The author of DisplayCal, Florian Höch, is on this forum as well and has created presets for Resolve.

I'd love to see someone who invested in top end commercial calibration software to create a LUT with it as well and post both LUTs.

Hello,

As far as I know, DisplayCal sends, like the others, instructions to Davinci Resolve (via port) to generate RGB patches and read the calibration probe back and measure the delta between what it plans to see and what reads the probe to generate the 3dLUT:
Nothing new that it's still through a BMD card

NO?

NO?

No, nothing new and exactly that. Can be through a BM card or not.