Need Separate Render Queue like Adobe Media Encoder

You should create a render software like Adobe Media Encoder so that DaVinci can render the time line of Resolve and work separately on DaVinci and the render will run in the background!! So that the editor can work on another project by applying render.

thank you

A good feature request. You'll get more traction by posting it in the feature request forum. In fact, I'll bet this feature has already been requested over there. Give it a +1.

I hate background renders. The render either takes extremely long or the foreground tasks are barely usable.

$.02

Surprised this wouldn't be in Resolve already, it's such a good suggestion.
+1

resolve already has remote rendering functionality

resolve already has remote rendering functionality

Good point.

And that's the better solution for the reason given by Dom.

It was a good idea once upon a time when everything ran on the CPU and you had cores to spare.

Resolve's pipeline goes through the GPU - always. If you think people are having GPU memory issues now... Double that.

Or make everything run at half the speed. It's not very appealing.

As theory, in media encoder, we can send a project to be rendered from Premiero Pro/After Effect. So we can do another project while rendering in background.
But, in practical, i never can do this, when media encoder star rendering, 100% GPU and CPU used by media encoder, so i can not do anohther edit in premiere.
May be becouse my weak GPU/CPU.

You should create a render software like Adobe Media Encoder so that DaVinci can render the time line of Resolve and work separately on DaVinci and the render will run in the background!! So that the editor can work on another project by applying render.

We do this by paying for multiple seats of Resolve in one room, so we can color & edit on one machine, conform on another, and render on a third. They each have access to the same Project Database, and there's one networked drive that each system can connect to.

I can tell you that Baselight has "background rendering" as an option, but what they don't tell you is when you use it, it brings the system to its knees, to the point where you can't do any color work. So I think for a lot of reasons, using a separate system is a much more workable way to accomplish what you're trying to do. Either that, or just be patient and render everything overnight, after you go to sleep.

resolve already has remote rendering functionality

"Remote" Rendering? How would that work? I start a render on my Mac Pro, but I edit on my MacBook? Might be kinda cool... especially if I use my 11inch machines more often.

resolve already has remote rendering functionality

"Remote" Rendering? How would that work? I start a render on my Mac Pro, but I edit on my MacBook? Might be kinda cool... especially if I use my 11inch machines more often.

read the manual. search for remote rendering.

Sounds nice but doesn't translate into actual productivity.

Your CPU, GPU and drive with the media will be busy rendering your project, you will not be able to properly edit while that render job happens.

Better take a break and come back fresh and have better efficiency when the rendering ends

Sounds nice but doesn't translate into actual productivity.

Your CPU, GPU and drive with the media will be busy rendering your project, you will not be able to properly edit while that render job happens.

Better take a break and come back fresh and have better efficiency when the rendering ends

remote rendering happens on a different machine. the only thing that is busy on your end while rendering are the harddrives, and you usually don't even notice it at all.
we use it all the time

I think Musetoiu was referencing the idea of the OP, Sven. Having a separate app to render on the same machine.

Setup a second computer and use it as a remote render machine.

You should create a render software like Adobe Media Encoder so that DaVinci can render the time line of Resolve and work separately on DaVinci and the render will run in the background!! So that the editor can work on another project by applying render.

We do this by paying for multiple seats of Resolve in one room, so we can color & edit on one machine, conform on another, and render on a third. They each have access to the same Project Database, and there's one networked drive that each system can connect to.

I can tell you that Baselight has "background rendering" as an option, but what they don't tell you is when you use it, it brings the system to its knees, to the point where you can't do any color work. So I think for a lot of reasons, using a separate system is a much more workable way to accomplish what you're trying to do. Either that, or just be patient and render everything overnight, after you go to sleep.

In pro world background rendering should be done on a separate "render nodes", like Flame does.
Flame goes step further and if you play something in your active project all background tasks (on current machine) are suspended, so playback is solid. This is a nice feature.
Background rendering on the same machine is always going to be a compromise. Sometimes it may work/be useful, but not always.

Setup a second computer and use it as a remote render machine.

I would love to be able to do this, I just don't see how. Yea I'm sure there's like 10 guides, not of which I could follow, plus it would probably consist of me having to push all of my source media over the network either beforehand or during export, making it about 2x as impractical as just rendering on whatever anemic machine I'm currently on at any given time as then it'll take even longer if I have to push 50+GB over the network.
If this wasn't a problem, and there was a simple guide I could god damn follow, I have 4 different machines that would be perfect as the export machine, I have a i7 Mac mini (2018, a Mac Pro (2010, only CPU encodes), a M2 Pro Mac mini (2023), and an i7-12700k 2070 SUPER gaming PC.

Still isn't a reason to not include or make available a separate/not project based rendering queue, not sure why the current one is even project based to begin with, seems like a dumb decision favoring few people over everyone else if anything.

Sounds nice but doesn't translate into actual productivity.

Your CPU, GPU and drive with the media will be busy rendering your project, you will not be able to properly edit while that render job happens.

Better take a break and come back fresh and have better efficiency when the rendering ends

I wouldn't use it in that way then lol - That would be kinda dumb.

resolve already has remote rendering functionality

"Remote" Rendering? How would that work? I start a render on my Mac Pro, but I edit on my MacBook? Might be kinda cool... especially if I use my 11inch machines more often.

read the manual. search for remote rendering.

Would it need to push my MINIMUM 50+GB Source footage over the network if I got that working? If so, that'd be extremely not viable.

Setup a second computer and use it as a remote render machine.

I would love to be able to do this, I just don't see how. Yea I'm sure there's like 10 guides, not of which I could follow, plus it would probably consist of me having to push all of my source media over the network either beforehand or during export, making it about 2x as impractical as just rendering on whatever anemic machine I'm currently on at any given time as then it'll take even longer if I have to push 50+GB over the network.
If this wasn't a problem, and there was a simple guide I could god damn follow, I have 4 different machines that would be perfect as the export machine, I have a i7 Mac mini (2018, a Mac Pro (2010, only CPU encodes), a M2 Pro Mac mini (2023), and an i7-12700k 2070 SUPER gaming PC.

Still isn't a reason to not include or make available a separate/not project based rendering queue, not sure why the current one is even project based to begin with, seems like a dumb decision favoring few people over everyone else if anything.

You will need

1. A PostgreSQL server to host shared Resolve projects
2. A second computer connected to the shared project server
3. A shared storage server or copy of the media onto a second drive connected to 2nd Resolve
4. Check the manual how to send a timeline for "Remote Render".

Once you have steps 1 to 3 setup, #4 is fairly easy.

You also need any plug ins used to be licensed on both boxes.

Setup a second computer and use it as a remote render machine.

I would love to be able to do this, I just don't see how. Yea I'm sure there's like 10 guides, not of which I could follow, plus it would probably consist of me having to push all of my source media over the network either beforehand or during export, making it about 2x as impractical as just rendering on whatever anemic machine I'm currently on at any given time as then it'll take even longer if I have to push 50+GB over the network.
If this wasn't a problem, and there was a simple guide I could god damn follow, I have 4 different machines that would be perfect as the export machine, I have a i7 Mac mini (2018, a Mac Pro (2010, only CPU encodes), a M2 Pro Mac mini (2023), and an i7-12700k 2070 SUPER gaming PC.

Still isn't a reason to not include or make available a separate/not project based rendering queue, not sure why the current one is even project based to begin with, seems like a dumb decision favoring few people over everyone else if anything.

You will need

1. A PostgreSQL server to host shared Resolve projects
2. A second computer connected to the shared project server
3. A shared storage server or copy of the media onto a second drive connected to 2nd Resolve
4. Check the manual how to send a timeline for "Remote Render".

Once you have steps 1 to 3 setup, #4 is fairly easy.

That all sounds extremely easy to me... except for PostgreSQL which I don't even know what it is.

You also need any plug ins used to be licensed on both boxes.

Not sure about anyone else, but I didn't even know plugins were a thing in Resolve, so needless to say I never use 'em.

+1

-1

-1

~1

+1

+1

In pro world background rendering should be done on a separate "render nodes", like Flame does. Flame goes step further and if you play something in your active project all background tasks (on current machine) are suspended, so playback is solid. This is a nice feature.

Neither Avid nor Baselight nor FCPX nor Nucoda nor Premiere can do it, either. There are a lot of things that Flame, Lustre, and related products can do that are beyond the world of color.

Flame is also about 20 times the cost of Resolve for a yearly license ($4800), last time I checked. For less than $4800, you could buy a modest Mac Studio and a Resolve Studio license... and there's your remote rendering station. And you don't have to pay that $4800 every year.

Resolve is not Flame (and vice-versa). Very different tools and Flame is rather more complex tool.
Current 5K$ is a tiny fee compared to what Flame use to cost (not that very long time ago).
Flame also went through a lot of changes otherwise Autodesk would not sell many new licenses anymore.

Rendering system which needs license for every plugin on each node is very "annoying and expensive one".

Premiere has this setting:

Pause Media Encoder queue during playback: Pauses the encoding queue in Adobe Media Encoder when you are playing back a sequence or a project in Premiere Pro.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes and it's a good feature.

In pro world background rendering should be done on a separate "render nodes", like Flame does. Flame goes step further and if you play something in your active project all background tasks (on current machine) are suspended, so playback is solid. This is a nice feature.

Neither Avid nor Baselight nor FCPX nor Nucoda nor Premiere can do it, either. There are a lot of things that Flame, Lustre, and related products can do that are beyond the world of color.

Flame is also about 20 times the cost of Resolve for a yearly license ($4800), last time I checked. For less than $4800, you could buy a modest Mac Studio and a Resolve Studio license... and there's your remote rendering station. And you don't have to pay that $4800 every year.

In pro world background rendering should be done on a separate "render nodes", like Flame does. Flame goes step further and if you play something in your active project all background tasks (on current machine) are suspended, so playback is solid. This is a nice feature.

Neither Avid nor Baselight nor FCPX nor Nucoda nor Premiere can do it, either. There are a lot of things that Flame, Lustre, and related products can do that are beyond the world of color.

Flame is also about 20 times the cost of Resolve for a yearly license ($4800), last time I checked. For less than $4800, you could buy a modest Mac Studio and a Resolve Studio license... and there's your remote rendering station. And you don't have to pay that $4800 every year.

Baselight does this. So did Nucoda.

Avid has background transcoding which is paused when timeline playback is invoked. The same applies to Avid's background rendering. So far they haven't added background export to the best of my knowledge.

Baselight does this. So did Nucoda.

Have you actually tried background rendering with Baselight? It brings the system down to its knees in terms of speed. Trust me, it's zero fun. We always had an additional Baselight in the machine room just so we could render on that (slowly) while working at full speed on our main system, which (at the time) was a Baselight 4. There's a lot of reasons why if you only have one set of GPUs, you can't use them for simultaneous rendering AND playback.

Yes I have, I’m on a Baselight.

Obviously it’s doesn’t run at fun speed, but when you are doing less intensive tasks like drawing shapes and conforming it renders just fine in the bg.

The other great part of passing the render off to a separate app or renderer is if the grading app crashes, the render doesn’t fail as well. That alone is worth it.

If they run on the same GPU(s), both will fail sooner or later.
But if you use image sequences, you can always pick up where render failed.