Bug report:Davinci Resolve 17 unusable for timelapse

DR 17 is unusable for timelapse if the source images are large, in my case 7360x4192. Whenever render cache is starting, DR dies. No error messages, nothing! I have tried all DR 17 versions, all dies with some minor differences. Early DR 17 versions manage to render a bit before it dies, 17.3.1 gives a short screen flicker, then it dies.
I also tried several Nvidia drivers between 465.89 and 471.96, no difference.
I've now downgraded to DR 16.2.6.005, and it runs perfectly with the same source images that crashes DR 17.
So developers, what have you messed up in DR 17??

I am always amazed by these posts that people immediatly assume that resolve is broken, instead of their system just not being up to date anymore.

Doesnt your gpu have 2 GB of ram? Nowhere near enough for a modern version of Resolve with the modern upgrades and modern fhnctionality that resolve now provides...

I am always amazed by these posts that people immediatly assume that resolve is broken, instead of their system just not being up to date anymore.

Doesnt your gpu have 2 GB of ram? Nowhere near enough for a modern version of Resolve with the modern upgrades and modern fhnctionality that resolve now provides...

No, it has 4GB. "This is the modern version. It will need more resources to do the same task as the old version did just fine, otherwise it will crash!" Yeah, right, that's a real improvement.
We are talking about a most basic task here, render cache. just a bunch of images on the timeline. nothing else. DR 16 handles it, DR 17 crashes immediately.

If I was trying to deal with 8K images, I'd get a much, much more powerful system: more cores, more RAM, multiple GPUs. 4K is hard enough.

Puget Systems has a pretty good hardware list for Windows on their site:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/recommende ... mendations

I can tell you our 2019 Mac Pro (16-core, 256GB RAM, Radeon Pro Vega II Duo GPU) can handle 6K pretty well, but it will struggle a bit with 8K, particularly with OFX plug-ins and/or NR. I would probably go for a Proxy workflow if it was a big project. There are a lot of "it depends" involved.

I regularly use my system for time lapse images of 7952×5304, which are sometimes rendered at 8K. I recently completed an 8K HDR astro time lapse project using DR 17.1. No crashes. However, Mark is quite correct that for this type of content, a lot of horsepower is a must. My system is a Puget Systems built AMD 3960 24 core with a Nvidia 3990 graphic card and NVME drives. Even then, working with 10-bit rec 2020 files was a bit of a struggle. When working with 8K sized files in DaVinci Resolve, Puget recommends at least 24GB of V-ram. I first tried it with a 2080ti and had to upgrade to the 3990 for 8K. They were right.

[Peter Chamberlain]

For 8K work 16GB of GPU ram is min id attempt with. 24GB better.

Remember, even if the finished timeline is UHD, the source material is passed to the GPU and processed there to downscale so the GPU needs to be scalled to handle the largest image and the most difficult processes added to the image.

For 8K work 16GB of GPU ram is min id attempt with. 24GB better.

Remember, even if the finished timeline is UHD, the source material is passed to the GPU and processed there to downscale so the GPU needs to be scalled to handle the largest image and the most difficult processes added to the image.

If that's the case, how come that DR 16 handles the same source images and render cache on the same hardware? There's no difficult processes involved here. 690 images in a sequence on the timeline, and I want to do render cache. thats it.
Even Adobe premiere elements 14 handles this! Painfully slow with no support for GPU rendering and limited multi-threading, but it keeps chewing image by image until it's done. Never crashes.

If I was trying to deal with 8K images, I'd get a much, much more powerful system: more cores, more RAM, multiple GPUs. 4K is hard enough.

Puget Systems has a pretty good hardware list for Windows on their site:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/recommende ... mendations

I can tell you our 2019 Mac Pro (16-core, 256GB RAM, Radeon Pro Vega II Duo GPU) can handle 6K pretty well, but it will struggle a bit with 8K, particularly with OFX plug-ins and/or NR. I would probably go for a Proxy workflow if it was a big project. There are a lot of "it depends" involved.

Reading in this forum, the standard solution is always "Buy better hardware". But better hardware won't solve software bugs. DR 16 handles it, DR 17 crashes every time. Same hardware. Clearly a software bug.
It's not a big project, 690 images. And proxy is unusable because of another bug, see my other post:
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=146955

I regularly use my system for time lapse images of 7952×5304, which are sometimes rendered at 8IK. I recently completed an 8K HDR astro time lapse project using DR 17.1. No crashes. However, Mark is quite correct that for this type of content, a lot of horsepower is a must. My system is a Puget Systems built AMD 3960 24 core with a Nvidia 3990 graphic card and NVME drives. Even then, working with 10-bit rec 2020 files was a bit of a struggle. When working with 8K sized files in DaVinci Resolve, Puget recommends at least 24GB of V-ram. I first tried it with a 2080ti and had to upgrade to the 3990 for 8K. They were right.

I would buy that explanation, if it wasn't for the fact that DR 16 does the task just fine on the same hardware, while DR 17 crashes every time. Beefy hardware with tons of memory might prevent some software bugs to be triggered, but it won't solve the underlying cause. It's like taking a painkiller; it removes the symptom but the root cause remains.

IMHO a crash is always a bug that needs to be solved. If hardware is inadequate it can be slow, or throw an error message. But a hard crash shouldn't ever be acceptable.

(Not including crashes caused by actual hardware failure of course; bad RAM, failing GPU, etc.)

IMHO a crash is always a bug that needs to be solved. If hardware is inadequate it can be slow, or throw an error message. But a hard crash shouldn't ever be acceptable.

(Not including crashes caused by actual hardware failure of course; bad RAM, failing GPU, etc.)

Agreed!

[Peter Chamberlain]

Unfortunately sometimes the GPU crashes without sufficient indication that it will.. for example ..it if uses up all the ram but doesn't report that it's doing that.. try as we might its a bit hard to prevent that process.

In the meantime.. the logs don't show anything helpful so all I can suggest is we know that 4GB of GPU memory is light for any 8K image. Maybe post a sample clip and someone can test it for you on a better GPU.


From what i can see, the GTX 960 is a 2015 card, and the least powerful in its class. this link suggests its ok for 1080 work.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/N ... 4081vs3165

the RTX 3090 is now a year old, has 10,496 CUDA cores 24GB ram, compared to GTX960's 1024 CUDA cores and 4GB ram.
We have used the 3090 for testing at 8K and above.

I find this to be pretty hypothetical since 3090s aren't available for sale anywhere at the moment.

I find this to be pretty hypothetical since 3090s aren't available for sale anywhere at the moment.

Hi.

I don't know your possibility to buy from Hp.com?
But if you agree to order a complete Desktop, can you choose between a RTX 3080 or a RTX 3090.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=147304

Regards Carsten.

Unfortunately sometimes the GPU crashes without sufficient indication that it will.. for example ..it if uses up all the ram but doesn't report that it's doing that.. try as we might its a bit hard to prevent that process.

In the meantime.. the logs don't show anything helpful so all I can suggest is we know that 4GB of GPU memory is light for any 8K image. Maybe post a sample clip and someone can test it for you on a better GPU.


From what i can see, the GTX 960 is a 2015 card, and the least powerful in its class. this link suggests its ok for 1080 work.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/N ... 4081vs3165

the RTX 3090 is now a year old, has 10,496 CUDA cores 24GB ram, compared to GTX960's 1024 CUDA cores and 4GB ram.
We have used the 3090 for testing at 8K and above.

I'm aware of my limited hardware performance. However, it is within minimum requirements for running DR. I don't expect high performance, but it shouldn't crash. And DR 16 runs without crashing on the same hardware. Shouldn't you test that it works on the minimum required hardware? If I can upload 33GB of images here for test, I'll be happy to do so. Then you can test why proxy media isn't working with large images too.