Martin Schitter wrote:actual linux users [beyond the bounds of hollywood] may feel, when they see, how close we have already come to an excellent solution for video postprocessing on this system, but still doesn't get those few desperately need refinements, which would let a dream become finally true.
Oh yes, and that's a big reason why we kept going - the dream of having a software of Resolve's caliber running natively on Linux. The community here has been invaluable in finding enough solutions for a specific working config. It comes with caveats, but if you accept the end-user workarounds -
it works.
Martin Schitter wrote:i know, this kind of unduly criticism is hard to accept for responsible decision makers, because it's indeed always compromising the prestigious main product to some degree.
BMD looks like a company that does requests only when there's enough noise. While it is counterproductive to cry like a baby over this and that with the Linux port, the bottom line seems right. I think we need to tell them, in very clear ways, what is needed, why, and how we (using our collective knowledge on Linux) would solve the issues. And repeat. They do follow this thread with interest.
Martin Schitter wrote:Sulo Kokki wrote:One reason to bother with the Linux Resolve is because, on equal terms, it feels faster; read-write speed, response time, even the cursor.
that's an intresting observation -- and actually you are not the only one, mentioning this difference! it's somehow a strange discovery, because linux per se isn't the most optimal choice for interactive work and minimal latencies.
Yes, it's a bit odd. But Resolve has an unusual development history. The Linux port may still have a lot of DavSys code in it, as opposed to the other ports, built from scratch by BMD. A key thing seems to be the distro. BMD switched the Linux config from RHEL to CentOS at the turn of the decade, and left it that way.
With Linux Lite, there's been a lot more testing on other distros and early results reflect poorly on CentOS.
Vassilis Kontodimas wrote:The reason I'm indeed trying Ubuntu Studio is that my SSD now reads 423MB/sec, which is more than double than it did on my CentOS. Not to mention that my AMD GPU works as -ahem- intended (for the most part, but much better than CentOS).
Debian in general seems like a
very good choice to run Resolve with. It circumvents most of CentOS' inherent update/compatibility issues and is just plain fast.
Martin Schitter wrote:better native linux support -- something, which really works in a satisfaying and equal manner, like on the other operating systems!
Yes, equality is what we want! Currently, we're far from it.
On my wishlist:
-
Debian as the supported platform for the stand-alone version, incl. official .deb install/Flatpak.
-
Cleaning up the amateurish bugs like mandatory US keyboard (may be a DavSys implementation)
-
Equal import formats (handy for AP users, too)
-
Prores Export in the Studio version, if not Lite.
-
System Audio. While I argue that any Resolve workstation config benefits from BMD I/O, a forced solution is bad, particularly so for laptop users.
The Linux Resolve would kill in comparison to other ports with these implementations.
Martin Schitter wrote:it's quite surprising, how often this kind of flexibility, asked by common desktop users, may at the end become congruent to advanced needs appearing in the high end sphere.
It also says something about Resolve, how it already can be scaled and re-jigged to configs completely different from the AP/Supermicro solution. BMD would do well to endorse this modding further (or at least, allow these little side-doors to remain unlocked for the community).
Martin Schitter wrote:anybody, who wants to make use of resolve in a manner, which isn't strictly oriented around this one and only decklink output device [and you could also replace it with: "CentOS resolve for linux installer"], has to be treated as an unworthy idiot in principle.
Truly. CentOS this and pro that. Pish. The AP users are a different breed with their turnkey systems, but some stand-alone users parroting the company line of "official working config" have been proven, in this thread, to talk through their hats. People, BMD are basing their arguments on their SuperMicro setup, anyway.
Martin Schitter wrote:if software gets improved and becomes more open and versatile, it's usually not to the detriment of those few experts and high end customers, which didn't have reason to miss or claim the relevant features from their specific point of view sooner. but at the end it's more often than not opening new practical possibility to all of us.
Yup. The Prores implementation is a good example. BMD originally forewent it with the Linux, as it was not their idea of a "pro feature". It was added only after the AP users came up and said they need it, repeatedly.
Right now, Resolve is overall shaping up to be a powerful contender to the market leaders. The equal-terms Linux port could well be the killer app that would make many users raise their hands and migrate. BMD can take advantage of this by polishing it up on the road to v15.
They've done well (mostly) for Resolve up until now, and obviously want to do better, because it's their business. Let's see if they can pull this one off.
Linux Mint 19.3 | DaVinci Resolve Studio 16.2.7 | 2700x 32gb Vega 56 | macOS Mojave
Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:33 am
