R5 8K RAW in Davinci Resolve 16: 8-Core Ryzen isn't enough

[celex]

I downloaded some 8K R5 RAW footage to see how well it would work in Davinci Resolve (16.2.4 on Windows 10).

Editing isn't too bad, even with a GTX 1060 6GB and a Ryzen R7 2700X CPU and 16GB RAM. You can get by with just over 4GB VRAM (3GB VRAM doesn't seem to cut it). The problems start once you start to work with the color panel. Resolve only has support right now for full res rendering if you want to have access to the C-log settings (e.g. ISO).

With a GTX 1060, playback is about 7-8 fps and GPU bound, with only 33% of CPU being used
With an RTX 2070 or higher, it becomes CPU bound with 100% of CPU being used. A 2070 and 2070 Super both seemed to be around 90-100% of GPU also. With a 2080 Ti, the GPU load was about 70% or less. With the CPU being the limiting factor with these faster cards, it can only do 19-21 fps.

Of course, you really need NVMe storage, as the data rate is about 320MB/s. A SATA SSD would sort of work with a single stream, but no point in hamstringing your system that way.

 

[celex]

Also did a quick test with Premiere Pro 2020 (v14.3). With 1/4 resolution on the Ryzen R7 2700X it is 24 fps, but pushing the CPU. Anything higher than that is not usable. However, just adding a single LUT makes 1/4 resolution chopping and the CPU maxed out.

Unless you have an R9 3950X or Threadripper, it looks like you're going to be stuck making proxies. Hopefully Canon will come out with a GPU-optimized version of the codec or at least let us record in 4K or 6K RAW on the R5

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

I'm a bit out of the loop with the latest computer tech. In your estimate, how much would you need to spend on a system, to make this 8k raw files usable for editing?

 

[celex]

I don't have a Ryzen R9 3950X on hand to test, but I would think that could do the job with its 16 cores. You could probably build a system around that processor with 32GB of RAM, 2TB of NVMe SSD, an RTX 2070 Super 8GB, and an 8TB hard drive for around $2500. Many people will opt for a Threadripper system, which would put you around $4500 with a 3960X 24-core, 64GB RAM, and a 2080 Ti. Add another $500 to that for 32 cores.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd wait and see what kind of solutions pop up. 8K is not for small time users, it is going to require a lot of $$ just starting with memory cards. My old PC would never handle it. A high powered processor, expensive video card, fast memory, a very hefty power supply, and lots of cooling.

Fortunately, I avoid video, but I'd at least like to play with a few seconds of 8K.

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

I don't have a Ryzen R9 3950X on hand to test, but I would think that could do the job with its 16 cores. You could probably build a system around that processor with 32GB of RAM, 2TB of NVMe SSD, an RTX 2070 Super 8GB, and an 8TB hard drive for around $2500. Many people will opt for a Threadripper system, which would put you around $4500 with a 3960X 24-core, 64GB RAM, and a 2080 Ti. Add another $500 to that for 32 cores.

Thank you!

 

[celex]

I'd wait and see what kind of solutions pop up. 8K is not for small time users, it is going to require a lot of $$ just starting with memory cards. My old PC would never handle it. A high powered processor, expensive video card, fast memory, a very hefty power supply, and lots of cooling.

Fortunately, I avoid video, but I'd at least like to play with a few seconds of 8K.

4K video isn't too bad for a lot of systems these days. A few years from now, 8K won't be so exotic. Meanwhile, you can get by with a lot lower system requirements if you're using h.265 video instead of RAW. The file sizes will be much lower, and many graphics cards have h.265 hardware decoding built-in. I don't have any 8K h.265 videos from the R5 yet, but I did download a couple of clips. They played fine with a GTX 1060 video card and a quad core CPU from a few years ago. The R5 clips might be more demanding because of higher bitrate, but at least you would be able to give it a try

 

[Deleted member 381342]

The 8k editing u have tried was the Mac Pro with the afterbuner and 386GB RAM on 16 cores. Once the footage was in ProRes it was butter smooth even adding effects. This level of workstation is what I think we are looking for, for smooth editing. However the CPU still needs to do the encoding and final render so you may want more cores. One of them 64 core threadrippers an a Quadro or some sort of dedicated hardware like the Afterburner should net you the best results. I’ll also add you may not need 300+ GB RAM, that is just the config I tried.

 

[mb66energy]

...
Editing isn't too bad, even with a GTX 1060 6GB and a Ryzen R7 2700X CPU and 16GB RAM. You can get by with just over 4GB VRAM (3GB VRAM doesn't seem to cut it). The problems start once you start to work with the color panel. Resolve only has support right now for full res rendering if you want to have access to the C-log settings (e.g. ISO).
...

So no chance with a Core i7 with 8 Gigs of RAM, it's just 7 years old! Just kidding

Maybe the R6 will be enough for me shooting 2k, sometimes 4k for more reach / crisper detail after downsampling and for virtual zooming ...

 

[R1-7D]

When I get back in town (I am on a road trip currently) I’ll try the 8k footage on my iMac Pro 10 core with 64 GB of RAM and Vega 64 with 16 GB of video ram. I’m curious to see how it will do.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

4K video isn't too bad for a lot of systems these days. A few years from now, 8K won't be so exotic. Meanwhile, you can get by with a lot lower system requirements if you're using h.265 video instead of RAW. The file sizes will be much lower, and many graphics cards have h.265 hardware decoding built-in. I don't have any 8K h.265 videos from the R5 yet, but I did download a couple of clips. They played fine with a GTX 1060 video card and a quad core CPU from a few years ago. The R5 clips might be more demanding because of higher bitrate, but at least you would be able to give it a try

I purposely have not upgraded my PC's because I like the older case design I have. I have 3 identical Dell XPS PC's in the old design case with 2 CD Rom spaces. I am in the process of slowly reinstalling all my software on my newest one along with a 1 TB NvMe Pcie M2 SSD and a still to come graphics card. I have 32 GB of Ram and a I7 -6700 processor on my current one. I've never needed a high powered graphics card, mine is a GTX 750 Ti. I've been looking at new ones but have not yet decided. I'm not inclined to upgrade everything just for a camera, but I planned on a new graphics card in any event.

I have 4K on my 5D MK IV and Eos R, its 8K that concerns me, and only if it can use it to extract stills from very short clips.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You major issue here is that Resolve utilizes the GPU a LOT for higher resolution editing. That 1060 isn't going to fare well because you really require a lot more VRAM from your video card to adequately even start smoothly editing that kind of footage.

So, in picking a new video card, a card with more VRAM is better for occasional editing of the 8k? I'm limited by the 450 watt power supply, so I need to keep the power requirements down. As soon as I start using more power, then a bigger PS, than more cooling, it gets out of control.

My PC originally offered GPU's with up to 190 watt power requirements, I'd like to keep to less than that. I'd also like to hold the price down to under $400.

In that range, I see a Radeon 5700 XT with 8GB DDR6, a GeForce RTX 2060 super with 8GB DDR6, a Radeon RX 5600XT with 6GB DDR6. Unfortunately, most of the reviews are for gaming performance, not video editing. I also did not like the RTX Super blowing heat into my case rather than out the rear. Noise is not a issue, heat is.

Any recommendations within my parameters of power and cost.

 

[korbar]

It's just going to be a limitation honestly. Like someone stated above, you'll have to get into a proxy workflow because it just requires an awful lot of VRAM. I run a GTX 1080Ti, which has 11GB of VRAM and I have an overclocked 9900K and I can get through some edits with red footage and such, but it's not amazing.
I just played around with a 15 second sample 8K RAW clip on my little ultrabook for fun.
It was a 15 second, C-Log, 8K raw clip that I found on some youtube video. Slapped a light color correction and grade on it and rendered it out in 4K. Took 22 minutes, but the final export looks amazing. So it's workable on a lesser machine, just isn't gonna be fun. haha

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It's just going to be a limitation honestly. Like someone stated above, you'll have to get into a proxy workflow because it just requires an awful lot of VRAM. I run a GTX 1080Ti, which has 11GB of VRAM and I have an overclocked 9900K and I can get through some edits with red footage and such, but it's not amazing.
I just played around with a 15 second sample 8K RAW clip on my little ultrabook for fun.
It was a 15 second, C-Log, 8K raw clip that I found on some youtube video. Slapped a light color correction and grade on it and rendered it out in 4K. Took 22 minutes, but the final export looks amazing. So it's workable on a lesser machine, just isn't gonna be fun. haha

I have the feeling that doing it to try and extract a still will be difficult. I'm not even sure as where to start. Is it necessary to render it or just step thru the proxy and select a frame to grab.

I decided to see how it worked with 4K video and shot 8 sec of 4K at 1/250 shutter speed and used VLC to grab a frame. I was able to do it, so I'll try to find time to take a video of some birds tomorrow to see what the quality looks like at 4K and 1/250 or even faster shutter.

 

[WillT]

Guess now is a good time to upgrade my computer as well, doubt I will do much 8K editing but it is already slow with 4K and stills