Talk:da Vinci Systems

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Chroma subsampling#Types of sampling and subsampling##4:2:2|4:2:2]]
[[Chroma subsampling#Types of sampling and subsampling##4:4:4|4:4:4]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

"Intel 68020"

References are made to Intel 68020 Multi Bus 1 computers. As the Multi Bus 1 is a standard created by Intel; but the 68020 is a CPU from Motorola, who actually made the computers -- e.g. Sun? - WAPhelps (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da Vinci Systems used std CPU cards and made custom interface. Telecine Guy 02:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Intel manufacturer claims simply be deleted. It's clearly wrong. Actually, this whole article seems to have been put together wholecloth. Nothing is cited and there my be less obvious inaccuracies. Nxxus (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly in a horrible state right now: needs to be re-organized around the major milestones in development. I don't have the industry knowledge to do that. Do you? I see you contributed to Video Toaster a while back, so.... - Pointillist (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm actually a lawyer by trade and only have pockets of knowledge in the tech arena. If I see something wrong but within my sphere of knowledge or a way I can contribute, I do what I can. I know there are people out there that literally collect CPUs, so they would know off the top of their head. Also, DaVinci was a very closed system that a handful of Hollywood types used because it was so expensive. The typical desktop PC has more power than it now, but with a refresh it might be industry standard again. I read this in "Creative Cow" magazine a few months ago http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/blackmagic-design-buys-davinci-part-1.--Nxxus (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct about the Intel/CPU discrepancy as I don't know that specific detail. However as the re-writer of much of this content here, and an ex employee, it might be wise to consider that almost all of this content was written by ex staff members who did know what was happening so its more likely accurate overall than inaccurate overall. It was re-written to change from current to past tense and obvious errors repaired. As the company no longer exists, we must rely on those who knew back then, and citations they can provide, or through new research into those events. Random changes without direct knowledge or research seem to imply history can be re-written to sound better. Peter--Peter.i.chamberlain (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Da Vinci Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825152043/http://www.finalcolor.com/history4colorists.htm to http://www.finalcolor.com/history4colorists.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]