Jump to content
Ed_David

Resolve 12 Will Change Everything

Recommended Posts

This plan is going to work out. People are sick to have to roundtrip with XMLs. An NLE is not just an app that allows you to set in and out points and arrange a clip order in a timeline 'playlist'. It needs to be the hub to connect pre- and post production. As of  now, Resolve is forced to understand the proprietary way third-party software organizes the assets. This can only be very limited. The key to attract the masses is simplification, integration, the key to attract professionals is separation, see my old thread.

​Agreed. Ive been sticking to After Effects for Raw since its easy to use and spits out edit friendly Prores in BMDFilm that I then edit like normal in Premiere. All good and well.
But now when it looks like Resolve 12 might be able to replace both Premiere and AE its a no brainer. Ive been playing with the editing features of R11 last few weeks and most things I need are there already.
And the best part is that CC is a subscription. So when a project arrives that needs After Effects, client require a PP project or what ever, I just buy a month.
Good times.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

So is Resolve Lite a more intuitive, faster replacement for Premiere? If so I might downgrade my CC package

Also as far as I can see, noise reduction is the main advantage of getting the Pro version. But if you really want noise reduction that badly you could just get Neat Video right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​FYI, Premiere has supported Blackmagic CinemaDNG import since October 2013.

As a Premiere user, I've been quite aware of that. But as I wrote, CinemaDNG support in Premiere is abysmal. The tutorial you linked to was written by Matthias (who's with us here on in this forum), and it contains the following statement: "you have access to a stripped-down set of source settings which let you change the white balance, tint, and exposure of the RAW files. Unfortunately, you lose about 95% of the control that you would get by performing an intermediate step and processing the files with a more comprehensive tool like Adobe Camera RAW".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is Resolve Lite a more intuitive, faster replacement for Premiere? If so I might downgrade my CC package

Also as far as I can see, noise reduction is the main advantage of getting the Pro version. But if you really want noise reduction that badly you could just get Neat Video right?

​It's definitely not more intuitive since Premiere (and FCPX) provide one integrated interface for media management, editing and rendering, whereas in Resolve these three functions are separated into three modules/screens that look and feel like independent programs. (Color Grading is the fourth module/tab, btw.) So you'll find yourself switching forth and back a lot. The advantage of this interface design is that Blackmagic can improve and extend the editing functionality without making the program convoluted.

Whether or not Resolve is faster, depends on your hardware. Resolve has high hardware requirements, particularly for CPU, GPU and RAM while Premiere is a great performer even on low end and older machines. However, if you have a fast machine (for example, with a current-generation i7 CPU, current-generation Nvidia GTX card, 16-32 GB RAM and dedicated video hard drive), Resolve can perform much better than Premiere. Thanks to very advanced disk caching, you don't run into disk performance problems where you do with Premiere, and thanks to excellent GPU support, real-time playback even with complicated color grades is great, and rendering times are much shorter.

At the moment, Resolve 11 can basically do  everything that Premiere and FCPX can do (manifest in the fact that it can import their projects via XML) except for a number of built-in effect filters. However, there are two limitations: (1) The editing tools are quite basic. You get pointer/drag-and-drop, blade, trim/slip but no ripple and roll edit tools. Keyboard shortcuts are very basic and limited, too, so currently I'm editing much faster with Premiere. (2) While Premiere imports almost any video and audio file, Resolve is limited to h264 + all common professional raw, intermediate and camera codecs (CinemaDNG, Red, ArriRaw, ProRes, Cineform, DnXHD/HR, XDCAM, XAVC etc.). It only imports audio files that have been conformed to 16bit/48 KHz wav. Audio editing, in Resolve 11, is quite rudimentary, too.

You can indeed buy Neat Video as an OFX plugin and use it in Resolve. The only problem is that the OFX version costs twice as much as the Premiere version (around $350), and that applying Neat within a Resolve project will kill real-time performance (unless you manually deactivate the nodes where Neat has been applied).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can indeed get Neat Video as an OFX plugin and use it within Resolve. The only problem is that the OFX version costs twice as much as the Premiere version (around $350), and that applying Neat within a Resolve project will kill real-time performance (unless you manually deactivate the nodes where Neat has been applied).

​I saw dongles for Resolve for 400€, probably BMCCs and software separately sold. But Neat allegedly does better than Resolves own NR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I saw dongles for Resolve for 400€, probably BMCCs and software separately sold. But Neat allegedly does better than Resolves own NR.

​This is how I bought my full copy of Resolve, too - I just paid 350. There's a healthy second hand market thanks to people who already owned the full version of Resolve when they bought a BM Camera that came with a dongle. 

Neat's DR is infinitely better than the built-in DR of Resolve. It's no comparison at all. However, the built-in DR is handy if you just want to quickly get rid of a few noise artifacts in one particular shot without sacrificing real-time performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the question really is whether you need the full version at all. Unless you produce 3D content or have a professional multi-CPU/multi-GPU workstation, Resolve Lite gives you the same features. The built-in noise filter might not be worth paying EUR 350.

In any case, I recommend to download Resolve Lite first and spend time testing and trying whether it runs well enough on your hardware and whether you feel comfortable in its user interface.

Another word of caution: Resolve is demanding on the software side, too. New releases often limit compatibility to recent versions of Mac OS X and Windows. I read that the Windows version of Resolve 12 will not longer run on Windows 7 but require Windows 8.1.

In addition, Resolve requires a minimum screen resolution of 1680x1050. For color grading, a second monitor for viewing the scopes is highly recommended. (A cheap old 15" TFT connected to the second port of your graphics card will do the job.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might get it for the noise reduction. I have neat video but I also bought a PC to use side by side with my Mac. And I'm not allowed to migrate Neat Video without paying. 

It doesn't cost €350 but then again, I plan on getting Resolve for free by selling the camera.

I also recommend two screens. I use an external monitor to a laptop. So the laptop screen carries scopes and such. And the external 27" has the entire interface. 

Dual screen mode is cool but doesn't work so well for me since my big monitor is 1080p and the laptop is 4K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Premiere user, I've been quite aware of that. But as I wrote, CinemaDNG support in Premiere is abysmal. The tutorial you linked to was written by Matthias (who's with us here on in this forum), and it contains the following statement: "you have access to a stripped-down set of source settings which let you change the white balance, tint, and exposure of the RAW files. Unfortunately, you lose about 95% of the control that you would get by performing an intermediate step and processing the files with a more comprehensive tool like Adobe Camera RAW".

​True that Premiere lets you change only some of the RAW settings (WB, temp, tint, and exposure), but if your argument is for picking Resolve over Premiere, we should be looking at Resolve vs. Premiere. How much better Adobe Camera RAW is over Premiere is not relevant. In fact, by the same token an Adobe solution with Camera RAW + Premiere would make more sense than a Resolve only solution.

Yes, Resolve gives you a few more controls with CInemaDNG over Premiere, but whether that is adequate in picking Resolve over Premiere as an editor at the cost of missing the editing features Premiere gives over Resolve is debatable and user dependent. It certainly doesn't look like a no-brainer or enough to make Premiere users switch to Resolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3D support had me confused, so the light version does support 3D Luts but not Stereoscopic 3D, sweet.

 

But it still does not fully support 4K :

 

 
Supported Video Formats                                                           DaVinci
                                                            Resolve
            DaVinci
            Resolve
            Software
                                                    DaVinci
                Resolve Lite
 4K2160p 23.98, 4K2160p 24, 4K2160p 25, 4K2160p 29.97 and 4K2160p 30.YesYesUHD Limit

 

What is their UHD limit, 2K ? or the FPS ? or time ? 

 

 

Source: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/compare

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it still does not fully support 4K :

(...)

What is their UHD limit, 2K ? or the FPS ? or time ? 

​I did not look into this too deeply. Just out of curiosity, I tried (with FS7 XAVC footage, transcoded to ProRes and BMPC 4k Raw) with Resolve 11 Lite:

The timeline settings allow "4k UHD", which is then fixed to 3840 x 2160, not changeable in Custom. The footage (4096 x 2160) can be imported and plays. 

But if you do the maths, UHD is 16:9 (3840 divided by 2160 is 1,77) and 4k equals 1,89, a different aspect ratio.

This is confusing, because cinema 4k (1:1,85 or 17:9) would be 4096 x  2216.

How is that scaled then? Don't know right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with the previous BMD Resolves, will it rely heavily on hardware and graphic cards use for example NVIDIA, to do editing/color correcting?

​Of course. It's the same program, only a new version with more editing capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​It's definitely not more intuitive since Premiere (and FCPX) provide one integrated interface for media management, editing and rendering, whereas in Resolve these three functions are separated into three modules/screens that look and feel like independent programs. (Color Grading is the fourth module/tab, btw.) So you'll find yourself switching forth and back a lot. The advantage of this interface design is that Blackmagic can improve and extend the editing functionality without making the program convoluted.

Whether or not Resolve is faster, depends on your hardware. Resolve has high hardware requirements, particularly for CPU, GPU and RAM while Premiere is a great performer even on low end and older machines. However, if you have a fast machine (for example, with a current-generation i7 CPU, current-generation Nvidia GTX card, 16-32 GB RAM and dedicated video hard drive), Resolve can perform much better than Premiere. Thanks to very advanced disk caching, you don't run into disk performance problems where you do with Premiere, and thanks to excellent GPU support, real-time playback even with complicated color grades is great, and rendering times are much shorter.

At the moment, Resolve 11 can basically do  everything that Premiere and FCPX can do (manifest in the fact that it can import their projects via XML) except for a number of built-in effect filters. However, there are two limitations: (1) The editing tools are quite basic. You get pointer/drag-and-drop, blade, trim/slip but no ripple and roll edit tools. Keyboard shortcuts are very basic and limited, too, so currently I'm editing much faster with Premiere. (2) While Premiere imports almost any video and audio file, Resolve is limited to h264 + all common professional raw, intermediate and camera codecs (CinemaDNG, Red, ArriRaw, ProRes, Cineform, DnXHD/HR, XDCAM, XAVC etc.). It only imports audio files that have been conformed to 16bit/48 KHz wav. Audio editing, in Resolve 11, is quite rudimentary, too.

You can indeed buy Neat Video as an OFX plugin and use it in Resolve. The only problem is that the OFX version costs twice as much as the Premiere version (around $350), and that applying Neat within a Resolve project will kill real-time performance (unless you manually deactivate the nodes where Neat has been applied).

 

​Great summary. It looks like R12 had expanded the NLE capabilities beyond 11. Looking forward to 12 being released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I did not look into this too deeply. Just out of curiosity, I tried (with FS7 XAVC footage, transcoded to ProRes and BMPC 4k Raw) with Resolve 11 Lite:

The timeline settings allow "4k UHD", which is then fixed to 3840 x 2160, not changeable in Custom. The footage (4096 x 2160) can be imported and plays. 

But if you do the maths, UHD is 16:9 (3840 divided by 2160 is 1,77) and 4k equals 1,89, a different aspect ratio.

This is confusing, because cinema 4k (1:1,85 or 17:9) would be 4096 x  2216.

How is that scaled then? Don't know right now.

​They must have limited it to UHD-1 which is used by Youtube, it should be 1.78:1 aspect ratio with 3840 x 2160 pixels at 16:9

Cinema 4K or DCI 4K is 4096 x 2160 pixels with 1.9:1 aspect ratio, and I guess we will need the full version for DCI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​They must have limited it to UHD-1 which is used by Youtube, it should be 1.78:1 aspect ratio with 3840 x 2160 pixels at 16:9

Cinema 4K or DCI 4K is 4096 x 2160 pixels with 1.9:1 aspect ratio, and I guess we will need the full version for DCI.

​Probably not relevant for any of us. Cinema releases will remain 2k for a long time from now. It seems you don't need the full version of Resolve to license easyDCP (which I once tried in demo mode in my old cinema, there was a Fraunhofer-watermark in the image then), but it isn't cheap. You see this option (not greyed out) in >Resolve Lite >File.

EDIT: I only now saw, that the demo version (with watermark) is integrated in my Resolve Lite 11 already. See my delivery-screenshot:

easyDCP.jpg

Yes, you could instead deliver a 4k Tiff-sequence and encode with the free OpenDCP.  Everybody should try at least once to see his stuff on a big screen. Then he will understand that resolution is bizarrely overestimated and has nothing at all to do with 'quality'.

Frankly, people who think about additional expenses of 350€ for a dongle will never be able to pull off a cinema feature that demands 4k. Cinema ads are HD. VoD, if it's 4k, will then probably be UHD, because 16:9 is here to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...