21–30 of 150 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
I think you are missing the reason people on HN find DaVinci Resolve interesting. It’s not anything particular about the features or capabilities. It’s the business model and what that’s doing to the industry. Resolve is free but has become the market leader for the majority of the video industry. It’s completely shaking the industry up and pushing competitors to compete. (And as an aside if your not interested in so…
Is there significant advances in this version for treating VHS footages? Current gold standard is using manual filters and plugins on Virtualdub.
- Resolve FX Beauty
- Edge Detection
- SuperScale
- Face Refinement
- Dead Pixel Fixer
- Advanced Noise Reduction
Hard to know exactly what kind of filters/plugins you're using that could also be replicated in DaVinci as you didn't detail your workflow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Resolve is built by a fairly small team in s/Australia/Singapore. If you want the features in the Studio version, you just need to buy once, you get a lifetime of updates, no subscription. Ideologically I love to use FOSS products too, but I also want to support commercial businesses that make software under customer-friendly and non-subscription licensing terms.
If we look at Blender's history, one could make the argument that they would get more support if they fully opened their product. I for one would contribute to get a Libre Resolve, even if I am not a videographer.
I think it's important to know that Blender probably became big because they went open source with a nice tool, not that they were big before and then released the source as open source. If Blender didn't go open source, I'm unsure if Blender would even be around today, they were in big trouble before buying the source code back and open sourcing it, if I remember the history correct.
DaVinci is not in trouble in any meaning of the word, the opposite. The editor is taking the media sector by storm and gaining popularity like crazy, so they don't have the same need of doing something drastic to save themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love for DaVinci to end up open source, but I don't think Blenders history is relevant in this particular case.
I've paid this much for a hobby DAW.
I don't work in the professional media field, but isn't this ridiculously inexpensive for something that seems to be aimed at content studios, TV stations, etc (judging by the hardware compatibility focus and dedicated keyboards)? I was expecting these pro products to be on the order of the tens of thousands USD. I've paid this much for a hobby DAW.
If you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the submission page, you'll notice a bunch of hardware for controlling DaVinci and its modules. It ranges from $400 to $50,00 and they have even more expensive hardware as well. This is where they get most of their profits from, and where the larger companies really spend the money on when it comes to buying from BMD.
At work I regularly transcode a Resolve editor's video to AVC-Intra 100 50i using Avid Media Composer or Adobe Media Encoder because Resolve can't export interlaced video properly. Looks like they still haven't improved interlaced video support which is a shame because the rest of the software is great but it just isn't fit for purpose for me
I'm just a hobbyist when it comes to editing though.
Got a "free" Studio license with the Speed Editor https://youtu.be/26OfvGXGezw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Resolve is built by a fairly small team in s/Australia/Singapore. If you want the features in the Studio version, you just need to buy once, you get a lifetime of updates, no subscription. Ideologically I love to use FOSS products too, but I also want to support commercial businesses that make software under customer-friendly and non-subscription licensing terms.
If we look at Blender's history, one could make the argument that they would get more support if they fully opened their product. I for one would contribute to get a Libre Resolve, even if I am not a videographer.
Is there significant advances in this version for treating VHS footages? Current gold standard is using manual filters and plugins on Virtualdub.
DaVinci doesn't care about the source of the footage. If you meant things like treating digital footage extracted from analog sources, then yes, probably a few additions/modifications would be interesting for you. I'd urge you to look through the changes yourself on the linked page, but here are some highlights that might be relevant for you: - Resolve FX Beauty - Edge Detection - SuperScale - Face Refinement - Dead…
Why not? VHS has properties such as interlacing that means that it doesn’t have complete individual frames like modern digital or analog film sources. Don't you need a completely different workflow for that?
Quoted post unavailable.
I think you are missing the reason people on HN find DaVinci Resolve interesting. It’s not anything particular about the features or capabilities. It’s the business model and what that’s doing to the industry. Resolve is free but has become the market leader for the majority of the video industry. It’s completely shaking the industry up and pushing competitors to compete. (And as an aside if your not interested in so…