Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DaVinci Resolve 18

blackmagicdesign.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 150 posts

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#111

Post by throwanem »

mardifoufs wrote: post #93
AussieWog93 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, DaVinci is ridiculously cheap, because the software is not how they earn their money, it's via their hardware. DaVinci is ridiculously cheap because the entire company is owned by three guys, at least one of whom has a personal, burning disgust for the way that the television industry (in particular, the Australian television industry) used to be run back in the day. I distinctly remember getting a bizarre com…

Wait DaVinci is developped in Australia? Bummer. At least it does not require an internet connection to use, but even then... (I usually don't really care about potential backdoors from a foreign nation state, but the Australian police has shown itself to be really really helpful with foreign law enforcement agencies. The FBI recently used them to set up a massive sting operation that would've been illegal for the FB…

What kind of video are you producing that your threat model includes being targeted by multinational federal police operations?

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#112

Post by pwython »

mmaunder wrote: post #77

Our entire production pipeline is Resolve. I’ve been pushing Adobe users to move to Resolve for years, because of the pricing and pace of innovation. We’ve been using a device from SNS for remote collaboration and this release just removed the need for that. Every release is packed with fundamental new value, and doesn’t sacrifice stability or performance - it usually improves both. Great software engineering! Combin…

> "like the first raw format that managed to bypass RED's patent stranglehold"

For what it's worth, BRAW is not really "RAW." It is a codec processed in-camera with baked-in profiles for Resolve. ProRes RAW is closer to "real RAW."

That said, it's an awesome codec to use in Resolve (former P4K, P6K, & UMP 4.6K user).

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#113

Post by blagie »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #94
blagie wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my perspective, if a product is open source, it means I'm not at the whims of a company which might or might not go under or change models. I have huge amounts of content from decades ago locked up under no-longer-existing proprietary formats. The companies long went out of business, activation servers are gone, and in most cases, there's no way to find the .exe files. My LaTeX files still work. Open source does…

OK, but that doesn’t answer the question. That shows why you personally would feel better about it, but it says nothing about why a company should change a model that is working for them to a model that would require more work (it’s likely that Resolve contains components and libraries that would be very difficult to open source and would require rewrites — to say nothing of the general work required to make a projec…

That does very directly answer the question of "why."

You answered the opposite question: "why not."

Neither of us know enough about BM's business model, plans, codebase, etc. to know whether open sourcing makes sense, and if so, how. I trust BM is doing something reasonable here. The only point is that the decision isn't obvious.

In terms of 0.00001%, my experience is that bigger businesses care a lot about business continuity. I'm at a large organization, and it's cheaper to buy than build. At the same time, it's lower-risk to buy open-source. That's where things are trending.

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#114

Post by cronix »

rvieira wrote: post #24

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.

It originally cost $800,000. You're getting that for $300, plus a lifetime of free upgrades.

> Before this change, the pre-built versions of Resolve had been the only available options, selling for between $200,000 and $800,000, which was common industry practice at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DaVinci_Resolve

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#116

Post by gizajob »

blagie wrote: post #62
alpaca128 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For every Blender we have countless other projects getting almost zero donations or support. Why take that risk if the current model works for the Resolve team?

From my perspective, if a product is open source, it means I'm not at the whims of a company which might or might not go under or change models. I have huge amounts of content from decades ago locked up under no-longer-existing proprietary formats. The companies long went out of business, activation servers are gone, and in most cases, there's no way to find the .exe files. My LaTeX files still work. Open source does…

Their hardware isn't "forever" though. The industry they cater to and the consumers that industry serves are constantly demanding higher resolutions, higher frame rates, more quality, and at the industry level, the ability to process the vast amount of data that generates in a workable way. BMD aren't in the business of supporting cameras or video recorders that are 20+ years behind the times, they're in the business of delivering higher-performance equipment that improves on a "Moore's Law" type trajectory. Resolve is a tool they use to help manage this hardware process. Open-Sourcing their Intellectual Property and investment where Resolve is concerned wouldn't confer much benefit, other than catering to a microscopic niche of people such as yourself who have the time and patience to make changes in a highly complex codebase. Businesses don't owe it to you to make their hardware "forever". You could equally be trying to make a case for demanding the VHDL that runs their FPGAs open source, which would no doubt be lovely while being commercially damaging, and harming their ability to pay the high wages of competent and focussed engineers that bring you such complex products at a price you can afford.

P.S. Your text files will work better than your LaTex files in 50 years.

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#117

Post by whywhywhywhy »

traceroute66 wrote: post #37
rvieira wrote: post #24

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.

>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 If you think Resolve is ridiculously inexpensive, Adobe Creative Cloud is actually rip-your-arm-off-where-do-I-sign inexpensive. Just think about it. For a business expense that is essentially pittance a month, you get: - Adobe Premiere (arguably one of the b…

> Adobe Premiere (arguably one of the best, if not THE best video editor)

Daily reminder Premier, in 2022 can’t even update its preview window as you drag video clips around. No idea how it can be considered even a good video editor with that incompetence.

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#118

Post by emptysongglass »

capableweb wrote: post #84
emptysongglass wrote: post #64

Does it still require discrete graphics on Linux? It's been a very weird requirement from day one.

Most of the heavy tools in the suite depend on GPU functionality, this release seems to introduce even more tools that are GPU-based. It's not that weird that it would require a discrete GPU, your entire computer would probably grind to a halt if both the compositor of your OS + Resolve has to share a non-discrete GPU.

All of the other editors manage to be available for integrated GPU chipsets: Premiere, Lightworks, Kdenlive, Final Cut, shall I go on?

So yes, it's very weird.

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#119

Post by gernb »

Shadonototra wrote: post #99
nsomaru wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious why you say Unity will have no choice but to go open source?

it already is happening (kinda), they are modularizing their engine, and all the new parts are made open source biggest part what their graphics stack https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/Graphics (only the scripting part) competition is growing, unreal is fully open source, and more and more people have been asking for the source, there was even some drama few years ago when unity DMCA'd (if i remember correctly) a…

unreal is not "open source". "open source" has a specific meaning and Unreal doesn't fit. Some people call unreal "source available"

https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+definition

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#120

Post by yakubin »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #101
Shadonototra wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

being open doesn't mean it becomes free to use, you can still sell your licenses https://www.aseprite.org/ successful product, and is open source: https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite there are many examples like that being open source allows your users to participate in the development, fixing things, and adding new features the company wouldn't have done themselves because: lack of budget, or "too risky" this is wh…

> also the industry adopting Blender is a clear sign that a product being open source plays a big role for adoption I strongly disagree. Blender is a wonderful story and a wonderful team but it’s truly the unicorn in the FOSS software space. Industry adopted Blender because it has evolved into being a really good tool for the job, is frequently updated (thanks in part to those corporate sponsorships that most pieces…

Exactly. What's more I prefer for the software I use to be proprietary, because then I know that me paying its price is enough to support its ongoing maintenance and development. When it comes to open source projects seeking donations, I'd need to pay incomparably more, knowing that most users don't pay. With the proprietary model everyone pays their fair share to keep the project afloat. With donations an army of freeloaders bears the benefits of the funding provided by few who pull all the weight. So if a project is donation-funded I look instead for a proprietary one, because it will be more likely to stay afloat in the future and return my investment of learning it and organizing my workflow around it instead of becoming abandonware.
Post reply on HN