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

131–140 of 150 posts

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#131

Post by mmaunder »

mmaunder wrote: post #127
cs702 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm rather curious: Why and how does a software security business like yours use or need professional nonlinear video editing solutions like Resolve?

Started with Open.film (visit the site) which is a mini doc and then doubled down on production. Now have a educational media pipeline along with sports sponsorship project and a few others in the works. We have a 6000 sq ft studio in Centennial, CO. Full time producer (via the Fallon show) and full time DP/director. Just getting started.

Some recent stuff from the past couple weeks. This is a set we built from the ground up in a warehouse with bare concrete floor. Fake window and sunlight. Lights are ARRI skypanel s120 and S60. Cameras are a BMD Ursa G2 4.6k and 12k. Pretty basic 2 cam shoot and post workflow. Producer/director works remotely from NYC via video conference. DP is on site with PA and talent.

https://twitter.com/maddyosman/status/1516153700179492872?s=...

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#132

Post by pwython »

mmaunder wrote: post #128
pwython wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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).

Oh god no. It’s partial debayering. ProRes raw doesn’t come close to it. Baked in profiles??

https://ymcinema.com/2022/03/28/braw-vs-prores-raw-which-is-...

> "Sherif analyzed noise levels by comparing ProRes RAW and BRAW and found that ProRes RAW has significantly higher noise levels than the external BRAW. Furthermore, Sherif has used a blue channel as an X-ray to explore macro-blocking that appears in highly compressed media (H.265 for instance), and that compression is presented by pixels structure that indicates an unbaked image that came straight out of the sensor. Yeah… it’s a bit complicated. To make the story short, ProRes RAW demonstrated much better (and real) raw compared to BRAW. In a sentence, ProRes RAW has defeated BRAW"

> "According to Sherif’s analysis, ProRes RAW is more… real raw than BRAW. And external BRAW is less accurate (in terms of White Balancing) compared to internal BRAW from Blackmagic cameras. But generally speaking, ProRes RAW won. However, it must be taken into consideration that ProRes RAW is not natively available in Resolve."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPB6wrVKHiw

> "...partial debayering theory regarding BRAW. The reason being is that Black Magic does that to get around RED' RAW patent of pure internal RAW. That's why prores Raw is only acquired through external devices."

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#133

Post by cs702 »

mmaunder wrote: post #131
mmaunder wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Started with Open.film (visit the site) which is a mini doc and then doubled down on production. Now have a educational media pipeline along with sports sponsorship project and a few others in the works. We have a 6000 sq ft studio in Centennial, CO. Full time producer (via the Fallon show) and full time DP/director. Just getting started.

Some recent stuff from the past couple weeks. This is a set we built from the ground up in a warehouse with bare concrete floor. Fake window and sunlight. Lights are ARRI skypanel s120 and S60. Cameras are a BMD Ursa G2 4.6k and 12k. Pretty basic 2 cam shoot and post workflow. Producer/director works remotely from NYC via video conference. DP is on site with PA and talent. https://twitter.com/maddyosman/status/151615…

Thank you for the detailed answers! I take it you guys concluded it would be better and/or more cost efficient to do all this media work in-house instead of outsource it to a variety third parties. Interesting.

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#134

Post by mmaunder »

cs702 wrote: post #133
mmaunder wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some recent stuff from the past couple weeks. This is a set we built from the ground up in a warehouse with bare concrete floor. Fake window and sunlight. Lights are ARRI skypanel s120 and S60. Cameras are a BMD Ursa G2 4.6k and 12k. Pretty basic 2 cam shoot and post workflow. Producer/director works remotely from NYC via video conference. DP is on site with PA and talent. https://twitter.com/maddyosman/status/151615…

Thank you for the detailed answers! I take it you guys concluded it would be better and/or more cost efficient to do all this media work in-house instead of outsource it to a variety third parties. Interesting.

Yes we were working with a company that was doing a great job but barely staying afloat, so I hired some of the team, and the rest had a soft landing. Then built from there. Was a conscious decision to vertically integrate this.

Yeah so the Ursa is around $5K. And just FYI the 12K Ursa dropped from about $11K to about $6K a few months after launch, so just be aware that that kind of thing happens. A new ARRI is $20 to $30K although I haven't looked lately. Also RED is very expensive. So with Ursas you get 14.5 stops of dynamic range, raw and the Resolve workflow which braw integrates into beautifully. You essentially have Hollywood quality gear for a fraction of the price, and you're using the same color grading workflow that Hollywood actually uses - since Resolve is the standard for color grading for big films. And the grade is really where you figure out how good your camera actually is - and since the folks who make the grading software make the cameras and developed the partial debayered raw format they use, the product you get is pretty damn good!

Now lenses are a different story. We standardized on Canon cine lenses which work great on the Ursas - and the cameras are adaptable to PL mount if you ever want to rent lenses.

Just a final note. I know a lot of folks reading this are budget concious. Don't make the mistake of getting a nice collection of Sony E mount lenses or another mirrorless standard with a short flange distance. You will not be able to use those lenses on many other cameras that have lens adapters because the flange distance is too small - so you simply can't adapt them. Standardize on a lens with a big flange distance that is adaptable to a lot of cameras if you move from renting to actually buying lenses. Canon Cine lenses are great - but Canon L lenses are also bloody good and excellent value for money. For example the f1.2 50mm prime is a brilliant multi use film lenses that you can use on the Ursa and get amazing results - and it's quite a bit cheaper than a cine lens and uses the same mount as the cine lenses. Because the L lenses have the same mount, you can do some pretty crazy shit like putting a f4.0 600mm prime on an Ursa and shoot film with it. Try finding a cine lens like that!

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#135

Post by blagie »

gizajob wrote: post #116
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…

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…

There isn't a "the industry." There are multiple industries.

Places where I've used AV equipment costing >$5k where lifespans were in decades:

- Permanently mounted systems in lecture halls designed to record talks.

- Machine vision systems in manufacturing processes.

- Scientific instrumentation.

My local CCTV station also has ancient, high-end equipment.

What make BM cameras great is that they can embed in a lot of places like these.

If "the industry" is limited to professional TV production, I agree with your point. However, the market for cameras is much greater than that, and those sorts of oddball segments are growing exponentially as costs fall, machine vision improves, etc.

I don't demand anything from BM. I also have no intention of diving into their codebase. I do have a handful of C-mount and MFT cameras in different capacities, permanently mounted, for various needs. If BM is a better solution for me, I'll buy from them. If it's worse, I won't.

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#136

Post by raarts »

traceroute66 wrote: post #46
ttoinou wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

600 USD per year is expensive

> 600 USD per year is expensive No. Its not. With the greatest of respect, have you ever run a business? I could list many reasons why 600USD is cheap, but I'll leave it with the easiest one to understand, the old adage "time is money". 1. How much are you paying those video editors using the Adobe suite that you're paying 600 USD each a year for ? 2. How many projects are those video editors working on ? 3. What is…

True. But DaVinci Resolve only crashed on me once in 6 months. Just sayin'

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#137

Post by rglullis »

yakubin wrote: post #120
filmgirlcw wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fr…

May I suggest an alternative strategy/view? Don't think of it as "freeloaders" vs "few who pull all the weight", and don't think you should be paying to "keep things afloat".

Instead, keep whatever tool is best for you at the moment (even if proprietary) but don't stop looking/fomenting the development of a viable free alternative. If you find any project attempting to build an alternative for the commercial ones, follow up with (a) small financial contributions, (b) periodic best-effort attempts/evaluations of the tool as the alternative and (c) feedback on what is missing for it to become your main alternative.

Unlike businesses, free software projects don't need to have a short-term ROI and they don't need to give up if the venture is not profitable. But your small contributions will at least show as a signal that the developers have a potential audience, and your feedback can also provide them with guidance/help them iterate faster on what is relevant.

Aside from marketing materials and mission statements, companies rarely care about their customers and they will not hold you in high regard just because you are giving them money. If they find themselves in a position where they can make more profit by screwing you over, they will.

Conversely, if the free alternative does become a hit, you and everyone else gets to benefit. If it doesn't, it can be picked up later by other people. And even if it fails completely, you didn't lose much.

It's the type of strategy that gives you very little downside, a huge upside and also gives you bragging rights and the feeling of a righteous soul. :)

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#138

Post by Joeboy »

vijucat wrote: post #104

I tried it once and remember that the community was unfriendly. New users are ridiculed. "This is an app for Pros. Never in my 17 years of experience have I"...is the general tone. Just off-putting.

You're not wrong. It's kind of like the FLOSS community was 20 years ago.

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#139

Post by rglullis »

therouwboat wrote: post #60
rglullis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blender made their opening conditional on getting support. They basically ran a crowdfunding campaign that said they would open source it when they reached X amount of money. (I think it was 500k€ at the time) that was good not just financially but also because it worked as a marketing/awareness tool. BMD could do is something similar. They could make every (yearly?) release closed but GPL it once their revenue hits…

They had to buy rights from investors and it was 110k eur. https://www.blender.org/about/history/

Yeah, thanks for the correction. I totally misremembered the order of events (I thought they were still open as a business when they created the foundation) and amounts.

Re: DaVinci Resolve 18

#140

Post by AussieWog93 »

capableweb wrote: post #82
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…

> 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. Yeah, I mean that probably affects how they setup their pricing, but as you quoted me, it seems you're arguing against my point, rather than adding to it. With…

>Without the hardware side of BMD, I'm not sure how they would be able to sustain the company as it is with just sales of the (very cheap) software.

I don't understand the specifics, but I know Resolve is profitable in its own right (used to have lunch multiple times per week with one of the co-founders).

I think a lot of the IP was picked up during an acquisition, and most of the work on it is done by a fairly lean team up in Singapore.

Of course, that's not to say it's as profitable as it could be, but neither optimising for profit nor making a loss is not the goal of the founders.

Post reply on HN