Earlier quoted context omitted.
so you only export to 1080p? I pay for it, albiet the $300~ price point is still low for forever free updates
GPU hardware accelerated encoding/decoding is only in the paid version as well.
DaVinci Resolve – Photo
91–100 of 307 posts
Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo
#92It took me a damn long time to find this information, so I'm pasting it here: > It includes native RAW support for Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Sony and even iPhone ProRAW. I looked all over for a more technical page that just lists these kind of specs in bullet-point form, but apparently they refuse to communicate information about their product in this way? The "Tech Specs" page only seems to show information about hard…
Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo
#93This is incredible. There are soooo many features that Davinci already handles so damn well when it comes to color editing, that I only wish they existed in photo editors. To the point there were people posting videos on Youtube about hacky workflows to edit RAW photo files on Resolve and export each one as JPG files haha. Only Darktable seemed to push the technical capabilities of photo editing forward (AgX, paramet…
Photoshop can do anything that you mentioned for many years now. I wish using Darkroom more, but it is terrible in defaults. It's one of those software that is developed by enthusiastic programmers but ignore actual needs of photographers. You don't need tons of demosaic algorithms but none reliable selection tool.
Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo
#94Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo
#95Davinci Resolve has been great product for both free and paid version but atm I'm not using it since they require nvidia graphics(CUDA) for linux usage, unfortunately
Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo
#96This is incredible. There are soooo many features that Davinci already handles so damn well when it comes to color editing, that I only wish they existed in photo editors. To the point there were people posting videos on Youtube about hacky workflows to edit RAW photo files on Resolve and export each one as JPG files haha. Only Darktable seemed to push the technical capabilities of photo editing forward (AgX, paramet…
This was always absolutely inexplicable to me. A lot of photographers are just resistant to better color tools (as in, actively arguing against them!) or are in deep denial about their existence. Photography is well behind videography in that regard.
Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo
#97Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo
#98This honestly made my day. I’ve been looking for a way to manage my photos on Linux for a while. Lightroom has been the only reason I’ve stuck with a Mac. If I can switch to a photo editor that lets me process everything properly, skip the monthly subscription, and not have Adobe tracking all over my system—that’s exactly what I want. This feels like a dream come true. Really amazing.
I'm in a similar camp where I'm stucking to windows for that one software: lightroom classic (or CC as they call it). I'm happy to pay for a legitimate replacement that lets me go Linux native on a laptop. I'm fine even paying for the Adobe Cancellation tax from the money I save not buying Windows. On that note, is this supported on Linux?
Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo
#99It took me a damn long time to find this information, so I'm pasting it here: > It includes native RAW support for Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Sony and even iPhone ProRAW. I looked all over for a more technical page that just lists these kind of specs in bullet-point form, but apparently they refuse to communicate information about their product in this way? The "Tech Specs" page only seems to show information about hard…
I've just installed DaVinci and pointed it at my photos from this year and so far it's been frozen for 8 minutes, not initially confidence inspiring.
Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo
#100It took me a damn long time to find this information, so I'm pasting it here: > It includes native RAW support for Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Sony and even iPhone ProRAW. I looked all over for a more technical page that just lists these kind of specs in bullet-point form, but apparently they refuse to communicate information about their product in this way? The "Tech Specs" page only seems to show information about hard…
I have a Lumix camera which doesn't have support for Raw files but apparently you can just use the free Adobe DNG converter and it works well. It should work for your Fuji Raws too.