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

DaVinci Resolve – Photo

blackmagicdesign.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 307 posts

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#201

Post by larodi »

jordand wrote: post #132
googie wrote: post #126

I wish they (authors of DaVinci Resolve and the Photo Editor) paid more attention to Linux platform. Theoretically DaVinci Resolve runs on Linux, but getting it run is a very bad experience on Ubuntu/Kubuntu 24.04. I even paid for the DaVinci license, as I read somewhere that for Linux it's necessary in order to have all codecs supported. It did not help. Fortunately there were no problems with refund. There are whol…

Autodesk have been the same with Maya on Linux. The 2027 version has just been released, and it still doesn't have full Wayland support. The VFX Reference platform doesn't mandate Wayland support. And strangely enough, Maya versions prior to 2025 work perfectly fine on Wayland (they migrated to Qt 6 with 2025)

Wonder what really stops them to have an agent dig for a night, and have this compatibility in place. Even if it means them say - this is very unstable, use with caution.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#202

Post by CyberDildonics »

arecsu wrote: post #31

This 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…

Ironically it works very well to edit a photo in a compositing program which black magic also gives away for free in digital fusion. People just don't know about it or how to use it.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#203

Post by niek_pas »

danbruc wrote: post #140

Complete tangent, what is going on with this image [1]? Render? AI? Too much post-processing? It has some computer game graphics look to me, but I can not quite put the finger on what seems off. [1] https://images.blackmagicdesign.com/images/products/davincir...

The camera and headphones are composited in, pretty sure the skyline is shopped in as well (the shadows on the desk should be much harsher given the bright sky), same with what's on screen. The displays being mirrored for no reason doesn't exactly help sell the reality of it either.

The bookshelf is looking sus too.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#204

Post by Forgeties79 »

Lightroom killer hopefully.

I started on FCP, did FCPX, did premiere for 2 years (awful), now my production team is completely around resolve studio. I would never go back to any of the others, Resolve is clearly the superior NLE with a company that has thus far maintained pretty stellar business practices IME.

I’m rooting for black magic design on this one. Adobe is a terrible company.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#205

Post by Forgeties79 »

Keyframe wrote: post #178
gyomu wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short of it is that there’s no money in photography, compared to videography. Movies routinely have 8 or 9 digit budgets, with teams of hundreds of people who have to collaborate to make footage coming from dozens of different cameras look seamless and consistent. Meanwhile, $1M would be an insane budget for a photo shoot. You can see this in the actual skills of people working in the field as well. Anyone workin…

those big productions are production design and above the line heavy. Most people on shoots are paid well. However, if you look at the other side of the coin, hardware and software supporting the industry, it's actually "laughable". ARRI which is the biggest name in the game on shoots is ~$1b, RED was sold of for $85m, BMD could fetch as high as $3b, Autodesk's Media & Entertainment is and then you have Adobe which h…

Adobe may be a big dog but it hasn’t insulated them from black magic eating more and more of their NLE market share with every passing year. BMD went from making a (niche for everyone else) Hollywood color tool to a full blown NLE with almost 20% of the market share in less than a decade. Not to mention a very respectable camera line.

I remember hearing the phrase “round tripping through resolve” for years as some sort of magical incantation only somebody in post production understood. Now resolve is fighting for Lightroom’s space within a full NLE. That’s something!

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#206

Post by Daub »

orbital-decay wrote: post #89
arecsu wrote: post #31

This 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.

I teach design and art and routinely supervise photo projects. The low level of expectation that even the best students have of color editing amazes me. Few can think further than brightness/contrast adjustments. Lightroom is seen as the pinnacle yet its hue tools are beyond dreadful. The hue curves in DaVinci are pretty much the only act in town for sophisticated hue adjustments.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#207

Post by KaiserPro »

dbspin wrote: post #138
gyomu wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short of it is that there’s no money in photography, compared to videography. Movies routinely have 8 or 9 digit budgets, with teams of hundreds of people who have to collaborate to make footage coming from dozens of different cameras look seamless and consistent. Meanwhile, $1M would be an insane budget for a photo shoot. You can see this in the actual skills of people working in the field as well. Anyone workin…

Fundamental misunderstanding of the market dynamics here. There are at least an order of magnitude more people making a professional salary as photographers (ie.: enough to justify a software purchase) than professional videographers. Outside of film, videographers are generally paid a day rate about half as high as photographers, with enormously higher equipment costs. Film - hollywood, streaming, TV etc, combined a…

THe cinema industry is much smaller than photography, but the dialogue between companies and customers is much much richer in VFX.

Autodesk, foundry and Avid all have site licenses with their big players, and the product owners/managers will be on site talking to users to see what bugs/features are needed.

More over a lot of the big companies that buy this software also have their own R&D departments. So there is much cross pollination.

Also people will come to blackmagic and foundry with problems and ask for help (Ie rolling shutter reduction, anti-noise, optical flow, copy grade, etc etc)

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#209

Post by atombender »

Pyrodogg wrote: post #45
robertwt7 wrote: post #34

I always try out new photo editors but I've kept coming back to LR because of familiarity + number of presets / plugin (Dehancer) that I've bought. I think there should be some presets converter somewhere that helps us with moving to other software, not much can be done for plugin though. regardless I'm a happy user of Davinci Resolve and this is amazing!

> The Photo page gives you everything you need to manage your entire image library from import to completion. You can import photos directly, from your Apple Photos library or Lightroom, and organize them with tags, ratings, favorites and keywords for fast, flexible management of even the largest libraries. This is how they're going to win over LR users. It always comes back to it not just being a decent photo editor…

As a long-term Lightroom user (who's never used DaVinci Resolve before), to me this doesn't look like it's positioned to compete with LR as a primary photo library/editor tool.

If that is their goal, then I think it's a huge failure. What they've done is add photo support to Resolve, which is still primarily a video tool. All the video stuff is there — most parts of the UI is oriented around video clips and video editing. The photo editing is kind of buried in there.

Compared to Lightroom, this doesn't seem like it's designed to be a real library management tool, let alone a DAM. Lightroom has very good support for previews, decoupling the library metadata from the physical media, and so on.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#210

Post by omgitsu »

PaulHoule wrote: post #176
dbspin wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamental misunderstanding of the market dynamics here. There are at least an order of magnitude more people making a professional salary as photographers (ie.: enough to justify a software purchase) than professional videographers. Outside of film, videographers are generally paid a day rate about half as high as photographers, with enormously higher equipment costs. Film - hollywood, streaming, TV etc, combined a…

As a semi-pro photographer I look at the $295 pricing and think that is a very reasonable price for something that could help my photos look like my photos . I bought DxO PhotoLab for $235 and color grade with it all the time. Right now I use LUTs that other people made and have been thinking I’d like to learn to be more systematic and make my own. I don’t really do video but I have in the past so a video editor comi…

The amazing thing about Resolve is that the free version is almost certainly enough for > 95% of use cases. The features that are locked behind the Studio upgrade are truly pro features - in that you won’t need them at all unless you are delivering for a proper studio or professional project. The amount of firepower you get from the free version is easily at parity with any comparable product from Adobe/Apple - and in many cases blows them out of the water… for free.
Post reply on HN