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

111–120 of 307 posts

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#111

Post by joseluis »

tech234a wrote: post #54
InfinityByTen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes DaVinci Resolve is supported on Linux. Unfortunately the free version of DaVinci Resolve does not include H.264/H.265/AAC support on Linux due to codec licensing issues though you can transcode it elsewhere first.

Even the paid version doesn't include aac support in Linux so you have to transcode the audio from videos recorded from your phone, with ffmpeg for example, prior to opening them with resolve. That's the biggest inconvenience it has for me in Linux. And plugins can't solve that either, because apparently can only add codecs for encoding, not for decoding.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#112

Post by RobotToaster »

Washuu wrote: post #21
farzd wrote: post #19

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.

And they paywalled the ability to install the foss reactor plugin.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#113

Post by sanitycheck »

RobotToaster wrote: post #108
amatecha wrote: post #78

It 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…

> It includes native RAW support for Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Sony and even iPhone ProRAW. I guess everyone forgot that Pentax still exists.

Pentax sensibly decided to add native DNG capability a long time ago, the raw files work everywhere I've tried them.

(Except DaVinci, which I couldn't get to do anything without freezing for minutes at a time this morning.)

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#114

Post by user34283 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #79
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…

> handles so damn well when it comes to color editing I know it sounds shocking to criticise the color editing capabilities of a dedicated colorist tool, but... Resolve only got HDR output support on Windows recently! Up to version 18 or 19 it output gibberish that only specialised (super expensive) monitors could display. So you could have a HDR OLED 4K monitor and you'd get a washed out mess unless you also spent a…

I tried Resolve just now for Photos, and I'm not impressed.

The Sony RAW file rendered terrible compared to Lightroom.

I found the interface unintuitive and did not even manage to locate the much praised Color grading features. That tab opens with a Video view.

This needs some work to compete with Lightroom for Photos - I see that it's Beta 1, just saying.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#115

Post by t0bia_s »

orbital-decay wrote: post #93
t0bia_s wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Photoshop itself, without ACR, is light years behind in color processing. It's a dinosaur at this point. It had only one remotely competent grading plugin (Firegrade), but it seems abandoned.

Name some color process that cannot be done in PS. I'm recommending PS for color grading to be precise.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#116

Post by jdboyd »

ksimukka wrote: post #56
AussieWog93 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work at Blackmagic, wrote some of the peripheral code around BRAW and did some work with the Resolve guys up in Singapore. Used to have lunch regularly with one of the owners too. Need to check in with him again! At least back in 2019, BMD made a lot of money selling professional licences for DaVinci Resolve. I don't know exact figures but that part of the business was healthily profitable of its own accord…

I’m an avid user of Fairlight for almost a decade now. The accelerator card has an interesting history (as does Fairlight).

Do you have a link to learn more about that history?

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#118

Post by InfinityByTen »

d3Xt3r wrote: post #98
InfinityByTen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Have you tried Darktable or Rawtherapee? Both are excellent alternatives to LR.

I'll be honest that it was *long ago* that I made that attempt. Plus with the new AI denoise, it seemed even harder to move away from it.

But, if there's a battle-tested, mature UI, I'm up for giving it a shot. I have done no video editing, so no clue how my experience with DaVinci Resolve is going to go. I might give Darktable another go while I'm at it. Just tend to have a bad gut feeling about it.

Some people love tinkering. I do that as my job, so I don't often have the urge to do it when I just want to get shit done.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#119

Post by prmoustache »

vasco wrote: post #51
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…

I know you have a whole narrative going but there's gotta be millions of "make my picture look analog" filters, that was the whole premise of Instagram, you can get specific effects for pictures to look like all kinds of specific cameras, so mentioning VHS like esthetics as something that doesn't exist is very strange.

But that was a fad with the purpose of tentatively hiding the poor quality of the photos taken using smartphones of that era.

Nowadays default filtering is that everybody crank saturation and vibrance way too high so that it looks good when looked on a small screen full of fingerprints and a scratched screen protectors, under the sunlight. Same way music is dynamically overcompressed because the baseline is it need to still sound half decent on hostile noisy environments with crappy speakers/headphone.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#120

Post by jasomill »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #32
raincole wrote: post #10

How do they actual make money? I've been using Resolve for years without paying for it (and without thinking about its business model too much). It seems that they sell quite expensive professional hardware so I assume the software users are just compensated by hardware users?

I used to work at Blackmagic, wrote some of the peripheral code around BRAW and did some work with the Resolve guys up in Singapore. Used to have lunch regularly with one of the owners too. Need to check in with him again! At least back in 2019, BMD made a lot of money selling professional licences for DaVinci Resolve. I don't know exact figures but that part of the business was healthily profitable of its own accord…

I'm just a satisfied customer (Resolve and hardware), but it probably helps that it's a private company run by a cofounder CEO that seems to both understand and care about the company, its products, and their market.

From an outside perspective, "selling good products at fair prices and making bank" sounds about right for the hardware, but I always assumed the Resolve software itself was, if not a loss loss-leader, also not a major profit center.

Then again, there's something to be said for volume, especially in a market that includes lots of independent operators and dedicated amateurs worldwide who are willing to spend what good money they have on their craft.

Post reply on HN