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

231–240 of 307 posts

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#231

Post by amatecha »

erghjunk wrote: post #181
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…

Been said, but you can outright buy Capture One with no subscription. I am a fuji shooter and have been using C1 in this way for quite a while now.

Oh, yeah, I don't think I'm willing to drop $500 for something that I used to be able to use for free, just because the company decided to stop letting me use what I've had for years, for both of the cameras I use (Sony and Fujifilm)!... Screw them. I won't ever be giving them any money.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#232

Post by Forgeties79 »

Keyframe wrote: post #218
Forgeties79 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

Yeah, BMD has a fighting chance. It's interesting how they got there (software-wise). They bought cutting-edge and expensive tools and kind of gave them away for free-ish. Hardware sales gave them a chest to do it with, and small market for those niche tools allowed them to buy it for peanuts. It's Autodesk's playbook on M&A but definitely different strategy in capturing the market. Even Apple had a horse in the race…

They’ve definitely played the long game well

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#233

Post by cowmix »

embedding-shape wrote: post #227
cowmix wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47765893 I run Resolve under CachyOS using the project I mentioned -- everything works afaict.

> It helps you build and run Resolve in a Docker or Podman container Why though? I run it perfectly fine on Arch as-is, what problem does containers solve here? Install it to different paths and you have different versions working too.

How are you installing Resolve in Arch? I have not actually tried installing directly (in Arch at least). What problems are you having in the Fusion page too?

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#234

Post by flexagoon »

Saris wrote: post #211
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…

I wonder if https://github.com/zelikos/davincibox would make it easier and more stable, I haven't tried it myself yet.

I've used davincibox and found it to work great

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#235

Post by amatecha »

IndrekR wrote: post #84
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…

Have you tried Affinity Photo?

I haven't, but based on the history summarized in this post[0] I'm guessing they will soon force everyone into their subscriptions anyways

[0] https://mg0x7be.github.io/affinity-enshittification-how-canv...

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#236

Post by user_7832 »

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…

> Source - I'm a videographer that also works as a cinematographer / director on smaller budget projects.

Tangential - any helpful advice you could give to budding videographers? I'd love to make those nice B-roll images you see in YouTube videos (Engineering Explained comes to mind).

Most advice is either for folks videoing people, or generally for photography. Funny thing is I'd say I'm already a very solid photographer... but my videos (admittedly shot on my phone) never look as good.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#237

Post by Forgeties79 »

Jamesbeam wrote: post #68

I really like what BMD is doing. Disappointed with all the companies starting with A. Having a proper choice that is not Adobe or Affinity is a win for every amateur like myself working with videos and photos.

I switched my department over to resolve studio about 2 years ago and we’ve never regretted it. We use the NLE and fusion components constantly. Fairlight is a bit meh still but otherwise we’re very happy. Premiere was such a pain

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#238

Post by miladyincontrol »

Wish it supported more raw formats that most libraries (ie libraw) support.

Lens corrections are also a big question mark, and if they are using something like lensfun I really do hope they allow user imported db/corrections rather than whatever is compiled into it.

Neat that they try to support JXL compressed raws but colors render very off.

Seems some promise, while I love davinci for video I'm not sure this will be for me, but I'm excited for those who it is enough for.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#239

Post by dylan604 »

gyomu wrote: post #64
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…

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…

> Anyone working in video has a solid understanding of the technical underpinnings of their craft.

Lol. That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I've been on so many sets where there was not a single person that knew how to read a waveform. After the Canon 5Dmkii came out where "the producer's nephew could shoot this for $500" became a thing, the skill set dropped dramatically. There are people that can frame a pretty picture while at the same time have zero understanding of what's happening between the lens and the sensor to the recording medium. When video cameras started shooting flat expecting the user to know what to do with that, it became a trend of sending the flat look out because people didn't know what to do with it. When DV cameras were shooting 24 but still recording to tape with pulldown applied so it still recorded to a 29.97 tape, people had no idea how to get rid of the interlacing properly and just edited 29.97 instead of the 24/23.976.

You are giving way too much credit to people in the industry. It would be nice if everyone on the production crew and in post knew everything they should to be competent, but there are many many people fakin' it 'til they make it.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#240

Post by btown »

Any information about what the $295 Studio license adds for Photos specifically? Having trouble finding a feature matrix.

Is scripting from an external system (like Claude Code) easier/only possible with the full Studio version?

Post reply on HN