![]() That and the fact it matters not if you are win10 or Mac, or linux, you have a standard pretty much going forward, and for the future, it is almost a no-brainer to switch to Resolve.which will work on pretty much any laptop after 2013.DR16 is fine on my 6 year old mac laptop. Once all the bugs and such are coded out of DR16, it will make Resolve for me the NLE I turn to, it just makes more sense, instead of roundtripping, and XML, as well as not having to deal with stupid ideas Apple love.Resolve seems to be the path of better returns. But I can forgive the pancake timeline for what DR16 is, it is fingers crossed a bridge to a brave new world of pancake-less tracks, which makes editing so much more effective. What I did not like about Resolve was the v1 v2 v3 etc a1 a2 a3 stacking, "pancaking" of tracks, I felt this was too much an 8bit idea, long left behind, like we do our toys from toddlerhood.īut now I am no longer a great fan of Apple, it has a place, much like Avid has, and I am so not a fan of software rental, and again PPro is a pancake NLE. I used to be a great fan of the idea behind final cut studio, that is final cut pro 6 and 7, then waited for an update, when FCPX was released it was what is this dog-pooh Apple dropped on innocent laptops?Īfter a while I grew to understand the power of FCPX, the magnetic timeline, the way you can hide rejected clips, the keyword collections.but the hardware, borderline scam by Apple to force you to buy the most expensive, and then it is not the most powerful or effective device on the market. It's not the newest engine, but comes from team of very good programmers. Another example of such a well optimised tool is Edius. Just go to main Preference/User/Playback Settings and set Performance Mode to "Disable".Įxample BRAW file plays at 60fps on my Macbook Pro by default, but with performance mode disabled can't even hit 30fps.įCP X is new and well written. It was more obvious when it was under top menu and more manual. Resolve uses half resolution decoding, simpler scaling etc constantly, but it's all automatic now (people even have no idea about it). Sometime Resolve is better, but sometimes it's not the case at all. in Premiere they need to switch to 1/2 resolution etc. Seen many comments from "famous yotubers" that Resolve plays files in realtime at full quality, but eg. All performance settings have been moved to main preferences where people sometimes don't even look. Resolve already does it behind the scenes. It really is one of the most incredible and useful pieces of software around now. In fact I'd be surprised if they weren't working on exactly that given the speed Resolve is updated. So if Blackmagic needs to lower image fidelity to get speed up to FCPX standards, they should probably work on doing that for the edit page alone, and maintain quality standards for the color page. For editing speed and accuracy are much more important to the task, which is why we routinely drop scrubbing quality in order to be able to edit smoothly and stop your playhead on a specific frame. Because the target user aren't as high, neither are the hardware requirements.įahnon Bennett wrote:I think the argument that the highest fidelity is needed for color grading is valid, but Resolve is now much more than grading alone. You can do professional work on it, depending on the work, but it's really designed with consumers and prosumers in mind- people who aren't working on very technically demanding projects. In other words, when BMD was specifying the minimum requirements to have a good experience in Resolve, they weren't thinking vloggers, they were thinking feature film editors and colorists.įCPX, on the other hand, is more accurately described as "prosumer". Resolve is professional software and it's target user expects a certain level of performance and reliability while working on demanding projects. Minimum specs don't refer to the hardware requirements needed to run software, rather, they refer to the hardware requirements needed to provide a good user experience. Like FCPX, it will run on almost anything. He could have done the same thing with Resolve. When I look into the hardware needed for DaVinci Resolve I see the expensive graphic cards and CPU. The interface though was responsive all the time. It slowed down only in the final rendering. Albertocv wrote:Recently I watched a Youtuber showing how he edited a vlog in Final Cut X on a MacBook Air.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |