Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
DaVinci Resolve 18 and older 17 and 16
  • 459 Replies sorted by
  • caveportcaveport

    What QuickTime thing are you referring to?

  • nomadnomad

    I suppose he's referring to QT in general. But you can work in Resolve without QT, EXR is there.

  • EzzelinEzzelin

    Checked out the new version. Playback performance is better on my G7 4K files, but still not real-time. There must be a better way than QuickTime. It's so old at this point.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    I suppose he's referring to QT in general. But you can work in Resolve without QT, EXR is there.

    Yep. QT comes from Mac origin of Resolve, but on PC it is very rarely used by few software and is one big glitch.

  • JayB38JayB38

    I agree with @Vitaliy_Kiselev. Every time I try to open the program, it keeps telling me that the QuickTime decoder is not there or that it's invalid or some type of crap. Wish they would update to a better decoder

    @Ezzelin. I have a G7 as well, and I only downsample my clips to 1080p DNxHD 4:2:2 files via ClipToolz Convert V2. Hope that helps.

  • chauncychauncy

    in 12.3 when I import my 4k h265video files, they come without audio. No audio track at all. File from nx1, audio is aac. Anyone else seeing this?

    I have opened a ticket with blackmagic.

  • EzzelinEzzelin

    @JayB38 Yeah, I could transcode my files in any number of ways, but that's what I'm trying to avoid. It's 2016; a high spec desktop should be able to decode 4K h264 in real time, and can in other programs.

    Has anyone tried VapourSynth or AviSynth to replace the decoder? I understand that Resolve can't read the scripts natively, but there's a program that mounts scripts as a file system and this may work. Here's a link talking about it:

    http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=172456

  • Ralph_BRalph_B

    @chauncy

    It's a bug in the Windows version of Davinci. It affects MTS and MP4 camera original clips from both Sony and Panasonic cameras (and now apparently NX1 clips, as well). There is picture, but no audio. It's been going on ever since the beta versions. It seems to be low on Blackmagic's priority list to fix. It's good that you opened a ticket. Others should do so, too.

    BTW, how did you import the NX1 clips? I tried to import some and got absolutely nothing - no picture or audio.

  • MckiniseMckinise

    I encountered the Quicktime bug and the the lack of audio. A glance at their forum shows many other issues with the software. I don't think Davinci Resolve 12 is ready for prime time.

  • chauncychauncy

    I opened a support ticket on the no audio track. They have been able to reproduce it and it is now a known bug.

  • tonalttonalt

    Updated to 12.3 from 12.1. Didn't notice any performance improvement with GH4 & GH2 h.264 files.

  • caveportcaveport

    I see Quicktime is still being blamed for many issues. I find it amusing that nobody blames the H264 & H265 long-gop codecs! Resolve editing is still in it's very early development. It's going to be a while before it catches up with the competition.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    I find it amusing that nobody blames the H264 & H265 long-gop codecs!

    Meaning? What it is impossible to make proper decoders?

    Log-gop codecs are most efficient codecs and this is where future will be going, including cameras.

    Resolve editing is still in it's very early development. It's going to be a while before it catches up with the competition.

    I think that H.264 is really old codecs, and very good optimized and hardware assisted decoders exist for years, yet Resolve relied on ones that are most bloated and have inefficient implementation. And I even know reason - laziness and saving money.

  • caveportcaveport

    Using codecs designed for final delivery and distribution is where all the post production woes began. H264 was a problem for all editing systems when it was first used in cameras. Resolve is a Colour Grading app first and an editing app second. Yes Resolve has a VERY long way to go before it is able to replace other editing apps that are currently available. Quicktime is not the problem. MXF and other 'container' formats are also not the problem as these containers have been around for a VERY long time and have worked well in the professional industry. The media industry has 'fragmented' and so now we have a mix of many different and competing formats and manufacturers who no longer agree upon common standards for the media formats they use. It's a mess out there and I do many more hours sorting out the mess people create when they don't understand the pitfalls of just throwing all their camera media at an editing system and expecting a perfect experience. The Resolve forum is full of questions from people who use the free version and refuse (or are unable) to read the documentation which explains the processes one should use. "And I even know reason - laziness and saving money."

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Using codecs designed for final delivery and distribution is where all the post production woes began.

    It is wrong opinion that it is delivery formats only, it is just codecs can be used for anything. In delivery people use fact that such codecs are most efficient ones. But. If you have high equal bitrate, such codecs are still significantly better than so loved intraframe ones.
    if you have proper software and hardware it is preferable to use them. In the usual people world HEVC, for example, bring even better value, as you can store very detailed recordings in compact form for many many years.

    Quicktime is not the problem. MXF and other 'container' formats are also not the problem as these containers have been around for a VERY long time and have worked well in the professional industry.

    QuickTime is a problem :-) Sorry.

  • EzzelinEzzelin

    Why should we have to settle for inefficient codecs in today's day and age when we have computers that can trivially decode efficient codecs in hardware? The entire concept of an "editing" codec is outdated and from a time when it wasn't possible any other way. Nowadays I can get real-time playback of 4K mp4 files on my cellphone. Surely Blender should be able to do the same on a high end PC. And yes, QuickTime is a problem, because it's based on old outdated technology that seems to be abandoned. I'm not even sure it's able to do hardware decoding at all, and even efficient software decoding would be an improvement for it.

  • nomadnomad

    I'd leave Resolve to those who really need it. It is a heavy iron dependent software for the film industry and the fact that there is a free version that can do some editing too has not changed that. What does it really mean to small budget productions if you get the program for free, but the hardware should be something beyond 4-5K U$? OK, with the exception of hardcore gamers who have the latest and greatest GPU anyway…

    Most well established NLEs are far more efficient in editing H.264 in particular and cost you less than the beefier hardware you need for Resolve. And, seriously, how many low-budget projects need more grading capabilities than you get in any modern NLE? Many get Resolve only to make these mistakes: https://www.rocketstock.com/blog/the-three-most-common-mistakes-made-by-amateur-colorists/

    Remember, if your camera is only delivering 8 bit 4:2:0 there is not much you can do in grading, you need to get things into the ballpark right from the start. Vitaliy is right that H.264 or H.265 can do more for you than 8 bit 4:2:0, and long-GOP encoding is definitely more efficient for movies than intra-frame, but how many camera manufacturers give you this option in low-cost cameras?

    I'd say: those who can afford a camera that justifies the use of Resolve should be able to afford the hardware it needs. Plus, they won't be editing with Resolve as it is now, only grading. BTW, in a professional workflow you have picture-lock before you go into final grading …

  • chauncychauncy

    so much wrong with what you're saying it's hard to comment. I find resolve more efficient on everything I use from gh2, bmcc, nx1, 4k, all kinds of camcorders. It's just better. I often do color passes at full rez, playback is a little slow, but way better than adobe. My opinion Color is not even competitive. Avid and FC Color are still around only because of a pre-existing userbase.

    It's not yet at adobe level for editing and has no real sound features. But I always stay with it as much as I can, often editing in adobe and coloring in resolve. But, more and more, I stay with it start to finish, except if audio needs processing.

    I don't know where people get this idea it requires a huge machine. Good, yes, i7 cpu, mid level gaming video card.

    I never shoot anything and am just happy with it out of camera. Color correction and enhancement is always needed, even if a single quick pass. Resolve is a very deep program but it is easy enough to use for simple correction with curves and luts, now with ofx that most plugins now support.

    There are enough tutorials around that it's not at all hard to learn, I think it's more intuitive than adobe. Don't even get me started on final cut and avid. Everything with them is "you will learn our weird and proprietary way" instead of "let me help you".

  • libertaslibertas

    I run resolve on a 6 core amd phenom, 16 GB ram, two average nvidia cards, a small ssd. many terabytes storage, whole system costs 800-1000 euros max. It's not for 4k, but for everything else, it's pretty good. As a long time Avid mc user, media management, long form projects and heavy effects work, probably have a more fluid workflow on Avid, if you know how to use it. For everything else Resolve is the way to go, I think. Mostly because its free and works out of the box. The cache/ proxy workflow is very useful. And all you can do with color, masks, keyframes, versions, memories, etc is pretty f... amazing

  • nomadnomad

    Maybe I got misunderstood, since I only wanted to get wrong expectations out of the way.

    I actually use Resolve nearly every day with footage from Red Epic on a machine with 12 Xeon cores, two Titan-X (12 GB), RAIDed SSDs for cache and a massive conventional RAID (hardware RAID card) for media. It chews through 6K footage quite nicely when grading, but for editing it's not yet there. It's not only the limited audio capabilities. There is no fluid working possible, it stutters and pauses unexpectedly, even if the bandwidth demand of Red footage is not really massive.

    But, if you dare to try editing H.264 in 4K on a mid-level machine like i7, 16 GB RAM and a mid-level gaming card with 4 GB (actually 3.5 at full speed) it not only hangs and stutters, but crashes again and again, forgets footage that was already linked and so on. JKL control, for example, is totally unresponsive when going back. Try any scaling and it crawls and stutters, while Premiere Pro (not that I really love it) runs smooth and reasonably stable on the same hardware. And Resolve completely occupies the machine when I let it render "optimized media" or final delivery. How old-fashioned is that?

    Don't get me talking about a laptop experience…

    I'd really like to stay in Resolve for editing and grading, but it's simply not there (yet?). I'd rather not have all the sizing or speed ramping problems connected with getting XMLs from an NLE into Resolve.

  • ScotScot

    Functionality of Resolve depends on what your trying to do. I'm very happy with it and my machine is a 6 year old I7 with 15GB ram and run of the mill 7200 rpm discs. My GPU I'm sad to say is only a Nvidia 650Ti with 1GB. I'm processing G7 4K files but I make 1/4 size optimized media which is not a problem for me editing. If I need to see full resolution I turn off using optimized media as needed. I just edited a ad piece and used Balazer log luts on input and output, typical color corrections, transitions, tracking, etc. and it gives me the full 24 fps with little issues. Now that being said I played with adding a look lut and grain using a matte and corrector nodes and that brought my system to it's knees as it finally used up the 1 gig of video ram. I plan to get a Nvidia 970 with 4 gb ram which I'm sure will be a great boost. If I was editing movies my below average system and Resolves system requirements might be an issue. Add the fact after getting my head around workflow in Resolve I love it and will stick with it and will invest in hardware I'll own.

  • EzzelinEzzelin

    @Scot Are you making the 1/4 size optimized media inside Resolve, or externally? Last time I tried to make proxies in Resolve it took a long time and a lot of space.

  • nomadnomad

    It can take a lot of time (as Vitaliy already remarked, the H.264 decoder is quite inefficient), but the space needed is depending on the size. If you leave it on auto, it'll use the timeline resolution, but you can set it to smaller values manually. It seems that with the recent updates at least it doesn't loose the optimized media any more.

  • joetheprojoethepro

    We dont have the ability to import MP3s yet, do we? Why is this taking so long...

  • ScotScot

    @ezzelin I use Resolve to make my optimized media and force it to do 1/4 scale as that has worked better for me than auto. The benefit is I can turn off using proxies and see full resolution if I want to at will. I can also render out at 4K still if there is a need. That being said I am doing small projects so loading media and optimizing doesn't take to long. I look forward to seeing what a better card will do for me anyone have suggestions in the $350 price point? Currently planning on buying a Nvidia 970 card.

Add a Comment