3 ms·

I've been using it for many years, and it's grown in power and functionality with every release. BMD has offered free upgrades to Pro users (with no subscriptio

by neovive 25d ago

I've been using it for many years, and it's grown in power and functionality with every release. BMD has offered free upgrades to Pro users (with no subscription) for many years, which is refreshing given the current state of software licensing. For those upset with the new agent integration, keep in mind that one of the big knocks on DaVinci Resolve is that it's hard for beginners. Powerful tools like color grading and nodes take years to truly master (and that won't change), but making it easier for users to collaborate with the agents they already use to help learn and perform basic tasks should help with the learning curve. Ultimately, professional video editing is an art. An agent might save time with asset management, project/timeline setup, etc., but it won't replace the real experience and taste required for larger projects. I would rather spend the extra time on the nuanced/deeper creative work.

gizmodo59 25d ago
No offense whatsoever. But this whole line "but it won't replace the real experience and taste required for larger projects" is not how I see it. I wish people are more humble at this juncture of AI progress. This is not to say humans won't play a part but saying xyz cannot be replaced is a big stretch. Saying its not there currently is okay but saying it won't replace I don't see where that's coming from.
- trentor 25d ago
  Because there has to be demand for it. There are hundreds of tasks that could be automated right now, and people still choose to do them by hand. Just because something is technically replaceable doesn’t mean it will be replaced and editing is a deeply personal part of the process for almost every director. It will change, but for serious work, it will never be a sure shot job handled entirely by AI. Sure, for low effort marketing videos you’d outsource to Fiverr, it’ll happen sooner or later but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
  - bel8 25d ago
    > ...but for serious work, it will never be a sure shot job handled entirely by AI. Maybe not entirely handed by AI but when AI starts doing it better than most and in a fraction of the time, for a fraction of the cost, why do you think it wont be at least partly delegated to AI? the "never" is what gets me here.
    - trentor 25d ago
      Because there is no demand for it to be fully handled by AI. Nobody is denying that parts will be handled by AI but that’s also you moving the goal post.
      - HDThoreaun 25d ago
        What makes you say that? You think people like paying professionals to edit their videos? Surely some do, but everyone?
        trentor 25d ago
        Maybe read again.
        bel8 25d ago
        you're right. ads are already infested with AI videos which means it works for some and those are no longer paying the price of fully manual editing.
      - wincy 25d ago
        Coraline is a claymation movie made by hand, and Wildwood is coming out. But it’s because a cofounder of Nike loves stop motion animation. Despite critical acclaim these movies don’t make money. Just like we don’t have masterwork marble sculpture makers anymore. I have serious doubts anyone will surpass the works of Michaelangelo in the next hundred years; maybe a thousand.
    - ToucanLoucan 25d ago
      > the "never" is what gets me here. The process is the point for any passionate creative. And yes, for every passionate creative you have a burned out creative who's trying to make ends meet who will use more AI centric tools because both that creative and the people paying them likely do not care how things look when they're completed, only that they're completed, on-time, and under budget. However, again, an actual creative wouldn't. Imagine you and I are climbing a mountain: I'm climbing the mountain because I love climbing mountains. Climbing mountains is what I live for. I work full time and hard as hell so I can afford trips to climb mountains. You, on the other hand, have a terminal illness and you know that at the top of this mountain is a plant you can eat that will cure you with no side effects. So we're both doing this thing, but for WILDLY different reasons. If as we're climbing a helicopter flies up and hovers behind us and the pilot says "hey I'll take you to the top of the mountain if you want!" we're going to have very different responses: you don't care about climbing mountains, and even if you do, you're not on this particular climb to enjoy it; you're here because you need this plant to cure your illness. You'd be crazy to not jump in that helicopter and get what you need to live. However, I'd be equally crazy to do the exact same thing, because climbing the mountain is why I'm here, I live for climbing mountains, and I want to climb this one. This is what AI people do not get about creatives and why we talk past each other. AI people think creative people make things to have finished works, and that's certainly a part of it, and basically a requirement if you'd like to monetize your creativity. But like, I work in software as my day job and I'm bloody good at it, but I use AI to generate code sometimes because the process of developing software doesn't do nearly the same thing for me as creating art. I love making art, and I'd do it even if it made me no money. And I know that, because I've been doing it my whole life and it's never made me money. I feel depressed if I go too long between making works of art. I get ideas building up inside me and they itch and scratch at my being until I sit down and spend several hours turning said idea into something I can see, but like, if I just put a prompt into an AI image generator, I feel absolutely nothing doing that. All of that to say: I genuinely do not believe AI will completely replace all of this, for no other reason than only a fraction (sizable though it may be) of creatives will ever want it, let alone use it. The quality of it and arguing about if it can "match" a human creative isn't the point, the humanity is the point. I don't want to look at AI generated art, and so I won't, and I especially do not want to replace my creative output with that of Midjourney. Ever. I don't care how good or cheap it is which is why those arguments just bounce off of me. I'm here to climb a mountain and you're offering me a staircase.
  - jstummbillig 25d ago
    For anything that can create better margins, and that is not outlawed, there will be demand.
- embedding-shape 25d ago
  > But this whole line "but it won't replace the real experience and taste required for larger projects" is not how I see it. Why not? Personally (although I'm not saying others have to see it this way too), I'd wait until I can see what AI can replace, before believing so, rather than the opposite. So far, AI isn't able to "set direction" at all in any sensible way, especially for a creative project like TV or movies, the results are just too bad (today). Although it's excellent at "following directions", which is why these new APIs are great and exciting, it lets people who are good at setting direction to leverage these tools to have the direction concretely followed by something, without having to create a group of collaborators. Until we've seen proven that AI can indeed "set directions" ("have taste"), I think it's fair to assume they're unable to do so in a way that it produces something that humans generally enjoy. And very far from the kind of masterpieces a human can create.
  - nik282000 24d ago
    > it lets people who are good at setting direction to leverage these tools to have the direction concretely followed by something, without having to create a group of collaborators It lets the unskilled access the tools of the skilled without having had to learn all the pitfalls, traps, and safety concerns. With video editing there may not be much at stake but we've already seen how sloppy code ~= vulnerable code when the prompter does not know what they are doing. What's going to happen when project managers start vibegeneering cars and buildings.
- alehlopeh 25d ago
  Yes people really need to take the AI’s feelings into account before they say things like that.
- dannyw 25d ago
  The way I see it, it’s all about how you use it. Let people have tools; their output stands on its own legs. As pro software, the UI has a learning curve. Many YouTube videos are out of date, or unnecessarily drawn out. Additionally, as a hobbyist, project settings, color spaces, clipping, etc can be tricky to miss. I’ve already been using Claude to (1) help me with UI, (2) QA my delivery, and (3) occasional fixes for audio repair; waveform sync (can’t afford time codes). I make all creative decisions - including most menial ones - myself, I wouldn’t have it any other way; I enjoy the act of creating. I welcome this integration. I’m sure some users are gonna agentically grade or whatnot. I don’t like it, but I’m also don’t believe in telling other people what they should do with their own work and creative process.
- engineer_22 25d ago
  Taste is subjective - that's why it can't be replaced.
- tigershark 25d ago
  I would gladly enjoy to collaborate with an agent if I can learn more about video editing. I edit my video only for passion and to learn something new though, so I guess that professionals may see this in a different way. But I don’t think that it’s much different from how Claude code revolutionised the software scene.
  - matsemann 24d ago
    Same. I edit lots of stuff in DaVinci, but am quite bad at it. As in, I spend forever figuring out how to do the stuff I want to do. I don't need the AI to invent stuff for me or take any decisions, just help me achieve my vision. Often it's quite simple stuff, where I'm forced to watch a too long video tutorial to figure out how to do something. But if I instead can ask it "help me to configure it so that the subtitles get baked into the video" or whatever it would be nice.
- ux266478 25d ago
  I understand what you're saying and I agree, ostensibly, but on the caveat that it's hinged on the "we don't know what we don't know" aspect of reality. If we restrict our domain to what's forseeable, it's still apparently the case. Astra's demos have me scratching my head, diminishing returns are kicking in harder and faster than anticipated. It seems we've entered a phase to where frontier companies have completely abandoned improving the substrate because they can't justify it. It seems like it's all just harnesses and reasoning orchestration at this point. Hell, everybody but Google seems to have given up even on projection layer improvements (and Gemini is unusably bad in other ways). Watching this next generation closely, because there are just a shitload of red flags starting to crop up that don't seem to be going away.
- msabalau 25d ago
  The person you are replying to seems to have a depth of experience with editing over many years. It seems pretty clear that AI capabilities are jagged. There are good reasons to believe based on research and the subjective evaluation of experts who are quite friendly to AI that there are some tasks creative tasks that AI has been really quite good at (totally disrupting stock illustrations) some where it does so much better than typical person, but not nearly as well as well as an expert (song creation) and some where, so far, it pretty much fails, and sees almost no progress even as models get better and better. (long form creative writting). Indeed, writting style sometimes seems to fall backwards with recent releases. Also, it's subjectively, but commonly held to be true that most of the content created when AI can execute well lack taste, unless the human creating with AI has it. The term "slop" exists and in legible for a reason. I mean, maybe this is just a question of different people speaking about different time horizons. But it seems perfectly sensible for someone to say that there is a lot of automation that can happen in the near term, and that they see no reasonable evidence that AI can do interesting or even coherent work this space. I don't know that shallow accelerationist boosterism (or panicked doomer despair ) that handwaves away the distinctive variations AI performnce is that enlightening.
prollings 25d ago
Taking away some of the more monotonous and "uncreative" tasks in any job can be taking away some of the variety in the work. Variety is nice. Variety affords us downtime. As the job gets stripped down to its core function, while a machine keeps the pipeline full so that the work can continue uninterrupted, the downtime slips away. And great for beginners, now they get to pay some chatbot company to cover the gaps left by detereorating software design. Lucky they're already using agents... are they?
- tenacious_tuna 25d ago
  > Variety affords us downtime This feels inverted to me: downtime affords us variety. If I have little downtime then I'll strongly prefer known, efficient methods of doing something, rather than experimenting with new ones. > As the job gets stripped down to its core function, while a machine keeps the pipeline full so that the work can continue uninterrupted, the downtime slips away. This I agree with, though.
- bahmboo 25d ago
  I have to disagree. You are already many levels away from the actual pixels. This is what software is for. Drawing a line for you personally is dismissive of the rest of the user base. Just because there is a so called agent added to the mix doesn't remove the human. It includes far more humans and enables them to use the tool. This is design if done right. Also you seem to be critiqueing the concept not the implementation. I don't mean to be harsh, only passionate.
  - nullsanity 24d ago
    Hard dissagree, it's just the pot boiling to harvest data and render future users helpless without the chatbot. Your stance is anti-human, and the robots and ceos will not appreciate your efforts in giving capital more power over creativity.
    - bahmboo 24d ago
      I don't sense that you have thought this out in depth. You are cycling talking points even if you don't mean too - that's what I hear. I have a hard time seeing your way. I build software. Tools for humans to do stuff. Whatever they want. Then it gets complex. There are methods to make it more accessible to more people including so called agents. I want to go to there I want to enable the humans. I feel you bro that you see human getting squeezed out. I do not see it that way. The human is still the nexus. CEOs and tech bros and hype are all a distraction and a fog that will dissipate with time. We need to focus on the functionality and utility. We are engineers You are a valuable person in the conversation and we all need you to participate with eyes wide open. I assume you are young. That's not discounting it is welcoming. [edit: cleaned stuff up to hopefully make it more direct and non-confrontational]
jasomill 25d ago
Not only are the upgrades free, the full license is still only $295 and can be freely migrated between macOS, Linux, and Windows (unless something has changed, serial numbers can be activated on two systems at a time and transferred freely so long as you have Internet access). I'm no expert, but I never found Resolve materially more difficult to learn or use than Final Cut Pro or Premiere. And if you're doing anything moderately complex, it's potentially easier to learn because things that require external tools in FCPX and Premiere are built in to Resolve Studio. I suspect the agent integration is primarily workflow/UI related, but regardless, I don't see it as any more anti-creative than incorporating precanned effects and presets into a project, and potentially a very useful learning tool since the Resolve UI is quite good at letting you see how the sausage is made.
- darksaints 25d ago
  $295 one time permanent license with free upgrades and can be migrated between different computers? I don't have a single reason to do any form of video editing, let alone professional video editing, but that kind of pricing model makes me want to buy a license just to make sure that companies like this stick around.
  - echelon 25d ago
    They make their money from hardware (and hopefully will continue to be able to do so). This is commoditizing Adobe for them.
  - Danox 24d ago
    Black Magic supports all three platforms and they’re not exactly a large company. They show every day that there is no excuse/reason not to support multiple platforms. Anything else is just an excuse by a lazy developer. The developer for Blender is also the same. A user of both programs. Black magic also make a program that support/ties into the camera hardware on smartphones and they support both Android and iOS.
  - deleted 24d ago
    [deleted]
elwell 24d ago
> it won't replace the real experience and taste required for larger projects [Citation needed]
fhe 24d ago
yes to agents! how i had wished i could just point an agent at my footage and instruct "do something sensible with color grading and audio cleanup". i just want something presentable for a hobby video podcast. it doens't have to look a million bucks, and i have no time or desire to learn the intricacies involved. just something that would get me 70% (or 50%!) the way there would be more than fine.
- abilafredkb 24d ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 22d ago
  [deleted]
- verge7 22d ago
  [flagged]
- verge7 21d ago
  [dead]
VerifiedReports 24d ago
Resolve is not any harder to use than any other NLE. Although... BMD has actually made it harder, by adding bloat like the Cut page. I have attempted to find value in it a couple of times, and didn't. Now I disable it. BMD needs to stop throwing crap into Resolve and buckle down and do two things: 1. Fix bugs, including UI defects. The Deliver page is a mess. The clip selection between the Edit timeline and the Fusion page makes no sense. And lots more. 2. Unify the node views. Resolve is a bunch of stuff BMD bought and threw together on different pages. The "integration" is janky and can, especially for the beginner, seriously degrade your work. Once example is how Fusion compositions inexplicably downgrade everything to timeline resolution. So you can bring 4K footage into a Fusion comp, but if your output timeline of the moment happens to be merely HD, the entire composition (including keys) will be degraded to work at that resolution. I mean... really? And beyond that, the relationship between Fusion comps and the timeline events they wind up in is extremely fragile and breaks arbitrarily and unrecoverably all the time. A single nodeview for all operations would be a long-overdue game-changer for editing software.
- jawngee 24d ago
  Have you ever considered that you aren't the target audience for the cut page? It's supposed to be paired with a speed editor and is mostly intended for assembling rough cuts. You probably aren't cutting features or television or multicam so it's usefulness is probably out of your range of use.
j45 24d ago
Helping more beginners might upset some who have put in the labor. Over time many things become easier to learn and do, and those who might feel upset should make sure their own feet are moving as well in terms of their learning and growing.
jdboyd 24d ago
I view the agent integration (bearing in mind I haven't tried it yet) as an easier way to replace writing python scripts to do repetitive tasks, for people doing particularly repetitive work. A macro recorder might be more optimal to the anti-AI crowd, but this is probably easier to implement for the developers, while being more flexible for the end users. I assume that this can be connected to local models, not just cloud models.

by neovive 25d ago

gizmodo59 25d ago

No offense whatsoever. But this whole line "but it won't replace the real experience and taste required for larger projects" is not how I see it. I wish people are more humble at this juncture of AI progress. This is not to say humans won't play a part but saying xyz cannot be replaced is a big stretch. Saying its not there currently is okay but saying it won't replace I don't see where that's coming from.

trentor 25d ago
Because there has to be demand for it. There are hundreds of tasks that could be automated right now, and people still choose to do them by hand. Just because something is technically replaceable doesn’t mean it will be replaced and editing is a deeply personal part of the process for almost every director. It will change, but for serious work, it will never be a sure shot job handled entirely by AI. Sure, for low effort marketing videos you’d outsource to Fiverr, it’ll happen sooner or later but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
- bel8 25d ago
  > ...but for serious work, it will never be a sure shot job handled entirely by AI. Maybe not entirely handed by AI but when AI starts doing it better than most and in a fraction of the time, for a fraction of the cost, why do you think it wont be at least partly delegated to AI? the "never" is what gets me here.
  - trentor 25d ago
    Because there is no demand for it to be fully handled by AI. Nobody is denying that parts will be handled by AI but that’s also you moving the goal post.
    - HDThoreaun 25d ago
      What makes you say that? You think people like paying professionals to edit their videos? Surely some do, but everyone?
      - trentor 25d ago
        Maybe read again.
      - bel8 25d ago
        you're right. ads are already infested with AI videos which means it works for some and those are no longer paying the price of fully manual editing.
    - wincy 25d ago
      Coraline is a claymation movie made by hand, and Wildwood is coming out. But it’s because a cofounder of Nike loves stop motion animation. Despite critical acclaim these movies don’t make money. Just like we don’t have masterwork marble sculpture makers anymore. I have serious doubts anyone will surpass the works of Michaelangelo in the next hundred years; maybe a thousand.
  - ToucanLoucan 25d ago
    > the "never" is what gets me here. The process is the point for any passionate creative. And yes, for every passionate creative you have a burned out creative who's trying to make ends meet who will use more AI centric tools because both that creative and the people paying them likely do not care how things look when they're completed, only that they're completed, on-time, and under budget. However, again, an actual creative wouldn't. Imagine you and I are climbing a mountain: I'm climbing the mountain because I love climbing mountains. Climbing mountains is what I live for. I work full time and hard as hell so I can afford trips to climb mountains. You, on the other hand, have a terminal illness and you know that at the top of this mountain is a plant you can eat that will cure you with no side effects. So we're both doing this thing, but for WILDLY different reasons. If as we're climbing a helicopter flies up and hovers behind us and the pilot says "hey I'll take you to the top of the mountain if you want!" we're going to have very different responses: you don't care about climbing mountains, and even if you do, you're not on this particular climb to enjoy it; you're here because you need this plant to cure your illness. You'd be crazy to not jump in that helicopter and get what you need to live. However, I'd be equally crazy to do the exact same thing, because climbing the mountain is why I'm here, I live for climbing mountains, and I want to climb this one. This is what AI people do not get about creatives and why we talk past each other. AI people think creative people make things to have finished works, and that's certainly a part of it, and basically a requirement if you'd like to monetize your creativity. But like, I work in software as my day job and I'm bloody good at it, but I use AI to generate code sometimes because the process of developing software doesn't do nearly the same thing for me as creating art. I love making art, and I'd do it even if it made me no money. And I know that, because I've been doing it my whole life and it's never made me money. I feel depressed if I go too long between making works of art. I get ideas building up inside me and they itch and scratch at my being until I sit down and spend several hours turning said idea into something I can see, but like, if I just put a prompt into an AI image generator, I feel absolutely nothing doing that. All of that to say: I genuinely do not believe AI will completely replace all of this, for no other reason than only a fraction (sizable though it may be) of creatives will ever want it, let alone use it. The quality of it and arguing about if it can "match" a human creative isn't the point, the humanity is the point. I don't want to look at AI generated art, and so I won't, and I especially do not want to replace my creative output with that of Midjourney. Ever. I don't care how good or cheap it is which is why those arguments just bounce off of me. I'm here to climb a mountain and you're offering me a staircase.
- jstummbillig 25d ago
  For anything that can create better margins, and that is not outlawed, there will be demand.
embedding-shape 25d ago
> But this whole line "but it won't replace the real experience and taste required for larger projects" is not how I see it. Why not? Personally (although I'm not saying others have to see it this way too), I'd wait until I can see what AI can replace, before believing so, rather than the opposite. So far, AI isn't able to "set direction" at all in any sensible way, especially for a creative project like TV or movies, the results are just too bad (today). Although it's excellent at "following directions", which is why these new APIs are great and exciting, it lets people who are good at setting direction to leverage these tools to have the direction concretely followed by something, without having to create a group of collaborators. Until we've seen proven that AI can indeed "set directions" ("have taste"), I think it's fair to assume they're unable to do so in a way that it produces something that humans generally enjoy. And very far from the kind of masterpieces a human can create.
- nik282000 24d ago
  > it lets people who are good at setting direction to leverage these tools to have the direction concretely followed by something, without having to create a group of collaborators It lets the unskilled access the tools of the skilled without having had to learn all the pitfalls, traps, and safety concerns. With video editing there may not be much at stake but we've already seen how sloppy code ~= vulnerable code when the prompter does not know what they are doing. What's going to happen when project managers start vibegeneering cars and buildings.
alehlopeh 25d ago
Yes people really need to take the AI’s feelings into account before they say things like that.
dannyw 25d ago
The way I see it, it’s all about how you use it. Let people have tools; their output stands on its own legs. As pro software, the UI has a learning curve. Many YouTube videos are out of date, or unnecessarily drawn out. Additionally, as a hobbyist, project settings, color spaces, clipping, etc can be tricky to miss. I’ve already been using Claude to (1) help me with UI, (2) QA my delivery, and (3) occasional fixes for audio repair; waveform sync (can’t afford time codes). I make all creative decisions - including most menial ones - myself, I wouldn’t have it any other way; I enjoy the act of creating. I welcome this integration. I’m sure some users are gonna agentically grade or whatnot. I don’t like it, but I’m also don’t believe in telling other people what they should do with their own work and creative process.
engineer_22 25d ago
Taste is subjective - that's why it can't be replaced.
tigershark 25d ago
I would gladly enjoy to collaborate with an agent if I can learn more about video editing. I edit my video only for passion and to learn something new though, so I guess that professionals may see this in a different way. But I don’t think that it’s much different from how Claude code revolutionised the software scene.
- matsemann 24d ago
  Same. I edit lots of stuff in DaVinci, but am quite bad at it. As in, I spend forever figuring out how to do the stuff I want to do. I don't need the AI to invent stuff for me or take any decisions, just help me achieve my vision. Often it's quite simple stuff, where I'm forced to watch a too long video tutorial to figure out how to do something. But if I instead can ask it "help me to configure it so that the subtitles get baked into the video" or whatever it would be nice.
ux266478 25d ago
I understand what you're saying and I agree, ostensibly, but on the caveat that it's hinged on the "we don't know what we don't know" aspect of reality. If we restrict our domain to what's forseeable, it's still apparently the case. Astra's demos have me scratching my head, diminishing returns are kicking in harder and faster than anticipated. It seems we've entered a phase to where frontier companies have completely abandoned improving the substrate because they can't justify it. It seems like it's all just harnesses and reasoning orchestration at this point. Hell, everybody but Google seems to have given up even on projection layer improvements (and Gemini is unusably bad in other ways). Watching this next generation closely, because there are just a shitload of red flags starting to crop up that don't seem to be going away.
msabalau 25d ago
The person you are replying to seems to have a depth of experience with editing over many years. It seems pretty clear that AI capabilities are jagged. There are good reasons to believe based on research and the subjective evaluation of experts who are quite friendly to AI that there are some tasks creative tasks that AI has been really quite good at (totally disrupting stock illustrations) some where it does so much better than typical person, but not nearly as well as well as an expert (song creation) and some where, so far, it pretty much fails, and sees almost no progress even as models get better and better. (long form creative writting). Indeed, writting style sometimes seems to fall backwards with recent releases. Also, it's subjectively, but commonly held to be true that most of the content created when AI can execute well lack taste, unless the human creating with AI has it. The term "slop" exists and in legible for a reason. I mean, maybe this is just a question of different people speaking about different time horizons. But it seems perfectly sensible for someone to say that there is a lot of automation that can happen in the near term, and that they see no reasonable evidence that AI can do interesting or even coherent work this space. I don't know that shallow accelerationist boosterism (or panicked doomer despair ) that handwaves away the distinctive variations AI performnce is that enlightening.

prollings 25d ago

Taking away some of the more monotonous and "uncreative" tasks in any job can be taking away some of the variety in the work. Variety is nice. Variety affords us downtime. As the job gets stripped down to its core function, while a machine keeps the pipeline full so that the work can continue uninterrupted, the downtime slips away. And great for beginners, now they get to pay some chatbot company to cover the gaps left by detereorating software design. Lucky they're already using agents... are they?

tenacious_tuna 25d ago
> Variety affords us downtime This feels inverted to me: downtime affords us variety. If I have little downtime then I'll strongly prefer known, efficient methods of doing something, rather than experimenting with new ones. > As the job gets stripped down to its core function, while a machine keeps the pipeline full so that the work can continue uninterrupted, the downtime slips away. This I agree with, though.
bahmboo 25d ago
I have to disagree. You are already many levels away from the actual pixels. This is what software is for. Drawing a line for you personally is dismissive of the rest of the user base. Just because there is a so called agent added to the mix doesn't remove the human. It includes far more humans and enables them to use the tool. This is design if done right. Also you seem to be critiqueing the concept not the implementation. I don't mean to be harsh, only passionate.
- nullsanity 24d ago
  Hard dissagree, it's just the pot boiling to harvest data and render future users helpless without the chatbot. Your stance is anti-human, and the robots and ceos will not appreciate your efforts in giving capital more power over creativity.
  - bahmboo 24d ago
    I don't sense that you have thought this out in depth. You are cycling talking points even if you don't mean too - that's what I hear. I have a hard time seeing your way. I build software. Tools for humans to do stuff. Whatever they want. Then it gets complex. There are methods to make it more accessible to more people including so called agents. I want to go to there I want to enable the humans. I feel you bro that you see human getting squeezed out. I do not see it that way. The human is still the nexus. CEOs and tech bros and hype are all a distraction and a fog that will dissipate with time. We need to focus on the functionality and utility. We are engineers You are a valuable person in the conversation and we all need you to participate with eyes wide open. I assume you are young. That's not discounting it is welcoming. [edit: cleaned stuff up to hopefully make it more direct and non-confrontational]

jasomill 25d ago

Not only are the upgrades free, the full license is still only $295 and can be freely migrated between macOS, Linux, and Windows (unless something has changed, serial numbers can be activated on two systems at a time and transferred freely so long as you have Internet access). I'm no expert, but I never found Resolve materially more difficult to learn or use than Final Cut Pro or Premiere. And if you're doing anything moderately complex, it's potentially easier to learn because things that require external tools in FCPX and Premiere are built in to Resolve Studio. I suspect the agent integration is primarily workflow/UI related, but regardless, I don't see it as any more anti-creative than incorporating precanned effects and presets into a project, and potentially a very useful learning tool since the Resolve UI is quite good at letting you see how the sausage is made.

darksaints 25d ago
$295 one time permanent license with free upgrades and can be migrated between different computers? I don't have a single reason to do any form of video editing, let alone professional video editing, but that kind of pricing model makes me want to buy a license just to make sure that companies like this stick around.
- echelon 25d ago
  They make their money from hardware (and hopefully will continue to be able to do so). This is commoditizing Adobe for them.
- Danox 24d ago
  Black Magic supports all three platforms and they’re not exactly a large company. They show every day that there is no excuse/reason not to support multiple platforms. Anything else is just an excuse by a lazy developer. The developer for Blender is also the same. A user of both programs. Black magic also make a program that support/ties into the camera hardware on smartphones and they support both Android and iOS.
- deleted 24d ago
  [deleted]

elwell 24d ago

> it won't replace the real experience and taste required for larger projects [Citation needed]

fhe 24d ago

yes to agents! how i had wished i could just point an agent at my footage and instruct "do something sensible with color grading and audio cleanup". i just want something presentable for a hobby video podcast. it doens't have to look a million bucks, and i have no time or desire to learn the intricacies involved. just something that would get me 70% (or 50%!) the way there would be more than fine.

abilafredkb 24d ago
[flagged]
deleted 22d ago
[deleted]
verge7 22d ago
[flagged]
verge7 21d ago
[dead]

VerifiedReports 24d ago

Resolve is not any harder to use than any other NLE. Although... BMD has actually made it harder, by adding bloat like the Cut page. I have attempted to find value in it a couple of times, and didn't. Now I disable it. BMD needs to stop throwing crap into Resolve and buckle down and do two things: 1. Fix bugs, including UI defects. The Deliver page is a mess. The clip selection between the Edit timeline and the Fusion page makes no sense. And lots more. 2. Unify the node views. Resolve is a bunch of stuff BMD bought and threw together on different pages. The "integration" is janky and can, especially for the beginner, seriously degrade your work. Once example is how Fusion compositions inexplicably downgrade everything to timeline resolution. So you can bring 4K footage into a Fusion comp, but if your output timeline of the moment happens to be merely HD, the entire composition (including keys) will be degraded to work at that resolution. I mean... really? And beyond that, the relationship between Fusion comps and the timeline events they wind up in is extremely fragile and breaks arbitrarily and unrecoverably all the time. A single nodeview for all operations would be a long-overdue game-changer for editing software.

jawngee 24d ago
Have you ever considered that you aren't the target audience for the cut page? It's supposed to be paired with a speed editor and is mostly intended for assembling rough cuts. You probably aren't cutting features or television or multicam so it's usefulness is probably out of your range of use.

j45 24d ago

Helping more beginners might upset some who have put in the labor. Over time many things become easier to learn and do, and those who might feel upset should make sure their own feet are moving as well in terms of their learning and growing.

jdboyd 24d ago

I view the agent integration (bearing in mind I haven't tried it yet) as an easier way to replace writing python scripts to do repetitive tasks, for people doing particularly repetitive work. A macro recorder might be more optimal to the anti-AI crowd, but this is probably easier to implement for the developers, while being more flexible for the end users. I assume that this can be connected to local models, not just cloud models.