Resolve Lite 8.01 First Impressions

[Pablo Villegas S.]

I can create a decent image out of camera, that's not the point. I've been a cinematographer and still photographer for more than 15 years. And shooting slides you need to nail the look you want on camera, you have almost no latitude for correction or grading.

And I don't need to learn grading, just how to use this specific software. I've shot and graded more than 20 42 min episodes and at least 20 commercials shot on RED, and about 40 42 min episodes shot with Cinealta's F900, F23 and F35. I graded all with Apple Color, and yes, I use at least 2 or 3 secondaries. Sometimes as much as 7.

I just wanted to learn how to do the same stuff with Resolve.

 

[jake blackstone]

I can create a decent image out of camera, that's not the point. I've been a cinematographer and still photographer for more than 15 years. And shooting slides you need to nail the look you want on camera, you have almost no latitude for correction or grading.

And I don't need to learn grading, just how to use this specific software. I've shot and graded more than 20 42 min episodes and at least 20 commercials shot on RED, and about 40 42 min episodes shot with Cinealta's F900, F23 and F35. I graded all with Apple Color, and yes, I use at least 2 or 3 secondaries. Sometimes as much as 7.

I just wanted to learn how to do the same stuff with Resolve.

You can gripe as much as you want about not getting enough out of free Resolve version, the fact remains, BM is not going to release anything new for a forceable future. So, your choice is to start learning now with what you've got ( that covers 99% of average learning needs) or buy the full version. There is no third choice

 

[Philipe Ratton]

They take a 200k+ system and make a powerful version that will cost around 10k
including monitoring. And now people complain there is no windows version.
Then, they make a FREE !!!!!!!!! version of the same software, capable of doing a lot
and people complain again. I really don't get anything anymore. What the hell is everyone thinking
nowadays ? Buy magic bullet for a lot less, run it wherever the hell you want and stop all this damn
whining ! BM did with color grading the same Red did with image acquisition. They made a powerful tool available to people who could never dream of such power before. Just my opinion, sorry if anyone got offended but all of this is just getting too annoying.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I happen to think, that free Lite version already TOO good of a value, even with just two nodes, but that just me For some clever colorist, two nodes can be quite enough to do some great stuff. And to be able to use Lite for on set work and for prep work, it's just incredible.
As far as being able to manually keyframe in case of target moving off screen or some kind of occlusions, you absolutely can do that. Manual explains it very well.

Exactly. And only $999 was to good an offer to pass up for me.

I love the way it works with MC Color too.

 

[M Most]

Philipe,

Thank you for saying what I wanted to say but figured I'd get flamed for. :thumbup1:

 

[Tom.Wong]

They take a 200k+ system and make a powerful version that will cost around 10k
including monitoring. And now people complain there is no windows version.
Then, they make a FREE !!!!!!!!! version of the same software, capable of doing a lot
and people complain again. I really don't get anything anymore. What the hell is everyone thinking
nowadays ? Buy magic bullet for a lot less, run it wherever the hell you want and stop all this damn
whining ! BM did with color grading the same Red did with image acquisition. They made a powerful tool available to people who could never dream of such power before. Just my opinion, sorry if anyone got offended but all of this is just geting too annoying.

woooo magic bullet! my favorite is the "blockbuster" stock look. teal and orange baby.

 

[eric a wahl]

They take a 200k+ system and make a powerful version that will cost around 10k
including monitoring. And now people complain there is no windows version.
Then, they make a FREE !!!!!!!!! version of the same software, capable of doing a lot
and people complain again. I really don't get anything anymore. What the hell is everyone thinking
nowadays ? Buy magic bullet for a lot less, run it wherever the hell you want and stop all this damn
whining ! BM did with color grading the same Red did with image acquisition. They made a powerful tool available to people who could never dream of such power before. Just my opinion, sorry if anyone got offended but all of this is just geting too annoying.

Well Said Sir!!!!

 

[jimhare]

The lite version was pure marketing genius! I installed it to make sure Resolve was right for me. Within a week I've bought a Quadro 4000 and the full version of Resolve, as well as the FXPHD fast forward course.

There is no way I'd have the confidence to do all that without playing with it on my own system. Already had the Wave, Rocket and BM card so for $1700 including the course I'm set!

 

[Jerimiah Morey]

They take a 200k+ system and make a powerful version that will cost around 10k
including monitoring. And now people complain there is no windows version.
Then, they make a FREE !!!!!!!!! version of the same software, capable of doing a lot
and people complain again. I really don't get anything anymore. What the hell is everyone thinking
nowadays ? Buy magic bullet for a lot less, run it wherever the hell you want and stop all this damn
whining ! BM did with color grading the same Red did with image acquisition. They made a powerful tool available to people who could never dream of such power before. Just my opinion, sorry if anyone got offended but all of this is just geting too annoying.

I also completely agree with all of this. The only point that I agree with Alexander on is modifying the tracking data on a window could use some improvement. Other than that, I don't use internal scopes, they have a number of issues, for me the biggest being that they are slow. The dynamics also work fine for me, I have to zoom in and out a bit, but I can live with that. There are very, very good reasons for having multiple timelines in a single session. It's extremely useful in commercial workflow. I really hope Black magic doesn't start caving to everyone who chimes in about how they would like this or that feature and instead only implement changes where they get an overwhelming majority speaking up for these changes. Baselight is a great example of a color corrector that seemingly implemented features that were only of interest to a few users, but in doing so has really cluttered the interface, both panel and UI.

I've been using resolve, along with Lustre and Baselight for a long time now. Color correction software so far has all had advantages and disadvantages, mostly regarding the UI, but I'm very leery of the manufacturers changing things around too much. It's easy for it to end up being a cluttered mess,

 

[Wolf]

I just downloaded the Lite version. I'm impressed!

I'm a DP, not a colorist. I'd like to add my vote for the following:
For dailies color correction it's very important to have audio pass through, so I'll second that need.
Being able to render out to whatever codec and wrappers editorial needs is also important. (Not sure if I read the manual correctly at this point, but I thought I only saw QT in there and no .mxf or Avid files...?)

The simplicity of having one system that can take you from previews and dailies all the way to finishing with varying price and performance points depending on production needs is a great value for DPs like me (and many others).

 

[Maz Mawlawi]

They take a 200k+ system and make a powerful version that will cost around 10k
including monitoring. And now people complain there is no windows version.
Then, they make a FREE !!!!!!!!! version of the same software, capable of doing a lot
and people complain again. I really don't get anything anymore. What the hell is everyone thinking
nowadays ? Buy magic bullet for a lot less, run it wherever the hell you want and stop all this damn
whining ! BM did with color grading the same Red did with image acquisition. They made a powerful tool available to people who could never dream of such power before. Just my opinion, sorry if anyone got offended but all of this is just getting too annoying.

While I don't disagree with you, a lot of the whining and complaining is often what helps companies do a better and more versatile product at the end. I know it certainly helped RED a lot. And while we have a current MAC license of resolve, I will keep whining and complaining about releasing a windows version. I'm a big fan of (creative media) software and hardware that runs on both platform, especially in today's age. (Same whining goes for software that is windows only by the way)

 

[M Most]

While I don't disagree with you, a lot of the whining and complaining is often what helps companies do a better and more versatile product at the end. I know it certainly helped RED a lot. And while we have a current MAC license of resolve, I will keep whining and complaining about releasing a windows version. I'm a big fan of (creative media) software and hardware that runs on both platform, especially in today's age. (Same whining goes for software that is windows only by the way)

Seems to me there is little difference in usefulness to the manufacturer between whining/complaining and making helpful suggestions. It's just that one is a lot more supportive and positive, and the other indicates that the whiner/complainer seems to think they have some sort of entitlement to even more free stuff. I know that I, as a person, react a lot more positively and favorably to a helpful suggestion or request than I do some whining rant complaining about what I didn't do. And in those kind of areas, companies are not that different from people.

 

[Marc Wielage]

If I have a laptop for the field and a desktop in the studio ... its easy to see how a single Resolve user could end up losing a dongle ... or simply not have it where they need it. In that case, some functionality is better than no functionality.

The flaw I see with that is: what are you using as a monitor? To me, this is a critical problem, and you can't trust a laptop monitor to do final color. I wouldn't do anything with a laptop and Resolve except maybe file management, comforming, and scene detection (at least with only a laptop).

Say for example I create a project in the full version of Resolve, then open it in Resolve Lite. I would really like Resolve Lite to be able to play back the Resolve project - even if it has 14 nodes. Perhaps, since this is an artificial limit, Resolve Lite could play it back, but not render or edit any but the first two nodes. If the current hardware can't support a feature in the current project, then display a unique disabled node icon to indicate that, but leave the node in place with an error message that explains and play back the other nodes.

This is no different than the old days, when people would do small Pro Tools sound mixing sessions in Pro Tools LE and then import them into a big mixing stage Pro Tools HD system with hundreds of tracks. But I understand why Blackmagic had to specifically limit the capabilities of a free version. You want more, spend the $995.

I'd also agree with Mike and Jake elsewhere: I've done hundreds and hundreds of projects where we got by with just a couple of layers (or nodes), and got absolutely beautiful pictures. 14 nodes gets into visual effects land, picking the wings off butterflies. Granted, you can do it, provided you have six months to spend on a project. In the real world, where you might have to knock out a feature in a week or a documentary in a couple of days, there's absolutely no time to do tons and tons of nodes. My last project (a high-profile network pilot), I think 75% of the show was two or three nodes at most, and then the other 25% had a half-dozen nodes. Maybe a handful of shots with a few more than that. This was all Rec709 material, nothing hugely complicated. Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, sure, you'll need a dozen nodes all over the place. On my transfer of Star Wars, we had entire reels with six simultaneous tracking power windows on every shot -- and that was the limit of the technology, 7 years ago. For an average indie feature or a short, this is hopeless overkill. I'd hope to god the DP got it a lot closer than that; otherwise, we're basically relighting the entire film, which to me is counter-productive and un-cost-effective.

Audio ... the current arrangement is antiquated. Resolve should play audio attached to a video file by default. The process of extracting an audio track and resynching it is pretty silly. I understand that Resolve is not about audio editing/finishing.

I don't think Color, Baselight, Film Master, or Pablo can natively play back a file with embedded audio, either (certainly not conformed from within the system). You can easily sync up an audio file with Resolve (and the other systems), just as another element in the timeline. Not that big a deal -- it takes about :30 seconds to set up in Resolve. The hardest trick is to figure out the timecode offset due to monitoring delays in the system.

 

[jake blackstone]

I don't think Color, Baselight, Film Master, or Pablo can natively play back a file with embedded audio, either (certainly not conformed from within the system). You can easily sync up an audio file with Resolve (and the other systems), just as another element in the timeline. Not that big a deal -- it takes about :30 seconds to set up in Resolve. The hardest trick is to figure out the timecode offset due to monitoring delays in the system.

Actually FilmMaster can. When you import a file with embedded audio, it will import that file as a separate video and audio, which user can then treat as any separate source. I often use an offline QT as a audio scratch track. But only Scratch, as I know, can embed audio on the render.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

If I have a laptop for the field and a desktop in the studio ... its easy to see how a single Resolve user could end up losing a dongle ... or simply not have it where they need it. In that case, some functionality is better than no functionality.

The flaw I see with that is: what are you using as a monitor? To me, this is a critical problem, and you can't trust a laptop monitor to do final color. I wouldn't do anything with a laptop and Resolve except maybe file management, comforming, and scene detection (at least with only a laptop).

There are a lot of comments in reply here that are so far off base that they are effectively straw man arguments.

This is an example.

I don't know anyone who actually does final coloring in the field or on set.

Also, the question ignores the possibility of using BlackMagic's Thunderbolt interface for monitoring, and Black Magic's UltraScope products for scopes. Or even just a second monitor for scopes. You can often do good work with just scopes ... not final quality, but very good.

Still, even if you have a full DIT cart, and a great tent/office you still have to go back to a coloring suite/theater and check the work on evaluation grade gear in a calibrated environment.

Finally ... there is nothing inherently wrong with a laptop, even for a final grade.

The big thing you are risking with a laptop is performance. A lot of emphasis is placed on Resolve's real time performance.

Well, so what? Even with a single GPU (albeit on a Mac Pro) Resolve Lite performs much faster than Color. MacBook Pro's have two GPUs, and quad core, eight thread processors. If you are willing to trade time for money ... then you can definitely do a final grade with a laptop.

None of that even addresses the concern I raised, simply being able to have functionality with or without a dongle.

I stand by my specific request ... Resolve should be a unified software product.

Dongle - Resolve as we know it today.

Serial number, no dongle - Resolve in an academic/learning/indie film limited capability license.

No serial number, no dongle - Resolve Lite as we know it today.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

They take a 200k+ system and make a powerful version that will cost around 10k
including monitoring. And now people complain there is no windows version.
Then, they make a FREE !!!!!!!!! version of the same software, capable of doing a lot
and people complain again. I really don't get anything anymore. What the hell is everyone thinking
nowadays ? Buy magic bullet for a lot less, run it wherever the hell you want and stop all this damn
whining ! BM did with color grading the same Red did with image acquisition. They made a powerful tool available to people who could never dream of such power before. Just my opinion, sorry if anyone got offended but all of this is just getting too annoying.

I don't know who this is aimed at specifically.

I think I am making suggestions.

For what it is worth, I don't think anyone from Blackmagic has taken my post out of context.

I am profoundly enthusiastic about the product, and have said several times Resolve Lite erased any lingering doubts about its utility. Resolve Lite has resulted in a planned purchase here. In fact, I'll be using Resolve Lite in conjunction with Color in an awkward workflow to generate the cashflow to make the purchase.

Some of that includes adding additional features at the low end for learning.

It also included paying for those extra features.

BlackMagic set the cost of the full version of Resolve at $995, not me. BlackMagic set the cost of Resolve Lite at $0, not me.

That is incredibly generous of them, but it also sets the market value of the software.

When I thought about my ideas for a "Resolve Indie/Academic" version, I set the price, in my mind, based on what I'd be willing to pay for a less limited version of Resolve that is still not the full product. I suggested $199 ... the main point is that I am willing to pay.

Someone, I think Jake, said that today your choices are Resolve Lite for $0 or buying a license for $995. Well of course that's true... I think we all live in that consensual reality.

I'm arguing that the choices in the future should not be so binary

I happen to think, that free Lite version already TOO good of a value, even with just two nodes, but that just me For some clever colorist, two nodes can be quite enough to do some great stuff. And to be able to use Lite for on set work and for prep work, it's just incredible.

I half agree.

If I were in charge of this product over at Black Magic I'd have charged some small fee for Resolve Lite, maybe $29. I'd also stick Resolve Lite in the box with every product they sell that is compatible with Resolve for free. In that case the BlackMagic hardware is a dongle for Lite functionality.

As I've made clear, I'd offer a serial number that activated some more functionality, with fairly loose licensing terms. (A single user may install on every machine they use personally.) A hardware dongle could be purchased that gave full functionality.

Where I differ with BMD, is that it would have been the same exact software in all cases. A Resolve Lite user could upgrade just by buying a serial # from BMD.

Still, Resolve Lite is a 75% solution. I think it could safely have a few more functions added without endangering the higher end products. Especially since they'll continue to improve the high end products!

I think in the end the real value of this software to Black Magic is that it sells their other hardware for them. I have a Decklink right now ... I'll probably get their Thunderbolt i/o product, although I'd like that to have two Thunderbolt ports for pass through. (I can live with it as it stands today ... its just not ideal.) I'll also be buying more Ultrascope products, as well as Decklink 4K. If this does represent a part of the value of Resolve to BMD ... then I am all in with BMD.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Learn to walk before you run. You don't need to get to the advanced stuff until you know how to make a proper image. There's very, very little that "can't be done" in the lite version. If you think it requires parallel nodes and 10 secondaries to make a decent image, you're just indicating a lack of experience in doing basic grading. Unless the material you're dealing with is really awful, you should be able to make a decent image - even a "creative grade" - without any of that stuff. That's not an exaggeration, it's the truth, and any experienced colorist would tell you exactly the same thing.

People really have to stop thinking they need a Rolls Royce in order to drive to the supermarket.

Well that is a straw man.

I'm very happy to learn all the things I can accomplish with just two nodes! It's amazing.

What Resolve Lite doesn't allow is for me to learn or practice with parallel nodes or multiple power windows.

Your car example doesn't really convey the situation, I think perhaps that was intentional.

Let me give you another.

I don't need a {name your supercar} to learn to drive a manual transmission.

I do need a car with a manual transmission.

Resolve Lite is like learning to drive a manual transmission car in a car with "tiptronic" clutch-less shifting and three gears: forward, reverse and neutral.

Now, for myself I'm going to get the full version.

Students, or someone like Pablo Villegas S. may not buy the full version, but they may lay down cash for something a little more that lets them practice all the techniques in the manual.

 

[M Most]

Well that is a straw man.

I'm very happy to learn all the things I can accomplish with just two nodes! It's amazing.

What Resolve Lite doesn't allow is for me to learn or practice with parallel nodes or multiple power windows.......Students, or someone like Pablo Villegas S. may not buy the full version, but they may lay down cash for something a little more that lets them practice all the techniques in the manual.

Sorry, I disagree. We've made great images for years without those things. Students need to learn how to make nice images, they don't need to learn advanced techniques until they are adept at the basics. The notion that every shot requires such things is a strong indication of a lack of experience. They seem to think they know how professional colorists work, and assume that we use those techniques all the time. They're wrong. But everyone is entitled to feel the way they want.

 

[Luis Otero]

...So, your choice is to start learning now with what you've got ( that covers 99% of average learning needs)...

Cannot agree more, Jake.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Sorry, I disagree. We've made great images for years without those things. Students need to learn how to make nice images, they don't need to learn advanced techniques until they are adept at the basics. The notion that every shot requires such things is a strong indication of a lack of experience. They seem to think they know how professional colorists work, and assume that we use those techniques all the time. They're wrong. But everyone is entitled to feel the way they want.

Well, at least this one is not a straw man, but it is rather thoughtless.

Students need to learn techniques. That is their job, well part of it at least.

Where we seem to differ is the notion that students can't learn "the basics" if they are also presented with advanced techniques/materials/tools. That is absolutely false, and frankly insulting.

Its not for you to place an artificial limit on the techniques they should learn. And to be VERY clear, what you are arguing right now is that people shouldn't learn all the techniques in the manual.

I absolutely agree that you won't need to execute a parallel node-flow on most shows, but anyone studying color correction with Resolve should learn that technique. I mean ... I assume you know how to execute a parallel node flow, and that you simply choose not to do so.

Learning to choose between available techniques is also a powerful skill, but in order to develop it a student has to have several techniques available.

If it were an academic environment ... you can restrict the techniques used for exercises. For example, you might ask a shot to be graded with a single node using only primary lift gamma gain, and then ask that the same shot be graded using only custom curves or the RGB Mixer. etc. etc. When students turn in their projects, including their work, you can see if they followed instructions readily and grade appropriately.

Another painfully insulting assumption you are making is that people who wish to learn Resolve are not already experienced colorists, or that they don't know "how to make nice images." If someone has been coloring for 5 years using Color or Color Finesse and has delivered a pile of shows ... then they are a professional colorist, and they probably know how to make images they way they like them. Let's not disparage them by insinuating they can't make an image just because they want to be able to learn and practice executing techniques that aren't common.