Resolve Lite 8.01 First Impressions

[Oliver Peters]

Seems like the obvious compromise is to allow the full number of nodes, but watermark everything past 2 (or some other minimum number of) nodes.

- Oliver

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Seems like the obvious compromise is to allow the full number of nodes, but watermark everything past 2 (or some other minimum number of) nodes.

- Oliver

I don't know if BMD would see that as a compromise, but I agree that it is an acceptable alternative.

My goal here isn't to really expand Resolve Lite's feature set to a production level, but rather to learn how to use Resolve as best possible. Its not even a feature request I'd make for myself, because I'm buying the full version. I'm just putting myself in the place of students or really cash strapped freelancers.

 

[M Most]

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

Personal message sent.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Firstly, thank you for the time and will to share the impressions.

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.

No, it isn't false and "insulting" factor is made up by you. That statement comes from understanding the learning process.

Technique is just a part of any craft and is useless without understanding the principles and developing the sensibility.

"Advanced" comes after "the basics".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advanced

 

[jimhare]

$950 for the full version is practically free as it is.

I think Resolve Lite is perfect. Its goal is to allow you use some pretty cool funcationality in commercial jobs. Then if it's working great, spend the $950.

Seriously, the tracking and stablization alone are amazing. Two nodes let you set a base grade then have a trackable power window.

That's seriously cool.

I used Lite for about a week, then ordered the Quadro 4000 and full version of Resolve. Quadro arrived yesterday, Resolve arrives today.

Perfect evolution. Got to try it, fall in love with it, then buy it.

Seriously guys, this is not something to complain about.

 

[Mark Wilkinson]

$950 for the full version is practically free as it is.

Indeed. Kicked FCP to the curb, bought Premiere, a 4000, Resolve and done.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Firstly, thank you for the time and will to share the impressions.

Well, thanks.

No, it isn't false and "insulting" factor is made up by you. That statement comes from understanding the learning process.

Why is that insulting?

Well, what you are saying is that someone using Resolve Lite to learn Resolve, "shouldn't bother their pretty little head with all that advanced stuff."

Its condescending to assume that people using the software won't try to learn it properly, or that they won't try and grasp the basics before advanced material. Its also condescending to assume they can't already make images.

I've seen that several times on this thread from several people I respect, and frankly I find it troubling. Its a casual dismissal of a stranger's capabilities and background.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to RedUser.

On this forum we have a lot of working professional film makers and some very serious hobbyists and students.

Its probably best to assume that people already know a good deal about creating an image, at least in the general sense.

You wouldn't show up at the ASC and start a talk about cinematography by explaining which part of the camera goes towards the actors.

Technique is just a part of any craft and is useless without understanding the principles and developing the sensibility.

"Advanced" comes after "the basics".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advanced

Not one word of which conflicts with my point. I'd say its a truism.

If the basics are truly basic, then you simply can't master more advanced techniques without understanding the basics.

You can't do calculus if you don't understand algebra, series and some analytic geometry ... but frankly there are no filmmaking skills that require a lockstep education, like that of mathematicians, scientists and engineers.

Of course, so far we are speaking to the concerns of a new student of color correction.

If you are a colorist, then getting your head around Resolve's way of doing things is the point. It's also going to be a lot quicker and easier than learning to color in the first place.

It took about 5 minutes for me to figure out Resolve's primaries and other controls ... a few things didn't work how I expected, so manual, which lead to other cool things. So about 15 minutes into using Resolve, I was trying to learn how to do something Lite can't do.

Another category of potential customer is the person who has color correction software and a problem they can not solve in that software. It might be user ignorance, or a genuine software limitation ... but the main point is that they are going to pick up Resolve and want to attack those problems to evaluate it.

That's cool, I'm buying the thing. Not everyone can or will, and BMD may be leaving some money on the table.

Either BMD will agree with me or they won't. If they do, then when version 9 comes out there will probably be some sort of intermediate version as I suggest - if they don't I suppose they'll continue Resolve Lite and Resolve - possibly as separate products.

 

[Pablo Villegas S.]

Well, since I could not learn how to use Resolve with the lite version, I got a cracked version, and before you flame me... Rendering is disabled, it renders with some withe lines along the image and while playing in the timeline it has some flashes, so it's only usable to learn!

And that is what I was asking...

I could not have created this images with only two nodes, and without a Layer node, so the lite version was out of the question...

 

[Paul Nordin]

Unbelievable, Pablo, that you would post images on a public forum created by stealing software! And to make matters worse, on a forum which has benefitted greatly by active support from the very vendor you have robbed.

 

[Pablo Villegas S.]

Unbelievable, Pablo, that you would post images on a public forum created by stealing software! And to make matters worse, on a forum which has benefitted greatly by active support from the very vendor you have robbed.

Well, I don't think it is stealing, I will be final grading on a DaVinci system paying by the hour, I just downloaded this to learn how to use it, before start paying, and to see what could I do to my footage before paying about 200 dollars an hour. It runs at 6fps on my iMac, and you can't render, so it is unusable for anything other than learning how to use it. Like I said, I downloaded the lite version, but it is limited to two nodes.

I wouldn't call it stealing, I'm lobbying for the TV network I work for, to buy a 50,000 dollars Resolve system, because we are starting a Tv series in a few months with the Epic, and need to grade it.

I would have paid the 950 USD, if it was usable in my iMac, but is terribly slow.

 

[Curran Giddens]

Ah, the old "try before you buy" excuse.

 

[Paul Nordin]

Well, I don't think it is stealing,

Look at the license agreement and read any copyright laws. You will find you are 100% in violation of BM's ownership of the code. You have stolen from them and your excuses are not of any interest to anyone but you.

Somehow people feel that things like copyright are just suggestions rather than definitions of legal ownership and rights.

I used to make software for a living in the 90s, and this really makes me mad. And for the last 13 years, I've made images for a living to which I also expect my copyright of to protect my investment in time/money to create. I find Pablo's excuses rediculous and unsruprisingly self-centered, dishonorable, and larcenous.

I'm leaving this thread now, becuase I know that such a person will not benefit from anything I have to say.

 

[Pablo Villegas S.]

I do appreciate your comments, and I know there are legal ramifications againts cracking software, and I will face them if needed.

There were not excuses, to me there is nothing morally wrong in using a software for educational porpuses, specially one disabled for ANY commercial work.

If I offended you or anyone else I'm sorry, but believe me, I did not cost BM a dime, quite the contrary.

Regards.

PS: I still think there is a need for a fully functional, but watermarked or time limiting version of the software. And I believe that is what I found.