Why not a standalone edit suite?

We all know FCP7 is dead. But, there are plenty like us who liked to work in FCP7.
DR14 promos are talking about how we can easily replace FCP7 with DP14.
Frankly speaking, I loved the edit interface of DR14..
A few tweaks here and there and DR14 can easily have the FCP7 keyboard. Huge GPU is not a necessity, if like FCP7 we are prepared to work with transcoded footage.
But a few things are missing still.
1. The timeline and the visual windows can't be shifted as per the editor's convenience.
2. A full screen view on the second monitor is missing.

Add these two small things and FCP7 will soon be forgotten, DR14 can take it's place. Ideally, the edit platform can be taken out from the DR14 and run as a standalone edit suite. That will be the best thing to happen. Plenty of film editors just edit. They are not bothered about colour and sound and prefer to leave those domains to the experts.

I mostly agree with the beginning of the post...

Add these two small things and FCP7 will soon be forgotten, DR14 can take it's place.

This is a long story but imho, (1) its place has been already taken, I think - to be checked in % - mainly by Premiere, but also by Resolve years ago. (2) The commercial clip only shows up now for those who are the last to change but knew they had to, and probably had their own idea about this replacement. (3) Furthermore, your point of view doesn't take studio workflows where the edit line is only one piece of the process.

Ideally, the edit platform can be taken out from the DR14 and run as a standalone edit suite.

I personally hope it won't ever (sorry ), because Resolve tabs are specifically what makes its strength to properly achieve a project. It's not about being an expert, even editors should be happy to color correct - even slightly - their job without any roundtrip pain.

That will be the best thing to happen. Plenty of film editors just edit.

Always imho, firstly it wouldn't be the best thing at all, for BMD would then strictly face FCPX, which wouldn't be a great commercial strategy. Also, for users, what we see is Resolve makes its own track, regularly gathering features in the edit page, which finally leads to challenge FCPX in the end. Therefore to the contrary, why not stay in the edit panel for those who want to, while others go on on other ones if they feel like it ?

They are not bothered about colour and sound and prefer to leave those domains to the experts.

Everybody knows that the Color Finale plugin in FCPX is not a solution but the fcpxml is experienced with pain by a lot of users. It looks like more and more editors are more interested in color than you may think, Resolve is the solution.
(for sound, it's probably a longer way, I admit).

1. This would be a welcome addition to Resolve and Fusion. Adobe software is the proper model here, I think.

2. This is easily achieved with something like the Intensity. (I assume. It'd be...odd...if Resolve didn't work with BMD's own I/O devices.)

Ideally, the edit platform can be taken out from the DR14 and run as a standalone edit suite. That will be the best thing to happen. Plenty of film editors just edit. They are not bothered about colour and sound and prefer to leave those domains to the experts.

Like the top 10% maybe, the rest is wearing a lot of hats in 2017.

The beauty of Resolve is, that those "experts", can just open your timeline and do their job, without any rendering, roundtripping, conforming andwhatnot.

No need for a standalone suite. Basically every tab/room is a standalone suite already. Those who only edit, just leave the rest of Resolve alone - problem solved.

But times are changing. If your customer is breathing down your neck, and the guy in the next edit bay is able to solve a little color or tracking problem, and you can't, cause you "just edit, and leave the rest to the experts", guess who is getting the next job?

This is 2017, and IMHO even "just editors" need to up their game, or they are out of the game pretty soon.

No need for a standalone suite. Basically every tab/room is a standalone suite already. Those who only edit, just leave the rest of Resolve alone - problem solved.

But times are changing. If your customer is breathing down your neck, and the guy in the next edit bay is able to solve a little color or tracking problem, and you can't, cause you "just edit, and leave the rest to the experts", guess who is getting the next job?

This is 2017, and IMHO even "just editors" need to up their game, or they are out of the game pretty soon.

Yes, okay, agreed.

But for people who actually don't need a grading monitor a full-frame view in a second monitor is very much needed while editing. That is not possible without a BMD card in Resolve. All other edit softwares (FCP, Premiere, Avid) are capable of giving that. Can't that be added at least in the edit page?

You don't have to hook up the I/O device to a special grading monitor. Any TV you can calibrate will suffice.

Even with the other software, using a dedicated I/O device is the better way to go.

Buy a cheap Vizio TV and a ultrastudio mini / decklink mini 4k. Total price will be under $500.

The decklink/ultrastudio connection is Resolve's "Full Screen View".

I agree with you about the locked UI not being able to adjust sizes of things and not being able to pancake timelines.

Just stay on the Edit Page, lol.

Why not a standalone edit suite you ask? I think you already have that in DR14. Each tab is 'like' a separate program, they just need 1 more tab {Titler/Motion Graphics}..

Why maintain separate apps when a company like BMD has and continues to pulled off some incredible things in Resolve.

I agree Resolve's HDPI, and windowing support is lacking but I suspect BMD will sort it out at some point.

I agree Resolve's HDPI, and windowing support is lacking but I suspect BMD will sort it out at some point.

Yes, that would solve most of the problems.

In my opinion, a full-frame cinema view in the second monitor without the BMD I/O device is also a necessity. That's because people are accustomed to have one in FCP7, Premiere Pro and FCPX.

I don't mind paying for that if that is enabled as a paid option.

...
In my opinion, a full-frame cinema view in the second monitor without the BMD I/O device is also a necessity. That's because people are accustomed to have one in FCP7, Premiere Pro and FCPX.

I don't mind paying for that if that is enabled as a paid option.

How much would you be willing to pay?

Here are some other things you get with those programs you mentioned:

FCP7: imminent EOL
Premiere Pro: Creative Cloud subscription, pay 2x in one year what you pay for a Resolve license now. I won't say the Resolve license is permanent because things could change, but I've been running the same dongle for a few years now without having to pay again.
FCPX: Apple doesn't build professional quality workstations any more. If you only want to edit, only on a Macbook Pro or iMac I guess it might be fine. And then why not just use that?

Yeah, sure, a full-screen viewer on a second computer monitor is nice. But it slays me that the more amazing things BMD does, the more whining there is that it doesn't provide everything, for free, yesterday.

[joke] Get off my lawn! [/joke]

I don't mind paying for that if that is enabled as a paid option.

Just pay for the mini monitor, and there you have it.

How much would you be willing to pay?

Here are some other things you get with those programs you mentioned:

FCP7: imminent EOL
Premiere Pro: Creative Cloud subscription, pay 2x in one year what you pay for a Resolve license now. I won't say the Resolve license is permanent because things could change, but I've been running the same dongle for a few years now without having to pay again.
FCPX: Apple doesn't build professional quality workstations any more. If you only want to edit, only on a Macbook Pro or iMac I guess it might be fine. And then why not just use that?

Yeah, sure, a full-screen viewer on a second computer monitor is nice. But it slays me that the more amazing things BMD does, the more whining there is that it doesn't provide everything, for free, yesterday.

[joke] Get off my lawn! [/joke]

I am willing to pay as much as Resolve Studio costs. Just this much. This is by and large the cost of a cheap Decklink card. You ask me why? Because FCP7, Adobe Premiere, FCPX and Avid Media composer can show Cinema view in the second viewer, while Resolve can't.

Mind it, we have all of these softwares in our studio setup (we have three edit setups) and we pay for each of these softwares. It's very difficult for us to add a third monitor to each of these systems through a Decklink card as that would be totally a waste of money as we don't need a third monitor in any of them. Personally, I feel DR14 is almost as good as FCP7, if not better, and would like to switch. But the situation is not the same for other editors. Many are switching gradually, mostly to Premiere, few to Avid and none to FCPX, and they still rue about FCP7. And some still prefer to stick to FCP7.

End of life for FCP7? Well, true, High Sierra wouldn't be running FCP7. But the new OS wouldn't be running HFS formatting either. Assuming you understand Mac OS and how long HFS+ have served us, are you willing to let go all your earlier hard disks containing valuable materials so soon? Or willing to wait?

There's a lot of confusion. In this scenario, DR14 with a full cinema view in the second monitor (and the ability to rearrange the windows) would have helped us.

I am actually eager to get off your lawn, frankly.

I don't mind paying for that if that is enabled as a paid option.

Just pay for the mini monitor, and there you have it.

See my post above. I am not just talking about individual editors, just a small professional studio setup.

I have three edit suites in my studio, all of them having FCP7, FCPX, Premiere and Avid. We pay for each of them. All of them run all the softwares. All the softwares can run cinema view in the second monitor. Freelance editors choose which system they want to work with when they come and work at our studio. I am willing to pay for the second monitor output in DR14 for a cost, but not a Decklink card because of the two reasons:

1. Either, I'll need to add a third monitor through a Deckink Card to each of the edit suites, so that DR14 is functional
2. Or, We have to reconnect the second monitor through a Decklink Card every time someone wants to edit in DR14.

I hope you understand none of the above is feasible as it's too cumbersome and we have to let go DR14 as an edit alternative.

Personally I feel DR14 edit is superb. But that, unless someone is a standalone editor, is not of much use in a setup like ours unless we have a second monitor output and the ability to move the windows.

I hope you understand my point?

The cheapest BMD card, the mini-monitor, supports FCPX, Premiere CC and Avid MC, among others. And, unlike what you're seeing now, the signal is reliable for judging picture quality and CC.

But if viewing the GUI on an external monitor is essential, Resolve probably isn't for you.

But if viewing the GUI on an external monitor is essential, Resolve probably isn't for you.

sure, that's a consequent answer, because so many people have asked for this feature already, that i doubt, we'll ever see any improvements concerning this very obvious shortage.

but in fact i do not know any other serious video application, which shows this deficit. it's not only a obligatory feature of any modern NLE, but it's also present in all high end solutions (nuke studio, flame, mistika). and if you use it with care on calibrated computer screens and suitable display filters, it's not less accurate than output via decklink cards.

...
End of life for FCP7? Well, true, High Sierra wouldn't be running FCP7. But the new OS wouldn't be running HFS formatting either. Assuming you understand Mac OS and how long HFS+ have served us, are you willing to let go all your earlier hard disks containing valuable materials so soon? Or willing to wait?

There's a lot of confusion...

Confusion, indeed. Are you under the impression that High Sierra won't be able to read HFS disks? Apple Support says differently:

"Devices formatted as Mac OS Extended (HFS+) can be read from and written to by devices formatted as APFS."

Of course, Apple's assurances have come to mean less and less to those of us who feel Apple has abandoned postproduction professionals. But I really doubt they are going to make all our HFS-formatted disks unreadable.

Back on topic, yes, I understand you don't want to buy BMD output devices for all your workstations. But you are still arguing from the point of view of a strictly editing workstation, and ignoring the other capabilities available in Resolve that the other platforms don't give you, and the fact that a lot of Resolve's base wants the color grading functionality.

...
I have three edit suites in my studio, all of them having FCP7, FCPX, Premiere and Avid. We pay for each of them. All of them run all the softwares. All the softwares can run cinema view in the second monitor. Freelance editors choose which system they want to work with when they come and work at our studio. I am willing to pay for the second monitor output in DR14 for a cost, but not a Decklink card because of the two reasons:

1. Either, I'll need to add a third monitor through a Deckink Card to each of the edit suites, so that DR14 is functional
2. Or, We have to reconnect the second monitor through a Decklink Card every time someone wants to edit in DR14.

I hope you understand none of the above is feasible as it's too cumbersome and we have to let go DR14 as an edit alternative.
...

Why not just run the second monitor through a Decklink card with all three programs? MC and PPro both support Decklink.

Why not just run the second monitor through a Decklink card with all three programs? MC and PPro both support Decklink.

Does that make sense? I thought DR14 was trying to project itself as a viable edit suite, not the other way round.

On a dual monitor setup there's no reason why Resolve shouldn't project the record monitor onto one of the two monitors in full screen mode the way Media Composer does. Why not?

On a dual monitor setup there's no reason why Resolve shouldn't project the record monitor onto one of the two monitors in full screen mode the way Media Composer does. Why not?

+1

Exactly my point. Do it for the edit tab for people who would like to replace their FCP7 with DR. Till then, I can't see how DR14 can be touted as a replacement of FCP7 as is being advertised.

I don't mind paying for that if that is enabled as a paid option.

Just pay for the mini monitor, and there you have it.

I think there is a deeper problem these other softwares allow you to arrange your layout which is a big problem for resolve. Noone is worried about the extra cost of a mini monitor, but functionality is lacking. If I could arrange any parts of the software subwindows however I liked I could go back and forth between fullscreen and an extended toolset, like other programs offer. If I have space for a third monitor I would go with an SDI out. This is not always the case and without the flexibility in window layout or the ease of a fullscreen monitoring option without hardware (so you get real time choices of how you want the screen real estate arranged), resolve is a bit crippled.

I know there is a limited solution for this, but it imposes some heavy restrictions. If we have moveable windows for custom layouts and an easy full screen option that can be toggled on a single screen while still having access to the other screens UI, then we are in business, and for sure, for better quality and colour confidence we go for SDI. The current solution is not up to scratch for a lot of people who are coming from more flexible systems.

Why not just run the second monitor through a Decklink card with all three programs? MC and PPro both support Decklink.

Does that make sense? I thought DR14 was trying to project itself as a viable edit suite, not the other way round.

I honestly really don't know what you mean by this? You said that you thought you'd need to add extra monitors in addition to the Decklink card, and I pointed out that you don't have to, as you can run the Decklink card in Avid and Adobe as well.

Every time I've visited a professional editor running Avid or Adobe they have an external monitor hooked up via a Decklink or similar card, so the concept is commonplace and one that Blackmagic clearly endorses.

On a dual monitor setup there's no reason why Resolve shouldn't project the record monitor onto one of the two monitors in full screen mode the way Media Composer does. Why not?

Unless it's changed recently, I found FSP to be completely unusable in MC, as it deactivates whenever you change Toolsets, e.g. change from Source Record to Edit and FSP goes away and has to be reactivated.

I got the Intensity Shuttle not for Resolve but for MC because Full Screen Playback was a mess and after complaining about it for seven years and Avid doing nothing about it, I decided to go the external monitoring route.

Sure. If you need the full screen all the time then an external monitor is the way to go. I don't. I use full screen and JKL to get a better sense of the cadence of cuts and effects.

Sure. If you need the full screen all the time then an external monitor is the way to go. I don't. I use full screen and JKL to get a better sense of the cadence of cuts and effects.

Every major TV show or feature I've ever seen has used a "hero display" so that the director and producer can watch each cut and offer notes or approval. Here's a widescreen shot of the edit bay used for the current hit movie IT, as one example:



Even if you're editing in a smaller room, I think the advantages of one monitor for bins and effects, one monitor for the main timeline GUI, and one monitor for the full-frame viewing display makes a lot of sense. I think creative people like directors and DPs and producers are distracted by too many flashing lights, meters, and buttons.

Even if you're editing in a smaller room, I think the advantages of one monitor for bins and effects, one monitor for the main timeline GUI, and one monitor for the full-frame viewing display makes a lot of sense. I think creative people like directors and DPs and producers are distracted by too many flashing lights, meters, and buttons.

two computer screens with flexible/customizable display capabilities (=including full screen preview on one screen) are a quite common and ergonomic setup for serious editing work.



and for sure another big preview screen in the room also makes a lot of sense.



nobody here wants to criticize, that resolve does allow this kind of more advanced output to broadcast equipment even in the free version. that's not the point! but it's really a pity, that resolve doesn't support more ascetic workspace arrangements and flexible change of views on the computer screen in a similar comfortable and sufficient manner as in most other serious video editing and processing solutions.

Might be coming up one day.
For now, I'm very happy with using two ultrawides for GUI and one calibrated 16:9.

... Plenty of film editors just edit. They are not bothered about colour and sound and prefer to leave those domains to the experts.

Which is why I edit in Lightworks and finish in Resolve.

... Plenty of film editors just edit. They are not bothered about colour and sound and prefer to leave those domains to the experts.

Which is why I edit in Lightworks and finish in Resolve.

We also edit in FCP7 or Premiere or MC and finish in Resolve.

As of now, Resolve is not a proper edit solution for us, certainly not a replacement of any of these. The edit page basically is a conforming place for colour jobs, like it had been always.

As of now, Resolve is not a proper edit solution for us, certainly not a replacement of any of these. The edit page basically is a conforming place for colour jobs, like it had been always.

I'm doing more and more of my editing in Resolve these days, though I'm also partial to LightWorks for that; it's remarkably lightweight. But Resolve's UI is user friendly, and being able to "conform" my edit by clicking on a different tab is a major time saver... which is especially welcome since Premiere conforms seem to get worse with every Premiere update, rather than better.

I'm doing more and more of my editing in Resolve these days, ...

yes -- i also think, resolves editing capabilities are highly underestimated. it's in fact this part of the application, which i like at most. sure, it could be better in some respects (nesting of groups could be improved and the fixed layout of the user interface isn't always handy), but i favor it over many other alternatives -- especially lightworks, which i also used extensively for quite a while. resolves editing GUI is much more modern and pleasant to operate. actually i would see nuke studio as the closes alternative multi platform solution, which unfortunately also contains a lot of nearly unacceptable flaws. they only significant disadvantage of editing in resolve are IMHO related to the unsatisfactory responsivity. that's indeed a very problematic shortage, when it comes to suitability for serious editing work. more simple, traditional and limited solutions may show noticeable advantages in this respect. but what's really great about resolve for editing, is the simple fact, that it seems to be to only solution out there, which allows unrestricted in-/export of project files and EDLs even in the free version! that's a really great virtue, which sets it apart from most other alternatives, if you prefer crazy workflows including a vast mix of different applications and mostly free tools and open source operating systems.

though I'm also partial to LightWorks for that; it's remarkably lightweight.

yes -- but it's also very old fashioned and limiting. this may even entail some positive consequences, because it forces it's user to a more clean and appropriate style of editing. but at the end i wasn't really happy about lightworks and it's very conservative approach.

but this 'lightweight' criterion rises indeed a very important question! it's not only affecting the editing side of resolve, it's more a general issue concerning this particular application. if you take a look at mistika insight and it's modest hardware requirements and efficiency, that's IMHO much more impressive than a contrasting juxtaposition to lightworks in this respect. in fact, i would even see the grading features and compositing capabilities of this much more lightweight and faster solution as superior. but o.k., it's in fact also a much more expensive software, which can not be compared to a very affordable product, like resolve, in all fairness.