Blackmagic Forum

Glenn Venghaus wrote:

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:If you have correct preview from Resolve (regardless if it's over BM or GUI) then this is all what you need.

I must admit , i switched off after that statement. if you truely believe that. As i also dont believe anymore in the toothferry. (Unless you mean some virtual yet non existent/implemented correct output to the preview window)

Of course this is all what you need/should care from the business point. You know that your preview is accurate and you can produce decent content.
How clients will view it is totally out of your control and not much you can do about it, so somehow this becomes irrelevant. This is how studios work- they don't care how it will look on some screen at some home. All what they care is that it looks correct on calibrate and validated screen. This is all what they can actually do and as well what you can do. Rest is down to "home" technology limitations and you have to live with it.
If you have knowledge you can "correct" a bit your home environment, but this applies to tiny amount of people.

Glenn Venghaus wrote:If even the people that build the software say you should not.

The only thing BM has ever said is that for them to guarantee color accuracy you can't go through the OS. The important word is they, in other words they don't want to deal with the morons and lazy sobs among the user base that can't or won't configure their machine properly.


As several of us who are studio licence holders have have mentioned, we either don't care about the color accuracy of the viewer, or aren't even wanting the functionality on the color tab. The fact that you can't use more than 2 screens in certain editing scenarios like multi-cam work, is a giant pain in the ass.

For example look at this multi-cam example, it would be nice if the individual clips in the multi-cam viewer weren't thumbnail sized. keep in mind this is only 5 angles, and Resolve supports up to 16.

John Paines wrote:Every new release of Resolve brings in a new crop of people to beat this dead horse. It's not enough that you get 95% of the program for free, that Decklink pricing is modest as can be and that a professional color grading application is unlikely to offer a monitoring option which invites error and is outside standard practice and norms in the industry.

So look forward to years more of it?

Well this is the point:

Code: Select all

"professional color grading application is unlikely to offer a monitoring option which invites error and is outside standard practice and norms in the industry"

Problem is that current "standard practice and norms" are still from 30 years ago. Defined when reality was very different. Current technology allows for very different standards and norms and this is the point. You should call them legacy practice and norms
Do you really believe in BM SDI preview so much with all this mess around 4:2:2 vs 4:4:4? This is as prone to error (specially when BM doesn't do much testing with their firmware releases) as properly designed OpenGL preview.

It's not about this. It's not about whole accuracy either.
It's about ending some legacy era/views and looking into current technology possibilities.
It's also about ending myths, which again are based on views/possibilities/knowledge from 20 years ago.
20 years ago pro world was 10 steps ahead consumer world, today in many areas it's behind, so maybe this is the reason (or maybe even need) for so many changes. Many pro solution simply getting redundant and replaced by prosumer/consumer technologies.
Don't you feel strange when your very decent computer can't play UHD HEVC file in realtime in Resolve, yet your phone does it?
Don't you feel strange that very soon (next Nvidia GPUs meant to be 2.1 ready) HDMI will provide almost 48Gbit/s over single cable (short distant but this is all what small studios need) and you need 4x SDI 12G to do the same (where 12G is still not very common at all)?

BM by making Resolve free/cheap opened itself to all these requests, because its user database from relatively very small number (use to be mainly big studios) changed into huge number from big studios to users who have no much idea about editing/grading at all. They all have very different views and ideas about needed features. It's never ending story now!

Dan Sherman wrote:

Glenn Venghaus wrote:If even the people that build the software say you should not.

The only thing BM has ever said is that for them to guarantee color accuracy you can't go through the OS. The important word is they, in other words they don't want to deal with the morons and lazy sobs among the user base that can't or won't configure their machine properly.


As several of us who are studio licence holders have have mentioned, we either don't care about the color accuracy of the viewer, or aren't even wanting the functionality on the color tab. The fact that you can't use more than 2 screens in certain editing scenarios like multi-cam work, is a giant pain in the ass.

For example look at this multi-cam example, it would be nice if the individual clips in the multi-cam viewer weren't thumbnail sized. keep in mind this is only 5 angles, and Resolve supports up to 16.

If I'm correct in Edius you can have master clip on 1 screen, other cameras on another, other bits of GUI on 3rd, 4th, etc. It supports many screens and you ca set which one gets full screen on double click.

John Paines wrote:Every new release of Resolve brings in a new crop of people to beat this dead horse. It's not enough that you get 95% of the program for free, that Decklink pricing is modest as can be and that a professional color grading application is unlikely to offer a monitoring option which invites error and is outside standard practice and norms in the industry.

So look forward to years more of it?

The Edit, Fusion and Fairlight pages are also outside the requirements of a professional grading application. Full screen on the computer monitor is already there, it’s just locked to the main computer display.

As I said, I don't know why you guys persist in beating a dead horse, year after year. The company stated its position in the manual.

Argue all you want, but what's the point? If you can't take 'no' for an answer, don't care about color accuracy or absolutely refuse to buy a Decklink card, there are other products. But why insist on remaking this one in ways which are at odds with its professional market?

John Paines wrote:But why insist on remaking this one in ways which are at odds with its professional market?

Because it’s professional market is changing. These days, not every professional user of Resolve is a colorist.

John Paines wrote:As I said, I don't know why you guys persist in beating a dead horse, year after year.

Perhaps all the overly vocal colorists are the ones beating a dead horse.

John Paines wrote:The company stated its position in the manual.

I would hardly call the manual a definitive source, specially when you consider how many of the forum members have pointed out its errors, gaping holes, and in some cases outright bad advise. All you have to do is search the forum and read through a few key threads.

John Paines wrote:Argue all you want, but what's the point? If you can't take 'no' for an answer, don't care about color accuracy or absolutely refuse to buy a Decklink card, there are other products.

Are you strait up not reading peoples posts, or are you intentionally being obtuse?

Users can care about color in the color tab where they should. However, neither a Decklink, or correct color, is going to make viewing a mult-cam clip on the edit tab any easier. Being able to move the multi-cam viewer to a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th window where it can be enlarged would though.

Even on the color tab the UI is less than ideal, for example you cant have the Gallery and Lut preview open at the same time.

Also, perhaps they like the features DR has more than the alternatives.

John Paines wrote:But why insist on remaking this one?

We aren't remaking it, BM is? If its so utterly perfect as some here see it, then why is BM adding massive amounts of functionality with every major release, please tell me I'm all ears!

Dan Sherman wrote:I would hardly call the manual a definitive source, specially when you consider how many of the forum members have pointed out its errors, gaping holes, and in some cases outright bad advise. All you have to do is search the forum and read through a few key threads.
...
Are you strait up not reading peoples posts, or are you intentionally being obtuse?

I'll go for obtuse -- so much so, I take BMD's own statement on monitoring as definitive, despite a few errors or out-of-date passages in a 2000+ page manual which, on the whole, is remarkably good. Just look at what the competition produces (if anything at all). Somebody sure took trouble over it.

Moving beyond the demand for independent full screen viewing via the GUI, and forgetting that BMD just happens to sell broadcast accurate video monitoring devices, I agree there are good arguments for more flexible window arrangements, but that doesn't appear to be a high priority (if one at all) either. As I recall, the last time Peter Chamberlain commented on that issue, he wasn't encouraging, it sounded like current window design has hooks deep into the code.

In any case, the company has heard these complaints. In the absence of a product ideally suited to one user, or one group of users, maybe the only thing left is to accept imperfection? Or look to another product.

As stated earlier we already have some full screen functionality by pressing Ctrl + F. Its the locking it to the timeline monitor that make it less useful. Can't imagine that would be a big code change. I say this as someone who has already purchased the studio version with a Decklink card that feeds my plasma and works very nicely. Would still like the flexibility though and enlarging the source would be great for multicam. The team is so good at improving the program I imagine this will show up sooner or later if enough people ask for it.

I was very impressed with Grants Petty's NAB comments on adding Fusion not knowing what people are going to do with it but wanting to give editors complete freedom. That's a big part of what got me on the Resolve train; I like the companies philosophy and speed of improvement. I believe this philosophy will extend to all parts of the program in the long run.

I could get by with dual screen workspace and a full screen timeline. As a long time Avid MC user, I would appreciate being able to chose to which monitor and in what resolution control F sends the image.
But the decklink mini is pretty inexpensive and the plug in mentioned above seems like a good solution too.
Kudos to Blackmagic and the teams for delivering a revolutionary set of tools which allow users to develop unhindered creativity without any technical compromises,

Dan Sherman wrote:
Also, perhaps they like the features DR has more than the alternatives.

In reality it's in 80% price- this is what people like in Resolve.
There are other tools which in many cases much more suited to people's real needs but they cost money, so people choose Resolve.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:In reality it's in 80% price- this is what people like in Resolve.
There are other tools which in many cases much more suited to people's real needs but they cost money, so people choose Resolve.

Spot on. And its exaclty this group that whines and cries the most of missing features or changes they like to see happen so that it matches the software they should have bought in the first place.
Often on day one , without even checking if a feature is maybe already there in a different location or there is an alternative approach used by Resolve.
If there is one thing i hope we can all agree on is that BM is not afraid of changes as they easily run in the tripple digits per major release. But am happy they use their sanity and design philosohpy filter instead of trying to please everyone, while still delivering amazing stuff for a large community of happy users.

Focusing on what is there is also generaly more productive then getting stuck i a loop of fighting what is not. Personaly i have dropped 4 other tools that where needed on DR12 that are now included in DR15 , talking about major productivity boosts.
Edit : 5 tools, forgot one i used during ingest to transcode that is not needed anymore as resolve native support the format used.
Edit 2 : make that 6 as forgot the tool to convert busted audio xml or similar exports so it could be imported in protools (which was also dropped , thank god for that, but already counted)

Just registered to also add my vote to add this feature. I'd rather pay another $700 for this feature alone on top of the Studio version I already have, than to buy some hardware box/card that does exactly what? Bypass OS color management and have strange limitations of resolution and framerate? Why wouldn't I just disable OS color management and use a normal GPU to connect an additional screen?

It really feels like cargo cult from a time long ago to me. Addmittetly, I have only recently moved to video, but I've worked with color managed workflows for still images since two decades. If one needs DCI connectors or whatnot, fine, then additional hardware makes sense, but to output a color managed signal over HDMI? As mentioned in this thread, the industries dealing with still images and prints are working this way since ever. Also I haven't found any technical explanation in this thread or elsewhere why feeding a signal through a magic YUV box just to have it converted back to RGB in the display is of any advantage in terms of color accuracy than just passing RGB directly. Anecdotal claims that everything will go bad if you don't are interesting, but hardly prove anything.

Not meaning to restart all of the discussion again, but for me as long as any technical details are not available on why having an external device to output color managed HDMI should be better than a 10bit GPU in terms of accuracy this is all cargo cult to me. Every software can chose whether to use OS based color management or not and implement in whatever way it wants. Resolve can as well.

I do respect and value everyone having a different opinion, but that is just mine.



Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

Glenn Venghaus wrote:

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Spot on. And its exaclty this group that whines and cries the most of missing features or changes they like to see happen so that it matches the software they should have bought in the first place.

I don't think it's resonable to generalise like that.

I'm not a big-screen movie editor but I am (by definition) a professional. I (like millions of others) have a couple of YouTube channels for which I regularly create content. Likely many of the "elite" here will scoff and say "amateur" -- but collectively, my videos have been watched well over 100 million times -- which ain't a bad box-office and probably matches or exceeds the number of views some of the more elite here may have scored via TV or even the movie theatre.

I earn a full-time six-figure living from my video work and am always learning and seeking to improve the quality of my content -- which is one of the reasons I switched to Resolve and will be investing in the new 4K pocket camera (when available)

To dismiss people like myself out of hand seems a little silly, given that we now constitute a potentialy huge market and our money is as good as anyone's.

In order to sustain good growth, companies must make sure their products meet the demands of existing and emerging markets. Based on many of the comments I've read recently on these forums, a lot of non-cinema editors are discovering Resolve and some want *simple* features that (to them) would make a huge difference to their workflows (such as the full-screen viewer option we're talking about).

I think it would be a very myopic company that opted to ignore the needs of a rapidly developing new aspect of the market -- when catering to those needs would seem to be a very simple task.

Hell, I can use a full-screen viewer on my second monitor with Fusion just by clicking the third-dot on a node -- so why not provide a "full screen" button in Resolve that simply executes a Control-F onto a second or third monitor? It's not rocket surgery

You dont sound like the group we where discussing to me either as you likely (based on your earnings and statements above ) did not choose resolve just because it is free while you actualy wanted other software that has the features you need but is notfree. And secondly you did then not complain about exactly those features missinng. So not sure why you are feeling adressed as not even close to the group in question.

And if you read all posts above and know BM you would know that they as one of the few companies around actualy DO listen to users and implements the most number of new features per release thinkable.
And lastly even i mentioned i support an extra viewer window and am sure that it will eventualy make DR.

If you spend some time on this forum you will eventualy find out what users we mean....
Honest and usefull properly motivated requests and usefull for a large user base most likely make it in DR at some point .Just compare DR12 with DR15. .....
Demanding and whining does not. Thats just the facts seen over the years here , not my opinion.

John Paines wrote:As I said, I don't know why you guys persist in beating a dead horse, year after year. The company stated its position in the manual. Argue all you want, but what's the point? If you can't take 'no' for an answer, don't care about color accuracy or absolutely refuse to buy a Decklink card, there are other products. But why insist on remaking this one in ways which are at odds with its professional market?

Very well said.

Gary Hango wrote:Only need one simple option. “Select target display for shift/cnt/alt-F function”.

This would do it. Simple and it would make working in Resolve much better for more than just a few of us I think.

Signing off this thread now as the original poster. I think the points have been made on opposing sides. We even have a temporary workaround which I'm grateful for (Nobe Display https://timeinpixels.com/nobe-display/).

I personally hope we see a more flexible Resolve UI that includes the ability to put the viewer on any display of our choosing. I'm content to leave it at that and will wait to see what happens in future releases.

Despite the curmudgeon colorists in the community, I'm sure BM will come around eventually!

Gary Hango wrote:Only need one simple option. “Select target display for shift/cnt/alt-F function”.

This isn't as simple as it would seem. I just performed an experiment where I put the Resolve GUI on my secondary monitor and hit Ctrl-F. The full screen displayed on my primary monitor, but the GUI on the secondary display disappeared. To get the functionality of this feature request, it will take more programming than just setting which monitor to do the full screen on.

Nobe Display seems to be an inexpensive workaround for now.

Using Intensity Pro card with external monitor is not so easy and flexible as i was expected. I have dual monitor setup and use many other apps in dual screen mode. Currently if use Intensity Pro card i need go to computer and plug the monitor cable from GPU to Intensity Pro every time i switch to Resolve. And switch it all back when i need to use another app in dual screen mode.

Older HD Intensity Pro cards can be found rather cheap these days. But software viewer for second display may be really more user friendly option in Resolve.

P.S. As i remember it was a plugin for this https://timeinpixels.com/nobe-display/ Did anyone tested it? Seems it is not 100% fullscreen

Gary Hango wrote:

John Paines wrote:But why insist on remaking this one in ways which are at odds with its professional market?

Because it’s professional market is changing. These days, not every professional user of Resolve is a colorist.

+1

Like it or not, Resolve is an NLE now, and its future as an NLE will be brighter if it accommodates editing workflows instead of expecting editors to tolerate traditional colorist workflows (case in point, the really annoying way up/down arrow (goto prev/next edit point) works when there's an existing selection in the timeline). Resolve has the potential to beat Premiere, Final Cut, and Avid, and I'd very much like to see that happen, but it's still got some evolving to do.

(and as for the argument that people using the free version aren't paid users, I'm fine with pushing more features into the Studio version and making the free version very bare bones; if you want a professional-quality tool, you should expect to pay for it.)

Charles Lyons wrote:[if you want a professional-quality tool, you should expect to pay for it.)

I see -- you want a "professional quality tool" to allow monitoring which violates professional norms, and to add to the insult, only the Studio version will allow this violation, the freebie has to do it right or not at all....

Even forgetting that software offered for nothing needs a revenue stream to maintain development -- decklink cards, control panels, cameras, accelerators, mixing boards, etc.? -- what kind of serious editor, even one with no interest in color grading, revolts against accurate broadcast monitoring for under $200, which (incidentally) also reduces the load on what would otherwise be GPU monitoring on a second or third monitor (no small matter for Resolve)?

Just say it's beyond my comprehension, and leave it at that?

As for the behavior of next/previous clip with a current selection, a keyboard script easily solves the issue until the developers revisit this unhappy choice. I'd offer to sell the script to you if you were on a PC, since you're willing to pay a premium for preferred features, but I already posted it here for nothing earlier today.

John Paines wrote:
I see -- you want a "professional quality tool" to allow monitoring which violates professional norms, and to add to the insult, only the Studio version will allow this violation, the freebie has to do it right or not at all....

Well, I wouldn't call some who demands absolute color.perfection while.doing a rough cut of a multi-cam clip a professional, but someone with an ocd problem.

John Paines wrote:

Charles Lyons wrote:[if you want a professional-quality tool, you should expect to pay for it.)

I see -- you want a "professional quality tool" to allow monitoring which violates professional norms, and to add to the insult, only the Studio version will allow this violation, the freebie has to do it right...

Yep, because those 'norms' are archaic and don't apply to current technology possibilities. I would 100x prefer full quality GPU RGB monitoring pipe over 'compromised' YUV one with SDI card.

Wow - a long thread debating the "pros" and "cons" (we non-pros) of a simple feature request common to many NLEs. BMD chose to enter the consumer market and create a full featured NLE using their famous pro color $100K software as the core and have done a phenomenal job in record time compared to the competition which have taken decades of development.
Assuming they are targeting a wider market with free, and a very reasonable $300 for the full version, of an incredibly powerful, comprehensive software solution (thank you BMD), they must expect such requests from the new "consumer" market.
To, me it's simply about workspace. NLEs are complex apps by definition with a crowded screen and a tiny preview window. Moving the preview window to to a second monitor simply gives me a far better preview and more workspace. My single screen already "violates professional norms" but so do my cameras

As Andrew has stated, my GPU can do it so it's just a matter of adding the feature.
+1 to the feature request.

Al Spaeth wrote:To, me it's simply about workspace...

yes, that's indeed one important point, but it also affects the possibility, to use other applications on your workstation in a usefull manner beside resolve. it's simply not always useful to waste one screen only for SDI-monitoring.

but as side effect of this kind of improvements -- i.e. if BMD would really listen to users and finally enable this kind of output support --, i would also expect a lot of noticeable betterment in the actual color rendition resp. reliable working display filters in all parts of the applications GUI. improvements, which would affect professional studio setups utilizing SDI based monitoring not less in practice than more desktop oriented kinds of production. and i really think, this kind of refinements are more then overdue in resolve.

I only work in UHD 60p. From what it seems the only Decklink card that can do what even the cheapest GPU can do today is the Decklink Studio 4k clocking in at $900. I don't mind paying another $900 to BM as I think it's a great company.

But what do I get for that? A card that blocks 2 PCI slots, 8 PCIe Lanes, has a gazillion connectors and features out of which I ever only need plain HDMI output? Blocks an entire screen just for Resolve which I cannot use with any other app. And providers at best the same color accuracy as a GPU RGB output to begin with.

That just doesn't seem a very good deal. Happy to pay $900 for plugin that allows GPU based monitoring instead.



Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

Hello everyone,

- forgiveness for spelling and grammar mistakes, English is not my native language. -

I read all the messages before posting mine.

I understand the arguments of both sides. My goal is not to contribute to the debate in terms of "for or against". My goal is to humbly testify to the solution I have adopted, maybe some will be interested.

I make video-editing by passion. I make music by passion. I can not afford to constantly invest in expensive hardware and expensive software.

I fell in love with Da Vinci Resolve for a few years. I thank Black Magic Design for offering a free software so powerful, so smart and so ergonomic. The software is constantly evolving. The user community is very dynamic. It's easy to find great tutorials. In short : everything I like.

Da Vinci Resolve is resource hungry. I'm not sure I can properly use version 15 with my aging hardware (because fusion). So I have on my workstation three partitions, with three windows 7 64 bits. Da Vinci resolve 14.3 + Da Vinci resolve 15 (and a third partition for music production).
 
For video production: I shoot videos in 1080P, h264, 24fps with a canon DSLR 700d and a TASCAM 60D for the sound with Thomann microphones. I have an second hand HP workstation Z400 with processor Xeon L5640, some hard drives SSD + HDD raid 0. My GPU is an old GTX 750 that I expect to change soon. My sound system consists of an old DELTA 44 MAUDIO asio. Audio Monitoring: behringer truth b2031a.

I have two cheap screens philips 27p 1920x1080@60hz.

I am not a professional. I am passionate. And me too, I like to view my timeline on a second monitor, in full screen.

I contacted the BMD support. They answered me (thanks !!). They explained to me the solution for having a full screen VIEWER for my Workflow.

I bought, for 60 euros, on Ebay, an old Black Magic Design Intensity Pro PCIe HD model. My monitor is limited to 60hz ( i can't directly monitor @24fps : out of range ). So in Da Vinci's OUTPUT settings, I'm using 1080i60. I can edit video on my timeline at 1080p 24fps and view live result, on my second monitor, in full screen. The solution is not perfect but it works. When I need the VIEWER in full screen, I change the monitor input to HDMI, the rest of the time I switch to DVI, and I go back to my Windows dual-screen. So: by pressing ONE button on my monitor.

In conclusion, Da Vinci Resolve - free version - cost me 60 euros. It's my choice and I'm satisfied.

I understand the arguments of both sides. My goal is not to contribute to the debate in terms of "for or against". My goal is to humbly testify to the solution I have adopted, maybe some will be interested.

Thanks to the community, thanks to BMD. Long life Da Vinci Resolve !

Best regards from France.

I heartily agree with the desirability of previewing full screen on a second monitor. Vegas Pro lets you simply drag the preview window to a second monitor and view it there. I realize that it is a far simpler app, but if it includes this feature I would expect Resolve to include it also.

After watching a YouTube review of the BMD Micro color-grading console, perhaps I can see why they're reluctant to add this feature to Resolve.

With the console you can keep on grading after hitting control-F (fullscreen) so I guess if they add the full-screen on a second monitor it becomes one less reason to spend the $ on the console.

Smart move from a marketing perspective -- but a shame for those of us who simply will not be investing in a console anyway.

What do you think the software might cost without such tricks?

RCModelReviews wrote:After watching a YouTube review of the BMD Micro color-grading console, perhaps I can see why they're reluctant to add this feature to Resolve.

With the console you can keep on grading after hitting control-F (fullscreen) so I guess if they add the full-screen on a second monitor it becomes one less reason to spend the $ on the console.

I don't think its this, as that is a sure way to kill your business. The market for dedicated hardware is a lot smaller than it is for software.

If I had to guess, I'd say they are dealing with a core code base that's turned into to spaghetti over the years. One of the things i routinely have to break new developers of at work is the believe that they will never ever have to refactor something.

yes -- i also think, that the code quality and general color representation reliability in resolve could benefit a lot from this kind of long overdue improvements.

Doesn't the whole discussion boil down buying a Decklink monitor card and HDMI cable to whatever monitor? Am I wrong with that? Adobe costs more than that in a year.

John Paines wrote:I see -- you want a "professional quality tool" to allow monitoring which violates professional norms, and to add to the insult, only the Studio version will allow this violation, the freebie has to do it right or not at all....

No, John, that's not what anyone is saying, but there's clearly no point having a discussion with someone who appears to be incapable of listening:

carsonjones wrote:So... lots of users have been requesting a full screen 'monitor' for their second display and what I think people really want is a full screen 'viewer' for their second displays.

carsonjones wrote:Don't need a monitor just need a full screen viewer on the second display.

carsonjones wrote:I don't come from the traditional grading background and frankly just want the option to place a full screen 'viewer' (not monitor) on my second display.

Rick van den Berg wrote:I would like to have full screen multicam playback (in the edit page) on a seperate monitor.

carsonjones wrote:Driving the point home again... this is for viewing not monitoring.

RCModelReviews wrote:^---- what he said! Toggling with Ctrl-F is a pain, just let us run full-screen on one of the monitors.

Dan Sherman wrote:I'll add to the point as well! There are a number benefits to going full screen on the edit tab, that have nothing to do with grading!

Daz Wood wrote:Yes it would be nice to have a floating window like in Fairlight or full screen on 2nd monitor not too bothered about it being in the colour grading tab but it would be very nice in the edit tab.

Singularity wrote:I have no doubt that using dedicated hardware is superior and the "correct" way of doing things, but not everyone needs or wants that level of accuracy.

Marc Salvatore wrote:I bought the studio version along with a Blackmagic preview card but sometimes I just need preview to a secondary computer monitor during the editing. We already have full screen preview just allow us to place it on the second monitor instead of it appearing over the timeline.

Marc Salvatore wrote:Go ahead an disable it if you must when in the color page and no one will grade with it on.

Gary Hango wrote:With the addition of the Fairlight module, sound engineers and musicians don’t need color accurate viewing, but they do need a large monitor to see what’s happening in the video. In a shared environment not every station needs what a colorist needs.

carsonjones wrote:A viewer doesn't need to be used as a colour critical reference monitor. That's not what I'm after and in my original post that's clearly not what I was after.

carsonjones wrote:Also, viewing in Resolve is not the same as monitoring. Resolve's viewer mode doesn't show up on your 'monitor'.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:I don't insist on accuracy. There can be accurate view or one which is not.

carsonjones wrote:A flexible viewer (again not reference monitor), that can be made full screen on a secondary display, is something I think would be incredibly helpful and that I think is something many users want.

Dan Sherman wrote:As several of us who are studio licence holders have have mentioned, we either don't care about the color accuracy of the viewer, or aren't even wanting the functionality on the color tab. The fact that you can't use more than 2 screens in certain editing scenarios like multi-cam work, is a giant pain in the ass.

Marc Salvatore wrote:As stated earlier we already have some full screen functionality by pressing Ctrl + F. Its the locking it to the timeline monitor that make it less useful.

I don't know if you've noticed, since you apparently never leave the Color page, but Resolve isn't just a color grading tool anymore. It does picture editing, sound editing, and compositing now.

Dan Sherman wrote:...This is one of things that truly annoys the crap out of me about Resolve, and I Have a studio licence.

Why we Edit in Lightworks and Grade/Finish in Resolve...

Craig Marshall wrote:

Dan Sherman wrote:...This is one of things that truly annoys the crap out of me about Resolve, and I Have a studio licence.

Why we Edit in Lightworks and Grade/Finish in Resolve...

I know several people are doing this, but that pretty much negates what BM is trying to accomplish, namely an all in one application.

BM really needs to decide if they are making an all in one application, or they are going to doggedly stick to an old school colorist's mindset.

Dan Sherman wrote:...BM really needs to decide if they are making an all in one application, or they are going to doggedly stick to an old school colorist's mindset.

I've never been a fan of the 'Swiss Army Knife', all in one Post Production solution. Horses for Courses: Lightworks is a refined Editor, Resolve is refined Grading software and Scratch PLAY Pro is a powerful Media Player/Transcoder. Each is from wildly different manufacturers with very different philosophies yet each accurately address our BlackMagic 12G Decklink SDI 4K Pro.

George Deierling wrote:Doesn't the whole discussion boil down buying a Decklink monitor card and HDMI cable to whatever monitor? Am I wrong with that? Adobe costs more than that in a year.

And the first MiniMonitor I ever bought about 5-6 years ago was about $80 used on eBay. Even back then, my investment in hard drives was 40 times more costly. I still have that original used MiniMonitor just as a backup in case one of my other systems goes down... and I've never had to use it. Note this was back when Resolve was $995, and I was tickled to "only" pay under a grand for the software back in 2012.

If the MiniMonitor takes some of the overhead off the computer and outputs video properly, I'm not sure how this is a drawback except in somebody's head who a) wants to do this for free, and b) wants to do it because other editing programs do this. You can also color-correct in the operating system on Baselight, on Lustre, on Scratch, and in quite a few other color-correction programs... but almost everybody I know just buys a cheap card and uses that.

Marc Wielage wrote: I'm not sure how this is a drawback except in somebody's head who a) wants to do this for free, and b) wants to do it because other editing programs do this.

Either, you're a sad insecure colorist troll, or you have the reading comprehension skills of an infant.

Dan Sherman wrote:Either, you're a sad insecure colorist troll, or you have the reading comprehension skills of an infant.

Come on Dan... Unless you fell as a child in a barrel of toxic colorists , there is no need to go personal here.
You are so much better then this. We dont have to agree on each other, thats the beauty of opinions, but going personal this way on someone who contributed so much stuff on this forum is not called for.
I am writing this of as a slip of the keyboard for you as i know you are way better than this.

Marc Wielage wrote:And the first MiniMonitor I ever bought about 5-6 years ago was about $80 used on eBay. Even back then, my investment in hard drives was 40 times more costly. I still have that original used MiniMonitor just as a backup in case one of my other systems goes down... and I've never had to use it. Note this was back when Resolve was $995, and I was tickled to "only" pay under a grand for the software back in 2012.

If the MiniMonitor takes some of the overhead off the computer and outputs video properly, I'm not sure how this is a drawback except in somebody's head who a) wants to do this for free, and b) wants to do it because other editing programs do this. You can also color-correct in the operating system on Baselight, on Lustre, on Scratch, and in quite a few other color-correction programs... but almost everybody I know just buys a cheap card and uses that.

You do understand that your comments reflect how people see you and that trolling is generally looked down upon? Speaking for myself, cost has absolutely nothing to do with wanting a more flexible 'viewer'. Anyone who has read through this thread would likely understand the reasons that have been put forward for wanting a more flexible 'viewer'. It's a reasonable feature request that would be extremely useful for most users. Adding this feature would also have zero impact on how you do things and so i'm left wondering why you're pushing back on this and why you feel the need to troll in this thread?

Implying that people want this feature because they're looking for freebies or because they're not exclusively in your circle of colorists / friends is off the mark. Blackmagic now have a much wider audience and user base than just colorists. It's a good time for Resolve to grow and adapt IMO.

Marc Wielage wrote:If the MiniMonitor takes some of the overhead off the computer and outputs video properly..

It doesn't at all- it most likely adds more overhead (this is one of the reason why Resolve "slows down" when SDI is enabled).

I Need False Color Plugin for Davinci Resolve - bought it at timeinpixels! If I needed: Full Screen 'Viewer' on second display .. then I would pay the 24USD it costs for Nobe Display at timeinpixels!

https://timeinpixels.com/nobe-display/

Well, it was clever to confuse GUI window flexibility with external monitoring, and pretend that the vast majority of claimants for this feature aren't non-paying customers who want it all for free, but even admitting the excellent utility of what you demand, two questions:

-- how do you propose BMD fund development of Resolve if your requirements are met? Can it be assumed you'd gladly embrace the Adobe or Avid subscription model, in lieu of a decklink card, until death? Does anyone really believe $299 w/free updates covers it?

-- what exactly is the point of thousands of words devoted to this subject, year after year, complete with amateur engineering, unsolicited business advice, high passion and personal insults directed at naysayers, when the company has heard you out, also for years running, and shown little interest in the matter? There are no other NLEs available?

Would "trollery" describe this behavior? Or maybe "OCD", a popular term on the boards these days?

Ole Kristiansen wrote:I Need False Color Plugin for Davinci Resolve - bought it at timeinpixels! If I needed: Full Screen 'Viewer' on second display .. then I would pay the 24USD it costs for Nobe Display at timeinpixels!

https://timeinpixels.com/nobe-display/

Nobe Display is a good option for the time being but it has some gotcha's that a native viewer wouldn't have. For example, it has to be loaded as an effect on each of your timelines in order to work and it doesn't play back in sync with Resolve's viewer. Also, it requires several clicks to get it to full screen without menu bars and icons (could a keyboard shortcut option fix this?).

Again, very pleased that Nobe Display is an option, but I think the best option would be for Resolve to support this natively.

John Paines wrote:Well, it was clever to confuse GUI window flexibility with external monitoring, and pretend that the vast majority of claimants for this feature aren't non-paying customers who want it all for free, but even admitting the excellent utility of what you demand, two questions:

-- how do you propose BMD fund development of Resolve if your requirements are met? Can it be assumed you'd gladly embrace the Adobe or Avid subscription model, in lieu of a decklink card, until death? Does anyone really believe $299 w/free updates covers it?

-- what exactly is the point of thousands of words devoted to this subject, year after year, complete with amateur engineering, unsolicited business advice, high passion and personal insults directed at naysayers, when the company has heard you out, also for years running, and shown little interest in the matter? There are no other NLEs available?

Would "trollery" describe this behavior? Or maybe "OCD", a popular term on the boards these days?

If we kept using Resolve and say nothing about it we would be still at stage when it was able to import/export just few image sequence based formats.

Do you really believe that Resolve users by buying Decklink card for 200$ are really driving profits for BM? These sales (for Resolve users) are rather tiny.
As I said- I'm happy (and heard others saying the same) to pay this 200$ for optional GUI preview and BM doesn't need to manufacture anything, so they are way better of at the end. If Resolve development really relies on those Decklink (Resolve related) sales then you better to look for other software

Andrew, I think you overvalue your influence with the company.... Just joking, of course.

And no, I'm not claiming that a $137 decklink card pays, on its own, for Resolve department. But, in case anyone didn't notice, BMD is a hardware company. And it gives software away for free. How do you suppose it manages to do that?

Well. A second/third fullscreen mode would definetly be useful. I currently struggle with seeing what Im working with.
Some questions about Decklink. Can you use that monitor for other programs like Photoshop or?
What is a normal configuration?