Why can't Resolve handle h.264 files when other editors can?

Resolve is different than most NLEs in that it uses only the GPU for video operations - it can't fall back on the CPU.
If you have a strong GPU Resolve can run circles around the competition. If you don't it just won't run well. That's probably what's getting in your way.

It would be great if BMD were better at getting that message out to users. I think the program itself should tell you why it's not running well. I've made such a request in the Feature Requests forum:

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=166193

Whose signature is it that states "The software may be free, but the hardware to run the software is not..."?

It's so true. You need to drop $$$ to get a machine powerful enough to run Resolve smoothly. Yes, it depends on the source and resolution, etc... but still. Also, if you can afford to run Resolve free with the requisite hardware costs, you can probably afford the Studio license for the extra $299 (for most users).

While both your replies are absolutely true, this thread is about H.264 decoding which is available in most CPUs and GPUs since many years now. That particular function, hardware decoding of H.264 doesn't require a beefy GPU as it's a completely separate chip that doesn't add to the general load of the GPU.

There was a time when Resolve didn't support it at all but other apps did, and that's the origin of this old thread.

Good point, Roger, but I think the extension to this thread leads to complaints about Resolve's overall performance. It's not uncommon for folks to download the free app and then complain about how slow it is at playing the timeline...

These responses are to a post that’s only 2 hrs old and complaining about how slow h.264 is on the poster’s machine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a shame, because I was just looking for an excuse to buy Resolve Studio along with a speed editor, etc. Now my money is going to go elsewhere.

You're avoiding the solution to your issue so that you can spend more money elsewhere.

I'm at the point of looking to abandon Resolve, and go back to using Vegas or something else.

Five years later, and h.264 file handling is still terrible in Resolve.

It's a shame, because I was just looking for an excuse to buy Resolve Studio along with a speed editor, etc. Now my money is going to go elsewhere.

Maybe I'll revisit this forum in another five years, to determine whether Blackmagic has at least figured out how to hire software engineers who know better than to design software that literally offers no user interface progress bars or something for when Resolve is having trouble keeping up with files that other NLEs have no problems handling.

Like, waiting ten minutes for Resolve to be able to finally even just display something other than blank bars in the Timeline editor or player, without having any progress indicators, feedback, or other sign that Resolve is not actually just completely hung, is pretty sad for a company that prides itself in creating cutting edge products.

Have you compared costs of Vegas Pro with DVR Studio? The latter is a one-off cost whereas the former has annual upgrade costs which mount up to be quite substantial. I use both Vegas Pro 20 (Vegas since 9 in July 2009) and DRV Studio 18.1.3 I am phasing out Vegas as I do not feel confident it its long term support. Plus Davinci has a very active user forum whereas Vegas has just a handful of old-timers in comparison.

DRV Studio cost me £249 including Speed Editor and sales tax in Nov 2021

Vegas updates since July 2018 have cost me £485 including sales tax, and the last two of the four would have cost even more but I had reduced it to the "Edit" mode.

Davinci does need a beefy work station though, but you know that.

These responses are to a post that’s only 2 hrs old and complaining about how slow h.264 is on the poster’s machine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and he's using the free version of Resolve so it won't use hardware acceleration for H.264. That's the root cause.

DaVinci Resolve Studio doesn't like h.264 either -regardless of hardware acceleration.

I had terrible performance issues until I learned about proxies and accepted waiting an hour or two.

Performance is now smooth regardless of file location SSD, Nvme or HDD.

I didn't even transcode to DNxHR -

I transcoded h.264 to h.264 and h.265 so doesn't that suggest that DaVinci Resolve struggles to read 'foreign' encoding?

The file sizes of the proxies were surprisingly small compared to the original files.

It depends on your hardware. Some can’t accelerate 10-bit. Most can’t accelerate 4:2:2 chroma subsampling.

I believe it does depend a lot on your hardware setup...
I finished two x 1 hour long documentaries last year. Most of the footage was shot 4K h264, plus some 5K h265 Drone footage. One timeline only for the entire program. Many Fusion FX and Colour Nodes. Complicated audio setups.
Resolve never missed a beat... never crashed or even slowed down... not once. Post production took 2 weeks.

My set up isn't the most powerful but the main workstation I run, has nothing else installed except for Photoshop and a couple of essential utility apps. No antivirus, no browser.
It's smooth as silk, no matter what I have thrown on it so far.

Just my 2c
Steve

Reason is simple- because it's free.
In order to have support for h264/5 you need a decoder which is not free. This is the reason why some formats are missing in free version because if they were there BM would have to loose money on every copy of free Resolve.
One of the ways is to use decoders offered by GPUs/OS system and Resolve does it. Problem is that not all formats are supported by GPU/OS so at the end you have limited support in Resolve.
On PC side it's good to have Intel GPU (+ Nvidia for actual heavy processing) as they support widest range of formats. On Mac latest Mx chips are also great and offer good acceleration.
Other than this Studio will give you more support through software decoders.

A related question. Sorry if it's answered indirectly in the preceding thread:

I am using the free version of DR in a hobbyist capacity and some of my source material is AVCHD from a consumer HD camcorder or MP4 from cellphones. Both use H.264 encoding.

So far, I haven't had significant performance issues, but If I did decide to transcode to another format for use in DR, what is a good choice to use? Assume the main purposes are the most efficient processing in DR and least adverse impact to video quality. Assume storage space is not a particular issue.

Anything intermediate: ProRes, DNxHR or Cineform will be good.
Resolve offers proxy creation by itself.

Anything intermediate: ProRes, DNxHR or Cineform will be good.
Resolve offers proxy creation by itself.

Good point! DR as installed appears to default to DNxHR HQx for proxies. This is higher bitrate than AVCHD.

If I just generate proxies at full resolution (which in my case is just HD) for all the H.264 sources, I wonder whether it will make a difference for processing speed?

You said in the original post you haven't had performance issues. I read that you had
It's pointless to convert if you can edit and work in realtime.

You said in the original post you haven't had performance issues. I read that you had
It's pointless to convert if you can edit and work in realtime.

I said so far, I haven't had performance issues.

However, I have only been using DR for a couple months. It's possible I might run into issues as I try more complex processes (especially Fusion comps with more than a handful of nodes) or start using UHD sources. Just thinking ahead.

At that point it will have nothing to do with compressed source format but with power of your GPU, so transcoding won't make any real difference. Once you start using Fusion you can fairly quickly run out of realtime.