Time for a Resolve Lite Editor's Version

@kinvermark

If Blackmagic can come up with a BMD 6K pocket camera when they can't even fulfil the orders of BMD 4K pocket camera, it speaks a lot about their positivity to cater towards different needs for different people.

It's their marketing strategy and that strategy defies your logic.

In any case, I can just just ask. It's for BMD to decide.

Btw, have you ever noticed any renowned editor ever contributing to BMD forum? It's only the regular users, mostly colourists, who are against my view. Why is that? Editors are not remotely interested, despite BMD advertising Resolve to be a "powerful" NLE. Strange, isn't it?

Why are they not interested? Because DR won't run on their low-specced machines.

Why are they not interested? Because DR won't run on their low-specced machines.

Well, I think it's more likely they have existing infrastructure and workflow/workgroup commitments that keep them pinned to AVID or FCPX.

But you are right, not for me to say what BM should do....I just hope that they keep pushing DR forward and don't implement a subscription.

BTW take a look at the specs I am using. 10 yr old tech. Not great, but I can make it work with DR's various performance tools.

Why are they not interested? Because DR won't run on their low-specced machines.

I have a hard time believing a great many "renowned" editors are using low spec machines.

I have a hard time believing a great many "renowned" editors are using low spec machines.

^
|
What he said!

I have a hard time believing a great many "renowned" editors are using low spec machines.

I also am skeptical of this claim. Perhaps the OP could name several "renowned editors" and give the low specs of the hardware they use.

It's not a question of shelling out $300 for Resolve. But a question remains. $300 for Resolve and $5000 for the new Mac Pro remains the best bet for running Resolve. Other Mac computers need e-gpu, Raid drives, etc. So the effective cost for Resolve Edit comes to minimum $2000.

If you want to belong to the Apple cult, then you have to pay the absorbent Apple tax. My machine costs less than half a Mac pro, and has no issue with footage short of 4k Raw.

If you want to belong to the Apple cult, then you have to pay the absorbent Apple tax. My machine costs less than half a Mac pro, and has no issue with footage short of 4k Raw.

I can edit 4K long-GoP mp4 files on my 3-year-old Windows machine that cost less than $2000. I've also tried some of the higher resolution raw sample files and it didn't choke on them either.

To the OP: Have you explored other options within DR? Such as slapping a quick LUT on the camera footage and transcoding to lower resolution proxy files with an editor-friendly codec. Then having your editor cut the footage together to create the story on their low spec machines, then turn the project over to specialists who will do the color grading and other adjustments that are required to the original camera files on their high-spec machines.

Exactly who is going to decide which features are 'necessary' in a Lite version?

It's bad enough now with the free version. So many complaints about the 'crippled' free version not meeting specific needs for a few individuals.

The broad concept of Resolve development is to create a 'post studio in a box' which has never really been tried at this level before. Having separate apps that need integration is the old FCP7 paradigm that BMD is trying to get away from. BMD have been acquiring apps like Fusion and Fairlight with this purpose in mind but there's still a lot of development to go....

It's not a question of shelling out $300 for Resolve. But a question remains. $300 for Resolve and $5000 for the new Mac Pro remains the best bet for running Resolve. Other Mac computers need e-gpu, Raid drives, etc. So the effective cost for Resolve Edit comes to minimum $2000.

If you want to belong to the Apple cult, then you have to pay the absorbent Apple tax. My machine costs less than half a Mac pro, and has no issue with footage short of 4k Raw.

I don't think the old Apple/Microsoft flame war is appropriate here.
I use Apple because all my clients need the file format compatibility. All Apple users are not the same or are able to switch platform.

It's not a question of shelling out $300 for Resolve. But a question remains. $300 for Resolve and $5000 for the new Mac Pro remains the best bet for running Resolve. Other Mac computers need e-gpu, Raid drives, etc. So the effective cost for Resolve Edit comes to minimum $2000.

If you want to belong to the Apple cult, then you have to pay the absorbent Apple tax. My machine costs less than half a Mac pro, and has no issue with footage short of 4k Raw.

I don't think the old Apple/Microsoft flame war is appropriate here.
I use Apple because all my clients need the file format compatibility. All Apple users are not the same or are able to switch platform.

It's not a flame war, It's a fact, that any honest IT or tech person will tell you. You pay more for a Mac than you do for an equivalently powerful Linux or Windows machine. The disparity increases as you move towards the high end multi core machines.

A few years back the company I work for restricted who could have a Mac for this exact reason. When I joined the company over a decade ago, you had your choise of Mac, Linux or windows. When managers had to start justifying why a new or existing employee needed a Mac, the number that got handed out dropped dramatically; and so did the amount of money the IT department was spending on hardware acquisitions & maintenance.

I know most people will disagree.

Yep.

So why not bifurcate and also make it a proper editing software?

It's already a 'proper editing software'.

Well, I mean the editors do not need to correct colours. They are also not interested to mix 5.1 sound.

I'm an unreknowned full-time broadcast TV editor and I need to do these things, as do the rest of my team.

They know certain things are best left to graphics artists or the sound designers.

True... but irrelevant.

editors are scared to run Resolve because it has too many functions (tabs), which they don't need.

These editors don't sound very experienced... as has been said, I think maybe they just need a bit of training The same is true when introducing any new workflow/software.

And also, they can't edit with their normal laptop or an old Desktop, because DR needs high-powered machines. And that's the reason they stick to FCP, Premiere and Avid.

This isn't entirely untrue. I can't run Resolve at home on my old 2011 iMac... but the answer isn't BMD retooling and thereafter supporting and maintaining a seperate version of Resolve to run on my archaic home computing hardware, it's me upgrading my hardware to meet the minimum system requirements of the software I want to use. In my case that doesn't necessarily mean buying a new $5000 Mac Pro... it could be as little as $100 and a days effort to open up the iMac and replace the graphics daughter card.

.This isn't entirely untrue. I can't run Resolve at home on my old 2011 iMac... but the answer isn't BMD retooling and thereafter supporting and maintaining a seperate version of Resolve to run on my archaic home computing hardware, it's me upgrading my hardware to meet the minimum system requirements of the software I want to use. In my case that doesn't necessarily mean buying a new $5000 Mac Pro... it could be as little as $100 and a days effort to open up the iMac and replace the graphics daughter card.

AFAIK, you you won't be able to replace the graphics card on your iMac. You can change your boot drive to SSD and increase the RAM though. Since yours is a 2011 iMac, you can't even add a e-GPU (costs $1200) and a RAID drive to it.

So you are left with two options:

1. Use Premiere Pro CC or Avid or FCPX on your machine.
2. Buy a new iMac (costs $1200), upgrade to SSD and increase RAM (add $120), add e-gpu ($1200), add a thunderbolt RAID drive ($1000), total cost $3400 and run DR for free (or pay for Studio version $299).

Since you don't mind investing in machines, and love DR, I think you'll take up the second option. Many don't.

Do you go to manufacturers of other film making equipment etc and insist that they produce something special just for you, because that equipment is more than you need or doesn't meet your needs in some way?

No. They don't have open forums like this.

AFAIK, you you won't be able to replace the graphics card on your iMac. You can change your boot drive to SSD and increase the RAM though. Since yours is a 2011 iMac, you can't even add a e-GPU (costs $1200) and a RAID drive to it.

Sure you can, for around $100, as I said... it's not a novice hack tho.
Alternatively, It's also possible to add an eGPU (via lowly Thunderbolt 1), but the performance will be restricted accordingly.

Or yes, if I needed to use Resolve at home I could purchase a new or second hand Mac or PC that meets the minimum specs.

As for alternative software (Premiere, FCPX, Lighworks, Avid, Vegas, Edius etc etc) they all come with minimum recommend/required specs. It's standard practice. It's hardly on BMD to retool their software to support users who want to use low end hardware... who will then complain that they want something else for free.

Andy, can you please let me know how to go through the hack? We have a iMac 2013, on which Resolve used to run till DR 14. DR15 onwards it can't.
I didn't know it's possible to change the graphic cards in iMac. most DIY sites say otherwise.

For sure.
Details on compatible upgrades (and installation process) for 2011 iMacs can be found here ... and for adding an eGPU (also to a 2011 iMac) you can find details here.

Not sure how available any of these options are for the 2013 models of iMac, but hopefully you can find some useful info.

Fair warning tho. I'm totally not responsible if you try any of this and it doesn't work!

Thanks for this. Looks like not possible in 2013 iMac as GPUs are soldered and not pasted. But I'll dig into this nevertheless. For my iMac it would be better to go for an eGPU though.
Even if changing the internal GPU might be possible, I'll lose the Mac boot screen.
Thanks again!

AFAIK, you you won't be able to replace the graphics card on your iMac.

That's part of the reason a self-built Windows machine is the best choice for this job.

Not being a mac is another.

AFAIK, you you won't be able to replace the graphics card on your iMac.

That's part of the reason a self-built Windows machine is the best choice for this job.

Not being a mac is another.

Or if you must have osx, you can always build a hackintosh.

Seems like your shopping around is all Mac based. There are a lot of very good NLE's that are only PC too. A powerful PC is also a lot less money to build as well.

Or if you must have osx

That's the part to stay away from. No one 'must' have it. Someone, somewhere has made a decision to use it.

And decisions can be changed.

Let's not get into the Mac vs Windows debate again. Apple and Microsoft decided in favour of truce two decades ago.

The idea of a Hackintosh is not very comfortable for me.

The idea of a Hackintosh is not very comfortable for me.

Well then you or your editors have painted yourselves into a corner, and are going to have to pony up for new more powerful apple products.

Minimum system requirements exist for very good reasons. Usually they are driven by the most fundamental features of an application, and thus aren't going to change unless the development team starts over from scratch. Based on the size and complexity of Resolve, I can't see BM doing a from zero refactoring/rewrite, as that's hugely expensive.

If they where to do anything at all, the'd probably release a completely different product under a different name that played well alongside Resolve.

If they where to do anything at all, the'd probably release a completely different product under a different name that played well alongside Resolve.

That suits me. Or maybe BMD will buy up one NLE and make it compatible to DR, like they did with Fusion and Fairlight.

Frankly, I know nothing about software programming, I can only say how a software works as an end user.

I vented my feelings about DR's high system requirement as an NLE. Normally, NLEs don't demand such high specs from a machine. That's the reason I asked for a "lite" version, for the editors. If it doesn't happen, fair enough, there are other NLEs in the market. But the Edit inside DR is so good, it can beat may of these NLEs hollow, it's a pity that editors need to stick to other NLEs just because DR minimum spec is so demanding.

At the same time, I am the last person who would want DR to be diluted just to run an NLE. The grading system is awesome, and the sound (Fairlight) is improving by the day and is near perfect. I don't use Fusion at all, so can't comment on that part.

Nothing wrong having both Mac and Windows products. Use the one that suits the task and available software or operator skill level.

That's the part to stay away from. No one 'must' have it. Someone, somewhere has made a decision to use it.

Unless the software one relies on for daily operation is macOS only.

Minimum system requirements exist for very good reasons. Usually they are driven by the most fundamental features of an application, and thus aren't going to change unless the development team starts over from scratch. Based on the size and complexity of Resolve, I can't see BM doing a from zero refactoring/rewrite, as that's hugely expensive.

no! -- even in the case of resolve it was already practically proven, that this kind of improvements can be realized, if some experts spend shared efforts on it:

if we could utilize this kind of hardware compatibility and more of the specific qualities of a given platform on resolve for linux as well, it would be indeed a significant improvement.

I was watching a YouTube video on the Explaining Computers channel. He had a Latte Panda Alpha, and was using DR 12.5 instead of the latest because the earlier version was more stable on that platform.

Maybe an earlier version of DR would work better on your older hardware. But if your editors use an older version and you have colorists using a newer version, make sure that the new DR version will injest projects from the older version and realize that you won't be able to send projects from newer versions to older versions.

no! -- even in the case of resolve it was already practically proven, that this kind of improvements can be realized, if some experts spend shared efforts on it:

if would could utilize this kind of hardware compatibility and the specific qualities of a given platform on resolve for linux as well, it would be indeed a significant improvement.

No, you don't understand what I mean, A fundamental feature is something like converting everything to 32bit float.


Also the Intel feel good marketing piece is highly misleading. A driver/api interface is a tangential part of the code base, not core functionality.

As an aside, You still can't do much with an iris gpu.

Well, that's interesting. This opens up a new horizon, though.

To specifically talk about Linux, we are planning to go for a Linux system if, in future, we need to dump OSX altogether. How's DR's performance there?

Resolve is definitely more demanding on the hardware than the other major NLEs that are being discussed here. That is an area that I too would like to see BMD make some improvements in, but I don't think for a minute that simply stripping out a few features from the code will magically improve that somehow. It doesn't work that way.

I hear this complaint often, but I also found that Resolve was significantly faster on a MacBook pro than FCPX was. (It was one reason that I gave up entirely on FCPX as well as on the underpowered mac platform.)

The reality however is that as long as you have a modern GPU and know the limitations of what you're working with, it's remarkably efficient -- especially since BMD has been working to make it more laptop friendly. I've working with 8K footage on a laptop with six cores, 32 GB, and a 1070 Max-Q. Today you can get that for under $2K, less if you're looking at a desktop.

And that's handling 8K (not that I NEED 8K, mind you -- I mostly master in 2K and only rarely even in 4K).

My aging now (over 2.5 years old) HP Ultrabook actually handles 2K footage in Resolve with ease -- and that only has 16GB, 4 cores, and pansy little MX150 GPU with 2GB. It can handle 4K as long as I use optimized media... and 8K with an eGPU (I ended up using that machine with an eGPU to color grade a feature film shot in 8K due to budget constraints, and that got picked up by a distributor...)

non-sequitur.

a conclusion or reply that doesn't follow logically from the previous statement.

Grant Petty, as a market-driven disruptor, should consider (after wading through this amusing thread) letting the consumers decide. After all, he wanted to generate a new pool of talent by flooding the market with wanna-new-bies who would either sink or swim. Push it out there, see if it burns on re-entry.

Maybe (if the $300 is not a barrier) there should be a $300 NLE-only feeder (port out the cut-page) called "BMD-CUT*TM" (or *R if you prefer) that will provide the compatible AAF or XML round-trip to the ONLINE service which is Resolve Studio. That would just be a continuation, part of the evolutionary process that has co-opted the world's leading color correction solution into being an NLE with some grading capability that most of its users now ignore. Or think is a virtually useless and confusing or intimidating tab. That they would prefer to shut off, because it takes too many resources.

As a colorist, I would love to see the NLE bias taken out of the mix. And get back to what the application used to do, as its prime directive. Only without the minefield that is, and will remain forever, roundtripping.

jPo, CSI

Grant Petty, as a market-driven disruptor, should consider (after wading through this amusing thread) letting the consumers decide. After all, he wanted to generate a new pool of talent by flooding the market with wanna-new-bies who would either sink or swim. Push it out there, see if it burns on re-entry.

BMD is already doing that. BMD introduced the cut page without knowing how well it would be received, and then asked for feedback. Due to that feedback it's becoming a viable NLE on its own.

Maybe (if the $300 is not a barrier) there should be a $300 NLE-only feeder (port out the cut-page)

That already exists, since as many have pointed out you can simply turn those tabs that you don't want to see off...

Or think is a virtually useless and confusing or intimidating tab.

If they find it confusing or intimidating AND are unable to turn it off, they're in the wrong field.

That they would prefer to shut off, because it takes too many resources.

That's completely nonsensical. If you aren't using it, it's not eating resources.

As a colorist, I would love to see the NLE bias taken out of the mix. And get back to what the application used to do, as its prime directive. Only without the minefield that is, and will remain forever, roundtripping.

jPo, CSI

In spite of how silly requests like this are, I would also prefer that BMD put some focus on its color tools. I've shifted to using Resolve as an NLE and color grading mainly in Scratch, especially with the latest color tools updates that Assimilate's been working on. I still color some things in Resolve, but it feels like Resolve is falling behind on the user friendliness side of its color tools in particular nowadays, though it's still a great color grading tool.

My idea would be to make Resolve modular. Instead of needing to load all the code for all the pages and just hide the pages you don’t need (as it is now), allow users to set which modules they need and only the code for them is loaded. Don’t use Fusion, the code isn’t loaded, etc.

My idea would be to make Resolve modular. Instead of needing to load all the code for all the pages and just hide the pages you don’t need (as it is now), allow users to set which modules they need and only the code for them is loaded. Don’t use Fusion, the code isn’t loaded, etc.

I doubt that the memory footprint is an issue as far as run-time performance, right now I have it loaded with a small project and Task Manager reports 232 MB which is small relative to 8 GB of RAM. I wonder if it would initialize faster if it were modularized, seems to take quit awhile to come up even though my system/program drive is NVRAM.

Well, that's interesting. This opens up a new horizon, though.

To specifically talk about Linux, we are planning to go for a Linux system if, in future, we need to dump OSX altogether. How's DR's performance there?

As a hobbyst Resolve and long time Linux user, pretty darn good!
The only tradeoff that you made is supported formats compatibility, but nothing that ffmpeg or other open source tools and a bit of automation can cure.
It is mostly a non-issue if using pro cameras.

Normally, NLEs don't demand such high specs from a machine.

I used Resolve for quite a while with an i7 920, 8GB of RAM and a GTX 960.

It worked very well.

But a question remains. $300 for Resolve and $5000 for the new Mac Pro remains the best bet for running Resolve.

Are you serious? With all due respect, I think you just bought into a brand name and what's the most expensive stuff out there. I have run Resolve on a PC build that totals under $2000, and it runs very well.

Have you considered building one on your own? And have you spent on SSDs? Because if your Mac is from 2015, chances are it came with a standard mechanical hard drive. They have very, very bad read/write rates compared to SSDs. Have you considered that it might be the second most important thing apart from a CPU-GPU combination that can make your whole editing experience sluggish and horrible if you rely on slow mechanical hard drives?

Have you run comprehensive benchmarks to assess your 2015 Mac's performance in comparison to CPUs in the last 3 years even? Have you done the same for your system's video card? Have you referred to detailed rendering benchmarks using several NLEs done by TONNES of people on the web? (Seriously, this is like readily available information in this day and age).

I am really getting tired of these type of posts.

"Make special modifications for me because I don't need the 'extra' stuff". And people are complaining like this for a $300 software that is equivalent to multiple times its price value given what is being offered here.

This might be the wrong forum thread, but you guys seem to know what you're talking about:

Given that DR Free scrubbing and playback are problematic on my W10 Core i7 GTX 780 hardware, and given that Resource Manager shows only about 60% utilization on all eight cores, does that mean DR Free is never gonna run well on this system?

Or does the less than 100% CPU utilization point to a configuration problem on my part?

This might be the wrong forum thread, but you guys seem to know what you're talking about:

Given that DR Free scrubbing and playback are problematic on my W10 Core i7 GTX 780 hardware, and given that Resource Manager shows only about 60% utilization on all eight cores, does that mean DR Free is never gonna run well on this system?

Or does the less than 100% CPU utilization point to a configuration problem on my part?

The GTX 780 is almost certainly a major bottleneck, because it's rather old. I'm not even sure that Resolve CAN use it, certainly not all that much.

The utilization isn't always going to be 100%, though. If your disk is too slow, you'd get a bottleneck there... right now your GPU is a major bottleneck, so that's going to hold things up a lot. If it's a desktop, get a modern GPU for it.

The utilization isn't always going to be 100%, though. If your disk is too slow, you'd get a bottleneck there... right now your GPU is a major bottleneck, so that's going to hold things up a lot. If it's a desktop, get a modern GPU for it.

Thanks, Rakesh.

I was under the impression that the GPU played no part in h.264 decompression in DV Free.

The media disk should be good enough. It's a 4TB, 7200 rpm DeskStar. I tried scrubbing a file sourced from my SSD, but it was no better.

Darn. I really want to break free from Adobe.

I really want to break free from Adobe.

In both NLE's, I recommend using Cineform proxies for all H.264/5 based media, regardless of system specs.

Cineform just works better.

I was under the impression that the GPU played no part in h.264 decompression in DV Free.

It doesn't, but Resolve still uses the GPU for image processing if the GPU can support it, which yours probably can't.

The media disk should be good enough. It's a 4TB, 7200 rpm DeskStar. I tried scrubbing a file sourced from my SSD, but it was no better.

It's most likely your GPU holding things up then.

Darn. I really want to break free from Adobe.

Then stop paying for your Adobe subscription and use the money you save to spring for a Resolve Studio license + a GPU. Even a low end Navi would enable Resolve to handle 4K footage unless it's Redcode, for which you'd need an RTX GPU.

The Adobe CC subscription is $55/month? Kill that and you save enough money to pay for an entry level Navi or Turing + a Resolve Studio license...

it doesn't make sense, that very simple common features, like hardware acceleration support for consumer codecs, as you'll find it nowadays in any mediocre media player, should be understood as advanced premium features in case of resolve. this minimal support of adequate up to date file format handling should be available in the non-studio version as well, if it's necessary to realize acceptable performance. a free version of the application, which isn't able to satisfy this most essential basic requirements of practical usability simply doesn't make much sense.

it doesn't make sense, that very simple common features, like hardware acceleration support for consumer codecs, as you'll find it nowadays in any mediocre media player, should be understood as advanced premium features in case of resolve. this minimal support of adequate up to date file format handling should be available in the non-studio version as well, if it's necessary to realize acceptable performance. a free version of the application, which isn't able to satisfy this most essential basic requirements of practical usability simply doesn't make much sense.

It makes perfect sense, bm has decided they will not provide a small company all the tools they need to make money for free. Not to mention an approximately speced machine does need gpu decode to archive acceptable performance.

it doesn't make sense, that very simple common features, like hardware acceleration support for consumer codecs, as you'll find it nowadays in any mediocre media player, should be understood as advanced premium features in case of resolve. this minimal support of adequate up to date file format handling should be available in the non-studio version as well, if it's necessary to realize acceptable performance. a free version of the application, which isn't able to satisfy this most essential basic requirements of practical usability simply doesn't make much sense.

To get anything comparable to Resolve's Free Version, you have to pay twice (or more) as much as the Studio SKU.

Complaining about the lack of Hardware Decode Support seems pretty petty, given the economics of the situation.

However they choose to differentiate the free product from the dirt cheap paid SKU makes perfect sense. They choose. We don't.

Other choices do exist, if you find it that oppressive to use the software without it.

Or you can just transcode the media, get even better performance, and not worry about it... cause it really isn't that big of a deal.

@kinvermark

If Blackmagic can come up with a BMD 6K pocket camera when they can't even fulfil the orders of BMD 4K pocket camera, it speaks a lot about their positivity to cater towards different needs for different people.

It's their marketing strategy and that strategy defies your logic.

In any case, I can just just ask. It's for BMD to decide.

Btw, have you ever noticed any renowned editor ever contributing to BMD forum? It's only the regular users, mostly colourists, who are against my view. Why is that? Editors are not remotely interested, despite BMD advertising Resolve to be a "powerful" NLE. Strange, isn't it?

Why are they not interested? Because DR won't run on their low-specced machines.

Editors are interested, they are just waiting to see how it plays out. They're thinking long term. They get paid to edit, not to prefer one NLE over another. Most will happily use whatever NLE it takes to get the job done.

I do agree the forums here tend to be a bit contrarian, but asking for another SKU that is basically a subset of what already exists is a bit ridiculous... and BMD have already commented numerous times about the disparities between Free and Studio, and what they know will not change in the foreseeable future.

And it's not like they don't open up features to the free version, either. Quite a few higher end Resolve 15 "Studio" Features became Resolve 16 "Free" features. Some things are just off the table. You aren't a Professional Editor, but that doesn't mean they don't want to sell you software.

I agree, at $300 USD, it's a bargain. I just don't know if it will run smoothly on my existing hardware.
It'd be very useful if BM offered a trial version of Studio. Then, all this would be moot.

Thanks all, for your input.

First of all, what makes you think that moving the editing page out from the rest of the software would make it run any faster? I highly doubt it would.
Resolve works fantastic on my extremely low end hardware that doesn't even meet the minimum system requirements. I'm editing 1080p footage extremely smoothly. Are you trying to run it on a potato?
And you even say you don't even need it to run full resolution files, but only proxies. So just scale the proxies to whatever can run on your system...

If you think 2015 13 inch Macbook Pro 2.6 GHz Dual Intel Core i5, 16 GB ram is a potato so be it. But FCPX and Adobe NLE work perfectly on this potato.
If Resolve projects itself as a proper NLE (like it does in numerous ads), it needs to run on this potato, it should not need a pumpkin.

No. Resolve doesn't run fantastic on extremsely low end hardware. It barely runs at all. Crashes constantly. You need way better specs for this NLE than for Adobe, Apple, or Avid NLEs - IME.

That isn't even close to the truth, unless all you're doing is creating proxies in media management.

I always tell people who ask me that the price for Resolve is co.parable to Avid, because often they'd need to upgrade their machines to run at comparable performance levels.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

+1

13" MBPs are underpowered. That's kind of a potato, TBH...

Buy 15" for editing. I think the CPU choices in the 2015 13" weren't that great, either. So it was a mediocre choice, even when new.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If you think 2015 13 inch Macbook Pro 2.6 GHz Dual Intel Core i5, 16 GB ram is a potato so be it. But FCPX and Adobe NLE work perfectly on this potato.

That's because FCPX and Adobe Premiere are still in 2015, it's now 2019.

If Resolve projects itself as a proper NLE (like it does in numerous ads), it needs to run on this potato, it should not need a pumpkin.

It's actually the users of Resolve that consider it to be a fully fledged NLE, at least those now living in 2019.

1. Possibly not. Try running a Premiere 2019 project on an Premiere 2015 timeline and you would know.

2. True that. But you know what? We are on Mac Pro 2012 5.1 and Resolve 2019 runs on it fluently like it used to do with Resolve previous versions (probably 10.5 in 2012). So, Apple created computers in 2012 for Resolve to run in 2019?

Mac Pros have Xeon CPUs with tons of cores, and actual discrete GPUs with tons of RAM. You can upgrade them to mitigate their age.

Not comparable in the slightest.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk