DaVinci updates

Dear Sirs,
So far I have used the free version of DaVinci Resolve and think about the Studio version.
I have i7 3770 based computer with GPU GTX 1060 6GB and wonder if the Studio version improves speed of rendering using Nvidia option which I saw on Youtube vs default option. Moreover, what about future free updates? For instance I buy soon Studio 16 and what about updates withing 16 version and for instance future 17 one? Will I receive free updates in all future versions or only within 16 one?
Kind regards,
Aleksander Kozak

If you are rendering to H264/H265 then the studio version of Resolve is *much* faster. I typically get 100-200FPS render speeds for HD timelines and faster than realtime rates for 4K timelines with the GTX1060/6.

If you are rendering to H264/H265 then the studio version of Resolve is *much* faster. I typically get 100-200FPS render speeds for HD timelines and faster than realtime rates for 4K timelines with the GTX1060/6.

Yes, I am interested in H264 codec. I was also thinking about Vegas Pro but now DaVinci is more popular and maybe colour correction is also more sophisticated. Do you have direct comparison with Free version?

I bought my Studio license at version 14 and am still getting free updates and upgrades.

That said, BMD staff have commented that such may not always be the case. So there's very good reason to expect your 16 license will work for 17 and beyond, but it's not something we users can guarantee.

Additionally, while GPU-based hardware encoding is often faster than CPU-based software encoding, it's also true that the quality of GPU encoding is less than that of software encoding.

I use the GPU for review copies, but always the slower software encoding for final deliverables.

Something to consider.

I bought my Studio license at version 14 and am still getting free updates and upgrades.

That said, BMD staff have commented that such may not always be the case. So there's very good reason to expect your 16 license will work for 17 and beyond, but it's not something we users can guarantee.

Additionally, while GPU-based hardware encoding is often faster than CPU-based software encoding, it's also true that the quality of GPU encoding is less than that of software encoding.

I use the GPU for review copies, but always the slower software encoding for final deliverables.

Something to consider.

I see. Thank you. So I do hope future upgrades should be free....we will see.
Is it true that GPU encoding is of lower quality? Could you send any comparisons? Interesting. So it maybe is not need to upgrade to the Studio version keeping in mind only speed of rendering...

Yes, I am interested in H264 codec. I was also thinking about Vegas Pro but now DaVinci is more popular and maybe colour correction is also more sophisticated. Do you have direct comparison with Free version?

I used the free version of Resolve for just long enough to realise that I liked it. If you're planning to use H264/265 source material then (IMHO) the Studio version is well worth the money.

As to how it compares to Vegas... well that's not an easy question to answer (partly because I haven't used Vegas for nearly three years now). When I first switched I found some things that were a piece of cake with Vegas were infuriatingly difficult with Resolve (things like scrolling titles/credits for example). Other stuff that seemed crazy-awkward with Resolve were just a case of being too low on the learning curve (thinks such as merge-transitions -- where Vegas allowed me to simply overlap clips on the timeline to get that effect but Resolve requires you learn some keystrokes to go with it.

All in all, Resolve's biggest strength is probably that it focuses on the core-fundementals and delivers unequalled power in the areas that really matter. It's a lot weaker in the "fluff" (such as fancy transitions etc). If you're a professional then Resolve will likely warm your heart. if you're just someone looking to wow others with "cool features" then you may be disappointed. Resolve also expects you to know a little more about things such as color science and such if you want to get excellent results from your editing/grading.

However, my opinion is just that -- an opinion. I'd love others (both professional and amateur) to wade in with their own opinions because I don't claim to know nearly as much as the majority who inhabit these forums.

The bottom line is that I bought Resolve after spending a few months trying out both it and Adobe Premiere. I hated Premiere but felt more comfortable with Resolve and am still learning new stuff every day but was productive within a couple of weeks.

Is it true that GPU encoding is of lower quality? Could you send any comparisons? Interesting. So it maybe is not need to upgrade to the Studio version keeping in mind only speed of rendering...

It's been my experience that the NVENC H264 encoding (hardware) produces a better result than Resolve's native (software) encoder. If you search the forums you'll find plenty of gripes about the quality of the software H264 encoder but those tend to be dismissed by "professionals" who very rarely use long-GOP formats either as source or delivery formats.

Personally I find the NVENC H265 codec to be excellent and I use that exclusively now. The files are smaller, the quality is better and the speed is excellent.

Yes, I am interested in H264 codec. I was also thinking about Vegas Pro but now DaVinci is more popular and maybe colour correction is also more sophisticated. Do you have direct comparison with Free version?

I used the free version of Resolve for just long enough to realise that I liked it. If you're planning to use H264/265 source material then (IMHO) the Studio version is well worth the money.

As to how it compares to Vegas... well that's not an easy question to answer (partly because I haven't used Vegas for nearly three years now). When I first switched I found some things that were a piece of cake with Vegas were infuriatingly difficult with Resolve (things like scrolling titles/credits for example). Other stuff that seemed crazy-awkward with Resolve were just a case of being too low on the learning curve (thinks such as merge-transitions -- where Vegas allowed me to simply overlap clips on the timeline to get that effect but Resolve requires you learn some keystrokes to go with it.

All in all, Resolve's biggest strength is probably that it focuses on the core-fundementals and delivers unequalled power in the areas that really matter. It's a lot weaker in the "fluff" (such as fancy transitions etc). If you're a professional then Resolve will likely warm your heart. if you're just someone looking to wow others with "cool features" then you may be disappointed. Resolve also expects you to know a little more about things such as color science and such if you want to get excellent results from your editing/grading.

However, my opinion is just that -- an opinion. I'd love others (both professional and amateur) to wade in with their own opinions because I don't claim to know nearly as much as the majority who inhabit these forums.

The bottom line is that I bought Resolve after spending a few months trying out both it and Adobe Premiere. I hated Premiere but felt more comfortable with Resolve and am still learning new stuff every day but was productive within a couple of weeks.

Thank you!
Yes, learning curve is not so easy but I think I shall learn more since I like DaVinci more and more. So far I have only Free version, I make videos for hobby just to have a nice souvenir later. And I do not spend to much time in front of computer so I look for some efficient solutions. Unfortunately I have a lot of both interlaced footage and with some noise so it makes some problems. That is why I consider Studio version to remove noise or Neat Video. TV set deninterlace footage but I wonder what about simultaneous scalling to 4K....vs for instance deinterlacing in any good software and for instance use of Topaz Video Enhance AI to upscale.

Is it true that GPU encoding is of lower quality? Could you send any comparisons? Interesting. So it maybe is not need to upgrade to the Studio version keeping in mind only speed of rendering...

It's been my experience that the NVENC H264 encoding (hardware) produces a better result than Resolve's native (software) encoder. If you search the forums you'll find plenty of gripes about the quality of the software H264 encoder but those tend to be dismissed by "professionals" who very rarely use long-GOP formats either as source or delivery formats.

Personally I find the NVENC H265 codec to be excellent and I use that exclusively now. The files are smaller, the quality is better and the speed is excellent.

I have encountered the article and it seems CPU encoding is better than GPU....different opinions.

Is it true that GPU encoding is of lower quality? Could you send any comparisons? Interesting. So it maybe is not need to upgrade to the Studio version keeping in mind only speed of rendering...

It's been my experience that the NVENC H264 encoding (hardware) produces a better result than Resolve's native (software) encoder. If you search the forums you'll find plenty of gripes about the quality of the software H264 encoder but those tend to be dismissed by "professionals" who very rarely use long-GOP formats either as source or delivery formats.

Personally I find the NVENC H265 codec to be excellent and I use that exclusively now. The files are smaller, the quality is better and the speed is excellent.

I have encountered the article and it seems CPU encoding is better than GPU....different opinions.
https://handbrake.fr/docs/en/latest/tec ... mance.html

I have encountered the article and it seems CPU encoding is better than GPU....different opinions.
https://handbrake.fr/docs/en/latest/tec ... mance.html

That article says that GPU is faster, not sure where you read that CPU is faster for h.264/5. Also, they seem to have used Intel GPUs to do their tests. It's no secret that you will need an nvidia GPU for best performance with Resolve.

I have encountered the article and it seems CPU encoding is better than GPU....different opinions.
https://handbrake.fr/docs/en/latest/tec ... mance.html

That article says that GPU is faster, not sure where you read that CPU is faster for h.264/5. Also, they seem to have used Intel GPUs to do their tests. It's no secret that you will need an nvidia GPU for best performance with Resolve.

The website does not exist to check it. Thank you for your reply.