Blackmagic Forum

I am a hobbyist and, admittedly, the professional Studio version of Resolve is more than I need. And too, it's overwhelming and way over my head. (As are most of the discussions among you professionals in the Resolve forum.) Even the BM promotional video for R 16 talks about a professional feature reminiscent of old film editing days, which we newbie hobbyists know nothing about. (We don't think in terms of "bins.")

So while I can afford to buy the Professional version of Resolve, I won't. For me, it would be like buying a Cray supercomputer to make a one minute video. I would spend more time trying to get the Cray to work than I would working on my video.

But with the advent of Resolve 16 (and now 16.1 with the potential for a full-screen viewer on a second display without custom hardware), I was thinking that a trimmed-down version of Resolve - a Prosumer version - that sold for $89.99, that offered the faster mp4 rendering of Studio and the 2nd display, with less feature clutter, would be perfect for hobbyists like me. (It would have to run on Win7 64 again, because Win7 still is almost 50% of the installed base.) It will ready for the masses when the User Guide is not necessary or only 50 pages, max. (As opposed to the monster it is now.)

In fact, with the advent of Resolve 16, I've noticed a lot of heavy-weight youtuber's now recommending Resolve 16 to their viewers. As are the reviews titled "Best Free Video Editing software for 2019."

I don't mean to irk the professionals and purists here with this idea. (I understand the purist's position (and sometimes scorn?) that mp4 is a terrible format for editing. (And for Delivery.) But the reality is, it's what we hobbyists use. And Resolve is getting better at supporting it.) But if the purpose of running a business is to make money - and it is - then there are a lot more hobbyists to sell Resolve to than professionals. (Sorry.) It seems to me that DaVinci could make more money selling a Prosumer version of its flagship product than it does now giving away its free version.

I don't know enough to suggest what could be trimmed out of the Professional version to make a Prosumer version. But things that I've never heard about before as a hobbyist - debayer, Red Rocket, etc. sound like candidates. Even the color scopes, while cool to look at, are overwhelming. (Just give us Auto. We hobbyists don't really care about perfect color calibration, 'cause we're making videos for fun that will be viewed on (tiny) screens (sometimes washed out in sunlight) which we have no control over. But we do care about fast renders so that we can get our cat videos uploaded faster. (Not me on cats. But you know what I mean.)

Don't need collaboration. Don't need facial recognition for drone footage and cat faces.

Once a Prosumer version were available, DaVinci could change its business model so that a free version of Resolve Prosumer was limited to making 3 minute videos. Purchase would make it unlimited. I already pay $50 to $90 for existing video software. Resolve 16's new editing features are so much better, I would be willing to spend $90 for them - along with fast mp4 rendering.

For the lawyers, I give DaVinci this idea for free.

Terrible idea. It's best to make the pro features less intrusive on the UI, than remove the features altogether. Not to mention that some users download the wrong version already as it is, think if another version gets introduced! Remember the quote: 90% of the users use 10% of the features. But it's never the same 10%.

Making the pro features less intrusive might solve the feature-clutter problem. But it won't solve the $300 problem. (And I expect that all those unused features eat up computer resources that don't need to be eaten. And/or require Win10, which again, is cutting out half the potential customers right from the start.)

As for finding the "same 10%" of the features used - I don't think it is that difficult to isolate for hobbyists. In any event, we spend most of time moving stuff around on the timeline. That's where Resolve 16 currently shines.

I suggest it's better to let the market decide whether this is a terrible idea (thank you) or not instead of not even trying.

The free version is already the prosumer version. You should just buy studio if you need more features.

It’s a one-time $299 and you support this wonderful tool they sell for a steal.

Resolve started its life as a color grading software for professionals and has grown from there into an NLE and audio editing suite as well.

Watering it down as you suggest would turn it into another program altogether and probably divert development resources.

Why not just don't use the features you don't need?

I have a 50w Marshall guitar amp head. WAY mor amp - WAY, WAY louder - than I'll probably ever need. But I don't have to turn it all the way up, either.

I am a hobbyist and user of MP4 footage. I also use the colour tools and the scopes. I certainly do not belong to the group you call "we hobbyists". I,too, make videos for fun but cater for those viewers that will also watch them on a decent computer screen or 4k tv. A cut down version is a terrible idea as is adding a 3min limit. Resolve is not difficult to learn and there are plenty of tutorials available. If you don't feel Resolve is for you, there are plenty of alternatives, some very simple other far more complex.
I don't think Blackmagic Design will give this idea much traction.

But it won't solve the $300 problem.

The free version is already super-feature rich compared to other editors that sell for $100. So the free version IS your cut-down version. You don't need to buy anything.

(And I expect that all those unused features eat up computer resources that don't need to be eaten.

AGAIN: 90% of the users use 10% of the features. But it's never the same 10%.

A few months back B&H Camera and Adorama were selling used licenses or dingles for $200. As more people look to upgrade their BMP4K to the 6K more units should be available on the used market. Personally I love the 4K but may add the 6K as we do wedding videos. There are probably many who like me would be willing to sell their license so there could be a used market if you are looking for a discount.

Since you're making videos for people whom you know will watch on 4K TV, then I suggest that you're more than a "hobbyist." You're more into Production.

From what I've observed from the material on youtube, producing in 4K and with high production values (implied) is not the norm for the untapped market I suggest is out there. (Maybe it is more normal on Vimeo. But certainly not on youtube. And AFAIK, a lot more users of yt than Vimeo.)

Since you know how to use, and more importantly, apparently need to use, 'scopes, then the full blown Pro version of Resolve is obviously for you. My suggestion takes nothing away from you. (And so, I ask rhetorically, why do you care about my suggestion?)

But as I said above, I don't think that you represent the majority of users who I am talking about. And who I am suggesting is an untapped monetary market for BlackMagic.

For example, I was watching some heavyweight on youtube review Resolve and recommend it to his viewers. He said the thing that he liked the most was the quick editing features, especially resizing in situ, because he - as someone who makes money publishing youtube videos (implied) - wants to get video up as quickly as possible.

I got the impression that he doesn't fuss with color correction, high production values, etc. To him, it's not art. (Which I expect it is for most here.) Like newspaper editors with daily deadlines, he just wants to get his stuff published quickly. Unlike a majority of professions here in the forum, I don't think he's worried that it's not perfect.

"Watering it down as you suggest would turn it into another program altogether and probably divert development resources."

Well, first, I am not suggesting "watering it down," any more than the Free version is "watered" down. I am simply suggesting removing high end features. Already "Free" vs. "Studio" does that. I am simply suggesting a middle position, with the mp4 encoder and dual monitors from Studio, and removing features that the "middle class" doesn't care about. (Or want to pay for.)

So I don't understand the reluctance from the Upper Class to tell the Middle Class what they can/should have. (Or maybe I do.)

Anyway, whether making a Prosumer version of Resolve (as I have defined it) would divert resources from the Pro version, and/or if it does, whether "diverting" resources is worth the potential financial reward of competing in the sub-$100 range is something for BlackMagic Marketing to decide. I am simply asking that they consider it.

Hey, how about Resolve alacarte. Pay for only features you want. (/sarcasm off)

If BMD decided to create a version with striped features, there would be complainers complaining about needing just one more certain feature.

Actually, this is not a bad idea. Maybe not exactly like this but a variation.
Almost everyone who edits for yt would do great with the free version plus 4K and hardware rendering.
I've been editing video with VV since 1.0, and they dropped the ball. I tried HF and was extremely annoyed whenever I tried to use a basic feature and got the dreaded "pay for this" screen.

In reality, it is a gigantic step from "free" to "$300 US". If there was an intermediate step it might very well get people into the BMR world who might otherwise not want to be.

Edited to add:
I did buy the Studio version, and agree that it's massive overkill for my current usage. However, having all of these features is pushing me to work toward better production values.

I'd say it was a huge step from 300000 to 300 euros.

I'm a beginner with Resolve (upload project updates to YouTube, still working on my first video edited with Resolve) but your idea sounds absolutely terrible. If the free version had a max video length of 3 minutes it would kill Resolve as a product, because beginners wouldn't bother getting their feet wet and would go straight to their competition.

What I need as a hobbyist is a way to add some visual effects (In my case, a lot of Fusion clips with nodes) and a timeline that I can scrub through with those effects. While color correction isn't needed in my current workflow, there's a chance that because it's there I'll give it a try at some point.

The whole idea of a free version is to give the customer a taste of what you offer while enticing them to spend money with the features that are just out of their reach. Your stripped down free version would just make customers feel like they're getting nickled and dimed, causing them to go to other products entirely for what's just out of reach.

-----

Yes, the $300 step is a huge commitment, and one I'm not ready to consider as a beginner, but I don't think splitting the product into 3 or 4 versions is the right answer.

PS: Microsoft will stop supporting Windows 7 in January 2020, and it has declined to 31% of all desktop OS's (compared to Windows 10's 48%, MacOS's 5%). Is there any point in targeting an operating system that will be discontinued in 5 months?

Despite all the bugs I'm barking in this forum (and I hope they fix soon), I would even pay twice as much as the Studio version costs now just because I'm paying just once for a great software and you get free updates forever. I've been using the free version daily for almost one year for professional jobs and now with the Studio version I have very good new capabilities I'm taking advance of every single minute of my working day. I don't see the point of a "prosumer version".

the really stupid and misleading aspect in this whole case is IMHO more related to the "studio" naming.

in fact, most users have to buy this commercial edition, because the need some typical non-professional features -- support for codecs of their consumer cameras, preview on cheap computer displays instead of SDI-connected studio-equipment, etc.

from an economic point of view this makes a lot of sense, because the consumer mass marked is a much more lucrative field than the small niche of professional and studio related usage. it's the huge crowd of non-professionals where you can make big money!

so i would more criticize the utterly misleading name -- this prestigious sounding "studio" attribution --, because it's in fact only an edition to maximize the profit by targeting the huge crowd of hobbyists and amateurs, which actually don't need any real studio related features (e.g. SDI output) or professional grade support.

Miguel, I cater for for 4k tvs because you can run YouTube on the smart ones. As far as making videos is concerned I am definitely a hobbyist. I also take pride in producing the best videos I can using tools such as Resolve that enable me to do that. For the type of video you are suggesting I would say that Resolve is probably not the right tool.

hillarious...

if you can't produce what you need with the FREE version, then $300 is nothing to spend on the full version...

go ask alice when she's 10ft tall, or vegas, or premiere, or any of the other nle's.

Having spent a fair amount over the years on video editing programs (Speed Razor, Vegas, Premiere), not to mention hardware costs, I am in awe of what is now available in the free version of Resolve and how fast they are developing the program as a whole.

Think of $300 as a small donation to help support a company that is basically giving away their product considering they have never charged for version upgrades. Otherwise I'd say be happy with what you get in the free version as it's easier to learn/edit than ever before and software costs money to create.

As was already pointed out, Resolve at one point had a six-figure price tag and no free version at all, and was profitable at that price for the companies selling it.


$300 is already prosumer-level pricing. It is actually what Final Cut Express used to cost before the release of 4.0, back when Final Cut Pro was $1000.

Premiere Pro was somewhere around $800 before Adobe went subscription-only.

A perpetual licence of Avid Media Composer is still around $1500.


Apple discontinued their prosumer video software and dropped the price of the Pro software to prosumer pricing levels.

BMD has dropped the cost of the professional version of Resolve to prosumer pricing levels.

When I read everything I see in the forum:
it's never enough. There are people working to develop this software, others who manage them but it seems normal today that it is free. And even when it's free, there are some who come to heckle the supplier because it's not good enough for them in the name of their great philosophy. In short: ask all that can hope even more: it's free.

A bit disgusting for those who buy their dongle > 999 .

That's because young(er) people today expect software to be free (best downloaded from some online "store" and only pay for hardware and BMD detected that well...

I would argue, though, that hw decode should be made part of the free version because hobbyists with little resources can dramatically take the load off their hardware with most common codecs since every little GPU or iGPU can decode those tax free...

Great philosophical debate: what is the normal?
I prefer not to debate it. I am too, too old.

Miguel,

$300 for a package like Resolve is a steal... Regarding "being overwhelmed" by it's complexity; Just focus and learn the functions you'll use on a daily basis, and if future projects require rarely used feature sets, you'll be glad you have them.

And if you purchase a Fusion dongle , it activates DR studio as well as Fusion Studio.
A better deal on this planet, I'm yet to see.

Not meaning to offend anyone but I suspect that a lot of hobbyists who want some of the pro features in the free or 'prosumer' version have already spent way more than $300 on cameras & lenses.

I paid for the Resolve dongle when it was over $999, but I don't feel cheated as every upgrade has been free and a marvellous improvement. Paying for the full version keeps BMD in business and will help ensure that we keep getting improvements, after all it's in our own interests to keep BMD financially healthy.

Someone shoot me now.

Well, BMD makes his own pricing policy, having low or nonexisting price is a choice. And it doesn't come with surprise that this choice will bring certain expectations and users on board, in a lot of cases with even lower price expectations. I see no problem in nonpaying users whining, they pay exactly what BMD is asking and it is zero dollars. Full price for that version. Users don't make up the price list, company does, and paying what is asked makes one full-featured customer.

I think some longterm users should better get used that Resolve is not an elite grading application anymore, but a video editor for masses, that also has a grading functionality. And this has shifted both user group and development resources allocation.

Hendrik Proosa wrote:I think some longterm users should better get used that Resolve is not an elite grading application anymore, but a video editor for masses,

I would argue that it is both.

Miguel Palmer wrote:the professional Studio version of Resolve is...overwhelming and way over my head.

The Free version has probably 95% of the same functionality, so would be equally daunting.

Perhaps Resolve is not the best software for you. There are consumer editors out there, designed for non-professionals.

https://www.videohelp.com/software/sect ... tors-basic

Marc Wielage wrote:Someone shoot me now.

On my way, mutual death pact.

What I don't like about Resolve, is that it isn't "free" enough. Seriously? And not really into color correction.
Wow. Would've really hated version 8. Not least because of the "Gigantic" $1500 price PLUS DnxHD licence premium (not MXF, only MOV).

The tail is now not just wagging the dog, it's waving the entire neighborhood around.
And get off the lawn!
In the end, GP will do whatever he wants. ROFLMAO, TTFN... what were those other things...

CodeTech wrote:editing video with VV since 1.0, and they dropped the ball. I tried HF and was extremely annoyed

Sorry, I just went Code-18 there. [add more jargon/acronyms as appropriate here]

jPo CSI out, mic drop. &c.

Marc Wielage wrote:Someone shoot me now.

LoL - I've tried that earlier but missed the vital areas... Now I lay here on the floor drooling while typing this reply with my big toe (the only functioning appendage I have working).

JPOwens wrote:

CodeTech wrote:editing video with VV since 1.0, and they dropped the ball. I tried HF and was extremely annoyed

Sorry, I just went Code-18 there. [add more jargon/acronyms as appropriate here]

VV I assume is Vegas Video by Sonic Foundry, later renamed Vegas Pro. HF is probably HitFilm, and yes, it's not free if you want to use the non-free features.

Hey... maybe we should ask BMD to pay us a small royalty fee every time we produce a video using Resolve?

JPOwens wrote:In the end, GP will do whatever he wants.

And you'll get people complaining about a $1000 keyboard for $300 software. Or people wondering why the 8K Decklink costs 30% less than the 4K one. People need to stop complaining about the price, especially when they say they're "definitely" getting the new Mac Pro.

Chad Capeland wrote: People need to stop complaining about the price

A famous wit once said " a fool knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

jPo

Marc Wielage wrote:Someone shoot me now.

Be careful what you wish for, they might use h264...

Miguel Palmer wrote:I am a hobbyist and, admittedly, the professional Studio version of Resolve is more than I need. And too, it's overwhelming and way over my head. (As are most of the discussions among you professionals in the Resolve forum.) Even the BM promotional video for R 16 talks about a professional feature reminiscent of old film editing days, which we newbie hobbyists know nothing about. (We don't think in terms of "bins.")

So while I can afford to buy the Professional version of Resolve, I won't.

So you also admittedly won't take the time to learn the software for which they give you the training ebooks for free along with video training. You can learn the basics pretty quickly and get started because as you said you don't need more anyway. So the learning should be way quicker for you.

And secondly, you say you can afford it but you won't buy it.

Seems like the problem here is neither Resolve Studio nor BMD as a company.

And yes, I doubt there will be any consideration of such a version. I happily paid $300 USD because the software honestly is worth it (or more actually given all that you get). You could simply NOT use features you don't need, as someone else already said so and I second that too.

roger.magnusson wrote:VV I assume is Vegas Video by Sonic Foundry, later renamed Vegas Pro. HF is probably HitFilm, and yes, it's not free if you want to use the non-free features.

Exactly right.
Because I use many different forums and some don't allow discussions of other products, I wasn't sure if mentioning them by name would be a problem.

Leslie Wand wrote:go ask alice when she's 10ft tall, or vegas, or premiere, or any of the other nle's.

How about a hookah-smoking caterpillar?

Thank you for the best chuckle I've had today, Leslie.

JPOwens wrote:On my way, mutual death pact. What I don't like about Resolve, is that it isn't "free" enough. Seriously? And not really into color correction. Wow. Would've really hated version 8. Not least because of the "Gigantic" $1500 price PLUS DnxHD licence premium (not MXF, only MOV).

People who ask for Resolve to be cheaper need to learn from history. It wasn't that long ago that Resolve was $250,000 (minimum), prior to 2010. And then in 2010, Blackmagic dropped the basic price of Resolve to $995 when they bought it from the defunct daVinci Systems. And then a few years ago, they dropped it again to $295. And yet people complain?

NAB 2010 pictures

basic Resolve cut to $995


full Resolve Mac system with panels cut to $29,995 (panels alone used to be over $80,000)


full Linux system cut to $49,990 (down from $250,000+)

My advice to new Resolve users like this is to shut up and be glad it's only $295. BMD spends millions and millions of dollars a year, plus hundreds of thousands of man-hours in terms of programming and R&D and bug fixes and endless rounds of evaluating new features. I don't even think they're making a profit selling it for $295 -- I think they're making the bulk of their profits on hardware (which admittedly, sell very well), but anybody in the position of a new user should drop to their knees and thank the great gods of post that the program costs so very little. Putting this much power in your hands for $295 is a bloody miracle by any definition. Be glad for what you have -- don't criticize what you lack.

+1. When you can get a free or nearly free ($300) perpetually updated version, there really is no room for complaint.

I guess they make the bulk of their DR profits from support contracts with big post houses, etc., and we small guys are the happy beneficiaries.

Just one thing.... no subscriptions, ever, please

What was is practically irrelvant to new users. Resolve once only played 2K image sequences, yet feature request topics fill up in the blink of an eye. As I said before, pricing model is a choice of seller, not buyer, shooting oneself in the foot or gaining massive user base for reasons x with it is company choice.

I'm sure a lot of people would love to learn more about those support contracts

I think some people are misunderstanding the proposal.
$300 is a GREAT price point for Resolve Studio. I paid a lot more for early Vegas versions, and Sonar, and other music and video production stuff.
The issue is that a lot of people have little interest in Studio, take a look at the free version and can't, say, render with hardware, so they move on and go use something else.
The idea is that a "creator" version for maybe $50 or under $100 might help lure them into the Resolve family.
I still think it's a good idea... but I'm also not married to it.

I'm not sure people are missing the point as much as they are saying: BMD is giving us an amazing deal on some incredibly capable software that is being actively improved and this costs money. There is a point where is just seems like people are trying to bite the hand that feeds them.

Vegas Pro charges $199 for every upgrade and it's usually a beta fest until just before they are ready to release the next version. I've tracked the amount of updates made to Resolve compared to Vegas and it's mind boggling how many more fixes and new features Resolve adds on a regular basis and yet I have never had to pay for an upgrade. $300 is less than the admission price of Vegas and the free version is better than anything available at no cost.

Seems like if you own a computer that can run Resolve and a camera to capture footage you can certainly afford to pay for the studio features if you feel you need them.

Marc Salvatore wrote:Vegas Pro charges $199 for every upgrade and it's usually a beta fest until just before they are ready to release the next version. I've tracked the amount of updates made to Resolve compared to Vegas and it's mind boggling how many more fixes and new features Resolve adds on a regular basis and yet I have never had to pay for an upgrade. $300 is less than the admission price of Vegas and the free version is better than anything available at no cost.

Seems like if you own a computer that can run Resolve and a camera to capture footage you can certainly afford to pay for the studio features if you feel you need them.

Vegas Pro is a paid perpetual beta test.

Laughable people want to pay less for Resolve than Premiere Elements.

The market is already flush with lower end editors. Just use one of then, or stick to the Free Resolve SKU.

EDIT: Word Choice.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

CodeTech wrote:The idea is that a "creator" version for maybe $50 or under $100 might help lure them into the Resolve family.

If you look at the marketing, it seems pretty clear that BMD is focused on broadcast and theatrical users, not so much YouTubers.

I kind of hope it stays that way. Adobe went down the "YouTuber" path and lags severely behind Resolve in many ways because of that.

If BMD put out a survey on this issue, I'd have to vote it down. I think the path they're on is perfect as it is.

If you're a YouTuber, you either don't make money, hence it's a hobby, hence free version.
If you do make money, but the limortaccidibeppe 299$ version.

waltervolpatto wrote:If you're a YouTuber, you either don't make money, hence it's a hobby, hence free version.
If you do make money, but the limortaccidibeppe 299$ version.

yes -- a free version for strict non-commercial utilization, but nevertheless full feature set,
and tiered payments for profitable exploitation of the same software, would indeed make more sense.

the foundry (nuke, nuke studio etc.) is more or less using this business model.

Martin Schitter wrote:

waltervolpatto wrote:If you're a YouTuber, you either don't make money, hence it's a hobby, hence free version.
If you do make money, but the limortaccidibeppe 299$ version.

yes -- a free version for strict non-commercial utilization, but nevertheless full feature set,
and tiered payments for profitable exploitation of the same software, would indeed make more sense.

the foundry (nuke, nuke studio etc.) is more or less using this business model.

The foundry give you a crippled version for free (last time I checked).

Resolve is giving you a 90% working software for free, and most of the non free features, most people will never use then anyway.

Martin Schitter wrote:tiered payments for profitable exploitation of the same software, would indeed make more sense.

For BMD? Or for someone who wants the $300 features for less money?

I suspect it's only the latter.

This has been a great thread and one that I doubt Adobe would ever see anything similar on forums discussing Premiere, AF, etc.

It's so nice to see users & purchasers (since they may not be one and the same) of a piece of software coming out in support of the vendor's pricing policies.

Yep DR is a great piece of software at any price; a fantastic piece of software at $300; and a mind-blowingly unbelievable piece of software for free.

N'uff said me thinks.