Making Davinci and Fusion simpler

This is not so much a feature-request, but a request to make Davinci more user friendly.

The analogy is from Apple’s macOS, where some of the most beloved versions of OSX and macOS had few new features, but instead focused on refinement. For Davinci Resolve, I suggest a version which has fewer new features, but concentrates on overall making it easier to learn and use.

I speak as a newbie.

For example, as an experienced stills photographer of several decades, I can go to most editing software, and figure out how to adjust the exposure, color balance and custom curves. Here’a typical set of controls that make intuitive sense. I see that Adobe Premier has similar intuitive controls. Why can’t Davinci Resolve have similar intuitive controls that make sense?

test_jpg.jpg (37.06 KiB) Viewed 8325 times

Regarding Fusion, after half a year I am still grappling with it. Whereas, shockingly, it took me just 20 minutes from scratch to figure out how to create the exact same animations using Microsoft PowerPoint’s animation features.

Admittedly, Davinci's Fusion is so much more powerful, but why can’t it be made simpler to use?

e.g. drawing a simple line in Fusion. If you see youtube tutorials at the hoops people jump through to explain how just to draw a line. Some people create rectangular masks and narrow them down to become a line. (Why not use the Polygon tool to just draw the line).

I realise the difficulty to make Davinci simpler, because Davinci was probably never designed, from the ground up, to be easy for general users. It was created for the industry’s top professionals, by people who are experts in video production. Such people probably do not empathise with newbies who struggle with the complexity of Davinci and Fusion.

Off the top of my head, here are some things that are super easy with virtually any graphics software, but horrendously hard in Davinci:

— drawing a line with an arrowhead that points as an arrow, no matter what angle the line is.
- drawing a dotted line
- specifying the angle, in degrees, of a sloping line
- making an object flash on and off (you should see the complexity of tutorials teaching people how to make something flash on and off, whereas I know there are settings in Fusion that can be made to flash and off with a spline editor - but that is hidden so deep in the features).
- creating a text field to write something.
- create standard shapes, such as triangles, stars (see PowerPoint’s standard shapes)
- draw a semi-circle
- flip a shape 90 degrees, 180 degrees etc.
- draw several shapes or lines, and align them to be evenly spread apart.

Example: in PowerPoint, to create a rotating shape, I use drawing tools that are familiar to drag and create, say, a square. Then I highlight the square, then click a rotate icon. A menu pops up that enable me to specify the rotation qualities. A newbie can figure that out in minutes. Whereas, to create a rotating square in Fusion: create background node, create square polygon, click “angle” in the inspector, click keyframe, edit the spline.

Using Fusion, it took me months to get to that point of understanding that, compared to 10 minutes in Microsoft PowerPoint.

For more examples, you could just go through Microsoft’s PowerPoint drawing tools, and see what standard tools are made simple for common people, and try to make those accessible to simple people.

I know I’m asking for the moon, but if the Cut-Page was meant to simplify the Edit page, what about a simplified, dumbed-down tab that has an interface as simple as Microsoft PowerPoint’s drawing-animation tools. A person could create animations without getting into nodes. But if they want to edit in detail, they go to the Fusion tab to look at the nodes under the hood (just like the Edit tab gives more information than the Cut Page).

Maybe there’s nothing in it for BMD to make their software simpler for newbies. It seems their prime market is studio professionals who will buy their professional hardware. Maybe it’s also not possible, and that this sort of simplification would have had to be done from the ground up. I don’t know. I’m just putting it out there for discussion.

Bottom line is, I’m really grateful for BMD making this amazing software free for us to use.

I speak as a newbie.

For example, as an experienced stills photographer of several decades, I can go to most editing software, and figure out how to adjust the exposure, color balance and custom curves. Here’a typical set of controls that make intuitive sense. I see that Adobe Premier has similar intuitive controls. Why can’t Davinci Resolve have similar intuitive controls that make sense?

test_jpg.jpg

Those are in the color page. Contrast, Pivot (center point by which the contrast is modified), Saturation, Hue, Temp, Tint, Midtone Detail, Color Boost, Shadows, Highlights, and Auto white balance are all under the color wheels.

The Curves have their own panel with RGB/Luma, Hue vs Hue, Hue vs Sat, Hue vs Luma, Lum vs Sat, and Sat vs Sat curves.

Admittedly, Davinci's Fusion is so much more powerful, but why can’t it be made simpler to use?

That's kind of subjective but I think it is pretty simple to use compared to something like After Effects. However, because it was made for 2D and 3D compositing with motion tracking, keying, texturing, and shading, it's not going to have it's tools focused on making slideshow presentations.

e.g. drawing a simple line in Fusion. If you see youtube tutorials at the hoops people jump through to explain how just to draw a line. Some people create rectangular masks and narrow them down to become a line. (Why not use the Polygon tool to just draw the line).

This could be solved via the creation of a Line node or a 2DShape node. This doesn't really speak to the simplicity of the Fusion because creating a single line really isn't common at all in effects work.

The reason that the Polygon tool wouldn't be made to allow you to draw a line is because a line isn't a polygon.

Off the top of my head, here are some things that are super easy with virtually any graphics software, but horrendously hard in Davinci:

— drawing a line with an arrowhead that points as an arrow, no matter what angle the line is.
- drawing a dotted line
- create standard shapes, such as triangles, stars (see PowerPoint’s standard shapes)

What other compositing software has a line tool that can create dotted lines? The only one I really have experience with other than Fusion is After Effects and it doesn't have a line tool either. Both have triangle tools though. You're right that Fusion doesn't have a star tool. AE does but I'm doubting it's used all that often and don't think there's a huge demand for it.

- specifying the angle, in degrees, of a sloping line

There's an angle slider in the Inspector.

- making an object flash on and off (you should see the complexity of tutorials teaching people how to make something flash on and off, whereas I know there are settings in Fusion that can be made to flash and off with a spline editor - but that is hidden so deep in the features).

I almost never have to touch to spline editor. To my knowledge, most people do this with expressions and both AE and Fusion. I've done it using a "time % 2" expression. I supposed you might also be able to do with the Flicker Addition node but you might want to suggest a simple Flicker node instead.

- creating a text field to write something.

Would be nice if Fusion had this. It obviously has text but I don't think it has text fields.

- draw a semi-circle
- flip a shape 90 degrees, 180 degrees etc.
- draw several shapes or lines, and align them to be evenly spread apart.

It seems like you'd really like some Shape primitive tools. You can already do a semi-circle but it involved using Shape3D -> Render2D
Generally people just hold Shift when rotating to get things to snap to 90, 180, 270 degrees.

The last one is just a very text/slide layout-centric thing. There may be a way to do that in Fusion but it's not a super commonly needed thing. If you needed several of the same object to be evenly spaced apart then the you can use a Duplicate node though.

I know I’m asking for the moon, but if the Cut-Page was meant to simplify the Edit page, what about a simplified, dumbed-down tab that has an interface as simple as Microsoft PowerPoint’s drawing-animation tools. A person could create animations without getting into nodes. But if they want to edit in detail, they go to the Fusion tab to look at the nodes under the hood (just like the Edit tab gives more information than the Cut Page).

I'm actually of the mindset that the Cut page should be nixed in favor of a better designed Edit page so I'm definitely not gonna support a "simpler" Fusion page. That being said, I do understand that Fusion isn't amazing for slide-like layout.

I'm not exactly sure what the best solution would be to help you out without bring the software on some weird tangent like the Cut page does. A dedicated titler in the Edit page might be useful to some degree but that would only do so much.

I'm thinking modifications to the current Text+ node, and some additional text-centric nodes would be helpful.

The Text+ node could have a wrap-to-mask function. Then you can have things like a Text Merge node that would allow you to attach several Text+ nodes as inputs, tag certain input as bullets, and then have a bullet input where you can give it a shape to work as the bullets.

You might like a Shape2D node as well but honestly, I would probably stick to using Shape3D nodes since it would cut down on the amount of nodes you'd need.

I understand that this isn't the response you might want but I'm definitely sympathetic to the issues you're having. Overall, I'm getting a sense that the node work isn't clicking with you. Is that correct?

Those are in the color page. Contrast, Pivot (center point by which the contrast is modified), Saturation, Hue, Temp, Tint, Midtone Detail, Color Boost, Shadows, Highlights, and Auto white balance are all under the color wheels.

Overall, I'm getting a sense that the node work isn't clicking with you. Is that correct?

Even though those controls are in the Color Page, I'm suggesting that it be paid out easier, and in language that the simple person can understand.

e.g. the color wheels are presently labelled as "lift, gamma, gain, offset". Those are terms that professionals understand, but it needed me to sift through dozens of online tutorials, and someone happened to translate those terms into layman's language.

e.g. the words "shadow, highlights" do not appear.

It seems the layout is suited to high-end Hollywood professionals, and not amateurs. Maybe that is the way Davinci and Fusion will be forever.

Regarding nodes, after several months, I'm at the point where I can follow any online tutorial, and understand what's happening. But it took many months to even grasp the concept of nodes, such as background and masks etc.

In contrast, it took 20 minutes to get running with PowerPoint's animation features.

It seems the layout is suited to high-end Hollywood professionals, and not amateurs.

That is exactly who it was originally designed for. It is a professional tool.
More and more amateur users have come on board, myself included, because of the free version. However, I don't expect Blackmagic to make a simple version. I expect to take the time learning to use it in it's current form.

Please NO!

The "slider" paradigm typical of photographic software is hopelessly outdated and slow. This would be a huge step backwards - and I am speaking from the point of view of a Resolve newbie.

Resolve's color interface is so much better than these others, that I prefer to do photo color work in Resolve, even though it is not intended for that purpose.

It's not that hard to learn. You just need a positive attitude and some online tutorials. I like Alex Jordan's "learn Color Grading" and Film Simplified series. He's really easy to follow and concise.

I speak as a newbie.

That may be the real problem here.

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/produc ... e/training

Even though those controls are in the Color Page, I'm suggesting that it be paid out easier, and in language that the simple person can understand.

e.g. the color wheels are presently labelled as "lift, gamma, gain, offset". Those are terms that professionals understand, but it needed me to sift through dozens of online tutorials, and someone happened to translate those terms into layman's language.

e.g. the words "shadow, highlights" do not appear.

This strikes me as a bit nitpicky as this is just a difference in terminology. Resolve is a video editing program so it stands to reason that it would use the video equivalent terms.

The terms shadow and highlights do actually appear twice btw.

1. The Log Color Wheels are labeled Shadows, Midtones, and Highlights.
2. Pressing the 2 below the color wheels will show Temperature, Tint, Midtone Detail, Color Boost, Shadow, and Highlights adjustments. You can manually input a value or drag to values to change them.

It seems the layout is suited to high-end Hollywood professionals, and not amateurs. Maybe that is the way Davinci and Fusion will be forever.

Yes, but you need to realize that that's not because they're making it purposely difficult for amateurs to learn, it's because these are more logical layouts for the task at hand.

Regarding nodes, after several months, I'm at the point where I can follow any online tutorial, and understand what's happening. But it took many months to even grasp the concept of nodes, such as background and masks etc.

In contrast, it took 20 minutes to get running with PowerPoint's animation features.

PowerPoint is inherently a bad thing to compare Resolve, too. They serve completely different purposes.

One is made for animated slide show presentations. It's needs are simple and efficiency is viewed only from the viewpoint of how quickly someone can throw stuff onto a slide.

When you're talking about compositing though, you're talking about possibly splitting color channels, adding different effects to each channel, swapping the output channels then merging them on top of another picture then making that a 3D object then duplicating them in different positions in 3D space, etc.

You really need an extra level of micromanagement so that projects use just 5GBs of RAM instead of 35GB and render in 1 hour instead of 5 hours.

Outside of the readability of the project, that ability to control the compositing process is the key advantage of nodes over layers.

Here's good example of what I mean.

Lets say you have an picture that you want to put on the screen four times in four different locations. The picture isn't exactly as you want it though. You need to apply a warp and a rotation to it before before duplicating it and placing the copies where you want them.

In a layer based system, the image might have properties you can adjust for x and y position as well as rotation while the warp would be an effect you add to the image. You would then duplicate it three times and change the X, Y positions properties of each one to place them. Seems simple enough.

Behind the scenes, that math for the warp effect and position and rotation is happening 4 times with the warp being particularly processor intensive. We can show what's happening with nodes.

Code: Select all

Image -> Position/Rotation Transform  -> Warp > Merge
   |                                              |
   |------> Position/Rotation Transform  -> Warp > Merge
   |                                              |
   |------> Position/Rotation Transform  -> Warp > Merge
   |                                              |
   |------> Position/Rotation Transform  -> Warp ---^


Not only does the do the same work four times, but it creates four identical copies of the resulting image in memory. We can obviously see a way that we can speed that up with node based compositing.

Code: Select all

Image -> Position/Rotation Transform  -> Warp ----------------------> Merge
                                          |
                                          |------> Position Transform  -> Merge
                                          |
                                          |------> Position Transform  -> Merge
                                          |
                                          |------> Position Transform  -----^


Here the initial image is being positioned, rotated, and warped. The result of that is then instanced three times and just a position transformation is applied them. This uses about a fourth of the amount of memory and is nearly four times faster to process.

However, I don't expect Blackmagic to make a simple version. I expect to take the time learning to use it in it's current form.

That being said, I do expect Blackmagic to make the software more intuitive when it can. There are definitely ways that they could simplify the learning curve without hurting the strengths of the software.

That being said, I do expect Blackmagic to make the software more intuitive when it can. There are definitely ways that they could simplify the learning curve without hurting the strengths of the software.

This is an important point. There is nothing wrong with trying to make certain features or UI conventions more “intuitive”. But it should never be done at the expense of efficiency or—to use a highly generalized term—“power”.

Asking for Resolve and Fusion to become more simple and “intuitive” is like asking for Boeing to redesign the cockpits of its commercial jetliners so that they’re more intuitive for an amateur pilot to operate. It’s asking the wrong thing for the wrong product.

Fusion and Resolve have always been truly “professional” products, since they were first released in 1996 and 2004, respectively. Most people who truly have a need for the power and features they offer are able to learn the terminology and necessarily high learning curves that are required to operate them.

Is it weird that Resolve still uses the term “Qualifier” and “Window” for what almost every other app in the universe refers to as a “key” and “mask”? Well...yeah. But Resolve has a very long legacy that extends back to the mid-80s, and those terms have almost become part of its unique brand identity at this point, so there’s little need or motivation to change them. And other terms, like “Lift/Gamma/Gain”, are accurate terms for what those controls actually do to an image. Not only are those terms easily Googlable, once you know that they are effectively the same controls as “Shadows/Midtones/Highlights” in other apps, you never have to be confused about the terminology ever again, because the fundamental concepts are the same.

It may sound dismissive and elitist, but there are many other alternatives to Resolve that are more user-friendly and “intuitive”, and those products exist to serve the very type of user who would find tools like Resolve and Fusion to be too difficult and confusing. Complaining about the complexity of Resolve & Fusion’s node based workflow would be the #1 indicator that these tools are not the right tools for you to be using.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

BTW, don’t get me wrong, I do agree that the “hoops” that you have to jump through in order to do basic motion graphic tasks in Fusion is way too much to ask of the average offline editor. Fusion is simply not a motion graphics tool, and this the reason why you see people jumping through said hoops just to pull off simple animation tasks on Resolve.

That said, this not Fusion’s fault. It’s more the fault of BMD marketing, as well as Youtubers who get a lot of hits on their tutorial videos that show you how to use Fusion for tasks that it was simply not designed to do.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I agree with the post.
Davinci Resolve Media Editing and Color tab are in general more friendly and easier to Grab. Fairlight could be better and is still very far from audio specific software but Fusion is just a horrible piece of software under my point of view. Convoluted buggy difficult to grasp, this part of Davinci has really a lot to improve to really make it user friendly. I might be wrong but I guess that under 10% user Fusion because of the huge difficulty. Simple tasks like to animate a title are mind-boggling difficult.

You are right in your point but what made Davinci Resolve so popular apart from being free is how easy you can get results in the color tab. The edit tab also was developed with simplicity in mind. People are now asking the same for Fusion. I guess that it is in the best interest for Blackmagic to listen to this request. Fusion is not Nuke and pros generally go to this solution if they want all the bells and whistles. I think Resolve is headed into another direction. And most users want a bug free simple to use software. That is the success formula: simplicity at an affordable price. They can keep the standalone Fusion as complex and powerful as they like but with Davinci resolve I would definitely bet on simplicity instead of power.

That being said, I do expect Blackmagic to make the software more intuitive when it can. There are definitely ways that they could simplify the learning curve without hurting the strengths of the software.

This is an important point. There is nothing wrong with trying to make certain features or UI conventions more “intuitive”. But it should never be done at the expense of efficiency or—to use a highly generalized term—“power”.

Asking for Resolve and Fusion to become more simple and “intuitive” is like asking for Boeing to redesign the cockpits of its commercial jetliners so that they’re more intuitive for an amateur pilot to operate. It’s asking the wrong thing for the wrong product.

Fusion and Resolve have always been truly “professional” products, since they were first released in 1996 and 2004, respectively. Most people who truly have a need for the power and features they offer are able to learn the terminology and necessarily high learning curves that are required to operate them.

Is it weird that Resolve still uses the term “Qualifier” and “Window” for what almost every other app in the universe refers to as a “key” and “mask”? Well...yeah. But Resolve has a very long legacy that extends back to the mid-80s, and those terms have almost become part of its unique brand identity at this point, so there’s little need or motivation to change them. And other terms, like “Lift/Gamma/Gain”, are accurate terms for what those controls actually do to an image. Not only are those terms easily Googlable, once you know that they are effectively the same controls as “Shadows/Midtones/Highlights” in other apps, you never have to be confused about the terminology ever again, because the fundamental concepts are the same.

It may sound dismissive and elitist, but there are many other alternatives to Resolve that are more user-friendly and “intuitive”, and those products exist to serve the very type of user who would find tools like Resolve and Fusion to be too difficult and confusing. Complaining about the complexity of Resolve & Fusion’s node based workflow would be the #1 indicator that these tools are not the right tools for you to be using.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You are right in your point but what made Davinci Resolve so popular apart from being free is how easy you can get results in the color tab. The edit tab also was developed with simplicity in mind. People are now asking the same for Fusion. I guess that it is in the best interest for Blackmagic to listen to this request.

The suggestion for making Fusion simpler here is to make it work more like PowerPoint which there is no point in doing.

Fusion is not Nuke and pros generally go to this solution if they want all the bells and whistles. I think Resolve is headed into another direction.

Yes, Fusion is not Nuke but's been used for a lot of the same things that Nuke has been used for. It's competitive with Nuke, there's no reason to simplify it and make it more like Power point.

And most users want a bug free simple to use software. That is the success formula: simplicity at an affordable price. They can keep the standalone Fusion as complex and powerful as they like but with Davinci resolve I would definitely bet on simplicity instead of power.

What made Resolve popular was it's price, power, and system resources. When it was first purchased by BMD, it was far from simple to figure out and Blackmagic has done a great job of making it simpler to use. Of course it's after Resolve became simpler to use that more people adopted it for editing but if you look at any videos that people make about them switching to Resolve, you'll also find that what they like about it is how stable it is, how powerful it is, and how it isn't really all that resource intensive.

With the Color grading features that Resolve has, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to not have Fusion as a part of it. Both are node based and both share much of the same functionality. Look at the list of ResolveFXs and Color page palettes and see how Fusion nodes do that same things. There's about 32 effects (that I've counted) with the same names and general functions and in some cases you'll even find that the ResolveFX version of the tool has more options. That's a lot of room to combine the code-bases of the Color tab specifically and Fusion.

Fusion is also already used in the Edit page's titles and who knows if stuff like the Dissolve tool in Fusion could share code with the transitions in the Edit page. Can blend mode code be shared between the Edit page, Color page, and the Fusion page? I mean just comb through Resolve and you'll see so much potential code that can be shared between tabs to the point that the effects you add to a clip on the Edit page could just be made to be nodes in a row behind the scenes.

Fact is, you're asking a still rather small company to needless bloat it's code base and make it less manageable. Also keep in mind that even if Fusion is kept separate, people will always expect Fusion to communicate with Resolve in the same way that After Effects and Premiere Pro communicate with each others. How did Premiere Pro improve performance of AE comps within Premiere? They implemented the After Effects renderer into the Premiere Pro.

Fusion is just a horrible piece of software under my point of view. Convoluted buggy difficult to grasp, this part of Davinci has really a lot to improve to really make it user friendly. I might be wrong but I guess that under 10% user Fusion because of the huge difficulty. Simple tasks like to animate a title are mind-boggling difficult.

Fusion is only "convoluted" and "difficult to grasp" if you have no experience using node-based compositing tools. It's inherent power is based on the nodal UI, which is not that different at all from other industry standard tools like Nuke (and previously, Shake). As I mentioned in my previous post, if you need the power and flexibility that Fusion offers, you will find that the UI is far superior to other relatively "user friendly" tools like After Effects. Personally, while AE is great for mogfx tasks, it's incredibly slow and cumbersome for compositing/vfx work, because the layer/precomp paradigm is archaic, inefficient, and I dare say, user-unfriendly. Making Fusion "user friendly" is antithetical to its entire reason for existing. As Mark mentioned earlier in this thread, "you need to realize that that's not because they're making it purposely difficult for amateurs to learn, it's because these are more logical layouts for the task at hand."

Anyone who calls Fusion "a horrible piece of software" either has never used it before, or is trying to use it for the type of tasks that it was never really designed for (e.g. motion graphics). It's like complaining that After Effects has a crappy interface for realtime video editing. The statement may be true, but completely misses the point of the software being complained about.

Fusion is not Nuke and pros generally go to this solution if they want all the bells and whistles. I think Resolve is headed into another direction.

Fusion is "not Nuke", but it exists in the exact same sphere of the professional VFX market that Nuke lives in, and has done so since it become commercially available in 1996.

Anyone who calls Fusion "a horrible piece of software" either has never used it before, or is trying to use it for the type of tasks that it was never really designed for (e.g. motion graphics). It's like complaining that After Effects has a crappy interface for realtime video editing. The statement may be true, but completely misses the point of the software being complained about.

I get the distinction you're making between motion graphics and compositing but it Fusion still is consider motion graphics software. I do agree that Fusion, and you could say most node-based motion graphics software, is designed first and foremost to make compositing and more complex motion graphics much easier while things like AE have the opposite strength. Simple motion graphics work is very straight forward in AE but anything more complex is a mess.

Simple tasks like to animate a title are mind-boggling difficult.

Here's a long time After Effects user using racing himself to make the same title in both Fusion and After Effects. Spoiler: Despite his relative inexperience in Fusion, he made the title quicker in Fusion.

tasks like to animate a title are mind-boggling difficult.

Many things are...when you don't have sufficient understanding.

With that understanding, it becomes much simpler.

So this begs the question, have you completed any training in Fusion?

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/produc ... e/training

I have completed basic courses in Fusion. I would need to dig much deeper to even scratch the surface but that is the precisely the point: I am basically using Davinci for editing and color correction and I am not into VFX but I need basic stuff done quickly and to change simple 3d title animations included in Davinci Titles is already a nightmare. A simple thing like make this animation slower you have to dig into the 20 nodes search where the keyframes are etc and it should be go to place A change time done basta ready move to something else. Now Blackmagic can ignore request to make it easier basic tasks like this but it would not be very wise.

Personally I think that it was a mistake to include Fusion into Davinci for many reasons. It is a very complex software it needs a lot of power to work properly and it distracts from much needed improvements to the other parts that are used by many more users. Latest versions have been quite buggy and you can trace lots of posts in that direction. Simple things that are asked for since long are being ignored. H264 render are horrible in Davinci really crap against Media Encoder or Handbrake. Nobody should need to jump to another software to render in the most used codec. Prores has been asked for years for windows users nothing, nvidia drivers crashing the software, plugins in Fairlight that don't get resized properly,.....

You said it Blackmagic are a small team and with this limitation in mind they are able to make wonderful stuff in the hardware and software department (I use their cameras and software) but they should be focusing on correcting long standing bugs and making things more simple if they want to keep growing.

tasks like to animate a title are mind-boggling difficult.

Many things are...when you don't have sufficient understanding.

With that understanding, it becomes much simpler.

So this begs the question, have you completed any training in Fusion?

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/produc ... e/training

I have completed basic courses in Fusion. I would need to dig much deeper to even scratch the surface but that is the precisely the point: I am basically using Davinci for editing and color correction and I am not into VFX but I need basic stuff done quickly and to change simple 3d title animations included in Davinci Titles is already a nightmare. A simple thing like make this animation slower you have to dig into the 20 nodes search where the keyframes are etc and it should be go to place A change time done basta ready move to something else. Now Blackmagic can ignore request to make it easier basic tasks like this but it would not be very wise.

Why would you have to "dig" into 20 node to search for key-frames. All the keyframes and their ramping are highlighted in Fusion's timeline. That's already way easier to find than AE for example. Then you can select all these keyframes as a group, click the Time Stretch button at the bottom left of the time line and then stretch the keyframes. I literally figured out how to do that while typing this post.

If your issue is that you'd like to have sometime like an ease-in value that you can change from the title setting in the Edit page then I agree but it's not a "Fusion sucks. Burn the whole thing down." kind of problem.

Personally I think that it was a mistake to include Fusion into Davinci for many reasons. It is a very complex software it needs a lot of power to work properly and it distracts from much needed improvements to the other parts that are used by many more users. Latest versions have been quite buggy and you can trace lots of posts in that direction. Simple things that are asked for since long are being ignored. H264 render are horrible in Davinci really crap against Media Encoder or Handbrake.

If Fusion weren't part of Resolve it would still exist as it's own software... which would be worked on by Blackmagic. It's not taking any development resources away from things like h.264 because the people working on Fusion would be working on completely separate software anyway. Having them combined allows the developers to all work together.

Nobody should need to jump to another software to render in the most used codec. Prores has been asked for years for windows users nothing, nvidia drivers crashing the software, plugins in Fairlight that don't get resized properly,.....

I haven't really noticed any issues with h.264 and I haven't heard anybody complain about the quality of the stuff I sent to them. I see you have your own thread about that so I'll keep the discussion there.

Adobe literally just started supporting ProRes encoding last year. Not everything is matter or whether or not they want to do it. Sometimes it's an issue of licensing. Fusion actually was licensed for ProRes encoding in Fusion 9 on both Windows and Linux but that doesn't necessarily mean they're allowed to encode in Resolve.

The Nvidia drivers crashing the software is just as much an Nvidia problem as a Resolve problem.

The VST plugins scaling is definitely an issue but it's hardly something to blame Fusion on.

You said it Blackmagic are a small team and with this limitation in mind they are able to make wonderful stuff in the hardware and software department (I use their cameras and software) but they should be focusing on correcting long standing bugs and making things more simple if they want to keep growing.

They are. Just because they haven't gotten to bugs that you care about yet doesn't mean they aren't working on these things. They also can't strictly focus on bugs when this entire sub-forum is filled with requests for new features.

As I've mentioned in this thread and illustrated in this separate thread( viewtopic.php?f=33&t=105155 ) there is a lot of duplicate functionality between the Resolve Color page and Fusion. On top of that, almost all the Generators in the Edit page could be made to work as presets to Fusion's Background node.

Stuff like the Cut page IS robbing development resources from the Edit page but that's not the case with Fusion. There's so much potential for Resolve and Fusion to better each other as their code combines. It would add new functionality to the software while making simultaneously making the code easier to manage on their end. With that, of course, comes fewer bugs.

it should be go to place A change time, done

How exactly would that be accomplished without losing any of the power or features we currently have? What's the specific proposal?

Personally I think that it was a mistake to include Fusion into Davinci

I'm very glad they did. I find it quite useful.

My own idea from a couple years back was for Adobe to incorporate After Effects, SpeedGrade and Audition into Premiere Pro. I love that BMD is doing just that with their own versions. As a one man shop, it's helpful.

H264 render are horrible in Davinci

Odd. I find the results to be quite exemplary, and of sufficient quality as a deliverable.

My own idea from a couple years back was for Adobe to incorporate After Effects, SpeedGrade and Audition into Premiere Pro. I love that BMD is doing just that with their own versions. As a one man shop, it's helpful.

I wanted the same!

I also wanted Adobe to turn AE into a node-based compositor as well and that was before I had any real experience with node-based compositing lol Basically, I hated all the visual mess and individual panels that AE had so I combed through it's interface and removed any buttons and stuff that existed just to make layers work and I made this.



I already knew about Resolve at the time (but not Fusion).

Once I switched to Resolve two years ago, I was surprised by how stable it was, I loved the feature set, I loved that the waveforms update in real time, I loved that it had a Scene Detector, the Color page let me do waayy more complex grades while performing way better than stacked Lumetri effects. As soon as I found out about Fusion, I really wanted Blackmagic to implement it into Resolve and it was added in the next version.

Within the first 3 weeks of messing with Fusion, I was able to make a 3D island scene with a mountain, beach, animated water, skybox, and reflections without using any additional plugins or external resources. All the textures and geometry were made with FastNoise nodes. It was orders of magnitude more complex than anything I ever did in After Effects and AE was the only compositing software I had any experience with for 15 years.

it should be go to place A change time, done

How exactly would that be accomplished without losing any of the power or features we currently have? What's the specific proposal?

Take as I said any of the 3D sliding titles in the EDIT page. I don't need to go to the Fusion page inspect all the node tree search for the one with the keyframes and change them. I just need 1 slider to move or input a value and that's it. No messing in complex Fusion for such a simple thing.

H264 render are horrible in Davinci

Odd. I find the results to be quite exemplary, and of sufficient quality as a deliverable.

If you find them exemplary then you have not seen how Media Encoder for example renders H264. I can tell you that even on highest settings it is an absolute crap vs the other encoders. Banding is just horrible in any continuous tones. And the source is 12 bit blackmagic raws not some gopro footage. It is that bad.

Personally I think that it was a mistake to include Fusion into Davinci

I'm very glad they did. I find it quite useful.

My own idea from a couple years back was for Adobe to incorporate After Effects, SpeedGrade and Audition into Premiere Pro. I love that BMD is doing just that with their own versions. As a one man shop, it's helpful.

What I mean is don't do it if you are not capable of delivering a nice finished product or if it takes resources out of much important features that are asked for.

H264 render are horrible in Davinci

Odd. I find the results to be quite exemplary, and of sufficient quality as a deliverable.

If you find them exemplary then you have not seen how Media Encoder for example renders H264. I can tell you that even on highest settings it is an absolute crap vs the other encoders. Banding is just horrible in any continuous tones. And the source is 12 bit blackmagic raws not some gopro footage. It is that bad.

I think you are going to find very very few people that will agree with you. Usually the people that complain about banding have a work flow issue that needs fixed.

The few of us that do complain about h.264/265 out of resolve usually complain that the interface is to dumbed-down, and doesn't give the level of control some of us want.

Take as I said any of the 3D sliding titles in the EDIT page. I don't need to go to the Fusion page inspect all the node tree search for the one with the keyframes and change them. I just need 1 slider to move or input a value and that's it. No messing in complex Fusion for such a simple thing.

Then you've been making the wrong point the whole time. All you really want is the ability to assign some key frame distance controls to Fusion macros and for those to be applied to the built in Fusion titles. And again, you don't need to inspect the node tree. The keyframes are highlighted in the timeline. Just open the timeline and boom, they're right there highlighted and with labels telling you what each track is.

Fusion can't make itself better for people who don't want to use it to begin with. I'll say it again. The issues you're bringing up are not "burn it to the ground" problems yet you're acting like the only way to fix the problem is to burn it to the ground.

You want pre-made, editable, 3D titles in your editing software but because those pre-made titles don't provide a slider that saves you 15 seconds of time, then they should get rid of the feature that makes these 3D titles work in the first place because it's clearly robbing them of the dev resources to make this slider you want. Am I interpreting that correctly?

What I mean is don't do it if you are not capable of delivering a nice finished product or if it takes resources out of much important features that are asked for.

And they did make a nice finished product. When you have finite development resources then everything is taking resources from everything else but one of the big benefits of merging Fusion into Resolve is that development resources are BETTER used.

No need for drama. I am no saying and acting to burn anything to the ground. I am just saying make it more simple because right now it is not. Of course you have a different opinion. The thread started by someone saying the same . I agree with him, you don't.... fine This is a section of the forum about how to improve Davinci altogether. You might think it doesn't need to improve as it is perfect as is. Many people me included think there is still along road to go until many flaws are ironed out. One of those IMHPOV is the complexity of Fusion. We will not agree on that. So be it.

Take as I said any of the 3D sliding titles in the EDIT page. I don't need to go to the Fusion page inspect all the node tree search for the one with the keyframes and change them. I just need 1 slider to move or input a value and that's it. No messing in complex Fusion for such a simple thing.

Then you've been making the wrong point the whole time. All you really want is the ability to assign some key frame distance controls to Fusion macros and for those to be applied to the built in Fusion titles. And again, you don't need to inspect the node tree. The keyframes are highlighted in the timeline. Just open the timeline and boom, they're right there highlighted and with labels telling you what each track is.

Fusion can't make itself better for people who don't want to use it to begin with. I'll say it again. The issues you're bringing up are not "burn it to the ground" problems yet you're acting like the only way to fix the problem is to burn it to the ground.

You want pre-made, editable, 3D titles in your editing software but because those pre-made titles don't provide a slider that saves you 15 seconds of time, then they should get rid of the feature that makes these 3D titles work in the first place because it's clearly robbing them of the dev resources to make this slider you want. Am I interpreting that correctly?

What I mean is don't do it if you are not capable of delivering a nice finished product or if it takes resources out of much important features that are asked for.

And they did make a nice finished product. When you have finite development resources then everything is taking resources from everything else but one of the big benefits of merging Fusion into Resolve is that development resources are BETTER used.

No need for drama. I am no saying and acting to burn anything to the ground. I am just saying make it more simple because right now it is not. Of course you have a different opinion. The thread started by someone saying the same . I agree with him, you don't.... fine This is a section of the forum about how to improve Davinci altogether. You might think it doesn't need to improve as it is perfect as is. Many people me included think there is still along road to go until many flaws are ironed out. One of those IMHPOV is the complexity of Fusion. We will not agree on that. So be it.

I've can code. Never made editing software but I have written game code and forum code. Because of that, one thing that's always urked me is when people leave feedback that asks for something to be improved but wants someone else to figure out what they mean by that. It's not useful feedback. How am I or Blackmagic supposed to know what would make things simpler for you?

I don't have any issues with things becoming simpler. I started multiple threads with feedback and concept images on how to make things in Resolve simpler.

I've suggested a contextual palette area in the Color page so that palettes that don't do anything to the selected node, don't get shown. This would also allow OFX plugins to use the palette area, would allow you to access the effects without opening the Effects List and allows the Effects list to work exactly like the Fusion page. This was partly inspired by seeing Youtube tutorials where people where people clearly thought they were applying Camera Raw adjustments to nodes when they don't apply per-node at all.

I've suggested a new zooming and scrolling method for the Edit page that brings the mini-timeline from the Cut page into the Edit page while also improving the graphical method of zooming and saving a significant amount of space in the UI. I plan on making more threads that target specific ways to combine the Cut and Edit page.

I've suggested combining all duplicate Nodes from Fusion and the Color page into super versions of themselves. This adds functionality to the Color page while reducing the list of around 270 nodes by about 15 while about 13 others would share code completely with the Color page.

I've also been supporting a bunch of other suggestions that people have come up with.

rsf123 did I great job of leaving feedback. They said upfront what there issues were, where they're coming from, and cited an example of program that works more-so in the way that they want. They even suggested that this all get added in a new tab and they said what specific types of things they find tedious currently. That's why I pondered whether a dedicated titler might work.

I'm not getting that from your posts.

You started with saying that Fusion is horrible, buggy, and convoluted and suggested that it's probably more difficult to use then most other node-based compositing software when it works the exact same way. You then framed you and rsf123 as being representative of a whole lot of disgruntle Resolve users that are more representative than the people who've been using it motion pictures for years.

It took several posts before you even mentioned that your big issue is that the (again) pre-made, editable, 3D titles don't allow you to do the equivalent of a moving a few keyframes with a slider instead. You then made it clear that you don't really care for using nodes at all.

You framed Fusion as being something that needs a complete overhaul without suggesting how to fix things and it all boiled down to "Look I want the Essential Graphics effects to have a slider for transition duration."

So yea, this isn't a matter of me taking it personally that you don't agree with me. It's that your posts don't feel like feedback, just complaining.

I am just saying make it more simple because right now it is not.

It's not supposed to be simple, its a very powerful tool and most powerful pieces of software have a steep learning curve. In general simplicity and powerful set at opposite ends of the spectrum. Not to mention some things can only be dumbed-down so far, before functionality has to be sacrificed for the sake of simplicity.

As a developer the most annoying part of my job is sifting through feature requests that are really nothing more than a user that hasn't put enough time into learning the software.

Well I don't agree with that statement. Good software is the one that is powerful but at the same time accessible where you can grow and confront more complex tasks as your knowledge grows. As I am a photographer I can dive very deep into Photoshop well beyond the basic function.And Photoshop is by far the most powerful image editing solution in the world. But contrast and brightness will always be there for those starting out. Apple is the most successful business of the planet for a reason. Linux is free but used by a minority for a reason.

Nothing has to be dumbed down. Just make it accessible and easy to understand. Unfortunately Fusion does not follow this moto.

I am just saying make it more simple because right now it is not.

It's not supposed to be simple, its a very powerful tool and most powerful pieces of software have a steep learning curve. In general simplicity and powerful set at opposite ends of the spectrum. Not to mention some things can only be dumbed-down so far, before functionality has to be sacrificed for the sake of simplicity.

As a developer the most annoying part of my job is sifting through feature requests that are really nothing more than a user that hasn't put enough time into learning the software.

I am not a software developer, a simple user of image treatment software be it still or moving images. Even if I have been an Adobe Photoshop user for the last 20 years when I transitioned to footage I jumped into Resolve and not Premiere or After Effects because I like the node approach more for video editing while I think that layers and perfect for photos. So in my case I chose Resolve for simplicity and not price. That was with version 14 where Fusion nor Failight were not part of it.

That changed in v15 and I thought it was ok if it didn't mess with the editing and coloring suite. I think that unfortunately that has not been the case. The hardware to drive the software need much higher specs and it crashes now much more since v16. That is feedback H264 not working right is feedback Fusion being overly complicated is feedback. Maybe you have a thin skin and you would prefer that I say H264 rendering is not as good as the competition instead of H264 rendering is crap but the feedback is the same. And i hope that Blackmagic is taking notes of all the feedback if enough people report something that needs fixture or improving.

I have mentioned H264 renders Fusion complexity Font scaling in Fairlight plugins. Taking this last point I am a little disappointed that Blackmagic is not always taking action. I email them about this issue and got a response that it was a problem of the plugins providers. Well those plugins Izotope and Acon are some of the most known in the industry and if you want to do any serious audio repair you better consider RX7. Now I had to purchase Studio One because it was impossible to work with those most important plugins inside Fairlight. Guess what Izotope does NOT support Resolve. It supports all the other most important audio editing suites.

Same is happening with MochaPro. Resolve object removal is a bad joke compared to Mocha Pro but I get it . Mocha is a specialized software that does the best plannar tracking object removal or stabilization, miles ahead from Resolve but a steep price, for me totally worth it. But guess what it is also not officially supported to be used inside Resolve although I use it there with some limitations. It is in standalone Fusion.

I could go on and on. An threads like this one are here that user opinions are heard. And for sure some if voiced by enough people taken note by the developer. So no need to take anything personally.

I'm not getting that from your posts.

You started with saying that Fusion is horrible, buggy, and convoluted and suggested that it's probably more difficult to use then most other node-based compositing software when it works the exact same way. You then framed you and rsf123 as being representative of a whole lot of disgruntle Resolve users that are more representative than the people who've been using it motion pictures for years.

It took several posts before you even mentioned that your big issue is that the (again) pre-made, editable, 3D titles don't allow you to do the equivalent of a moving a few keyframes with a slider instead. You then made it clear that you don't really care for using nodes at all.

You framed Fusion as being something that needs a complete overhaul without suggesting how to fix things and it all boiled down to "Look I want the Essential Graphics effects to have a slider for transition duration."

So yea, this isn't a matter of me taking it personally that you don't agree with me. It's that your posts don't feel like feedback, just complaining.

As I am a photographer I can dive very deep into Photoshop well beyond the basic function.And Photoshop is by far the most powerful image editing solution in the world. But contrast and brightness will always be there for those starting out.

I find it hard to believe that you're, a photographer. Photographers, even hobbyists almost always edit in Lightroom if they use Adobe products. Photoshop is predominantly for graphic designers, digital artists, and print people. About the only time a photographer is using Photoshop is for composite work, or because they don't have dedicated stacking software.

This thread is getting funny, I've heard colorists use Baselight and Resolve is for editors

Problem with "simple" is that one must first separate simple concepts from simple to use or intuitive tools. Quite a lot of times something is "hard" because the idea itself is hard. Reading a book is easy but not all books are easy to read, same with comp software, plenty of things are difficult to grasp as a concept and simplifying them is basically doing the decisions for user behind the scenes (and exposing the options somewhere for override) or not allowing any manual decision at all (which doesn't exactly echo "professional") or removing options of doing something altogether (try doing unpremult in powerpoint).

Workflow on the other hand is an opinion game. Some people like doing stuff one way, others find another way better, both think other side is stupid. But question is, if there is a better way to do something that one does not see due to being used to how his grandada did it or is it something not worth "improving" or maybe everyone knows it is bad but fixing it means tearing most of software code down to start from scratch which obviously isn't going to happen. In my opinion Resolve+Fusion combo is suffering from some deep problems related to the general concept of how different aspects of timeline environment and shot compositing should work together and how both softwares work on architectural level.

"Photographers always edit in Lightroom" .....Yes you are right. Amateurs do.

99% pro photographers use Bridge/Camera Raw and Photoshop or Capture One Pro.

The same way that most Colorists use Davinci Resolve, Pro Editors use mainly AVID and for music Protools is favoured.

Of course there are a few exceptions to this rule......

As I am a photographer I can dive very deep into Photoshop well beyond the basic function.And Photoshop is by far the most powerful image editing solution in the world. But contrast and brightness will always be there for those starting out.

I find it hard to believe that you're, a photographer. Photographers, even hobbyists almost always edit in Lightroom if they use Adobe products. Photoshop is predominantly for graphic designers, digital artists, and print people. About the only time a photographer is using Photoshop is for composite work, or because they don't have dedicated stacking software.

99% pro photographers use Bridge/Camera Raw and Photoshop or Capture One Pro.

Maybe where you are from, but not here. I don't know a single "pro" photographer that uses Photoshop.

In fact most of them are migrating away from the pile of garbage the adobe products stack has become.

I am sorry but you are just talking nonsense. Unless you are in touch with pro photographers from mars the name of the game for pros are those two pieces of software .

"Pile of garbage" "are migrating away" Yes for sure.........

99% pro photographers use Bridge/Camera Raw and Photoshop or Capture One Pro.

Maybe where you are from, but not here. I don't know a single "pro" photographer that uses Photoshop.

In fact most of them are migrating away from the pile of garbage the adobe products stack has become.

I am sorry but you are just talking nonsense. Unless you are in touch with pro photographers from mars the name of the game for pros are those two pieces of software .

Nah, friends, coworkers, and a few I have employed. Most have migrated to Capture one, and a few have dabbled with On1.

Photoshop is just popular with some because its been around forever and it's all they know. Not to mention far to many people are to lazy to learn anything new.

It's not supposed to be simple, its a very powerful tool and most powerful pieces of software have a steep learning curve. In general simplicity and powerful set at opposite ends of the spectrum. Not to mention some things can only be dumbed-down so far, before functionality has to be sacrificed for the sake of simplicity.

As a developer the most annoying part of my job is sifting through feature requests that are really nothing more than a user that hasn't put enough time into learning the software.

I disagree with the notion that it's not supposed to be simple. Things can be simple and still be powerful and I think nodes are a great example of that. It's a very simple concept. You have different nodes that do different things and the node tree represents the order of operations. The process inherently makes it so that the settings you see are only related to what nodes are selected so you're never really presented with a bunch of parameters without a context.

I like the node approach more for video editing while I think that layers and perfect for photos.

Then what issues do you have with how Fusion does node-based compositing? Or are you strictly talking about the Color page? Because in that case, I'm guessing it clicks with you because almost every node you create in the Color page works in exactly the same way?

So in my case I chose Resolve for simplicity and not price. That was with version 14 where Fusion nor Failight were not part of it.

That's the version I started with version 14, too, and it did have Fairlight. It just didn't have the Fairlight effects yet.

That changed in v15 and I thought it was ok if it didn't mess with the editing and coloring suite. I think that unfortunately that has not been the case. The hardware to drive the software need much higher specs and it crashes now much more since v16.

I don't see why you would assume Fusion is messing with the Edit and Color page. The only real effect Fusion had on the them is that the Edit page got the Edit+ effect and Fusion Titles while the Color page got the option for nodes that don't show thumbnails. Other than that, if a Fusion composition isn't in your timeline, then it's really not engaging the Fusion code.

There were a ton of features added to the Edit page that had nothing to do with Fusion page.

Code: Select all

* Support for adding, managing and delivering Subtitles and Closed Captions
* Support for 2D and 3D title templates with ability to expand and customize in the Fusion page
* Support to load multiple clips into the source viewer and access the 10 most recent clips
* Support for stacked and tabbed timelines
* Support for position curves in curve editor
* Support for viewing and modifying keyframe curves beyond edit extents for clips with transitions centered on the edit
* Support for menu actions to create Flags and Markers with a specific color
* Support for timecode entry in the Marker dialog
* Support for marker annotations on the viewer
* Support for new Change Clip Duration to modify the duration of one or multiple clips
* Support for finding the source viewer clip in the Media Pool
* Support for caching compound clips, Fusion clips and nested timelines
* Support for caching of titles and generator
* Support for keyframing of OpenFX and ResolveFX plugins
* Support for alpha channel in compound clips
* Support for copying and pasting timecode in the viewer timecode displays
* Support for multiple track gap deletion
* Support for single viewer mode for the dual screen layout
* Support for marking in and out points in Cinema Mode in the Edit page
* Support for optionally showing the iXML channel names for audio files in the timeline
* Support for replacing multiple shots across tracks while retaining grades and effects by Ctrl/Command dragging clips
* Support for categories of video transitions in the Effects Library
* Support for a new Play Again command on Media, Edit and Fairlight players
* Support for optionally disabling ganged moving of audio and video clips across tracks
* Support for rippling clips on the timeline when pasting retime attributes to other clips
* Support for converting between Duration markers and In/Out marks
* Support for viewing clip marker overlays on the timeline viewer
* Support for an indicator for clips with Fusion effects on the Edit and Color pages
* Support for toggling the track-destination state
* Support for improved timeline view options in the Edit timeline
* Support for performing an insert operation by holding Cmd/Ctrl+Shift while dragging clips from the media pool or source viewer
* Support for swapping clips in the Edit timeline using Cmd/Ctrl+Shift and dragging
* Support for a dynamic trim mode icon in the Edit page toolbar with a slip and slider indicator
* Support for an option to insert nested and compound clips in their decomposed state during edit operations
* Support for deleting transitions across clips when one of the clips is deleted
* Support for slipping clips with speed changes applied by a single frame
* Support for performing match frame for the selected clip in the timeline
* Support for improved results when compositing images with transparency
* Support for importing Final Cut Pro X XML version 1.8
* Improved separation and handles between video and audio tracks on the timeline
* Improved timecode entry and playhead navigation
* Improved optical flow for speed changes
* Improved Smooth Cut
* Improved keyboard shortcut mapping
* Improved previews when performing blades on a multi track edit
* Improved ripple cut and ripple delete behavior
* Improved automatic track creation when dragging clips to new tracks


I have mentioned H264 renders Fusion complexity Font scaling in Fairlight plugins. Taking this last point I am a little disappointed that Blackmagic is not always taking action. I email them about this issue and got a response that it was a problem of the plugins providers. Well those plugins Izotope and Acon are some of the most known in the industry and if you want to do any serious audio repair you better consider RX7. Now I had to purchase Studio One because it was impossible to work with those most important plugins inside Fairlight. Guess what Izotope does NOT support Resolve. It supports all the other most important audio editing suites.

That's a really common chicken and egg problem with software. Izotope may not support Resolve until more people use Fairlight but Fairlight may not be used more unless Izotope is supported. Unless Resolve improperly implemented ZST plugins, you need to put pressure on Izotope to support Resolve because that would ultimately be outside of BMDs power to fix.

I find it hard to believe that you're, a photographer. Photographers, even hobbyists almost always edit in Lightroom if they use Adobe products. Photoshop is predominantly for graphic designers, digital artists, and print people. About the only time a photographer is using Photoshop is for composite work, or because they don't have dedicated stacking software.

:shock:

"Photographers always edit in Lightroom" .....Yes you are right. Amateurs do.

99% pro photographers use Bridge/Camera Raw and Photoshop or Capture One Pro.

This is petty. People use what tools meet there needs. Some photographers use Lightroom, some use Photoshop, some use Capture One, some use RawTherepee, or whatever. Lets not try to legitimize people for the software that they use. If people are taking photos and getting paid for it, that's really the only qualifier for being a professional photographer.

It's also tangential to what this topic is about.

I disagree with the notion that it's not supposed to be simple. Things can be simple and still be powerful and I think nodes are a great example of that. It's a very simple concept. You have different nodes that do different things and the node tree represents the order of operations. The process inherently makes it so that the settings you see are only related to what nodes are selected so you're never really presented with a bunch of parameters without a context.

I think you missed my point.

The argument that some here seem to be making is they want Fusion dumbed-down/simplified so they can quickly customize simple/canned stuff like titles without having to dig into the individual nodes.

Fusion was designed to create stuff substantially more complex then a title, hence the reason it uses nodes. Thus if you want to use something generated by fusion, sooner or later you are going to have to learn about nodes and how fusion works. By that I mean, you have to learn what the individual nodes do, and how to string them together to do what you want.

I like Resolve node implementation because it is easy. With a few nodes you can do a lot. Fusion is another story . To animate a single title you need a dozen nodes. Many parts of the functionality is hidden. You have to right click on menu options on the right and if not they are not even visible anywhere. How convoluted and non intuitive is that.

And Fusion can mess in a very bad way Davinci Resolve. I put you a recent example.
I was gettying all the time this error and could not render anything.

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=97997

Was going crazy . Duplicating the timeline, and doing lots of suggested things. As this was happening when the render arrived at some clips with OFX BorisFX Mocha Pro I thought that my GTX 1070 could no handle it and was already considering upgrading to a more powerful GPU. Thankfully someone suggested in the forum to Reset Fusion composition in the clip when something like this happens. I did in all the clips although none had anything in Fusion done as Mocha Pro was used as an OFX in Davinci. Bammm the problem was solved. Now tell me Fusion is not messing with the rest of the program.

About the bad scaling issue . As I said previously is not only happening with Izotope but with Acon too. So i doubt the problem lies on Izotope or Acon. Also Mocha is not supported but it is as an OFX on many other suites. What is going on with Davinci plugins compatibility?

About Photoshop I know it is beyond this topic but I was only stating that most pros use it above anything else. But I agree with you that anyone should use what he/she considers suites better their workflow.

I like the node approach more for video editing while I think that layers and perfect for photos.

Then what issues do you have with how Fusion does node-based compositing? Or are you strictly talking about the Color page? Because in that case, I'm guessing it clicks with you because almost every node you create in the Color page works in exactly the same way?

That changed in v15 and I thought it was ok if it didn't mess with the editing and coloring suite. I think that unfortunately that has not been the case. The hardware to drive the software need much higher specs and it crashes now much more since v16.

I don't see why you would assume Fusion is messing with the Edit and Color page. The only real effect Fusion had on the them is that the Edit page got the Edit+ effect and Fusion Titles while the Color page got the option for nodes that don't show thumbnails. Other than that, if a Fusion composition isn't in your timeline, then it's really not engaging the Fusion code.

There were a ton of features added to the Edit page that had nothing to do with Fusion page.

Code: Select all

* Support for adding, managing and delivering Subtitles and Closed Captions
* Support for 2D and 3D title templates with ability to expand and customize in the Fusion page
* Support to load multiple clips into the source viewer and access the 10 most recent clips
* Support for stacked and tabbed timelines
* Support for position curves in curve editor
* Support for viewing and modifying keyframe curves beyond edit extents for clips with transitions centered on the edit
* Support for menu actions to create Flags and Markers with a specific color
* Support for timecode entry in the Marker dialog
* Support for marker annotations on the viewer
* Support for new Change Clip Duration to modify the duration of one or multiple clips
* Support for finding the source viewer clip in the Media Pool
* Support for caching compound clips, Fusion clips and nested timelines
* Support for caching of titles and generator
* Support for keyframing of OpenFX and ResolveFX plugins
* Support for alpha channel in compound clips
* Support for copying and pasting timecode in the viewer timecode displays
* Support for multiple track gap deletion
* Support for single viewer mode for the dual screen layout
* Support for marking in and out points in Cinema Mode in the Edit page
* Support for optionally showing the iXML channel names for audio files in the timeline
* Support for replacing multiple shots across tracks while retaining grades and effects by Ctrl/Command dragging clips
* Support for categories of video transitions in the Effects Library
* Support for a new Play Again command on Media, Edit and Fairlight players
* Support for optionally disabling ganged moving of audio and video clips across tracks
* Support for rippling clips on the timeline when pasting retime attributes to other clips
* Support for converting between Duration markers and In/Out marks
* Support for viewing clip marker overlays on the timeline viewer
* Support for an indicator for clips with Fusion effects on the Edit and Color pages
* Support for toggling the track-destination state
* Support for improved timeline view options in the Edit timeline
* Support for performing an insert operation by holding Cmd/Ctrl+Shift while dragging clips from the media pool or source viewer
* Support for swapping clips in the Edit timeline using Cmd/Ctrl+Shift and dragging
* Support for a dynamic trim mode icon in the Edit page toolbar with a slip and slider indicator
* Support for an option to insert nested and compound clips in their decomposed state during edit operations
* Support for deleting transitions across clips when one of the clips is deleted
* Support for slipping clips with speed changes applied by a single frame
* Support for performing match frame for the selected clip in the timeline
* Support for improved results when compositing images with transparency
* Support for importing Final Cut Pro X XML version 1.8
* Improved separation and handles between video and audio tracks on the timeline
* Improved timecode entry and playhead navigation
* Improved optical flow for speed changes
* Improved Smooth Cut
* Improved keyboard shortcut mapping
* Improved previews when performing blades on a multi track edit
* Improved ripple cut and ripple delete behavior
* Improved automatic track creation when dragging clips to new tracks


I have mentioned H264 renders Fusion complexity Font scaling in Fairlight plugins. Taking this last point I am a little disappointed that Blackmagic is not always taking action. I email them about this issue and got a response that it was a problem of the plugins providers. Well those plugins Izotope and Acon are some of the most known in the industry and if you want to do any serious audio repair you better consider RX7. Now I had to purchase Studio One because it was impossible to work with those most important plugins inside Fairlight. Guess what Izotope does NOT support Resolve. It supports all the other most important audio editing suites.

That's a really common chicken and egg problem with software. Izotope may not support Resolve until more people use Fairlight but Fairlight may not be used more unless Izotope is supported. Unless Resolve improperly implemented ZST plugins, you need to put pressure on Izotope to support Resolve because that would ultimately be outside of BMDs power to fix.

I find it hard to believe that you're, a photographer. Photographers, even hobbyists almost always edit in Lightroom if they use Adobe products. Photoshop is predominantly for graphic designers, digital artists, and print people. About the only time a photographer is using Photoshop is for composite work, or because they don't have dedicated stacking software.

:shock:

"Photographers always edit in Lightroom" .....Yes you are right. Amateurs do.

99% pro photographers use Bridge/Camera Raw and Photoshop or Capture One Pro.

This is petty. People use what tools meet there needs. Some photographers use Lightroom, some use Photoshop, some use Capture One, some use RawTherepee, or whatever. Lets not try to legitimize people for the software that they use. If people are taking photos and getting paid for it, that's really the only qualifier for being a professional photographer.

It's also tangential to what this topic is about.

People use what tools meet there needs. Some photographers use Lightroom, some use Photoshop, some use Capture One, some use RawTherepee, or whatever. Lets not try to legitimize people for the software that they use. If people are taking photos and getting paid for it, that's really the only qualifier for being a professional photographer.

Good point. Let's remember that George R.R. Martin still uses WordStar 4.0 on MS-DOS. He obviously doesn't need anything more modern or complex to manage his utterly inscrutable (to me, at least) and massive story lines. .

I like Resolve node implementation because it is easy. With a few nodes you can do a lot. Fusion is another story . To animate a single title you need a dozen nodes. Many parts of the functionality is hidden. You have to right click on menu options on the right and if not they are not even visible anywhere. How convoluted and non intuitive is that.

You can't animate a title in the Color Page at all though because everything only has to do with color with some light masking. I'm not sure what you're talking about with right clicking menu options but when it when it comes to functionality being hidden, I don't see that as true.

The way that the Color page works according to the Resolve manual.



Each corrector node actually works as 18 nodes connected in that specific way with the ones that aren't active being bypassed.

As you can see, some of the things in the palette area like Camera Raw, Edit Sizing, Input Sizing, Output Sizing aren't happening per-node yet the interface doesn't even really suggest that. I've said before that I've seen people jump back and forth between two nodes because they though they needed to go back to the first one in order to make Camera Raw adjustments. This is because the interface doesn't convey that.

The other thing that isn't apparent is what order your adjustments happen in per-node. So if you want to make a Lift/Gamma/Gain adjustments after a Curves adjustment, you have to do that in a separate node. The fact that the order of operations is hidden is actually very un-node-like.

If a node has an OFX effect on it, it won't show in palette area. Same applies to LUTs. The same also applies to any node that isn't a corrector node. The only palette that you can actually change in the Key Mixer is the Key palette but the interface doesn't reflect that. Layer nodes have Composite Modes but you'd have to know to right click on it to find them. OFX nodes all have two inputs and two masks but the second input never works nor do the masks.

There's a lot that's hidden and even inconsistent about how the Color Page node workflow works.



Here's a representation of the corrector node as a Group node in Fusion. This example is, of course, roughly equivalent and incomplete but makes the point.

It's not a weakness of Fusion that each node can't do a million different things. It's what makes it capable of doing what it does. The Color page can get away with it's method because it's focused specifically on manipulating the color of one piece of footage.

Fusion needs to allow someone to import and position multiple 3D models, video clips, images, pieces of text, cameras, and lights. Then it needs to be able to apply merge those, apply effects to clips with more than 3 channels, do time re-adjustment, etc.

That's not to say that I think the Color page should work like Fusion. There's some influence it should definitely take from Fusion and vice-versa but, as a whole, the way that the Color page nodes works is fine for it's very specific purpose. It does not work for motion graphics work, it doesn't work for 3D work, and it doesn't work for text manipulation.

Even the fact that the Inputs on the Color page are stuck on the right only works because you work with maybe one or two inputs. With a Fusion composition, you could be dealing with so many assets that it makes more sense to give each it's own section of the node graph and then have them converge.

And Fusion can mess in a very bad way Davinci Resolve. I put you a recent example.
I was gettying all the time this error and could not render anything.

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=97997

Was going crazy . Duplicating the timeline, and doing lots of suggested things. As this was happening when the render arrived at some clips with OFX BorisFX Mocha Pro I thought that my GTX 1070 could no handle it and was already considering upgrading to a more powerful GPU. Thankfully someone suggested in the forum to Reset Fusion composition in the clip when something like this happens. I did in all the clips although none had anything in Fusion done as Mocha Pro was used as an OFX in Davinci. Bammm the problem was solved. Now tell me Fusion is not messing with the rest of the program.

Is it possible that you inadvertently jumped to Fusion tab when a clip was selected and made a change? As soon as you make a change to a clips Fusion composition, even if you manually undo the changes, it makes it into a Fusion composition and you need to reset it to shut it off.

I've had that issue before but then when I saw that clip, it had the little magic sparkles icon on it that indicates it has changes to the Fusion composition. I've also used copious amounts of OFX nodes in the Color page including third-party plug-ins and never had it quit rendering when they were used.

About the bad scaling issue . As I said previously is not only happening with Izotope but with Acon too. So i doubt the problem lies on Izotope or Acon. Also Mocha is not supported but it is as an OFX on many other suites. What is going on with Davinci plugins compatibility?

Then it's possible that Resolve implementation of ZST plugins is a little buggy but we don't know that. I also don't know anything about how ZST plugins communicate with the host and what needs to be done by each but the blame can be on either side.

I thought you said you were using Mocha in Resolve. How is it not supported? The only third party OFX plugin I've used is NeatVideo and it's worked as both a generic OFX plugin in and as Resolve specific OFX plugin so it doesn't seem that OFX support is done incorrectly.

Yes although they both work on a node system one is understood relatively quick by beginners the other one is only touched by experienced users. Sure that Visual Effects are more complicated than Coloring or editing but it can be made much simpler. All the BorisFX plugins make quite easy things that would be a headache doing in Fusion for most inexperienced users. And that is the point. If Boris Fx can make those VE easy why should Fusion try to do the same.

You are right that I first tried to apply Mocha Pro in Fusion in one of the clips and it worked but it was much slower than as an OFX in the Color tab even having 64 RAM. I am not sure but in the OFX the GPU jumped in rendering while not in Fusion but I delete all the nodes and I am sure that no sparkle was in the clip that I worked on in Fusion. Maybe that is the bug that the sparkle disappears if you manually undo everything but somehow Fusion is still on the works.

By right clicking I mean:
youtube.com/watch?v=bWK08P_B9so&t=1s

Minute 4.26 Right click on the word center to access that menu. How on earth would anyone even think that those hidden menus exists right clicking a word if there is no hint anywhere that more options are available. I would say that things like this make it very user unfriendly.

Unfortunately Mocha Pro is not officially supported . I have seen complains in BorisFX forums but in my case I had only a few minor things but it is generally very stable as OFX. Neatimage works great too and is an amazing . Going back to Mocha it is such a powerful software beyond believe and with 10 tutorials I can amazing planar trackings stabilize much better tan with Fusion and remove very difficult things. Now in Fusion even after 2 very long courses I can only make very simple things because it is much more difficult to comprehend.

In any case somehow most people want a bug free software in the first place and to be easy to grasp and do things from the beginning. Take a look at the comment at:

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/3313009578/why-davinci-resolve-16-is-the-best-video-editing-software-for-beginners?utm_source=self-desktop&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source

More and more "beginners" are approaching Davinci and surely not because of Fusion. But Fusion is a very powerful tool that being sculpted can engage many people that right now stay away.

I like Resolve node implementation because it is easy. With a

Is it possible that you inadvertently jumped to Fusion tab when a clip was selected and made a change? As soon as you make a change to a clips Fusion composition, even if you manually undo the changes, it makes it into a Fusion composition and you need to reset it to shut it off.

I've had that issue before but then when I saw that clip, it had the little magic sparkles icon on it that indicates it has changes to the Fusion composition. I've also used copious amounts of OFX nodes in the Color page including third-party plug-ins and never had it quit rendering when they were used.

About the bad scaling issue . As I said previously is not only happening with Izotope but with Acon too. So i doubt the problem lies on Izotope or Acon. Also Mocha is not supported but it is as an OFX on many other suites. What is going on with Davinci plugins compatibility?

Then it's possible that Resolve implementation of ZST plugins is a little buggy but we don't know that. I also don't know anything about how ZST plugins communicate with the host and what needs to be done by each but the blame can be on either side.

I thought you said you were using Mocha in Resolve. How is it not supported? The only third party OFX plugin I've used is NeatVideo and it's worked as both a generic OFX plugin in and as Resolve specific OFX plugin so it doesn't seem that OFX support is done incorrectly.

Yes although they both work on a node system one is understood relatively quick by beginners the other one is only touched by experienced users.

Again, because it's made with a single purpose. If you have just have a few nodes connected in a sequence, which is what most color corrections look like, it works no differently than an effects stack. One things happens, then the next, and so on. The other 5 node node types all very simple, are kind of off-shoots of each other are used extremely rarely by comparison. There's very little to know.

That doesn't mean it's node system is better than Fusion, it's hyper-focused for one purpose.

Sure that Visual Effects are more complicated than Coloring or editing but it can be made much simpler. All the BorisFX plugins make quite easy things that would be a headache doing in Fusion for most inexperienced users. And that is the point. If Boris Fx can make those VE easy why should Fusion try to do the same.

What effects specifically? Also plugins are plugins. They aren't full software. You can use BorisFX plugins in Fusion. A more apt comparison would be BorisFX Silhouette which is a stand alone node-based compositing program and it works in much the same way as Fusion. In fact, I downloaded it specifically so I can compare and I'm seeing a lot of the same nodes that Fusion has. The most notable differences I'm seeing is that it actually looks like Fusion's Merge node can do the job of several of Silhouette's Composite nodes. I'm also seeing things like Flip and Flop nodes in Silhouette which can both be done at the same time in the Fusion's transform node so BorisFX actually broke these things up more in some cases.

That's kind of the thing about node-based compositing. You can definitely have a node work as a mini-suite unto itself but most compositing jobs call for smaller tools to be used in conjunction with each other. Look up any Nuke X or Natron tutorial and you'll see that they work in the same way as Fusion.

You are right that I first tried to apply Mocha Pro in Fusion in one of the clips and it worked but it was much slower than as an OFX in the Color tab even having 64 RAM.

Compositing software really doesn't assume real-time rendering. It strives for it but it assumes it can't and caches results in memory. That's not to say that Fusion's rendering engine can't be better, I'm just saying that what you experienced isn't uncommon in compositing software.

Minute 4.26 Right click on the word center to access that menu. How on earth would anyone even think that those hidden menus exists right clicking a word if there is no hint anywhere that more options are available. I would say that things like this make it very user unfriendly.

Oh, you mean for Modifiers. I get that but also how often is there an indicator that you can right click something? It's usually just something you try. There isn't anything on that suggests that you can make new nodes in the color page by Right Clicking or that you can change Blend modes in Layer Mixers by right clicking either. You just try it.

Unfortunately Mocha Pro is not officially supported . I have seen complains in BorisFX forums but in my case I had only a few minor things but it is generally very stable as OFX. Neatimage works great too and is an amazing . Going back to Mocha it is such a powerful software beyond believe and with 10 tutorials I can amazing planar trackings stabilize much better tan with Fusion and remove very difficult things. Now in Fusion even after 2 very long courses I can only make very simple things because it is much more difficult to comprehend.

What Mocha can do and your difficulty comprehending Fusion are kind of less related than you're making them out to be. You're saying Mocha's strength is that you can do great tracking and removal of things.

This is gonna be a difficult point for me to make.

Basically, you're comparing what a single node with a very specific purpose can do versus the idea of actually using nodes. So if Resolve Object Removal met your standards for object removal than there wouldn't be a problem here because you'd have the node you want.

So figure this. You're put in a situation where you have to remove something from the frame and Mocha can't do it. Then what do you need to do? You need to do it manually. That involves tracking, making a clean plate, then masking the things you need to remove, then merging the masked video with the clean plate.

Let me use a different example. Lets say you need to add rain to a scene for some reason. You can go look for a rain plug-in but they may not look good enough to you or you might not find one at all. Then what are you going to do? Not have rain in that scene? Luckily, Fusion has a particle tools that allows you to make rain. With those same tools you can make smoke and various other things, not just rain.

More and more "beginners" are approaching Davinci and surely not because of Fusion. But Fusion is a very powerful tool that being sculpted can engage many people that right now stay away.

Just because beginners to Editing and Color grading don't understand why Fusion is built the way it is does not mean that beginners to Compositing won't understand it.

I'm a beginner to compositing. While After Effects was the only compositing software I had used for 15 years, I had never done anything great in it and I could have never taken a job doing effects for someone with it. I stayed away from it when I could. When I first started using Fusion, my only experience with node-based software was Resolve's Color page and little bit of experience with various diagramming software. In my first month of using Fusion, I made a 3D island, beach, ocean, sky, and clouds wit all the geometry and textures made in Resolve.

Here's the node tree.


I'd say that's pretty good for a beginner, but I wouldn't have been able to do that if I expected the software to just give me a 3D Landscape Creator node.

Can you show me an example of something you made and it's node tree and explain what you find unnecessarily complicated about it?

What effects specifically? Also plugins are plugins. They aren't full software. You can use BorisFX plugins in Fusion. A more apt comparison would be BorisFX Silhouette which is a standalone node-based compositing program and it works in much the same way as Fusion. In fact, I downloaded it specifically so I can compare and I'm seeing a lot of the same nodes that Fusion has. The most notable differences I'm seeing is that it actually looks like Fusion's Merge node can do the job of several of Silhouette's Composite nodes. I'm also seeing things like Flip and Flop nodes in Silhouette which can both be done at the same time in the Fusion's transform node so BorisFX actually broke these things up more in some cases.

That's the point . People are using plugins because they find that using the regular tools are too complicated or too slow using the regular software tools. This is why they are so successful the same way LUTS are. Serious color grading are reticent to non technical luts because they want to control every step of the process usually with better results that quickly looking at a selection of LUTS and using the one you like best. But following your argument let's imagine that tomorrow Blackmagic would decide that creative LUTS could not be applied and users should go through all the tools they have at their disposal to arrive to similar or the same results. Davinci would loose thousand of customers because there are many users that even find a Layer Mixer is complicated. That does not mean that Layer mixer should not be there for use for advanced users but give the beginners a Huge LUT real estate space on top and three huge color wheels where starters can get acceptable results fast. I am sorry to say but this is not present in Fusion and that is a reason why most users stay away.

Oh, you mean for Modifiers. I get that but also how often is there an indicator that you can right click something? It's usually just something you try. There isn't anything on that suggests that you can make new nodes in the color page by Right Clicking or that you can change Blend modes in Layer Mixers by right clicking either. You just try it.

You are right and it does not matter if it is present in Resolve or Fusion it is bad software implementation. And the Layer Mixer example is perfect case for that. You can make the user understand for example changing color,underscoring,typography change that the word is "right clickable" Straightforward and intuitive.

What Mocha can do and your difficulty comprehending Fusion are kind of less related than you're making them out to be. You're saying Mocha's strength is that you can do great tracking and removal of things.

This is gonna be a difficult point for me to make.

Basically, you're comparing what a single node with a very specific purpose can do versus the idea of actually using nodes. So if Resolve Object Removal met your standards for object removal than there wouldn't be a problem here because you'd have the node you want.

So figure this. You're put in a situation where you have to remove something from the frame and Mocha can't do it. Then what do you need to do? You need to do it manually. That involves tracking, making a clean plate, then masking the things you need to remove, then merging the masked video with the clean plate.

That is the point. I think that what you can achieve with Mocha Pro is feasible to to in Fusion but it would take you way longer and more knowledge to achieve what I without knowledge can do in 10 minutes even removing complicated objects and doing very difficult tracks. In Mocha I do a Planar Track create the plate and done . I have to touch 5 or 6 buttons and the results are impressive. I once followed a tutorial to do something similar in Fusion and it was 2 hours long and with a node tree much larger than the one you posted on the bottom. That is not realistic for 99% of non expert users to even try. So what is left for the majority of the users is to work on the recent poor removal solution offered in Davinci Resolve 16, jump to After Effects, buy an expensive specialized plugin like Mocha Pro, try to learn for months how Fusion works or abandon the whole idea of removing objects I went for the expensive plugin and my workflow is now fast every time I have to remove or track something.

Let me use a different example. Lets say you need to add rain to a scene for some reason. You can go look for a rain plug-in but they may not look good enough to you or you might not find one at all. Then what are you going to do? Not have rain in that scene? Luckily, Fusion has a particle tools that allows you to make rain. With those same tools you can make smoke and various other things, not just rain.

I would go with the rain plugin every time because I don't have the time to lose a whole day confronting a difficult situation that I might not need anymore in the future, That does not mean that the particle tool should not be there for the advanced users but give the non advanced users more simple tools. Film caption, editing, finishing and delivering is a complex process with many tools involved. We all have limited time and cannot be experts in every software. I understand that specialized users colorists,audio mixers, vfx artists etc are very well trained in a particular version of the software and don't care about simplicity and are more focused on power but that is usually the contrary of what most non specialized users want. They want simplicity over power anyday.

I'm a beginner to compositing. While After Effects was the only compositing software I had used for 15 years, I had never done anything great in it and I could have never taken a job doing effects for someone with it. I stayed away from it when I could. When I first started using Fusion, my only experience with node-based software was Resolve's Color page and little bit of experience with various diagramming software. In my first month of using Fusion, I made a 3D island, beach, ocean, sky, and clouds wit all the geometry and textures made in Resolve.

[/quote]

Your node tree makes me tremble only seeing it. But working 15 years with AE already gave you a good base to jump on Fusion. Most folks don't have this advantage and are just scared underwhelmed by the complexity of Fusion. I don't know if it will become easier or not in the future. But I am sure it will be not be adopted by rookies in the state it is now. I understand that most advanced users are Ok with that because they are already there. It is up on Blackmagic roof to listen to the "complain-suggestion" of the person that initiated this thread or not. Resolve is now one of the top video treatment software looking eye to eye to the major players. For coloring it was always on top and I think it is now much more popular than Baselight Mistika. As an editor it is becoming also a popular solution and doing huge advances. Fairlight is still very far from other audio solutions and I think they will be concentrating in this front in the near future. But I see Fusion still far from being as popular as After Effects. I hope it will be as working inside 1 solution is such a pleasure.
Blackmagic is a disruptive company like apple is. They have made ultra expensive software available to anyone that want to work with an amazing solution, be it for the last hollywood blockbuster or a 3 minute youtube video. The same can be said on their cinema cameras. What they have achieved with their Pocket cinema cameras is out of this world. That you can shoot 12 bit raw in 4k DCI at 60fps for 1200$ is just unbelievable. They might be a small team but very efficient and always listening to customers. This cannot be said by other software players and that is one of the reason that they are slowly left behind Blackmagic.

I can understand you as I also come from still photography background and when I wanted to jump to a video solution I finally reduced my options to Premiere and Davinci. You are right that as Premiere is somehow more easy to grasp for a photographer as their layers approach is similar to photoshop but I liked the node mode better and went finally with Davinci and abandoned Premiere.

I think that Davinci has very similar grading option that the ones you describe although the layout is different but no so different than the Adobe one

Image adjust1.jpg (140.1 KiB) Viewed 7896 times

Image adjust2.jpg (139.19 KiB) Viewed 7896 times

Image adjust3.jpg (112.43 KiB) Viewed 7896 times

In the Primaries Wheels you have on the bottom 2 menus (1 and 2 buttons).You have in both the white balance color picker.In the first Contrast Pivot (do you want the contrast curve affect more the highlights,midtones or shadows) Saturation Hue and Lum Mix (more advanced- if you want when moving the color wheels affect the other complementary colors or not range 100 to 0)
On the second menu Temp (white balance) Tint MD: (think of Clarity) Color Boost (Vibrance) Shadows and Highlights. This would be what you showed in the snapshot

Then on the curves menu you have those little points under it and when you click on those you get curves, Hue vs Hue(to change hues in a range) Hue vs Sat (change saturation in determined hue range)Hue vs Luminosity (change Luminosity range for selected Hues) Lum vs Saturation (change Saturation on determined Luminosity values) and Sat vs Sat (where you can lower or increase saturation on determined saturation values- for example desaturate the most saturated parts of the images).

I think with this options you are not so far to Adobe or other photography retouching solutions. With the color wheels you have to be very careful as little changes can quickly change the image dramatically.

This is not so much a feature-request, but a request to make Davinci more user friendly.

The analogy is from Apple’s macOS, where some of the most beloved versions of OSX and macOS had few new features, but instead focused on refinement. For Davinci Resolve, I suggest a version which has fewer new features, but concentrates on overall making it easier to learn and use.

I speak as a newbie.

For example, as an experienced stills photographer of several decades, I can go to most editing software, and figure out how to adjust the exposure, color balance and custom curves. Here’a typical set of controls that make intuitive sense. I see that Adobe Premier has similar intuitive controls. Why can’t Davinci Resolve have similar intuitive controls that make sense?

The attachment test_jpg.jpg is no longer available

About the bad scaling issue . As I said previously is not only happening with Izotope but with Acon too. So i doubt the problem lies on Izotope or Acon. Also Mocha is not supported but it is as an OFX on many other suites. What is going on with Davinci plugins compatibility

Not experiencing plugin window scaling issues on macOS with iZotope RX7 Advanced or Acon Digital plugins (or any other VST or AU plugins) with Resolve 16.

Could you elaborate or provide a screenshot to illustrate the issue?

I am on windows 10 64 bits. As you can see All the plugins are super tiny and don't scale correctly inside Davinci

AconDeverberate.jpg (735.27 KiB) Viewed 7868 times

Izotope1.jpg (754.81 KiB) Viewed 7868 times

Izotope2.jpg (812.97 KiB) Viewed 7868 times

About the bad scaling issue . As I said previously is not only happening with Izotope but with Acon too. So i doubt the problem lies on Izotope or Acon. Also Mocha is not supported but it is as an OFX on many other suites. What is going on with Davinci plugins compatibility

Not experiencing plugin window scaling issues on macOS with iZotope RX7 Advanced or Acon Digital plugins (or any other VST or AU plugins) with Resolve 16.

Could you elaborate or provide a screenshot to illustrate the issue?

As you can see All the plugins are super tiny and don't scale correctly inside Davinci

Which screen resolution has been specified in Windows Control Panel?