Blackmagic Forum

I wanted to switch to Resolve and I do like it, I'm starting to get used to everything and use AutoHotKey to work around some of my habits.
The by far biggest downside though is that Video Clean Feed or FullScreen Preview on a second monitor is only in the Studio version, which is 300$ and that's the only feature of the Studio version I need but at the same time this is borderline a dealbreaker for me...
I can't afford 300$ for a fullscreen preview but it really makes me not want to use Resolve if I don't have it.

Is it really necessary to put such a simple and common feature behind the paywall?
Or did I miss something and in another version (I am using 17) this is in the free version?

Swerik wrote:I wanted to switch to Resolve and I do like it, I'm starting to get used to everything and use AutoHotKey to work around some of my habits.
The by far biggest downside though is that Video Clean Feed or FullScreen Preview on a second monitor is only in the Studio version, which is 300$ and that's the only feature of the Studio version I need but at the same time this is borderline a dealbreaker for me...
I can't afford 300$ for a fullscreen preview but it really makes me not want to use Resolve if I don't have it.

Is it really necessary to put such a simple and common feature behind the paywall?
Or did I miss something and in another version (I am using 17) this is in the free version?

Its not only only full screen you also get hardware h264 encoding more Color correction tools and effects. And it's only a pay one time deal. you can upgrade for free. You can still get the speed editor Davinci R 17 included for 295.

Ricardo Marty

Swerik wrote:
Is it really necessary to put such a simple and common feature behind the paywall?

Yes it’s necessary, because exclusively using Clean Feed means that you probably aren’t ever going to buy Decklink or Ultrastudio hardware to properly view your playback on an external monitor. Hardware sales is how BMD makes the money that is required to support the development of Resolve itself.

Let me once again be the old man in threads like this, who reminds people that before it was acquired by Blackmagic in 2009, Resolve used to cost a minimum six-figures just to get a basic, barely working system going.

$300 for the Studio version is effectively “free”, if you’re using the software to make money.

If you aren’t using it to make money, then the free version still gives you 90% of the capabilities of the Studio version, and is one of the most feature filled “demo” versions of a professional software packages anyone could possibly ask for.

If you don’t want to pay for the software, I’d recommend buying a cheap Decklink or Ultrastudio card so you can properly monitor on an external display, instead. The free version still supports external playback hardware.

ricardo marty wrote:

Swerik wrote:I wanted to switch to Resolve and I do like it, I'm starting to get used to everything and use AutoHotKey to work around some of my habits.
The by far biggest downside though is that Video Clean Feed or FullScreen Preview on a second monitor is only in the Studio version, which is 300$ and that's the only feature of the Studio version I need but at the same time this is borderline a dealbreaker for me...
I can't afford 300$ for a fullscreen preview but it really makes me not want to use Resolve if I don't have it.

Is it really necessary to put such a simple and common feature behind the paywall?
Or did I miss something and in another version (I am using 17) this is in the free version?

Its not only only full screen you also get hardware h264 encoding more Color correction tools and effects. And it's only a pay one time deal. you can upgrade for free. You can still get the speed editor Davinci R 17 included for 295.

Ricardo Marty

Yes I know what else comes with this bt as I said I only need this one feature, the other ones aren't that useful to me.
so for me this would be 300$ for one feature, that's what I mean.

Mel Matsuoka wrote:

Swerik wrote:
Is it really necessary to put such a simple and common feature behind the paywall?

Yes it’s necessary, because exclusively using Clean Feed means that you probably aren’t ever going to buy Decklink or Ultrastudio hardware to properly view your playback on an external monitor. Hardware sales is how BMD makes the money that is required to support the development of Resolve itself.

Let me once again be the old man in threads like this, who reminds people that before it was acquired by Blackmagic in 2009, Resolve used to cost a minimum six-figures just to get a basic, barely working system going.

$300 for the Studio version is effectively “free”, if you’re using the software to make money.

If you aren’t using it to make money, then the free version still gives you 90% of the capabilities of the Studio version, and is one of the most feature filled “demo” versions of a professional software packages anyone could possibly ask for.

If you don’t want to pay for the software, I’d recommend buying a cheap Decklink or Ultrastudio card so you can properly monitor on an external display, instead. The free version still supports external playback hardware.

I don't earn money with it and that's another reason why I don't want to pay that much. I mean at least I understand how that is necessary now, still would really really love this feature in the free version. The Software would be perfect for my need if it had fullscreen preview.

I mean If this was a "build-your-own-software" concept where you pay for features you need and you don't pay for features that you don't need, I'd pay 30-50$ just for this feature and besides that the free version.

Mel Matsuoka wrote:Let me once again be the old man in threads like this

I'll join you. When I went to school, Avid was an $80,000 "system". You couldn't buy just the software.

Resolve is professional software. Every professional can afford $300.

Swerik wrote:I mean If this was a "build-your-own-software" concept where you pay for features you need and you don't pay for features that you don't need, I'd pay 30-50$ just for this feature and besides that the free version.

No software developer in their right mind would do this. It would be a maintenance, billing and support nightmare, let alone a recipe for never turning a profit on the development of the software. Particularly software as complex and feature packed as Resolve.

Resolve is priced more than fairly enough that you don’t need to resort to unsustainable ideas like totally granular, à la carte “build your own software”.

You wouldn’t be paying $300 “just for one feature”. You’d be paying to support the sustainable development of the entire feature set, not just for yourself, but for every single other person who uses Resolve.

Resolve is FREE. And the Pro version is DIRT CHEAP.

kinvermark wrote:You've got to admire the OP's artistry in portraying himself as a victim of corporate greed.

Using words like "dealbreaker" and "behind the paywall" to paint a picture of poor value for money and attempts to coerce payment.

Except.... Resolve is FREE. And the Pro version is DIRT CHEAP.

What a twisted world we now live in.

I didn’t read the OPs post quite that cynically.

I see it more as the general public’s devaluation and ignorance of what it really costs to develop software, brought on by the unfortunate side effect of “App Store” based business models. As much of a fanboy of Apple products that I am, I place a lot of this at their feet, because the iOS (and eventually macOS) App Store forced developers into an untenable position of having to lower the cost of their apps in order for owners of iOS devices to even consider buying them.

Although I think this was a no-win situation anyway, because even if Apple didn’t want to be directly responsible for the devaluation of software pricing, they didn’t have much choice, because the iPhone would not have been the success that it is today, we’re it not for lowball pricing for the apps that make such devices useful to begin with. Nobody would pay $99 for a mobile app that is “crippled” simply by nature of the inherent limitations of the mobile OS it runs on.

People got used to this pricing model, unfortunately, and they now expect major desktop applications to also be unsustainably free or cheap, and they don’t understand why things need to be priced the way they are.

Hence why subscription based software is really the only reliable way to make money as a software developer in the modern era. BMD is a rare exception, as they have another revenue stream in their hardware sales, which can support the development of their software.

You wouldn’t be paying $300 “just for one feature”. You’d be paying to support the sustainable development of the entire feature set, not just for yourself, but for every single other person who uses Resolve.

I mean yes, but I don't pay money for other people, I primarily pay money to get what I want/need. For me it's 300$ for one feature, 300$ is way too much money to even have "supporting other people" as an argument, I don't have that much disposable income to "support every person who uses resolve".

Using words like "dealbreaker" and "behind the paywall" to paint a picture of poor value for money and attempts to coerce payment.

It wasn't my intent to paint me as a "victim". I wanted to explain why I care. This is a feature request and the devs want to know why the customer would care. It's a difference if customers say "nice to have" or "almost dealbraker". I just explain how much I care about this request, for me it's almost a dealbreaker.
(maybe "deal" isn't the right word considering that the "deal" is free software)

I see it more as the general public’s devaluation and ignorance of what it really costs to develop software, brought on by the unfortunate side effect of “App Store” based business models. As much of a fanboy of Apple products that I am, I place a lot of this at their feet, because the iOS (and eventually macOS) App Store forced developers into an untenable position of having to lower the cost of their apps in order for owners of iOS devices to even consider buying them.

1. I am a software developer myself. Just wanted to say that because everyone here talks like I don't know how much work it is.
2. I don't own an apple product and I don't own a single subscription, I hate subscriptions. I actually find the "build-your-own-software" idea quite good. You could pay nothing for the free version and then add 50$ for Video Clean feed, 100$ for DaVinci Neural Engine, etc instead of paying300$ for everything even if you aren't using 90% of the premium features. I don't know if this would work properly but in my opinion this would be great and I haven't seen that yet.
3. I realize that Resolve is free, I would pay for it, even now for the free version (without Video Clean Feed) just not 300$. And I know that that's a standard/cheap price compared to other video editing software but it's just way to much for people who do this as a hobby and don't have that much disposable income.


I don't take free for granted, I just don't want to pay 300$ for essentially one feature. I don't care about the other features, I don't have the disposable income, I would pay money, just not that much.

OK, my post was perhaps a bit unfair to Erik. I accept his explanation.

IMHO, DR is simply the best deal going, and needs to be supported wherever possible. But if you don't have the cash, then you don't have the cash.

Swerik wrote:

You wouldn’t be paying $300 “just for one feature”. You’d be paying to support the sustainable development of the entire feature set, not just for yourself, but for every single other person who uses Resolve.

I mean yes, but I don't pay money for other people, I primarily pay money to get what I want/need. For me it's 300$ for one feature, 300$ is way too much money to even have "supporting other people" as an argument, I don't have that much disposable income to "support every person who uses resolve".

Using words like "dealbreaker" and "behind the paywall" to paint a picture of poor value for money and attempts to coerce payment.

It wasn't my intent to paint me as a "victim". I wanted to explain why I care. This is a feature request and the devs want to know why the customer would care. It's a difference if customers say "nice to have" or "almost dealbraker". I just explain how much I care about this request, for me it's almost a dealbreaker.
(maybe "deal" isn't the right word considering that the "deal" is free software)

I see it more as the general public’s devaluation and ignorance of what it really costs to develop software, brought on by the unfortunate side effect of “App Store” based business models. As much of a fanboy of Apple products that I am, I place a lot of this at their feet, because the iOS (and eventually macOS) App Store forced developers into an untenable position of having to lower the cost of their apps in order for owners of iOS devices to even consider buying them.

1. I am a software developer myself. Just wanted to say that because everyone here talks like I don't know how much work it is.
2. I don't own an apple product and I don't own a single subscription, I hate subscriptions. I actually find the "build-your-own-software" idea quite good. You could pay nothing for the free version and then add 50$ for Video Clean feed, 100$ for DaVinci Neural Engine, etc instead of paying300$ for everything even if you aren't using 90% of the premium features. I don't know if this would work properly but in my opinion this would be great and I haven't seen that yet.
3. I realize that Resolve is free, I would pay for it, even now for the free version (without Video Clean Feed) just not 300$. And I know that that's a standard/cheap price compared to other video editing software but it's just way to much for people who do this as a hobby and don't have that much disposable income.


I don't take free for granted, I just don't want to pay 300$ for essentially one feature. I don't care about the other features, I don't have the disposable income, I would pay money, just not that much.

I understand your situation. You can get the studio version and the speed editor for the same price as the studio license. That means you will have the studio version with all the bells and whistles plus a very good interface to help you edit faster. This is a great deal. Maybe someone can lend you the difference for you to buy this. remember you can be entering a new field without even knowing it and a new revenue stream.


Ricardo Marty

Ricardo marty

I understand your situation. You can get the studio version and the speed editor for the same price as the studio license. That means you will have the studio version with all the bells and whistles plus a very good interface to help you edit faster. This is a great deal. Maybe someone can lend you the difference for you to buy this. remember you can be entering a new field without even knowing it and a new revenue stream.


Ricardo Marty

Thanks, I will keep that in mind. It's still a big investment for me but that Speed Editor looks like I would use it and getting that as well for the same price is a more justifiable deal for me.

While I do agree that is never a bad thing to get things for free, I also have to say that 300 seems already like an amazing deal for the value Davinci Resolve Studio Delivers.

We are all different but in my case after using the free version, I was happy to "give" BM my money and get the Studio version to support them.

I can't name any other software that delivers what DR does for 300 bucks.

BR
Italo

A few thoughts from a brand new user:

I am using the free version of Resolve to determine if I want to give up Premiere. Generally, I am very impressed so far, and I think I will become a dedicated Resolve user. Also, considering the cost differential, I will likely happily shell out the cash for the Studio version. It would pay for itself in just over a year.

Having said that, and the whole reason I found this thread is that even with Video Clean Feed, I think Resolve could do better. Being able to shift panels around is a key part of my workflow (I have about three different custom workspaces that are radically different from any of the default options), and it would be great to see Resolve add more flexibility. Right now, you can do some resizing, but you are still locked into a fairly rigid interface setup.

This is a big fly in the ointment for what otherwise seems to be an amazing piece of software. It is not a dealbreaker for me, but I do hope they will look at a more flexible UI for future builds.

WDParks wrote:A few thoughts from a brand new user:

I am using the free version of Resolve to determine if I want to give up Premiere. Generally, I am very impressed so far, and I think I will become a dedicated Resolve user. Also, considering the cost differential, I will likely happily shell out the cash for the Studio version. It would pay for itself in just over a year.

Having said that, and the whole reason I found this thread is that even with Video Clean Feed, I think Resolve could do better. Being able to shift panels around is a key part of my workflow (I have about three different custom workspaces that are radically different from any of the default options), and it would be great to see Resolve add more flexibility. Right now, you can do some resizing, but you are still locked into a fairly rigid interface setup.

This is a big fly in the ointment for what otherwise seems to be an amazing piece of software. It is not a dealbreaker for me, but I do hope they will look at a more flexible UI for future builds.

PM your 3 layouts so I can review.
Don’t expect ui free for all, it’s not our strategy

My layout request is to put the volume control in the viewer window instead of the timeline window. That way I could have a volume control in all the pages

It is nice to see how many people still coming as new Resolve users, but as far as I can see many of them expect to see (as someone said here) mobile phone apps philosophy - if you want this feature pay 0,50$ more, for another feature 1$ more etc. But I don't understand that most of them don't realize that they have in their hands a highly professional, very, very complex (as a software developer you should know how difficult and complex it would be to lock and unlock ever single feature individually) and expensive pice of software that isn't build for use in your free time. This is software for professionals.

Also I don't understand that many professionals switch to Resolve and expect to have ALL the features they used to it in the software they used before. Their thinking is the same as the Swerik's thinking - I need "just this one" feature and I want it because I pay for this software. I'd like to ask to them: could you demand (I said "demand" because most of them have such attitude) from Adobe or Avid or FC to implement feature that you need? On their forums you've got luck if someone from the company dignify to answer. Here, with BMD we have such luck to see many of requests fulfilled in no time. That situation lead to people becoming rude in their demands.
With the last one I wasn't talk about you Swerik. Your request can be translated to automobiles world - you came to Mercedes car dealer shop and want to have an S class, because it have (e.g) massage in their seats, but you think that it is too much to pay 100.000$ "just for that one feature" You are paying for whole car, not for that one feature. The same is here - you are getting Mercedes in terms of software and paying 300$ for whole set of professional features, which is almost for free. Yes, 300$ is way too much for some people, but Mercedes is too.

georgekg wrote:With the last one I wasn't talk about you Swerik. Your request can be translated to automobiles world - you came to Mercedes car dealer shop and want to have an S class, because it have (e.g) massage in their seats, but you think that it is too much to pay 100.000$ "just for that one feature" You are paying for whole car, not for that one feature. The same is here - you are getting Mercedes in terms of software and paying 300$ for whole set of professional features, which is almost for free. Yes, 300$ is way too much for some people, but Mercedes is too.

With cars you can select specific features for an added cost. The base costs 30k for example and then +1k for A/C and +2k for heated seats and +1.5k for a touchscreen etc. That would perfectly be what I want. The base version of Resolve is free or cheap and then add for example 50$ for the more professional color grading and 100$ for DaVinci Neural Engine and 50$ for Video Clean feed, etc.

I mean I don't want to beat a dead horse, this discussion is finished in my opinion, but your automobile example was a great example for my argumentation.

Just use the shortcut 'p' if you want to review your footage at full screen. Accept the limitation or buy a DeckLink or the studio version. That's the deal.

Swerik wrote:With cars you can select specific features for an added cost. The base costs 30k for example and then +1k for A/C and +2k for heated seats and +1.5k for a touchscreen etc. That would perfectly be what I want. The base version of Resolve is free or cheap and then add for example 50$ for the more professional color grading and 100$ for DaVinci Neural Engine and 50$ for Video Clean feed, etc.

Your car analogy is a fallacious one.

What you're glossing over is the fact that the "base" of your hypothetical car costs $30,000. Car manufacturers don't release "bare bones" versions of their cars that they give away for free, with the hope that people will pay for additional ala carte, add-on options that they want, in order to turn a profit on them.

The "base version" of Resolve, by all rights, should cost at least $30,000 to purchase, considering how powerful it is, and how many thousands and thousands of development hours have gone into its development since it was originally released in 2004 (again, please remember that Resolve used to be near quarter-to-half-million dollar system to be able to get into before BMD acquired da Vinci Systems in 2009)

Swerik wrote:

georgekg wrote:With the last one I wasn't talk about you Swerik. Your request can be translated to automobiles world - you came to Mercedes car dealer shop and want to have an S class, because it have (e.g) massage in their seats, but you think that it is too much to pay 100.000$ "just for that one feature" You are paying for whole car, not for that one feature. The same is here - you are getting Mercedes in terms of software and paying 300$ for whole set of professional features, which is almost for free. Yes, 300$ is way too much for some people, but Mercedes is too.

With cars you can select specific features for an added cost. The base costs 30k for example and then +1k for A/C and +2k for heated seats and +1.5k for a touchscreen etc. That would perfectly be what I want. The base version of Resolve is free or cheap and then add for example 50$ for the more professional color grading and 100$ for DaVinci Neural Engine and 50$ for Video Clean feed, etc.

I mean I don't want to beat a dead horse, this discussion is finished in my opinion, but your automobile example was a great example for my argumentation.

Actually no it is not: you pay 30k for the car just to move it out of the parking lot. If you think about it, let’s say that you want a chrome rims in your car (2000$) yes, you can buy only that, but you have no car to put it on.


resolve is 90% free. Do you want “some” of the extra 10%? Then the entry fee is 300$ kind of end of the discussion.

Otherwise, resolve is 290$. For the “basic” version and 10$ for the clean feed. But I let you play with the basic version until you need that extra bit.

And BTW, if you want ProRes pro export in Linux, your entry fee is 29.999$ and the panel is free.

You got that free in Mac

You dont have in window....

Soooo..... there is that....

I don't wish to be unkind to the OP and he has already expressed his to intention to exit the debate but 'dealbreaker' and 'customer' are not words I would personally associate with free software. I think 'notforme' and 'user' would be more applicable. Having said that as others have mentioned, DVR is perhaps the most fully featured free software there is and the most incredible value in its paid version. With the free software a very cheap second-hand Decklink or Ultrastudio will get you to at least 90% of usable broadcast pro post up to UHD, only lacking in some of the more fancy finishing tools.

And, after 20+ years of free use of WinRar i actually paid for a license... even if i did not need to...

It was due....

We can't be seriously having this discussion here. It's cheap: do your research on other leading brands on the post production market. If you complain about the price, I think this place isn't for you - no offence.

waltervolpatto wrote:
Otherwise, resolve is 290$. For the “basic” version and 10$ for the clean feed.

This hits the nail right on the head.

In a way, the OP validates your exact point, by saying this:

Swerik wrote:The base version of Resolve is free or cheap and then add for example 50$ for the more professional color grading and 100$ for DaVinci Neural Engine and 50$ for Video Clean feed, etc.

Guess what, Resolve is both “free” and “cheap”, depending on which version you use! Except in the case of Resolve, when you spend a measly $300, you get EVERYTHING else that the free version doesn't have.

had already suggested to discontinue the free version, or at least reduce it to HD.

Mark Foster wrote:had already suggested to discontinue the free version, or at least reduce it to HD.

That is not the Blackmagic business model...

Free: you have 90% of the features up to UHD
Paid 300$: you have 99.9% of the features (excluding ProRes export in window and linux)

Paid 29.999$; you have 99.95% of the features (adding linux ProRes and the panel is free )

That is it.

waltervolpatto wrote:

Mark Foster wrote:had already suggested to discontinue the free version, or at least reduce it to HD.

That is not the Blackmagic business model...

this was also the answer from BMD ; -)

they will not sell more or less of your hardware to these scroungers.
many posts in the forum are unnecessary and based on misunderstandings what the free version can't do.