Hide tracks

A Hide Track(s) option would be usefull to literally… hide some tracks, not only disable them. Like the "Discreet" mode in After Effects.

+1 on this.

I often have video clips with scratch audio on them, and the primary audio is from an external recorder. It would be nice to be able to hide the scratch audio tracks, but still have them linked up properly when cutting and nudging etc.

The benefit would be when you really need to fall back on the scratch audio, it's right where you expect it to be.

Video, Audio, or both?

What pages?

You can already hide audio tracks in Fairlight, and Video in Color. You looking for more?

Both, in Edit and Color pages.

Alt plus track in color should do it already

Alt plus track in color should do it already

Not completly, as the clips from the "muted" track will not be displayed but the track is still visible in the timeline.

Video, Audio, or both?

What pages?

You can already hide audio tracks in Fairlight, and Video in Color. You looking for more?

I think having consistent functionality between all pages would be the best solution.

I think having consistent functionality between all pages would be the best solution.

To a degree. The philosophy in Resolve is that each page is designed specifically for the task at hand. I like that philosophy. I find it very useful, and don't want it to go away.

So things like navigation should absolutely be synchronous across pages, but not all things should be.

The aforementioned ability to hide Video in Color and Audio in Fairlight, for example. I don't want those settings transferred over to the Edit page. It's appropriate for me to see every track on that page. Not seeing them all is invitation for disaster, I think.

I think that it would be really helpful to be able to set track hide status on each page... independently of the other pages. At least between the edit, color and fairlight pages. I would love each page to have the functionality of the fairlight Index to "shy" the layer not disable it or mute it but hide it.

There are often times that many layers are locked or finished for now, and being able to focus in on the layers you are working with would be helpful.

Sometimes that means it would be most helpful to hide layers on the EDIT page so that the clips you are actively working with can be seen and moved without fear of moving the others and without needing to navigate around them.

Something like this:

Is it possible now hide tracks?

This would be a very useful addition

To a degree. The philosophy in Resolve is that each page is designed specifically for the task at hand. I like that philosophy. I find it very useful, and don't want it to go away.

The aforementioned ability to hide Video in Color and Audio in Fairlight, for example. I don't want those settings transferred over to the Edit page. It's appropriate for me to see every track on that page. Not seeing them all is invitation for disaster, I think.

Except that there's no actual advantage to the Fairlight, Cut, and Edit pages to be separate. I've mentioned this to you in a previous topic and you never responded.

• Right now the Edit page has a better source monitor for audio than the Fairlight page and it has clip level keyframing.
  
  
• Edit doesn't support Elastic Wave despite it being the exact same feature has it's re-timing tool. If you use an Elastic Wave on audio with attached video then it even marks the video as being re-timed and the keyframes between the tools are locked together.
  
  
• Track level automation is only possible in the Fairlight page. Before then, it was in the Edit page.
  
  
• Fairlight is the only page that supports displaying the timecode as 35mm and 16mm Feet and Frames... which is more relevant to motion picture film than audio. What sense does it make to have that feature but not have it in the Edit page?
  
  
• The ADR panel in the Fairlight page is nearly identical to the Subtitle's panel in the Edit page. Think about that. Both are used to create lists that contain what someone is saying and when they say it. Combining them would save people time and effort, would actually be useful to people recording ADR, and would allow ADR cues to be moved visually in the Subtitle tracks.
  
  
• Fairlight's Index includes the Edit Index from the Edit page but has the addition of a Track List and Marker List. Hell even the Subtitle/ADR list could be moved here to consolidate them.

Combining just these two pages would have addressed a bunch of threads in the Feature Request forum. Which again warrants another list.

• Just this week I saw someone requesting a feature for a tool that lets you click and drag to create in and out points like in Vegas but that tool already exists in the Fairlight page.
  
• Fairlight and Cut both support Locked and Free Playhead modes while Edit only supports Free Playhead yet you and others have asked for Locked playhead in the Edit page as well.
  
  
• As you mentioned THE FAIRLIGHT PAGE'S TRACK LIST HAS THE EXACT FEATURE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED IN THIS TOPIC.

Both, in Edit and Color pages.

It would only work in the Color page if it was just obeying what was set in the Edit Index because you'd need a way to re-enable that track.

I completely agree with Mark here. Resolve could be both MORE featureful and much easier to learn if the dev team took this approach regularizing the UI. It's totally understandable how Resolve got here - integrating tons of stuff with disparate ways of doing things.

I sincerely hope that it will soon go into a consolidation phase where things will be made more regular throughout. I hope winners will be picked among competing features, eg why do we need optimized media now that proxies exist?

I hope that useful tools will be refactored out of particular pages (as Mark describes) such that they can be used across the UI and users can learn them once rather than repeatedly in each slightly different page's implementation.

Cheers!
Joe

Something like this:

Yup!!!

Need this for workflow purposes. If I compound 4 layers that each have compositing on them I lose the compositing. Just want to hide the track not disable it. Many other softwares can do this. I guess I just have to deal with a super complicated timeline

I think having consistent functionality between all pages would be the best solution.

+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This idea with some extra juice: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=186362&hilit=+hide

I suggested 2 view modes here> viewtopic.php?f=33&t=176370&hilit=+group

Where every track can be grupped but can be viewed like it can be now, where audio and video tracks are separated visually...

I imagine something like this:

I imagine something like this:

I also come from Vegas Pro also and I very much miss having Folder Tracks after moving to Resolve. Although, I'm not really a fan of a single button to make all of the Folders Tracks visible/hidden, I'd like more flexibility. IMO it would be more useful to have a list of tracks where you can select which specific tracks you want visible or hidden like in Fairlight.

My ideal implementation for Folder Tracks would be to allow effects and automation to be applied to the Folder Track and effect all tracks inside of the folder track (just like in Vegas Pro). Plus have a setting in the Inspector for Adjustment Clips to only apply to tracks inside of the Folder Track or apply to the entire project (as it currently does). This would add so much flexibility to the effects and Adjustment Clips.

+1

I think having consistent functionality between all pages would be the best solution.

I gotta give this one to the developers. Fairlight and Fusion (and for that matter Davinci color) are inherited and completely different code bases. It's not as easy as one might intuit to make UIs work the same without major rewrites. Consistency may be nice, but it would mean trashing quite a bit of mature development and probably result in as many steps backwards for progress. For the greater good, I suspect living with the different interfaces as an idiosyncrasy... we're better off just patting it on the head and learning to love it.

Look at Quicktime. 32 bit Quicktime was so full of functions you still today cannot find in any software. The rewrite of 64bit QTX was back to silly basics, and still all these years later hasn't acquired many of the beloved features of the old Quicktime.

Look at Quicktime's uncle, Final Cut Pro "Classic". In its twelve year run (before Apple blindsided and destroyed an industry built up around FCP, by introducing iMovie Pro and misleadingly naming it FCPX), Final Cut ran on the core (extremely well-written) code-base created by Macromedia. Over those twelve years there were familiar and mostly harmless UI bugs that persisted completely unchanged in look and behavior. When FCPX came out, it was a new animal that wasn't really compatible with FCP "Classic" projects, was missing a majority of FCP "Classic" advanced functions, and was incompatible with all the third-party hardware, software and turn-key products and services that built up around it all those years. For that matter, the classic Final Cut Studio was a lot like Davinci -- all acquired software. Their color, sound, encoding, authoring components all looked and worked completely differently. Even more than Davinci. Or, Avid -- look at Protools.

Only Adobe has developed all their suite programs together (well, with some Macromedia DNA), and thereby offer a unified UI experience. The resulting big problem, though, they've cornered themselves, shackled themselves to a twenty-five year old edifice -- old unified codes, codes bases and a design language that must maintain unity in not just one app but many all at once -- and thus suffer from incredible bloat and bugs whack-a-mole. A whole AI component is being added now, just duct-taped on top of everything else in a massive teetering mess that, at least, is pretty on the outside. The stuff works well, but... takes a lot of "factory" resources. Adobe fair is incredibly delicate as well as labor intensive to maintain and grow.

Making Davinci UI look and work the same across tabs -- I suspect it's a product killer if it became a priority. Which is why it won't become a priority. Instead, we will probably see some convergences, like context menus containing more of the same things, keyboard shortcut presets that unify expected functions (like "D" in Edit vs command-P in Fusion) -- basically some mimicry of other tabs (Fusion: 'Find in Media Pool' anyone?), which, yes, would be nice and probably the necessary trade-off.

Tangent: Why did Apple kill of an entire NLE industry counterbalancing Avid? Because the coding of an NLE suite is intense, requires large teams and commitments. And while FCP was "huge" -- as huge or huger than Avid for a while -- Apple was SO huge that the entire FCP cosmos was something like 3 percent of its profits (thanks, iPhone), if that, but proportionally a much bigger percentage of money and labor. It just made sense to rebuild and unify FCPX with the suite of modern Apple-made software, and not position it as an industry standard.

What sucked is that they fooled us. For such a long time they promised, yes, an update to FCP7 is coming, just wait; so businesses, and studios, and turn-keys, all just continued business as usual while waiting. But behind the scenes apple was letting all its longtime FCP developers go. I was at an "unveiling" of FCPX and experienced the room moving from excitement at the beginning to horror near the end when it became clear that FCP no longer existed but in name only. Such a shock and so maddening. Apple really should have been straight with its longtime loyal NLE base, announced its intent to kill FCP, and named their new product something else, like -- seriously -- iMovie Studio Pro X or something.

Would have been so much better for us steeped in it for Apple to have sold FCP to another company. But oh well, we all kept our end-of-line FCP 7.1.4 copies running as long as possible until jumping ship either back to Avid or over to Premiere (and their effing new-at-the-time subscription model). Davinci was still just a color grading system, and BM simply didn't have the head start necessary to catch all the ejected FCP "Classic" users before Avid and Adobe swallowed them. (And eventually FCPX too somewhat as it improved.) But still, slowly, by now BMD has hooked a nice number of us! It really does feel a little like having FCP "Classic" back. Thanks BMD!

Great write up! I agree with most of what you’ve said. I sorely miss FCP7 and didn’t commit fully to any other platform till Resolve got good enough to adopt.

The only place I disagree with is the smoothing of ui consistencies. I think there are few if any places where the core code base needs to be ripped up to accomplish this. But I think the benefits of streamlining the ui would be huge.

Right now Resolve seems at the mercy of marketing. Most all its dev time is dedicated to new marketing features. Very little to fixing bugs and streamlining actual workflows. You can even see this in new features - transcription is exceedingly rev 1 - several workflows - obvious to working editors - we’re not accounted for.

I gotta give this one to the developers. Fairlight and Fusion (and for that matter Davinci color) are inherited and completely different code bases. It's not as easy as one might intuit to make UIs work the same without major rewrites. Consistency may be nice, but it would mean trashing quite a bit of mature development and probably result in as many steps backwards for progress.

Much of my frustration regarding the UI is simply the mouse controls. For example, zooming in on the display area or on the main node area uses different mouse modifiers depending on which page you are on despite doing the exact same task. A Mouse Editor (just like what we already have for the keyboard) where we can assign mouse buttons, mouse wheel, and modifiers would allow us to fix these inconsistencies ourselves and set it up exactly how we want.

A mouse editor would sure be helpful. Much easier dev-wise would be to just make the mouse actions consistent.

A mouse editor would sure be helpful. Much easier dev-wise would be to just make the mouse actions consistent.

No doubt that would be easier for devs to make the actions consistent. But given that I don't even like Resolve's basic navigation on the timeline in the Edit page, I'd still much rather have a Mouse Editor so I can customize everything to my liking instead of BMD trying to make all of the mouse actions consistent. Then Resolve would also have the same setup as my DAW Reaper, which I have also customized.

Much of my frustration regarding the UI is simply the mouse controls. For example, zooming in on the display area or on the main node area uses different mouse modifiers depending on which page you are on despite doing the exact same task. A Mouse Editor (just like what we already have for the keyboard) where we can assign mouse buttons, mouse wheel, and modifiers would allow us to fix these inconsistencies ourselves and set it up exactly how we want.

Oh, God, yes. Drives me batty the differences in key bindings and mouse gestures between Edit and Fairlight and then Fusion especially. So you're right, while I don't see unification of UIs between tabs being practical, keystroke and mouse action consistency should be easy! DRS, just, well, do the mouse consistency thing, plus provide global keyboard preset options that unify keystrokes (plus a preset that preserves existing assignments for those who prefer them). Add fullscreen to Fusion (or at least Color tab's Shift-F type of quasi full screen). I mean, even Fairlight has full screen (using the same edit tab strokes).

And I use Photoshop a lot, and pan/zoom is different yet again (and the best implementation), so I love my life there. Turning off nodes should the same between Color and Fusion. Pan/zoom too. (I actually prefer Fusion's way of pan and zoom ((though not as good as PShop's). I use an Apple Magic Mouse ((no wheels, just a gesture sensitive surface)), so the convenience might be different with a different type of mouse. But pan/zoom with MM in Fusion? Aces.) Edit page Command key plus mouse to move up and down and command-shift mouse to move sideways, sorta like ugh.

So you're right, lots of consistency in that regard would be really nice. (With some gesture improvements added.)

I imagine something like this:

I also come from Vegas Pro also and I very much miss having Folder Tracks after moving to Resolve. Although, I'm not really a fan of a single button to make all of the Folders Tracks visible/hidden, I'd like more flexibility. IMO it would be more useful to have a list of tracks where you can select which specific tracks you want visible or hidden like in Fairlight.

My ideal implementation for Folder Tracks would be to allow effects and automation to be applied to the Folder Track and effect all tracks inside of the folder track (just like in Vegas Pro). Plus have a setting in the Inspector for Adjustment Clips to only apply to tracks inside of the Folder Track or apply to the entire project (as it currently does). This would add so much flexibility to the effects and Adjustment Clips.

One click not to hide all or dis-hide all, one click to SWITCH between the groups or nongroup VIEW only, while you can group them differently for each Group View mode.

So my suggestion is to have 2 main view options> 1. Video and audio with no grouping, 2. With one click you create a new Group View Preset, where you can create groups no matter the order of the tacks.

It means you can create multiple View Presets for the same timeline where for Each Group View Preset you can create multiple groups for the same available tracks.

Yes, you can collapse and expand one by one the groups in my idea. I did not say "One button to hide or dis-hide them all".

I said One button to switch between the default view that can be seen now with the video and audio tracks stacked and separated or One of the user generated Group View Preset for the given timeline. A user could create multiple View Presets for the same timeline.

When a View Preset mode is selected the order of the tracks changed but not the order number of them, so you get the order number you create when you are not using any of the Group View Presets.

In any Group View Presets you get the same order >only by their number< of the tracks theoretically but you VIEW them in a different order and optionally in groups. So when the original view #1 mentioned simple view mode, what can be seen now is selected and NOT any of the Group View Presets, then the tracks are stacked in their >by number< original order, with the same numbers.

One click not to hide all or dis-hide all, one click to SWITCH between the groups or nongroup VIEW only, while you can group them differently for each Group View mode.

My request regarding Folder Tracks is to do more than just organizational grouping by allowing video effects and Adjustment Clips to work with them. In Vegas Pro you can put effects on a Folder Track and the effect is applied to every track inside of the Folder Track. If Resolve implements Folder Tracks in this way, then removing the grouping and putting the tracks back to the original ungrouped state would mess up any effects/Adjustment Clips you have set up with the Folder Tracks.