Perpetual Beta?

I am fairly new to the BMD ecosystem, and absolutely love the hardware and the workflow. I came into BMD right at around the v16 beta's now they are on v17 beta. Why not release a gold version? Why the the constant "Beta" releases? This is a bit unusual for software releases. To me, "beta" = unstable/not ready for prime time. My experience has always been not to use beta software for production projects.

Why does BMD use this software release model? Has this always been the case? When can we expect the final release?

Are you thinking of 16.3 beta? That does seem to be perpetual, but I'd speculate that's because it fell behind and resources were grabbed for M1-based Macs, etc, and v17.0 has basically superseded it.

Similarly having a v17.0 beta and v17.1 beta simultaneously is a bit weird. I would've used a different nomenclature to distinguish the Intel versus M1 Mac versions. It's a bit confusing, and might've been better named 17.0b1 (say) and 17.0mb1 (or something like that. At some point, they'll have a single version number for Intel PCs, Intel Macs, Intel Linux, and M1 Macs.

Other than that, I haven't seen anything unusual about BMD. They have a stable v16.2 and a beta v17. Just as Blender has a stable 2.91 and an experimental 2.92. Apple just released Big Sur 11.1, but a week ago they had a stable Big Sur 11.0 and a beta 11.1. I dropped off of the public beta train for a while, but if I hadn't I'd probably have a Big Sur 11.2 beta now.

The betas have been stable enough that I'm doing real things with them. I'm doing volunteer work and am willing to take the risks involved in betas, with some precautions, but if my livelihood depended on it I'd still be on the stable v16.2. A larger shop could have a single machine testing the v17.0 beta to give feedback and to take advantage of new features when appropriate -- maintaining the ability to switch to a v16.2 machine if beta bugs bite.

Can you not use v16.2? Public betas, as you note, are previews that entail risks for individuals that choose to use them, but ultimately make a more stable product since it's much more widely tested than BMD could do in-house.

Some manufacturers only use internal beta testing and maybe extend that to a select group of "power users". Some manufacturers follow internal/private beta testing with public beta testing, and it's usually a win-win situation. Too many manufacturers release what should be called public betas but they call them official releases and that is a disaster for users.

Are you thinking of 16.3 beta? That does seem to be perpetual, but I'd speculate that's because it fell behind and resources were grabbed for M1-based Macs, etc, and v17.0 has basically superseded it.

Similarly having a v17.0 beta and v17.1 beta simultaneously is a bit weird. I would've used a different nomenclature to distinguish the Intel versus M1 Mac versions. It's a bit confusing, and might've been better named 17.0b1 (say) and 17.0mb1 (or something like that. At some point, they'll have a single version number for Intel PCs, Intel Macs, Intel Linux, and M1 Macs.

Other than that, I haven't seen anything unusual about BMD. They have a stable v16.2 and a beta v17. Just as Blender has a stable 2.91 and an experimental 2.92. Apple just released Big Sur 11.1, but a week ago they had a stable Big Sur 11.0 and a beta 11.1. I dropped off of the public beta train for a while, but if I hadn't I'd probably have a Big Sur 11.2 beta now.

The betas have been stable enough that I'm doing real things with them. I'm doing volunteer work and am willing to take the risks involved in betas, with some precautions, but if my livelihood depended on it I'd still be on the stable v16.2. A larger shop could have a single machine testing the v17.0 beta to give feedback and to take advantage of new features when appropriate -- maintaining the ability to switch to a v16.2 machine if beta bugs bite.

Can you not use v16.2? Public betas, as you note, are previews that entail risks for individuals that choose to use them, but ultimately make a more stable product since it's much more widely tested than BMD could do in-house.

Some manufacturers only use internal beta testing and maybe extend that to a select group of "power users". Some manufacturers follow internal/private beta testing with public beta testing, and it's usually a win-win situation. Too many manufacturers release what should be called public betas but they call them official releases and that is a disaster for users.

I get what you are saying from an iOS perspective, but Windows 10 (which is what I use), has been out for a while and is stable. Can I use v16.2, yes, but there are so many nice new features in 17, that I wish they would release the gold version. My guess is that BMD either contracts their software development, and or they have a small team of developers. Again, based on my experience with the software I use, DR has been in beta longer than what I typically see. If this is "normal" for BMD, then I guess I just have to get used to it.

Can I use v16.2, yes, but there are so many nice new feature in 17, that I wish they would release the gold version.

I don't understand. BMD could remove the "beta" from b5 and call it gold. Would you then decide to use it, in light of the bugs you read about on the forums? The software is the same, but the name is changed and that makes the difference?

On the other hand, they can't just speed up finding all bugs and fix them all so they can feel comfortable in removing the beta designation. It's not that easy. So if you want "now", you're asking for a name change, which would be just one factor in your decision to use it or not.

BMD is doing us a big favor by calling this a public beta. I've read about things, dipped my toe in, and decided to switch permanently, and it's worked well for me. You could also do so. But many folks who make their sole income through Resolve will wait. In fact, a significant number will wait beyond v17.0 final release until there's a v17.2 final release, and then they'll adopt v17.0.x.

Now if they called everything beta forever -- perhaps trying to avoid criticism or responsibility for bugs -- that would be very bad. But it's not unusual to have months of private/internal betas followed by months of public betas. Every piece of software I've used that had a public beta worked this way. (And maybe pieces of software that suddenly released "gold" versions without public betas were actually public betas -- just not named that way, and it burned folks.)

"Public Beta" doesn't mean "buggy and it's going to crash all over the place" as an internal beta might imply. It simply warns you that there is a level of risk and you have to make an informed decision of whether shiny new things are worth the potential risk to you. (For me, one factor is that I'm on a Mac, and Resolve tends to be more reliable on Macs due to Apple's tighter control over GPUs -- Resolve uses GPUs heavily and pushes them to their limits. If I were on a PC -- especially an Nvidia GPU -- I'd be much more hesitant.)

Can I use v16.2, yes, but there are so many nice new feature in 17, that I wish they would release the gold version.

I don't understand. BMD could remove the "beta" from b5 and call it gold. Would you then decide to use it, in light of the bugs you read about on the forums? The software is the same, but the name is changed and that makes the difference?

All software has bugs. I know this all too well. But there is a confidence in Gold releases because it has been tested to the point where the software developers feel it is stable. from that point on, they have minor version .0x releases to handle any minor bugs. Major releases (version x.x), are for feature enhancements. Beta on the other hand is work in progress with known bugs that have been unresolved. Beta tells me that there is a lack of confidence in the release.

Rather than have a stable release and then add feature enhancements, BMD continues to add enhancements to a beta release further increasing the chances of instability. Again, based on my experience (full disclosure my "real job" is a business/application systems analyst), this is not normal for software development. BMD obviously has a different software design/release model, and I am just wondering why.

EDIT:
I am also suspect as to why on BMD's website, they are not advertising this release as a beta on their main page. It's not until you go do download it that you realize it's a beta. This to me is also odd.

BMD will keep this in beta for many months. They always have, I believe. Many of those who have used Resolve for years will skip using it in a production environment until at least the X.2 or X.2.1 gold release (so 17.2.1 for this new release - probably 6 months from now). I myself will use it in non-critical projects even while in beta, but I doubt you would find it in widespread use in production shops.

I think it's brilliant that they allow us early testing and feedback for their next version and I suspect it is far cheaper (for BMD) and provides more coverage than hiring internal teams of testers (of course, I have no idea what internal structure BMD uses so they may also have a large team of testers).

Why not release a gold version?

16.2.7

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/suppor ... and-fusion

(Scroll down the list.)

I actually like it.
There are stable gold versions that are released.
I think it is fantastic that BMD releases public betas.
This allows the public and those that use the software everyday in a variety of different role and settings and using a wide variety of hardware to really kick the tires and provide that feedback to BMD. A lot of input from the public, the people who really use the software, is then incorporated into the software and future versions.
It is a "use at your own risk" type of thing as is any beta. Using beta software in a production environment is never a good idea as there are a number of unknowns and plenty of unresolved issues.
Most people using the betas do so because they want to see what new features there are and provide valuable input to BMD.
They will run a parallel environment, setting aside a test system to beat on the betas while they leave their choice of a stable build on production systems.

[Shrinivas Ramani]

I've responded before on this, as has Peter. In summary:

16.2.7 is the latest non-beta.
16.3 is 16.2.7 with the new Blackmagic RAW SDK - which is itself in beta. We ask people to stick to 16.2.7 if they don't need the newest Blackmagic RAW support.

17.0 is in beta - as is with the usual product refresh cycle.
17.1 is mac only. It is essentially 17.0 with universal binary support for both M1 macs and Intel macs. It is in beta as the hardware is still new and remnant issues are being ironed out.

All versions - right up from v10 are available in our support page - just scroll down the first tab:
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/suppor ... and-fusion

I hope that clarifies things.

Usually the first public betas are released at NAB in April, with the final release around August. This year the first public beta of v17 was released in November.

v16 has been out of beta for one year and four months now, with plenty of features added in the various point releases. I don't really see the problem. While there's always room for improvement, BMD are absolutely leading the game when it comes to pace of development in the industry.

I have to say I agree with what has been said here, stick to the Gold 16.2x and wait for the new features in 17.xx to be stable, or gamble with a Beta version.
I only use Resolve on a hobby level and I am constantly amazed by the capabilities of the free version.
I have, however downloaded the Beta version and I am happy to help with testing, as it feels like I am giving something back for the use of this excellent platform at no cost. I have in fact reported a bug which has now been fixed in 17.05, this makes me feel I have earned the right to use the free software, guilt free!!
Rest assured when you get the shiny Gold 17.xx version, it will be as stable as the thousands of unpaid Beta testers have been able to make it, on the myriad of set-ups that it will have been exposed to over the 6 months or so.
If you are not happy being an unpaid Beta tester then stick with 16.2x..... its Golden!!

I’m a little confused on today’s 17 Beta 5 release. Is it newer than the 17.1 Beta 5 release from yesterday?

They're the same.

17b5 for Windows, macs and Linux.

17.1b5 for M1 and Intel macs.

Rather than have a stable release and then add feature enhancements, BMD continues to add enhancements to a beta release further increasing the chances of instability.

I'm curious what you're referring to here? I don't think I've seen any additional features/enhancements appear over the course of the (short!) 17 beta so far, from B1-B5. I can't speak to the 16.3 beta however.

Honestly, as a software developer, there's no way I'd call 17 as being in beta for long at all. I obviously don't know what BMD's schedule looks like with regards to where they start open betas vs internal betas vs internal alphas, etc - but I use many products with annual release schedules that have 6-9 month beta periods due to the way they interleave release cycles.

You mentioned Windows 10, and that's a great example of a product with a massive, continuious public beta period! You just aren't seeing it because you aren't enrolled in their betas (which they call the more marketing friendly "Windows Insider Program").

I won't deny that BMD puts the public beta right up front, in your face - and I can see how people who are more conservative than myself could be surprised by that. If I was to guess at the reason, I think it's because it's something that sets them apart as others have mentioned, and they want people to see that they have a rapid pace of development and true innovation unlike their competitors. DR may be lacking some parts compared to other NLE suites, but I can't see anyone believing it'll stay that way; where as with some other companies I won't name, the expectation is that if it's not there you're unlikely to ever see it as it wasn't identified as "the new shiney thing that Marketing can sell", otherwise it'd already be there.

I am fairly new to the BMD ecosystem, and absolutely love the hardware and the workflow. I came into BMD right at around the v16 beta's now they are on v17 beta. Why not release a gold version? Why the the constant "Beta" releases? This is a bit unusual for software releases. To me, "beta" = unstable/not ready for prime time. My experience has always been not to use beta software for production projects.

Why does BMD use this software release model? Has this always been the case? When can we expect the final release?

17.x is a public beta. Would a close beta be better? You release a gold version when you reached a point that you determine is good enough in terms of stability. Obviously BM has not.


16.x is the current official release. I'm not understanding your question/request really.

I'm not understanding your question/request really.

Al's experience with Resolve is recent and limited. There has been no stable releases since he started using Resolve, but that's only because the most recent stable came out before he started using Resolve.

So from his point of view, there's only been betas released.

I love the frequency of the beta roll out for 17. Previous versions like 14, 15, and 16 were once a month. 17 is, so far, once every week or two. We're getting bug fixes much faster, maybe not in the same quantity, but every little bit helps when you're using it with an actual project. BTW for color work it's been quite stable since b3

Rather than have a stable release and then add feature enhancements, BMD continues to add enhancements to a beta release further increasing the chances of instability.

No they haven't. What feature have they added to v17 public beta since it was first released? I'm not aware of any actual enhancements. They've fixed things that don't work. They've eliminated exceptions to the rule. But you are not describing things correctly in either direction.

They are not keeping it in beta by adding feature after feature and not fixing bugs. Nor is it noticeably unstable for most users. As I've repeatedly said, I use it exclusively and I've read posts by many others who do also. (But I get large studios that are still on 16.1 or even 15 due to an abundance of caution.)

To the degree that it has bugs, they are getting fixed. Look at the beta release notes for each beta in the DaVinci Resolve forum. A couple of dozen bug fixes per update. No substantially new features that I remember.

I think the best way to express this is that "Black Magic likes to involve the users in the development process as much as possible." Especially when there are so many hardware variables out there. The community gets to "proof read" the product before committing to a hard release.

These Betas have been very stable for me and I'm using them full time since 17.3 (If I was a large production house I might have waited though, which is why they label them beta).

Thanks everyone for the insight. It gives me a clearer picture of how BMD does things. As I said from the onset, I love BMD products. The workflow is simply amazing. It works like my brain thinks, which is no easy task. DaVinci Resolve to me, is probably one of the easiest pieces of software to learn. Fusion is another story

Anything can be learned, when you have good instructions.

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

Can't say I see the point of having both 7.1b and 17.0b for macos. As I understand it, 17.1 is for BigSur, M1s & Intel, is therefore 'universal' & so this begs the question 'why 17.0?'

I'm running a multiboot mac pro with Big Sur, Catalina & Windows 10 for workstations. Big Sur was a process of cutting over on a development volume since early betas to see what's what, what apps work, when updates come out etc. Most recently with the Big Sur 11.1 release I'm now pretty much using Big Sur full time & the Catalina volume will soon be retired.

So, am still failing to see the need for 17.0. 17.1 seems to run fine on both of the macos versions here (well, as far as betas go & this one hasn't given me too much grief).

Some plugins don't work in 17.1 on Intel Macs while they work fine in 17.0, so they must be significantly different under the hood even if 17.1 is universal (I haven't seen BMD claim it's universal at this time).

Some plugins don't work in 17.1 on Intel Macs while they work fine in 17.0, so they must be significantly different under the hood even if 17.1 is universal (I haven't seen BMD claim it's universal at this time).

Yeah, good point. eg, FilmConvertPro won't run in Big Sur on 17.1.

Updates:
Removed Resolve Studio 17.1b4 from Big Sur & clean installed 17.0b5. Much improved in that it now runs Filmconvert Pro Nitrate just fine. On 17.1, this would only show a green screen. I also notice that Rubber Monkey now indicates 'does not work on OFX M1 version'.

So, perhaps the 'Big Sur' support (or not) was the confusing issue for me. Resolve 17.0b5 runs just fine on Catalina, Big Sur (& Win10 for that matter). Shall stay with 17.0 betas now & avoid 17.1 altogether.

Very nice betas BTW, on my setup. Far different to the earlier, dreadful b16 programme & which crashed or locked up the computer in most sessions. To date I've had zero crashes with 17 betas but my needs are relatively straightforward: 4k H264 on 1080p timelines, colour correction, a few plugs like Neat Video & Filmconvert. Roundtrip to Nuendo for audio mix & finally render out to QT & Handbreak.

There's nothing different between what BMD is doing and what other companies that offer public betas do.
As mentioned already Windows has Windows Insider. I'm using Ableton's beta right now.

It usually takes a few months for a beta to become a stable release and then at some point a new beta will show up. You don't have to be on the betas, you can stay on the latest released versions (which is usually recommended because betas have bugs).

If new features are added during work on betas, that's fine as well. A company can choose what they want to include with a finished version before releasing it.

They could go with smaller releases with fewer features to get a quicker release cycle but this is a major version release and not a dot release, so that doesn't make sense.

Also, the "gold master" isn't a thing anymore in software or games.

Anything can be learned, when you have good instructions.

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

I couldn't agree more. This is another aspect of BMD that I really like, their training. I am fairly new to the whole visual effects thing. For now, I find Fusion's node based interface a bit confusing and not very intuitive. The first time through the Fusion training (basic), I was like The second & third time,

To your point though, I just need to keep practicing.