I'm so confused and Resolve is kinda pissing me off.

roxics

roxics

Veteran
Every time I get the idea in my head that I'm going to buy a new computer or build a new computer, my benchmark is always "can it run Resolve on it?"
I'm not even a Resolve editor. I've been cutting on Premiere Pro for the last decade and I generally really like Premiere. I'm getting a little sick of paying for it every month but it's still my first choice and it runs great on all my machines.
But everyone always talks about and is switching to Resolve like it's the second coming of Jesus. So I'm thinking, I should at least try it out some more. I've messed with it a couple times but not much.

Every time I think I have a plan worked out for this new computer, I look back at the minimum specs to run Resolve and they're higher than I thought or higher than they used to be. It's as if the program is always trying to outdo my budget.

Case in point. I get the idea this time to build myself a new cheap affordable editing PC. But I still have it in my head this thing is going to be a powerhouse. Ryzen 5 3600, 16GB of fast ram, 512 NVMe drive, GTX 1650 Super. It's got to be a powerhouse compared to my old 2012 Mac Mini with Intel graphics that I currently edit on in Premiere Pro. And yet can still edit 4K there. So I'm thinking this is going to be a beast. Especially with that dedicated nVidia GPU. It's also going to run Resolve pretty good to then right. Right?

Well I look at the specs page for Resolve and what I see is a minimum Ryzen 7 requirement. And that's minimum! Everything else might work, but the GPU I was going to get also shows up at the very bottom on this guy's list.
https://www.richardlackey.com/the-best-gpu-davinci-resolve-nvidia-amd-2020/

Wow!

I'm starting to think I'm just not meant to run this software. Again, I like Premiere Pro. It's runs great on both my 2012 and 2017 Macs and even my old 2008 Macbook. It also ran great on my editing PCs I had at my old job. So why even care? I guess like I said, like many people, I'm just getting sick of paying every month for Premiere. It would be nice to buy the software and be done. I thought about FCPX as well, but I don't like being tied to just the Mac.

Let me know your thoughts. Am I overreacting here? Is Resolve even worth all this cost and hassle? I'm not even sure I'll like it. Am I going to be able to run it next year with a machine I build this year?

I'm not editing anything crazy. My main cameras are still a couple of C100s I use for client work and I also have a GH4 I've been using for vlogging type stuff lately, that's about it. Thinking about picking up a Canon R series body at some point in the next year. That's about it.
 
You can run the software on very mediocre computers many years old, but it will just be slow.

Your new computer would be fine, especially for the C100 and GH4.

Did you try it on your current computer?
 
BMD seems to think that the requirements are always driven by the very highest resolution work with a huge number of processing nodes on top. And they seem to be a little sloppy in their coding which of course requires more horsepower. I'm a few versions behind right now, so I'm sure the current version "will not" officially run on my machine now. I haven't had much call to get into it lately.
 
I'd take those requirements with a grain of salt. Only way you're going to know is to try it out. Resolve doesn't seem to run any better or worse on my machine than any other NLE, and I've got a lowly RX580 which doesn't use CUDA.
 
I think you have to remember that Resolve’s primary big boy toolset is colour correction. The recommended settings are aimed at making sure you can comfortably do that kind of work with all the complexity you can imagine.

If you’re mostly just editing, then I think you’ll find a more high spec machine won’t make any difference at all.

JB
 
I made the move to Resovle a number of years ago ... PP was in a state of continual error ... really not working well.

Still using the same 2010 Mac Pro ... but have upgraded it a bit.

The great advantage of Resolve is that you can download the non-Studio free version and get a good sense of how your
hardware will work ... as the differences between free and Studio are those of scale ... still the underlying architecture and
process is the same.

Memory ... decent GPU and fast drives will make a great difference.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised ... my 2010 Mac Pro can handle the 5.5K Raw from the new Canon ... edits in real time ... renders with 7 corrective nodes including sharpening and film grain at 1/2 real time ... good enough for me. I tend to sleep at least 6 hours a night ... don't need to be glued to the monitor for all the excitement of a render.
 
If it is for editing, I'd be inclined to stick with Adobe Premiere. I love the integration with Photoshop and other apps in the suite.

Resolve is getting nicer as an all in one, but I still only really use it to analyze footage. If Adobe implemented more photoshop sequence features into premiere or After Effects and improved the detail and readability of scopes and image analytics, I'd be happy with either.

FCPX is too simple, and like iMovie, I can't figure out where to even start. Davinci Resolve, PP, Avid, and FCP7 are all similar enough that if you know one, you can jump to the other. I literally cannot edit in FCPX. Seems like a nice program for fast turn arounds and sliders and styles sort of colouring. But I am not a power editor.

Resolve is god, but coming from Adobe or original Final Cut Pro, there will be small things that can be annoying. But if colouring is your main interest, then Resolve is like the photoshop for video, and there really is no other program for the masses.
 
What program do people think is the most stable?

I primarily used Premiere for 10 years. Love the power and design. But last year it became very buggy for me and screwed me on some important deadlines.

I tried the free version of Resolve for a spell. It crashed a couple times on me, but it was the beta release...

Now I'm on FCPX. Largely happy with it. Recently it has not always analyzed dominant motion when I ask it to. Had some weird glitches today with rendering a scaling jpeg, had to find a workaround. Not as bad as my Premiere bugs, but come on.

Different machine than the computer that had problems last year.

What do people think - which program is most stable?
 
ahalpert said:
What program do people think is the most stable?

I primarily used Premiere for 10 years. Love the power and design. But last year it became very buggy for me and screwed me on some important deadlines.

I tried the free version of Resolve for a spell. It crashed a couple times on me, but it was the beta release...

Now I'm on FCPX. Largely happy with it. Recently it has not always analyzed dominant motion when I ask it to. Had some weird glitches today with rendering a scaling jpeg, had to find a workaround. Not as bad as my Premiere bugs, but come on.

Different machine than the computer that had problems last year.

What do people think - which program is most stable?
Click to expand...

FCP X has been rock solid for me once I switched to an AMD card, the RX580, which is natively supported by OS X. Using Nvidia it used to crash quite often.
 
Whatever decision you make, keep in mind that Apple is transitioning from x86 to ARM. So FCPX will work of course, as they've already ported it, and will continue supporting it, no doubt. But legacy FCP is going to peter out completely for the new Apple hardware. Premiere might transition too (I assume?), but what happens with Resolve on new Mac hardware? Even if BM transitions to work on the new Mac hardware, there might be teething problems and who knows how stable it'll be, at least in the beginning... probably not optimal for mission critical purposes.

Looks to me like if you want to have the broadest compatibility, you should stay with PCs. Going forward, all you'll ever miss on the Mac is probably just FCPX - if you have no plans to use it, there'll literally be no reason to stick with Apple. YMMV.
 
I think Resolve is really great software. It's powerful, it's cheap and it's constantly updated and maintained. You can run it on Mac, Linux and Windows.

Reading your post a few things stand out:

roxics said:
Case in point. I get the idea this time to build myself a new cheap affordable editing PC. But I still have it in my head this thing is going to be a powerhouse. Ryzen 5 3600, 16GB of fast ram, 512 NVMe drive, GTX 1650 Super. It's got to be a powerhouse compared to my old 2012 Mac Mini with Intel graphics that I currently edit on in Premiere Pro. And yet can still edit 4K there. So I'm thinking this is going to be a beast. Especially with that dedicated nVidia GPU. It's also going to run Resolve pretty good to then right. Right?
Click to expand...

You're building a "cheap and affordable PC" and "....it's going to be a powerhouse". To me, cheap and powerhouse don't necessarily go hand in hand, but all is relative, I guess. You do mention what components you intend to use and that makes the discussion easier. I'm thinking you'll be the first to admit that these aren't 'powerhouse' specs, right? You go on to say "compared to an old Mac mini", but to me 'power' is measured in absolute, not relative, terms.

Breaking it down with a few thoughts:

The CPU is fine. Resolve will make use of a beefy CPU for realtime decoding/debayering and rendering, but the first thing you're looking for is realtime playback on the edit page and color page. The Ryzen 5 has enough power to cover a lot of common scenarios and types of footage.

The GPU is fine for editing. If we think about it, editing is not much more than marking in and out points and playing footage back. Layering up on footage or adding effects will increasingly demand more of the computer, but a lot of tasks can be covered with few layers and little overlap.

This GPU is not considered powerful on the Color page. But the beauty of Resolve is that it's resolution independent. This allows me to work in a HD timeline on an old 5K iMac from 2015 and later bring the disk to my office and continue working on the same project and just change timeline resolution to what I need. All tracked windows and other manipulations will scale perfectly. Your GPU would be smooth in HD and starting out in UHD. Depending on complexity you would lose realtime playback in UHD. I'm not going to suggest a card costing twice as much, but if you could move up to a 1660 with 6GB of video RAM that would be nice.

16GB of RAM is absolute entry level these days. But RAM doesn't speed anything up anyway (but might slow you down if you have too little). Resolve in itself can be happy with 16GB.

Anyway, I think you should recalibrate your view of your system to what it is: entry level bang for buck, and think of it that way.

Also concerning video work: stringing a few clips together in a NLE is the equivalence of word editing in terms of compute power needs. Color grading is a bit different since it's easy to set up a chain of events that all add up. The computer will need to be able to handle the resolution and effects of the compound frame in video memory and do the computations in realtime for normal playback.

But more important than being able to handle the next block buster project on a small machine is to start investing in your knowledge and skills in this exciting software. And that is definitely possible on the rig you mention.
 
James0b57 said:
FCPX is too simple, and like iMovie, I can't figure out where to even start.
Click to expand...

This statement is rather naive. You literally cannot edit in FCP X because you have not devoted the 3 days necessary to learn it, it's that simple. You start with Ripple Training and you learn it. FCP X is the fastest editor available and offers
a ton of sophisitcated capability, but it's via being a good assistant editor and loading and logging your footage in a very specific way, the right way. It doesn't use the now ancient traditional three point editing paradigm that the other three do.
And that's why it's faster overall, and faster to render is because it's optimized with Apple hardware and the OS in a way that none of the other can be optimized. FCP X is the editing paradox. If you are willing to disregard all that you
know about "traditional" editing interfaces and workflows, you are rewarded with speed, stability, flexibility, it's the only metadata driven editing app on the market. If you don't log, keyword and add metadata to your clips, you are ignoring
about 50% of the power of the program. Most editors are too lazy to spend a little time logging their footage correctly on ingest. You don't have to, you can just throw your footage into FCP X and have an edited piece quicker than any of
the other three. But if you do big, complex, longer form editing, FCP X is amazing in the way you can view, categorize, and work with your data. "Too simple" means that you simply don't understand how it works. Simple is better, faster, easier
to understand what's going on. I just edited ten :60 to two minute training videos last weekend. All were shot three camera, with a computer screen recording also, using my Sound Devices Mix Pre for audio. So I had a "four camera shoot"
essentially plus dual system sound. I didn't even use my Tentacle Sync Es, it was quicker and better organization to just use a traditional clapper slate. FCP X used the audio to sync all five sources in a matter of seconds and I had ten pieces edited
in 2 days, including sound mix, graphics, color correction. There is no way I could have done the same amount of work in two days using any of the other three apps.

I use all four of the editing platforms, quite often. You probably aren't a hardcore Resolve editor but the new Cut page in Resolve 100% emulates FCP X's magnetic timeline. So Resolve
is the only editor on the market that can use the tradtional, slow clunky viewer/canvas/timeline paradigm, or the FCP X magnetic, trackless timeline. I doubt Resolve would have spent
the time and money to engineer that ability unless they though that perhaps editors are waking up and realizing the 30 year old parameter of the traditional editing interface is outdated.

In my mind, there is only one reason to use Premiere and that's After Effects. If you are an editor who is fluent in After Effects, using Premiere to edit with kind of makes sense. If you don't
know and use AE and need that workflow integration, Premiere is slow, clunky, unstable compared to the other three, plus you get Adobe dinging your credit card monthly for the rest of
your working life. The past three years of Premiere updates have done little but add bloatware and make the app less stable. Premiere needs a complete overhaul of it's underlying code
to become stable and Adobe has been reticent to spend the time and money to do so. Examine the benchmarks on stability, rendering speed and interface speed, Premiere is the tool of
masochists. I only use it for two clients who force me to because they want Premiere files for in house use after I am done editing their projects. Going from any of the other three to
Premiere always feels like my speed dropped 30%. Read Abe's experience with Premiere, I've heard it over and over, "It became very buggy, screwed me on deadlines". Who needs that
noise in their life?
 
puredrifting said:
This statement is rather naive. You literally cannot edit in FCP X because you have not devoted the 3 days necessary to learn it, it's that simple. You start with Ripple Training and you learn it. FCP X is the fastest editor available and offers
Click to expand...
You may have read that I don't do much post. I have, but I don't. I am not a power editor. So, until I need something in FCPX, I am fine just being aware that it is fast and good. The simplicity and lack of clutter seems like a good thing. It has an attractive UI. I don't need to be naive for it to not be immediately intuitive. We are all aware it has potential to be a faster editor. Me admitting I cannot edit in iMovie was a stab on my own mental capabilities. How dumb does a guy have to be to not be able to use iMovie? ;) But "naive"? No, not naive.
 
There are things about FCP X that are definitely not intuitive. The whole 'storyline' paradigm is awkward to work with, especially when you start revising and have layers of audio. I've cut an entire feature on it and dozens of other projects and I still can't get completely used to it. I still use FCP 7 for the bulk of my trailer work. I'm just faster on it, and performance is about equal working with PRORES. And FCP X has one major problem in that when you consolidate, it doesn't trim media to only what you're using, it saves the entire clip and my clips are 90 minutes long so I get no drive space savings. There are third party programs that do this but they're a hassle. For long for projects, or stuff with a lot of MP4 or H.264 media I'll cut in FCP X for the other advantages -- metadata, render speed, surround mixing capability.
 
Batutta said:
There are things about FCP X that are definitely not intuitive. The whole 'storyline' paradigm is awkward to work with, especially when you start revising and have layers of audio. I've cut an entire feature on it and dozens of other projects and I still can't get completely used to it. I still use FCP 7 for the bulk of my trailer work. I'm just faster on it, and performance is about equal working with PRORES. And FCP X has one major problem in that when you consolidate, it doesn't trim media to only what you're using, it saves the entire clip and my clips are 90 minutes long so I get no drive space savings. There are third party programs that do this but they're a hassle. For long for projects, or stuff with a lot of MP4 or H.264 media I'll cut in FCP X for the other advantages -- metadata, render speed, surround mixing capability.
Click to expand...
Good to know.

I find simple UI's requiring a bit of familiarity and learned language. If I had never used an iPhone, and then someone handed me an iPhone 11, I don't think I'd know how to use it. But since I have been grafted into the iPhone UI over years, the whole thing seems intuitive.

Speed in editing is two different things sometimes. For some types of editors, traditional NLE is actually faster. Just depends on what exactly is trying to be done.
 
Puredrifting, what is your sync workflow? I might be missing something, but I have to select every clip to sync, ask the program to sync them, and do this for every take. Then it works beautifully. But when I used to use pluraleyes, I could just throw everything into the program and let it sort it all out for me.

Now that I know FCPX, I don't find it radically different from the other NLEs. Sometimes it's just different terminology or a different way of approaching the same thing. Sometimes the magnetic timeline speeds things up, sometimes I wish I had designated tracks to select and turn off. I LOVE being able to nudge clips up and down. Some things are definitely faster.

And don't get me started on being able to keep editing while you have an export cooking - that freaking rocks. And background rendering too. Oh - and never having to saaaaaave!

But what I most need is not to troubleshoot. Like Vimeo today - not converting my uploads! Why lord? Support confirmed it's a them problem today. Had to go to youtube. Thank God for options and that I didn't absolutely need Vimeo this time.
 
Last edited:
Pudget systems has a ton of information about PC based Resolve systems.
I build my own PC's. I always select the second best parts (CPU, GPU etc). That gives the best bang for the buck. For me that is AMD ryzen 3700 and nvidia RTX 2070. Not top, also not top prices. Performance is very good.
32MB of fast memory and SSD disks also work well.
 
AndreeOnline said:
I think Resolve is really great software. It's powerful, it's cheap and it's constantly updated and maintained. You can run it on Mac, Linux and Windows.

Reading your post a few things stand out:



You're building a "cheap and affordable PC" and "....it's going to be a powerhouse". To me, cheap and powerhouse don't necessarily go hand in hand, but all is relative, I guess. You do mention what components you intend to use and that makes the discussion easier. I'm thinking you'll be the first to admit that these aren't 'powerhouse' specs, right? You go on to say "compared to an old Mac mini", but to me 'power' is measured in absolute, not relative, terms.

Breaking it down with a few thoughts:

The CPU is fine. Resolve will make use of a beefy CPU for realtime decoding/debayering and rendering, but the first thing you're looking for is realtime playback on the edit page and color page. The Ryzen 5 has enough power to cover a lot of common scenarios and types of footage.

The GPU is fine for editing. If we think about it, editing is not much more than marking in and out points and playing footage back. Layering up on footage or adding effects will increasingly demand more of the computer, but a lot of tasks can be covered with few layers and little overlap.

This GPU is not considered powerful on the Color page. But the beauty of Resolve is that it's resolution independent. This allows me to work in a HD timeline on an old 5K iMac from 2015 and later bring the disk to my office and continue working on the same project and just change timeline resolution to what I need. All tracked windows and other manipulations will scale perfectly. Your GPU would be smooth in HD and starting out in UHD. Depending on complexity you would lose realtime playback in UHD. I'm not going to suggest a card costing twice as much, but if you could move up to a 1660 with 6GB of video RAM that would be nice.

16GB of RAM is absolute entry level these days. But RAM doesn't speed anything up anyway (but might slow you down if you have too little). Resolve in itself can be happy with 16GB.

Anyway, I think you should recalibrate your view of your system to what it is: entry level bang for buck, and think of it that way.

Also concerning video work: stringing a few clips together in a NLE is the equivalence of word editing in terms of compute power needs. Color grading is a bit different since it's easy to set up a chain of events that all add up. The computer will need to be able to handle the resolution and effects of the compound frame in video memory and do the computations in realtime for normal playback.

But more important than being able to handle the next block buster project on a small machine is to start investing in your knowledge and skills in this exciting software. And that is definitely possible on the rig you mention.
Click to expand...

lol you're 100% right. I shouldn't be calling it a powerhouse. It's completely in reference to my 2012 Mac Mini with its integrated GPU that has never been able to install Resolve. But to be fair, that Mac Mini has done me well over the years and made me money. It has run Premiere Pro editing HD and even my GH4 4K footage just fine for me. I still cut that kind of footage on it today. Admittedly that isn't heavy footage. We're talking 24Mbps and 100Mbps H.264 respectively. But that is what I shoot. For now at least. But maybe my expectations as an editor aren't super high either. My timeline preview is usually set to 1/4 resolution during playback and I'm fine with that. If it stutters a bit, I'm fine with that too. If I get better performance with a new machine I'll be happy. What I'm hoping for is faster render times.

If I'm being completely honest with myself my needs right now fall somewhere between hobbyist and professional. Despite that fact that this is what I do for a living (barely right now), my client demands aren't huge and the types of videos I'm doing are fairly straight forward corporate talking heads with b-roll type stuff. That's all still 1080p outside of the occasional 4K drone footage I might get from a drone operator or something. But that's not every shoot. Also 4K from my GH4 which has now been mostly reserved for just personal vlogging videos I've started making. Even then I'm getting sick of the file sizes those are taking up so I may just go to my C100s for that going forward.

When it comes to Resolve I think I'm just curious more than anything, since it gets a lot of talk lately and it has a one time price. I started with Premiere back in the late 90s and then jumped for Vegas Video/Vegas Pro for nearly a decade before going to Premiere Pro back in 2010/11. So I have switched before.

I did try out FCPX a few years ago and it was faster than Premiere Pro in a lot of ways. There were things I really liked about it. Like being able to burn a Blu-ray from the timeline. And I especially like the one time price. But I didn't like that I couldn't do multiple sequences and then embed sequences into other sequences. Maybe there is a way to do that and I just don't know how or maybe there is a better way. But often when I edit I'll duplicate a sequence when the client comes back to me with edits, that way I have a backup of the original and a new version I can start making changes on. Granted I haven't demoed FCPX in years so maybe a lot has changed, but I'm not sure how you would do that in that software. Last I checked FCPX didn't have native support for LUTs either or those Lumetri kind of exposure tools and stuff you get in Premiere Pro. But again, it's been years. So hopefully that changed.

My biggest issue with FCPX though is that it's Mac only. While I've also been Mac (mostly) for the last decade, I don't know if I want to be tied into Mac right now, especially with the current architecture upheaval. And truth be told the timing isn't right. I've got the money right now to build/buy a new machine but that may not be true six months from now. Yet right now feels like a bad time to buy a new Mac. You may get a great Intel machine that works for years to come with great support from Apple, or a machine Apple decides to limit OS and software features on because it's not running their magic silicon. And at any time they can pull the plug and say you're cut off from OS updates. Which they just did for my 2012 Mac Mini, which can't install OS11. Even though I'm sure Microsoft would be happy to let me install the newest version of Windows 10 on it. Call me a little bitter. That machine still doesn't feel that old to me. It's running a quad core I7.

I may be old fashioned but I still like Premiere Pro. There wouldn't even be a debate if I didn't have to put out money for it every month. With work being slower, lately that's been an issue, though hopefully that changes. It's starting to. Still, it would be nice to pay once and be done. Also just kinda itching to try something new. Just for the sake of it.

I thank you all for all your input. :)
 
James0b57 said:
You may have read that I don't do much post. I have, but I don't. I am not a power editor. So, until I need something in FCPX, I am fine just being aware that it is fast and good. The simplicity and lack of clutter seems like a good thing. It has an attractive UI. I don't need to be naive for it to not be immediately intuitive. We are all aware it has potential to be a faster editor. Me admitting I cannot edit in iMovie was a stab on my own mental capabilities. How dumb does a guy have to be to not be able to use iMovie? ;) But "naive"? No, not naive.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, I said your statement was naive, not you are naive. I don't know you, other than your posts and you seem to be a pretty knowledgable DP. My point was, you cannot edit in FCP X because you choose to not learn it. I co-founded the Los Angeles Final Cut ProUser Group with Michael Horton, the largest FCP user group in the world. I have been on FCP since it was beta from it's PC originated MacroMedia design. I sort of switch around from not editing for months to lately under Quarantine, where I have been editing a lot more than shooting, so while I wouldn't consider myself a pro video editor who only edits for a living, I get pretty deep with it and I've used AVID, FCP, lately Resolve and Premiere for decades so I've been down the road with all four. FCP X, when it came out, I felt the same way, it was uninutitive, the trackless editing and magnetic timeline were frustrating. Like many here, I stayed on FCP 7.1 for waaaaay too long, when it had been EOL for years. To be fair, the early versions of FCP X were a mess. That's where incorrect perception many editors express came from, they tried it back when it first came out and I will concede, it wasn't very good. But the FCP X of today versus five years ago are basically two different programs. Apple really listened and invested in updating the heck out of it with most, not every feature that pro editors were demanding.

The issue for most editors today in trying it or switching to it is, they think FCP X should function the exact same way all other editing system have since the dawn of the NLE and it simply doesn't. It uses a new paradigm. Pro editors HATE change. Embrace it and you'll go back to any of the other three and almost laugh out loud at how "linear" they are because of the inherent limitations of their three window, outmoded interface and workflow. It's not that AVID, Resolve and Premiere are bad, they are all great tools, but they are outdated while FCP X is literally the future. The other three just slow you down to a crawl with all of the different things you have to click on, how many mouse strokes it takes to achieve an operation you do often and the limitations of their outdated overall workflows.

I still contend that any person can sit down with an instructor or good tutorials for anywhere from a day to three days and they can FLY on FCP X. People just refuse to invest the time to do so, then say it sucks. IMHO, that viewpoint is naive. It's no different than going from an Arri BL4 to an C300 MKII. They just work in radically different ways to accomplish a similar end result.
And if you had only operated or AC'd film cameras, you could probably learn to operate the C300 MKII really quite well in less than three days. Then you would marvel at the ease of use, speed, size, weight and sophistication that the C300 MKII offers that simply is impossible with the BL4.

It's weird, I'm one of the few editors I know who basically can edit on anything, I don't really care which tool I have to use to edit a project and I can use all of them, at least to a certain level, some faster/better than others. Most people seem to get very religious about their choice of editing program,
it's my way or the highway and all other choices suck. To me, especially if you are a pro editor, is costing you money because you only know one or two of the top four software. Every person who edits should watch Off The Tracks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfII0EcbCsg If you do, it will all begin to
make a lot more sense of why FCP X is the way it is and how it is one of the most brilliant strategic moves in modern software history. Randy Ubillos is a genius and the reasoning behind it is quite brilliant. You may not like it, but you'll at least understand the long term strategy behind it.

It's actually easier for newbs to learn FCP X than experienced editors because experienced editors try to make it function like AVID or FCP 7.1 and it simply won't. The standard put down when FCP X first came out was that it was iMovie Pro. And that's funny, because FCP X IS iMovie Pro, Apple and Randy Ubillos (The guy who invented Adobe Premiere, who also conceived the FCP and then FCP X interface design) designed FCP X to be super easy for new editors to learn. And it is much, much easier to learn than Premiere or AVID.

There are things that make each tool great:

FCP X - speed, metadata implementation, data driven workflow
AVID - ultra reliable, simple, best shared workflow of any of the four
Premiere - Seamless, effortless, integration with AE, Illustrator and Photoshop
Resolve - Only system that let's you choose between two editing paradigms, Color page, Fairlight Audio, Fusion, constant updates

And there are plenty of drawbacks to each too, of course.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top