Blackmagic Design Announces DaVinci Resolve 17.3

All,

Lots of news flying around, sadly none from Apple.


www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/release/20210819-02

Fremont, CA, USA - Thursday, August 19, 2021 - Blackmagic Design today announced DaVinci Resolve 17.3 which adds support for a completely new processing engine that transforms the speed of DaVinci Resolve to work up to 3 times faster on Apple Mac models with the M1 chip. With this massive speed increase, customers can now play back, edit and grade 4K projects faster, and can even work on 8K projects on an Apple M1 notebook. The new processing engine uses tile based rendering, which also gives customers up to 30% longer battery life on laptop computers when working in DaVinci Resolve.


“This is truly an amazing update that gives customers huge performance and power efficiency gains on Mac models with M1, and it totally transforms your computer, simply by downloading this free of charge DaVinci Resolve software update” said Grant Petty, Blackmagic Design CEO. “This speed increase is stunning and it’s hard to believe. I have not seen a speed improvement this large since the original 68000 to Power PC transition back in the 1990's and it is just amazing. Who would have thought just a year ago that multiple 4K streams could be played back and edited natively on a MacBook Air, but it’s easy now on DaVinci Resolve with M1. The engineering team has worked so hard on this new image processing engine for DaVinci Resolve, and it is an incredibly exciting time to be developing software for the Mac!”

peteramwiggins wrote:

...completely new processing engine that transforms the speed of DaVinci Resolve to work up to 3 times faster on Apple Mac models with the M1 chip. With this massive speed increase, customers can now play back, edit and grade 4K projects faster, and can even work on 8K projects on an Apple M1 notebook. The new processing engine uses tile based rendering, which also gives customers up to 30% longer battery life on laptop computers when working in DaVinci Resolve...

That is great news, but there is a deeply-ingrained viewpoint among many Resolve users that Apple Silicon  machines (not just M1) cannot be used for serious work due to perceived GPU deficiencies, and you really need a high-end machine with an nVidia 3080 GPU. Here are some recent example quotes:

"Apple M1 GPU could take years to catch up with 3070/3080"

"Apple would have to leap forwards 6+ generations of GPU tech iteration in one product cycle for the M1X/M2 (whatever they call it) to be comparable to the GPUs shipping in mid-range Windows notebooks."

It will be interesting to see how long it takes the Resolve community to understand there is another way forward, which involves more efficient tile-based deferred rendering and unified memory. Maybe when they see 17.3 and later running on M1X they will finally understand it.

It is conceivable that within six months, an M1X MacBook might ship which is cheaper than the nVidia 3080 GPU *alone* in desktop machines, yet which is competitive on well-written NLE software.

If there's one thing I have learned over the past years is that many "comments" anywhere on the web come from people who have actually no knowledge about the subject they are commenting on. It's very easy to say things like "Apple M1 GPU could take years to catch up with 3070/3080" without giving any proof of what you are saying or even giving the slightest reference to what your comment is based on. 

I am running the new version of Resolve Studio right now on an M1 MBP and all I can say is that the speed increase is indeed remarkable. However, Resolve still does not come even close to FCP when it comes to media organization and pure story editing. I have cut a similar piece in both apps and FCP is much more efficient to work with overall.

- Ronny

Ronny - how would you compare just the Cut Page versus FCP?

When you talk about comments being made regarding the M1, you have to remember that Resolve now serves two completely different sets of users. One is the traditional colorist. The other is the up-and-coming editor, as well as those editors who have shifted over from a different NLE. The opinions of those two groups probably don't overlap much.

FYI - Here's the review I did of the M1 Mac mini, which includes running with 8K media and a beta of the native version of Resolve 17.1.
Apple M1 Mac mini Review by Oliver Peters (fcp.co)
I can only imagine it's a lot better now.

My biggest complaint about Resolve is having to mouse over and grab the playhead in order to simply scroll (unless I'm overlooking something incredibly simple.) I can scroll the timeline by jumping into blade mode but then I'm constantly blading where I don't intend to. What a waste of motion having to grab that idiotic playhead or even the top when in the Cut page.

Occasionally I think of switching my workflow to Resolve, I love the looks you can get with the colour tools, but I can’t leave behind the lovely organizational tools in FCP. It’s just so natural to me now.

We need serious audio tools that FCP doesn't offer, so our TV station may be switching to Resolve in October. Plus, Resolve is being developed and advanced (as is PPro) when FCP has been stagnant for way, way too long. Higher ups are worried Apple is going to drop FCP eventually... again...

As for skimming, just use the S key, no need to switch tools.

I agree with Ben that FCP has been sitting around doing nothing (in terms of updates, fixes, improvements, or new features) for a while doing just the bare minimum. My Apple Abandonment Anxiety is working up. Plus if I switch to Resolve (not sure I CAN make the switch, my workflow is so FCP-Motion-centric), I can then also run Resolve in Linux, leaving the Apple ecosystem behind entirely (I'm not really a Windows guy and I'm already familiar with Linux). Don't get me wrong, I like Apple and I think some of the things they are doing are great, but I feel increasingly restricted as a Pro user. I want to be able to have more control over my own software, and their lack of communication about anything except new shiny objects is really rude.

As for skimming, just use the S key, no need to switch tools.
For skimming in FCP, yes, but I was referencing Resolve where one can skim the timeline only in blade tool mode. (Tried to find a solution a while back but vaguely recall coming across something mentioning Apple had a patent (Really? For something so simplistic?) for that.

VTC wrote:

As for skimming, just use the S key, no need to switch tools.
For skimming in FCP, yes, but I was referencing Resolve where one can skim the timeline only in blade tool mode. (Tried to find a solution a while back but vaguely recall coming across something mentioning Apple had a patent (Really? For something so simplistic?) for that.

The main FCP patent is US 8,875,025. It describes in great detail a dual-playhead timeline with regular and skimming playheads. In the patent, figure 9 contains a state diagram of how regular and skimming playheads interact. See below.

In Resolve's media page, if "Live Media Preview" is enabled (three dot menu at upper-right of viewer), it behaves similar to the FCP skimmer in the Event Browser. IOW you can move from clip to clip and it immediately activates skimmer-like functionality using the viewer (not just hover scrub on the thumbnail).

On the Cut Page, you apparently have to click once (or sometimes double-click) on each thumbnail to activate skimming. If you don't click, it only does a "hover scrub" on the thumbnail without activating the viewer. It has some odd quirks that make me wonder if those are for legal reasons related to Apple's patent.

The timeline in Cut Page doesn't have skimming, but with a Magic Mouse you can swipe your finger left and right and it rapidly moves the timeline under the fixed playhead.

Compared to Premiere's "hover scrub" on the same Mac hardware and same material, Resolve 17.x is lightning fast, equaling FCP in some cases. The FCP skimmer was revolutionary for at least four separate reasons (1) Browsing functionality -- IOW it broke away from the two-viewer system and recognized a big part of editing is locating the material (2) Skimmer can rapidly designate timeline locations for certain actions, e.g, blade command, without moving the regular playhead (3) Pervasive integration with range-based keywords and ratings (4) Extremely fast runtime performance.

Recent versions of Resolve now have the performance for a fluid, responsive skimmer but maybe they are inhibited by Apple's patent from implementing that in all aspects, such as the timeline.

Web version of Apple's patent without graphics and figures: patents.justia.com/patent/8875025

Downloadable image-only PDF (includes figures & graphics but can't be searched): pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/25/750/088/0.pdf

RONNY wrote: Resolve still does not come even close to FCP when it comes to media organization and pure story editing. I have cut a similar piece in both apps and FCP is much more efficient to work with overall.

I agree. I wish Final Cut Pro could come up with a color page (call it a TAB, I don't care) with grading features as powerful as Resolve. If they wanna improve the audio as well that's cool too. But round tripping from FCP to Resolve and back just to do color is a huge pain. Also I still don't know why Resolve has a CUT page when the EDIT page is fine. Who uses the CUT page anyway? That'd be like FCP having an iMovie mode where you could edit with fewer features.

Ben Balser wrote: We need serious audio tools that FCP doesn't offer.

What audio upgrades would you like to see? I'm not saying they can't improve things on the audio side, but I've mixed 5.1 movies in FCP with incredible results. I'm a big time audio guy so maybe I've just learned to work with the toolset to get the job done, but overall it's been pretty good. The only thing I'd like is more than a wimpy 5.1 channels. 7.1 would be good and Dolby Atmos object encoding would be great as well. I think Resolve has the Atmos encoding. Apple will get it once nobody uses Atmos any more.

Ben Balser also wrote: Higher ups are worried Apple is going to drop FCP eventually... again...

It's looking like they don't have the ability or desire to compete. I bet they remake FCP from the ground up. Again. Honestly, it needs it. The current code is full of bugs that will never be fixed, like the keyframing.

The main FCP patent is US 8,875,025.

Terrifying, really, that all those pages of paragraphs and diagrams and footnotes is what's keeping me from doing a simple scrub in Resolve without having to go lasso the playhead. Shameful.

VTC: "Terrifying, really, that all those pages of paragraphs and diagrams and footnotes is what's keeping me from doing a simple scrub in Resolve without having to go lasso the playhead. Shameful."

Why is this shameful? Shouldn't the person or company that develops an innovative idea be protected from someone who would simply copy or steal the idea? I'm not a patent attorney, but I would suggest that Resolve using the Blade tool to skim could be construed as a legal "hack" to avoid patent infringement. If you look at the Cut page, it seems to be as close to the FCP interface as they could make it without directly copying it.

If you prefer FCP then stay in it. The existing color tools are already on par with what was in Apple Color. If you want more, then add Color Finale 2, Coremelt's Chromatic, or one of the several other color correction plug-ins. You won't necessarily have all of the Resolve toolset, but the quality is certainly equivalent if you want a high-end, graded look.

Oh, there was MUCH more in Apple Color than there is in FCPX. MUCH MORE!

Well, I've used both extensively and I'm not so sure. Look at only the color correction tools, not the XML roundtripping or the added effects nodes and I would contend the core tools are similar. The rest exists in the form of the other effects and plug-ins for FCP. Granted, the workflow was easier in Color than working with multiple instances of color tools in FCP; but the tools are largely there, with the exception of tracking. Argh!

I don't begrudge anyone's right to establish a patent for something significant but not for something any monkey or a 2 year old would stumble across by chance. Is there a patent on rotating the key to the right to start a car? Hardly revolutionary no matter what direction the rotation but entirely burdensome if there was to be a patent encountered when designing the switch.

That might be the very reason automakers don't place the ignition key in the console between the seats. SAAB could hold the exclusive rights to this positioning but I lean heavily towards the belief that it's not a patent keeping other automakers from putting it there.... It's just that it's a really stupid place to locate one and SAAB thought it design genius doing so.

"but not for something any monkey or a 2 year old would stumble across by chance."

LOL. Such a high opinion of the Pro Apps engineering and UI design teams! The point isn't whether a 2-year old or a talented team came up with it. It's that the patent system protects those who get there first and can get it approved. If iMovie/FCP-style skimming were that easy or that obvious, someone would have come up with it already. NLEs have only been around for more than 3 decades at this point (2 decades when X launched). But it first appeared in this iteration of iMovie.

As far as automobiles, there are zillions of automotive patents. For all I know, there could be a patents related to keys. For instance, when high-beam-light switches were on the floorboard, that was patented.

If you look at BMD, the reason they have acquired the assets of DaVinci, Teranex, Cintel, Echolab, Fairlight, Ultimatte, and EyeOn (have I forgotten anyone?), is to amass a large patent portfolio. This gives them the ability to mix-and-match technology without paying license fees, since they already own the patents. And, of course, sue anyone that infringes.

Patents do expire, but the strength of a patent is the ability of a company to defend it in court. Apple has a large legal staff to do just that. Likewise, RED has also aggressively defended its patent. I personally feel that RED's patients are based on the obvious and on "prior art." But my opinion doesn't matter. They have valid patents that have stood up in court multiple times and that's all that counts.

Oliver Peters wrote:

Granted, the workflow was easier in Color than working with multiple instances of color tools in FCP; but the tools are largely there, with the exception of tracking. Argh!

Tracking is huge though I've been waiting so long for FCPX to add automated tracking to all it's effects and color corrections. Apple has been doing so much with AR on iPhones, even older iPhones, that must track so much automatically that I can't believe it's still not there built in their editing software. Maybe with the new Apple Silicon, which has neural engines... But still waiting. 

Apple Color had MUCH MORE than simply tracking that is lacking in FCP. MUCH MORE! How do you save a Beauty Grade in FCP without a third party plugin? Just glanced through my old Color training material, and yes, there was MUCH MORE in there than just simple tracking that FCP lacks. Just like we lost 90% of the abilities of Soundtrack Pro and DVD Studio Pro. Let's face it, FCP is a YouTuber NLE and won't progress any further than it is now. If it was, we'd have seen that progress over the past two years.