![]() However, at the same or higher price, other NLEs don't give you noise reduction, so you have to spend an additional $100 or more for it. But this is true with all of the other main stream NLEs. Will your system slow down if you do a bunch of noise reduction, yes. Does the Free version run well? Then so will the Studio version. And the excuse that "I just want too see if it works before I buy it," is mostly BS. If those features are that important, then it's worth shelling out the EXTREMELY reasonable $300 for the software. It's getting really old having people come in and ask about the differences between the Free and Studio versions, only to throw their hands up and declare the Resolve useless because the Free version isn't exactly like the Studio version. I'm not seeing any ass-hattery on Marc's part, rather I agree with him. For the later scenario, knowing the difference is important. Some people use the free version because it meets their needs, some use it as a trial before purchasing the studio version. Marc Wielage wrote:So the answer is: spend the damn money and buy the actual program. I now need to get my head around Fusion ! Hopefully that perspective is changing.Īnyhow, congratulations BMD on the Resolve 15 release. Judging from the feedback many folks still view Resolve as some rarified 'way to complex for me to get my head around' software. Since I started using Resolve I have been very active on various videography forums promoting (in effect) Resolve and demonstrating it's capability - privately as well. That can only happen when people try it for themselves and "how will they know unless they are told". Moreover, in a climate where many people - not just Studio Professionals - are looking at viable alternatives to the major 'NLE players', Resolve presents a very attractive proposition, once it is appreciated what it has to offer. It's a 'Freemium' business model that clearly anticipates the future of post-production in 4K/HDR video. It is 'the program' - what you are purchasing with the Studio version are 'Premium' features that for some will be considered indispensable and for others not. It's not as if it's warez or some functionally crippled trial version. Of course it makes sense to fully evaluate the free version first. How sad for the poor guy who goes ahead and purchases the Studio version outright only to find it won't run efficiently, or at all, on his existing rig. Added to which are the PC hardware/OS version considerations. But when I AM ready to spend the money guess who will get it?īyron Dickens wrote:$300 might be nothing to someone who does this for a living but for someone like me it represents a not insubstantial outlay. $300 might be nothing to someone who does this for a living but for someone like me it represents a not insubstantial outlay. I'm just getting into this and I can already envision the need to upgrade eventually but it just is not in the cards right now. ![]() ![]() Still doesn't look great, but there probably is no way it ever could. I tried all kinds of other free and low cost video editing software and Resolve was the only thing that would make it viewable. I have some video of a band performance from 2013 sitting around since then absolutely unusable because it is so underexposed. It is their product and their purview do decide what, or even IF, to charge for it. It's cutting holes in the floorboards really and more likely to scare people away than bring them in.IMHO.īMD has made a calculated business decision I'm sure not lightly. And who's to say 'OK, you've used the free version long enough, now buy it and don't expect to have any legitimacy on this forum until you do'. Of course it's great value for the money, but since there's no fully featured trial version, how else can anyone evaluate whether it's worth purchasing. They want people to try the software and if they like it but find that certain needed or desirable features are only available in the Studio version, then buy it. If it adequately meets their needs, why wouldn't they?Īnd I'm pretty sure BMD don't see it that way. The only distinction otherwise is that the Studio version is required for High 10 H264 import, and there are workarounds for that - heard of transcoding ?ĭon't understand this denigration of people using the free version. Msundman wrote:The non-studio.does not even support h.264 (AVC)Ībsolute nonsense. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |