← Back to context

Comment by bredren

2 days ago

I had thought a main problem for professional video editors w FC had to do with video editor UX philosophy. Something difficult to pivot away from.

I’m hand waving there because I’m not a pro but my neighbor is and I don’t recall the details.

But I’m curious how you see FC also lost in semi pro to Davinci specifically.

6 comments

bredren

Reply
josephg  2 days ago

Davinci Resolve is free. At least, for the non studio version. (There’s a few studio only features, but almost everything is available in the free version of resolve). And a lot of people want to learn resolve anyway for color grading. Why not just edit in resolve too? Resolve studio is also quite cheap, given you buy it once and own it forever. Including updates.

I spent last week helping out at a short filmmaking course. The DP running it has used Final Cut for his entire career. But not a single student chose to edit their film using Final Cut. The class was split between resolve and premier pro. (Premier was chosen by a lot of people because it’s what they use at school, and they have a free licence to premier from their school while they’re studying.)

  • weinzierl  2 days ago

    This, plus:

    - The studio version of DaVinci is still affordable should you need it.

    - DaVinci has many good tutorials

    • embedding-shape  1 day ago

      + purchasing any BMD camera and you usually get a "free" license of DaVinci :) That's how I got my license many moons ago.

      Now BMD have "prosumer" cameras available too that doesn't cost half a liver, which the second-hand market seems flush with too, so you can grab really good hardware for "cheap", and get excellent software with it too as the license is movable across hosts :)

      1 reply →

dbspin  2 days ago

The 'cut' page in DaVinci specifically exists to replicate the FC editing UX.

It's an optional way of editing separate from the 'edit' tab.