FCPX vs. Smoke

Hi,
Does anyone here have both these apps?

The editing performance issues in FCPX has got me at the end of my rope, I am thinking of coughing up the $$ for smoke but would like some feed back on it as it relates to FCPX.

The thing I like most about FCPX is it integration with motion, making and saving effects/ titles etc.. It appears that smoke may be able to compete here with its nodes..?

Thanks for any input!

Kurt

Hi Kurt,

I have had both for years and they work well together. If you are looking for a great compositing application, Smoke is definitely a good option. Strictly as an NLE, Smoke is quite useless. It does not play well with long timelines and it has a very steep learning curve. When we have commercials that require complex compositing -especially involving camera tracking- we edit in FCP X and finish in Smoke.

You will need a powerful system to make it run smoothly. Smoke 2015 is only compatible with maxed-out 27-inch iMacs and Late 2013 MacPros with the D700 GPUs. It also runs on the latest MBPs, but performance is less than stellar.

IMO you might wait for the next FCP X update before making any decisions.

- Ronny

Thanks, I cant remember for sure but when I was working at pinnacle/avid pinnacle bought the Fast line, later to become the Liquid line (Silver Purple Chromne etc..) and I remember working with Nodes, I think it was a plugin I was testing for those Liquid apps... Cant remember for sure, but yes there was a learning curve.
Once over that, the effects / composites you could create were pretty much limitless.

Creating good graphics to use (like many FCPX 3rd party plugins) is really what I am after.

It would be a while before I make that move, so I am sure Ill see at least the next FCPX release. If they just fixed the performance issues, I would be more than happy with that alone.

Thanks
kurt

Nothing beats node compositing, especially if you are looking for very specific effects.

And I agree that even if the next update only would include performance enhancements, it would certainly make those users who experience such problems very happy. Keep us posted once you have tried it out.

- Ronny

the weakness of smoke is:
1. render files management bad
2. media management inconvenient
3. project backup inconvenient
4. secondary color correction (vs davinci/Lustre/color/even, sometimes fcpx, etc)
(circle mask inconvenient)
5. I think nuke/fusion's nodes are stronger than smoke.
6. large project opening time

the weakness of fcpx is:
1. bad editing performance
2. audio channels distribution inconvenient
3. color correction: no 3d good tracking.
(2d tracking need plugins)
4. large project opening time

by the way,
autodesk's flame also have had bad editing performance
but they solved it in 1.5 weeks, after we report to them.

Apple is selling iPhone.
I don't think they care about fcpx
so, we never report fcpx's bugs to them even all of our mac pro have apple's professional video support

Thanks artofoe,

in you opinion would you prefer to edit on smoke or fcpx/motion?
(for timeline performance and graphic creation)

Hd? For now, smoke.
Editing performance is more important.
But smoke works at 4k, maybe slow on laptop.
Both of them can try 1 month for free.
I suggest you try both by yourself working your job.
Maybe fcpx will solve the problem, then you can choose fcpx.

For now 1920 is about the biggest, probably 50-60fps max, usually 25.
So nothing that big.

For me, in fcpx, this is the average size, and just a few effects, layers and working for a while (over 1/2 an hour or so), the app will start to slow down.
The timeline duration dont really matter, the simple act of editing (copy/paste, titles, trim etc..) all start combining and fcpx just starts bogging out.. beach balls and delays when performing functions.. frustrating. Close and reopen the app and fcp is OK again, for a little while, then it all starts repeating again..

If Apple didn't care about FCPX, they'd not be spending the tons of money they are, in developing it. Saying Apple doesn't care about FCPX is simply a baseless statement. Sorry, but that has to be said.