HELLO! & Title Plug-in 4K quality info and rendering optimization within

New to this Forum... Hi all,
Short story; We migrated over from PD18 and DR. Our late 2017 iMac 4.2Ghz w 1TB SSD really (really) flies with this software. I initially added 2 16g banks to give us 40g Ram. The GPU is 8g 580x, the FCPX movieline scrubs along with absolutely zero droppers or lags. Super happy with this setup, however I will always keep the 18core iMac Pro on my wish list.

So I've always done the lengthy tasks of landing all my keyframes, never knew there was the "plugin" or encapsulated method. Time is worth something, so I know I'll pay for really good professional plugins. Okay.

We have a travel video (YT Channel), not into a money making gig really, but more for our friends and it's a great way to meet new friends when out on the road.

Looking for the cleanest (coding wise) and fastest-loading slash rendering Text plugin. So far I've got (so I think anyways) 3 big players...

Stupid Raisins, FX Factory and MotionVfx. (each seems to have several different but similar plug-ins)

Quality at 4K is No.1, then ease of customization within the Inspector as No.2 (with me anyways). I also would want packages that could adapt or have been adapting (in the past) with upcoming new FCP versions. If I missed the target on any of these above developers, please enlighten us up!

Many pre-thanks... KJ & Deb

All the developers you list, in my opinion are stellar. I have plugins from them all and am very satisfied with the adjustment options, rendering speed and quality. You might also consider LenoFX which also makes excellent titles and plugins in general. With respect to 4K, if the title packages are designed for 4K, they should look excellent at that resolution if they are from a reputable designer (which the above are).

Compatibility with future versions of FCPX (and Motion) can never be guaranteed because nobody knows what changes Apple may incorporate in the next release. That said, most developers release updates to their packages to comply with the latest updates in FCPX and Motion. Unless Apple drastically changes the framework and coding requirements in these apps I would feel confident that developers would continue to update their plugins, particularly the popular selling ones. Past trends tend to confirm this. Future advancements in the apps could possibly get to a point where it wouldn't make sense for a developer to entirely rewrite their plugin, but that applies to just about any software.

dgwvideo wrote: ... Unless Apple drastically changes the framework and coding requirements in these apps I would feel confident that developers would continue to update their plugins, particularly the popular selling ones....

Under the covers there are two types of plugins: Some are based on Motion templates and others are built using Objective-C or Swift code using the FxPlug SDK. Typically sophisticated plugins like Neat Video are in the latter category. MotionVFX is very capable - they definitely have the expertise to develop plugins using custom Objective-C or Swift code.

All plugins to date using custom code have been developed using the FxPlug 3 or earlier SDKs. This has entailed several problems:

(1) Plugin code runs "in process" with FCPX: a code error in the plugin can crash or destabilize the entire FCPX process.

(2a) Poor handling of UI in FCPX for certain plugin CPU states (related to above): All compute-intensive plugins developed with FxPlug 3 or earlier can dominate the FCPX UI. This causes periods of non-responsive UI behavior. A basic principle of UI design is you never lock out user input or window updates due to background processing, without at least reflecting this state to the user. When plugins are re-written to use FxPlug 4, this problem should diminish or go away.

(2b) Overly broad FCPX invocation of render in the plugin. With FxPlug 3, the plugin developer cannot control when render is invoked - OR the scope of render. IOW it must render the entire image, not tiles within the image. This apparently includes the pre-render phase where plugin code builds a low-res version of the final effect. E.g, when you add Neat Video, Digital Anarchy Flicker Free or Imagenomic Portraiture to a clip it will immediately build a rough approximation of the entire image. During this phase FCPX UI is disrupted. This is not the fault of the plugin code. Starting with FxPlug 4, Apple will allow plugin code to render tiles, which is how Apple's own internal plugins work.

(3) Non-use of plugin render files for certain export cases. Currently there are some situations where built-in effects interact poorly with plugins, resulting in render files which are not used to accelerate export. I don't know if FxPlug 4 will help address this but it needs resolving: www.fcp.co/forum/4-final-cut-pro-x-fcpx/...roject-switch#104227

support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/motion/motn17691fe6/mac
developer.apple.com/documentation/profes...fxplug?language=objc
developer.apple.com/documentation/profes...plug_4?language=objc

Great in-depth answers, you guys rock and Thanks given.

On the "all mentioned plugins are stellar"... since they are from different providers, the way I understand it is that I would need a different loader installed for each? In my research (if I remember correctly) mInstaller was for one, I think Stupid Raisins used FXfactory etc...

Is it cleaner/easier to stay with one side vs multiple developers?. I understand the listings when installed will all start w their prefix so easy enough to distinguish, but do lose/convolute either performance (or anything else) with having cross developer plug-ins?

This may sound confusing, so for an example. When looking down the road for like Color Correction plugins, Effects etc., should I stay with all one Developer if possible?

Thanks guys, I know I sound paranoid, but I finally have a 4K editing computer (&software) that screams and I'm afraid of going back to what I had (like H.264/.265 editing on my D-Resolve). Spoiled now, eh!? lol

KJ

The replies from dgwvideo and joema do cover nearly everything you need to know about FCP plugins.
One thing about 'Title' plugins should be added.
If you have one of those which don't use any pixel based source but only vector based sources - i.e. fonts - there is no difference between SD, HD, 4k etc. in regards of quality.
For Title plugins you should prefer those which are done for HD/2k for the 'matter of common sense'.

Font size always is based on pixels (relative to original design). This might differ from font to font.
FCP (and other NLEs) do the same - but FCP is a bit special. The standard title plugins are based on HD - means a font size of 50 is 50 pixel in height (as example for Arial capitals) in a 1080 height. This will be the same in PPro. The same size of 50 will be 100 pixels in 2160 (4k) in FCP while in PPro it will stay 50. So visually it will be half of size in PPro.
But when you create a title in Motion (or FXPlug) in any other resolution than HD it will behave like PPro in the above example.