-
FCP vs. Smoke
-
>>Smoke has 4:4:4 not nitris
This is no longer true. Avid has already shipped a 4:4:4 hardware upgrade for the Nitris. It works with both DS and Symphony Nitris.
-
We own a smoke* (3.6.1 on SGI Octane) and I must say I have NEVER understood how someone could say a smoke is so much better to edit than anything ever made before (smoke editors words not mine) The way it is different than most all other editing systems out there….I can’t stand it. I don’t see how anyone could stay organized working that way with clips all over the desktop.
But thats just me. 🙂
THANK GOD, we purchased FCP 5 this year on a quad G5 system and 1.2 TB array.
Everybody loves working on this system and the smoke* barely gets used anymore.
The smoke* was a great system when we bought it new for $ 250k some time ago. It could do all kinds of stuff that seemed really fast at the time that no other system could.
-
And what happens when you need to do dirt cleanup, where you need a paint system?
As I said before, there are multiple systems because different markets, different client bases, and different users need different capabilities. With Final Cut, you cannot do everything you can do with Smoke, no matter how much you might want to believe you can. But that’s not to say that those capabilities are necessary for you. If, however, you were an L.A. based visual effects and editing company catering to music video and commercial clients in that market, you would likely feel differently. That’s why they use what they use, and you use what you use. Neither choice is right or wrong, they are both appropriate for the markets they’re serving.
-
And what happens when you need to do dirt cleanup, where you need a paint system?
You buy After Effects (+ Automatic Duck) and/or Shake and you’re done. But I guess it depends on how much you do this or that kind of work. -
[Mike Most] “And what happens when you need to do dirt cleanup, where you need a paint system?”
Automatic Duck + After Effects. Motion, Shake, etc…. Still well below $65k and actually using these tools often allow you to out perform any single editing system.
Trying to get an NLE to everything usually leads to compromises somewhere. Never had an effect or project I had to turn down due to the capabilities of our system.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
https://www.biscardicreative.com“I reject your reality and substitute my own!” – Adam Savage, Mythbusters
-
yep AE or Shake is what I was going to say.
When Final Cut Extreme (whatever the realtime FCP on steroids is that apple is working on) comes out. Autodesk/Discreet will have a serious wake up call to deal with.
-
…and if your client is in the room with you peering over your shoulder while you wait for renders, go back in a tweak, import/exporting, blah blah.
It was always my understanding that Autodesk products were ment for supervised sessions that demand realtime. While AE and Shake are render based applications for when the client isn’t in the same room as you.
-
Walter, you’re trying to make this some kind of personal challenge to your methods and personal choices, and what I’m trying to say is that it isn’t. It’s all about workflow, your particular clientele, and the best way to meet those requirements. Your choices are right for your particular workflow requirements and clientele. They are not necessarily right for a different situation, like the one I described. Those facilities that have made different equipment choices than you have are not stupid, and you’re not any smarter than they are. They have certain requirements and client expectations, and have equipped themselves accordingly. You have different ones, and have equipped yourself accordingly. None of this is a contest.
-
[Mike Most] “And what happens when you need to do dirt cleanup, where you need a paint system?”
Silhouette Roto would be an even greater choice, and it works directly in FCP.
But then, when you have to do tracking, 3d compositing, custom transitions, complex effects, or even removing a pulldown to slow down 24p footage properly, you have to go out of FCP and deal with YUV to RGB conversion problems, gamma shifts, file reimport or relink (and bugs associated with this), etc.
FCP renders management is also far below the one higher end software: in DS you don’t have to re-render everything when you duplicate a clip in a sequence or even if you copy it to another sequence; when you extend a rendered clip you only need to render frames that aren’t rendered and not the whole clip like in FCP; when dealing with multiple effects, you can render them separately so that only top effects need to be re-rendered with doing modifications; FCP can’t render tracks separatly which makes even simple compositng a real waste of time. Doing render-intensive work in FCP tends to become really painfull because of this.
So there is a big difference, but is it really worth the price difference… often not.
-
Don’t you know Walter knows everything 😉
Bottom line… FCP is technically “higher quality” than smoke. FCP can capture 10bit from tape and process in float. Smoke/Flame can capture 10bit from tape and process 10bit or 12bit. For most shots, there is no difference though.
Smoke’s toolset can not be beat. The integration is what sets it apart. You can quickly jump from editing to tracking/3D compositing, to paint.
We use FCP, AE, Media Composer, Flame, Smoke, etc. There is a right tool for the right job. Smoke/Fire is the best finishing tool I have seen. When clients are sitting in the room and the spot needs to air in two days, it can’t be beat. We’ve finished shots in smoke or flame in a day which would have taken five days in AE. We also do a lot of tagging… our smoke guy can rip through 300 spots in a day, which would be impossible in FCP.
-Matt
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up