Final Cut Pro X vs DaVinci Resolve 16. Requirements:
- 4K video 30 FPS H. 264 + 60fps 4K H. 265; before processing in Final Cut is converted to
- Installation with 2 cameras; 3 video layer 2-3 audio.
- Gluing, work with speed.
- Simple svetogor (Luty or manual).
Effects: stabilization, transition, 2D titles, mask tracking.
- Use 3-5 plugins (for effects).
- Play in real time without loss of quality, no brakes, developed MicroProse.
- Work without brakes (valid MicroProse, rare freezes.
- Rendering doesn't matter (within reason).
Machine: Macbook Pro Retina, 13 inch., mid 2014 Intel Core i7 2.2 GHz 4 cores 16 GB.
1. Speed work (not render), optimization.
2. The simplicity and usability of the interface.
3. The quantity and quality of the plugins, effects, uniqueness, and most importantly, their availability (whether it is possible to download free of charge with torrent, and how difficult it is to do).
4. Capabilities of built-in functionality and the possibility of its razshireniya plugins, optimization, quality and diversity, the main thing - affordability (free).
Works better on a Mac Final Cut.
Interface they are not much different. Resolve closer to the FC than to the Premiere interface.
About plug-ins to both prompt. The chances of finding something free is significantly higher in Resolve.
Marcella answered on April 7th 20 at 11:08
In the approach to work are two different things. Resolve nogova. It's like a step-by-step. How looks can be found in any introductory video. In both cases video need to work with proxy files. Even a very fast system, and even in the mounting codec will stutter at that resolution. With plugins it is difficult to judge, it is unknown what kind of need.
Resolve difficult to master, FCPX is close to the common paradigm NLE. Resolve just gaining market NLE, FCPX is already on a lot of that done. For small projects, subjectively this is the fastest and easiest option.