<p>As Professor Sparkles pointed out, After Effects can generate smoke with its particle simulation.</p>

<p>Basically, you <a href="http://youtu.be/yc2AGBoJoNk" rel="nofollow">blur the particles</a> and reduce their opacity and add shadowlets  (apparently requires <a href="http://www.trapcode.com/" rel="nofollow">Trapcode plugin</a>) and lighting to make them <a href="http://youtu.be/WE2-OPofJXI" rel="nofollow">look more volumetric</a>.</p>

<p>Maybe you can nicely ask the makers of that video how they did it, because anything you create yourself might look much different, unless you know all parameters involved.</p>

<p>But then again, you probably shouldn't copy others' work.</p>

<p>You can generate smoke visuals with Blender (see e.g. <a href="http://youtu.be/lYTVOdcgyP8" rel="nofollow">this video</a>) or other renderers with smoke/fluid simulation.</p>

<p>There are probably some costly dedicated generators out there, I guess</p>

<p><a href="http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems3/gpugems3_ch30.html" rel="nofollow">nVidia also has programming samples</a> for its graphics cards, including one that generate smoke, so if you're a developer, you could take that, adapt it and record the output and import into AE.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-07T11:53:20.260Z
After Effects has a built-in particle system. While its not exactly the most advanced one, you can certainly generate smoke.
timonsku
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-07T14:52:54.393Z
Ok, thanks @ProfessorSparkles, so now I learned something interesting trying to answer.
Arc
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-08T08:01:56.590Z
Thanks a lot for the answer! do you think trapcode's form or particular is better to get a similar result? I am not looking to copy the creators work just want to learn how to create something similar. I might ask them how it was done though it's a pretty big company so I am not sure who I should refer to.
Jake
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-07T07:18:16.933Z
2015-03-07T14:57:01.570Z
2015-03-07T14:57:01.570Z
Arc
<p>If you want to do this from scratch you would need a software that has a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_system" rel="nofollow">particle simulation system</a>. A popular tool for that is <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/aftereffects.html" rel="nofollow">After Effects</a> in conjunction with the plugin <a href="http://www.redgiant.com/products/trapcode-particular/" rel="nofollow">Particular</a> from Red Giant. Its rather easy to use.</p>

<p>If you want even more realistic results you probably want to go with a more sophisticated solution often found in 3D packages like <a href="http://www.autodesk.com/products/3ds-max/overview-dts?s_tnt=69291:1:0" rel="nofollow">3Ds Max</a>, <a href="http://www.maxon.net/products/cinema-4d-studio/who-should-use-it.html" rel="nofollow">Cinema 4D</a> or the the free and open source <a href="https://www.blender.org/features/" rel="nofollow">Blender</a>.</p>

<p>If you dont want to render something yourself you can also buy stock-footage. A popular package is the <a href="https://www.videocopilot.net/products/action2/" rel="nofollow">Action Essentials 2</a> from Video Copilot. It offers pre-keyed (e.g. with transparency) footage from real smoke and fire and other misc. effects. You can easily colorize these to your liking and export them as a transparent png sequence.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-08T07:59:07.773Z
Thanks a lot for the answer! do you think trapcode's form or particular is better to get a similar result? the action essentials 2 is a really cool option as well.
Jake
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-08T13:29:56.330Z
I'd say particular. Form is more for animating "surfaces", while in this case you can probably achieve similar results with form, you will have more freedom with Particular.
timonsku
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-07T12:02:17.633Z
2015-09-12T13:50:37.773Z
2015-09-12T13:50:37.773Z
timonsku
<p>Hi I was hoping any experienced video producer could tell me how an animation like the one showing at ~0:29-0:50 on the left side of this video is done?:
<div class="youtube-embed"><div>
                <iframe width="640px" height="395px" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/633CHC6TTYY?start=0"></iframe>
            </div></div></p>

<p>and is it possible to convert such an animation to separate transparent .png frames?</p>

<after-effects>
How was this magic smoke animation done?
Jake
# How was this magic smoke animation done?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-03-04)

Hi I was hoping any experienced video producer could tell me how an animation like the one showing at ~0:29-0:50 on the left side of this video is done?:

and is it possible to convert such an animation to separate transparent .png frames?

**Tags:** after-effects


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-03-07. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

If you want to do this from scratch you would need a software that has a [particle simulation system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_system). A popular tool for that is [After Effects](http://www.adobe.com/products/aftereffects.html) in conjunction with the plugin [Particular](http://www.redgiant.com/products/trapcode-particular/) from Red Giant. Its rather easy to use.

If you want even more realistic results you probably want to go with a more sophisticated solution often found in 3D packages like [3Ds Max](http://www.autodesk.com/products/3ds-max/overview-dts?s_tnt=69291:1:0), [Cinema 4D](http://www.maxon.net/products/cinema-4d-studio/who-should-use-it.html) or the the free and open source [Blender](https://www.blender.org/features/).

If you dont want to render something yourself you can also buy stock-footage. A popular package is the [Action Essentials 2](https://www.videocopilot.net/products/action2/) from Video Copilot. It offers pre-keyed (e.g. with transparency) footage from real smoke and fire and other misc. effects. You can easily colorize these to your liking and export them as a transparent png sequence.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks a lot for the answer! do you think trapcode's form or particular is better to get a similar result? the action essentials 2 is a really cool option as well.  
> **username_2**: I'd say particular. Form is more for animating "surfaces", while in this case you can probably achieve similar results with form, you will have more freedom with Particular.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-03-07. Score: 2

As Professor Sparkles pointed out, After Effects can generate smoke with its particle simulation.

Basically, you [blur the particles](http://youtu.be/yc2AGBoJoNk) and reduce their opacity and add shadowlets (apparently requires [Trapcode plugin](http://www.trapcode.com/)) and lighting to make them [look more volumetric](http://youtu.be/WE2-OPofJXI).

Maybe you can nicely ask the makers of that video how they did it, because anything you create yourself might look much different, unless you know all parameters involved.

But then again, you probably shouldn't copy others' work.

You can generate smoke visuals with Blender (see e.g. [this video](http://youtu.be/lYTVOdcgyP8)) or other renderers with smoke/fluid simulation.

There are probably some costly dedicated generators out there, I guess

[nVidia also has programming samples](http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems3/gpugems3_ch30.html) for its graphics cards, including one that generate smoke, so if you're a developer, you could take that, adapt it and record the output and import into AE.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: After Effects has a built-in particle system. While its not exactly the most advanced one, you can certainly generate smoke.  
> **username_1**: Ok, thanks @ProfessorSparkles, so now I learned something interesting trying to answer.  
> **username_0**: Thanks a lot for the answer! do you think trapcode's form or particular is better to get a similar result? I am not looking to copy the creators work just want to learn how to create something similar. I might ask them how it was done though it's a pretty big company so I am not sure who I should refer to.  

---

