Advice wanted about upgrading to Vegas 3.0

Zar wrote on 11/27/2001, 5:37 PM
You guys have always given me good advice in the past, so I'm hoping to inquire of your wisdom one more time, for a fairly important decision.

I own VideoFactory 2.0 and am considering the upgrade offer. I consider myself a fairly sophisticated user of VF, and am sorely tempted to move up to the "big boys" with Vegas. HOWEVER! I was seriously DISENCHANTED with VF's 2.0 release.

It sucked the big one in terms of performance, bugs, reliability, etc. Even though I have the most recent patch set, it still isn't as reliable as VF 1.0. In the forums, I've seen people say that that's because a lot of Vegas features were crammed into VF 2.0 at the expense of performance and testing, and that you need a big box to run it. Well, I have a P3-833 with 512MB, 10,000 RPM disks and a firewire, so I think that my hardware is more than sufficient for the task. That leaves pure performance and reliability as
a major concern.

So what I'm wondering is, does anyone have experience with Vegas 3.0 enough to tell me whether it's reasonably stable and performs well? I was so unhappy with VF 2.0 that I called about getting my money back and was told I could not, and I do *NOT* want to go through that again if I upgrade to Vegas 3.0. If I upgrade, I want it to be worthwhile, perform well and be reliable. Otherwise I'll just use more reliable competitor products like Pinnacle Studio 7 or VF 1.0.

Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated. And yes, I intend to try the demo, but I'm still looking for advice from those with more knowledge than myself.

thanks,
bruce

Comments

yirm wrote on 11/28/2001, 1:24 AM
I look at the upgrade from the point of view of features rather than reliability because I haven't had any problems with performance with VF2. I have a lesser machine than you, and it works fine. I've been pretty much solely working with DV. I know a lot of people complained about the MPEG encoder. The VV3 encoder is MainConcept. It appears to have a lot more options, and everyone seems very impressed with its quality. Plus, there is a MainConcept tech participating in the Vegas newsgroup.

I'm wondering whether your reliability and performance issues are unique because I haven't noticed a lot of complaints in that area.

-Jeremy
kkolbo wrote on 11/28/2001, 11:26 AM
I have upgraded to VV3 and I am pleased with it. It does have a few burps though. The preview window does not behave with it's selection of quality level, but this was also the case in VF1 and 2 for me. I am pleased with the new functionality in VV3 and I have found it to behave for the most part.

I saw you mentioned Studio 7 from Pinnacle as a more stable product. I have used, and continue to use Pinnacle products from the DV and Studio lines. Studio 7 has been very unstable and has been patched many times. Heck, even the installs are buggy. It is the right tool for some projects so I continue to use it for those projects, but I have started most of my new projects in VV3.

The point is when you are taxing the generic PC platform with video editting, there is no really stable or perfect product. Most true Video products have to be developed for a specific hardware set and configuration. Even then, $100,000 products that I use still need a three finger salute now and again.

For the $ I have found the VV3 product to be a worthy upgrade.

Keith Kolbo,
Producer, ITEC Entertainment
Zar wrote on 11/28/2001, 12:48 PM
By performance problems, I mean things like rendering the audio tracks, capturing video from DV (dropping frames), etc. I don't believe it's my PC configuration, mainly because that's about all I use that box for, and there's really nothing else on it. Plus, VideoFactory 1.0 is still installed and performs well by comparison. For example, capturing from DV in VF 2.0 for 5 minutes dropped 381 frames, and the same exact execerpt in VF 1.0 dropped only 49 frames. The fact that I'm even dropping frames is negative, but that's because I just ran this quick test with my AV and net filters still running. The bottom line is
that VF 2.0 was a PITA, and I was quite unhappy.

And, I'm not alone. Look in this forum for many examples of problems with VF 2.0, especially the early releases.

It sounds like Vegas is more stable, so that's a good thing. I intend to pound the demo hard this weekend.

thanks!
bruce
Zar wrote on 11/28/2001, 12:54 PM
That's good information -- thanks!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that the preview window didn't match the settings. :-) I had just assumed it was something I was doing (i.e., operator error) all this time, but it wasn't a biggie, so I didn't persue it.

As for Studio 7, I didn't say it was great ;-), but it is fairly reliable. When I have a 2GB rendered file that I want to copy to tape, at least I don't have to copy it in increments like in Video Factory. That ALONE is worth the cost of Studio 7, and that doesn't even count the much-better titler and rolling credits functionality. Otherwise, I use VF for the rest of my world.

I haven't looked yet, but I'm presuming that Vegas has a much better titler than VF, and that rolling credits aren't a problem. I would expect that from a product in that price range... Since you've used both, could you compare Vegas to Studio 7 in terms of titling and credits? I'd appreciate it.

thanks!
bruce
yirm wrote on 11/28/2001, 4:40 PM
Okay. All I can tell you is that I was using VF 2.0a on a freshly installed Windows 2000 (lots of other apps as well), and never had the kinds of problems you are having. Never had dropped frames. Did you completely uninstall previous versions before installing 2.0a?

-Jeremy
kkolbo wrote on 11/28/2001, 6:07 PM
Well, for titling, VV3 has a number of rolling credit templates that I like. Headings, sub headings and then credits. Take a look at the demo and you will see if it fits your needs. As for other titling, I am still addicted to creating the plates in photoshop and PaintShop Pro with an alpha channel for great layering. You can not do this with Studio. You can with VV3 and VF2. Because you can use alpha channel overlays and pan and scan and other transistion in the SF apps you have a lot more creativity available with better quaility. My problem with Studio for this kind of thing is that you have to create the transparent titles in Title Decko only. Then you can apply transistions (nice 3D ones mind you) to the titles. It does work and I use it, but if you want to import something, then you have to chroma-key it by selecting the color you want to drop and placing it in the upper left hand corner. There is almost a zero tolerance in the key, so pre-applied drop shadow is not possible in imports.

BTW, VV3 supports Alpha Layer keying as well as Adjustable Chroma Keying and external matte keying. That is not the case with VF2.

I would say your titling options are greatly extended by VV3 over Studio 7. The templates make quick down and dirt credits a snap.

No if I could just get all of my Smart Sound Library to work with VV3. Just kidding, but I do have a large investment in Smart Sound Music that I can't use with VV3. I guess I will keep scoring the down and dirty stuff in Studio.

Keith
Zar wrote on 11/29/2001, 5:38 PM
Thanks -- very good information. I putzed around with the titling in VV3 last night and I was suitably impressed. It's clear that Vegas is more powerful in this arena, and that's a big plus in my book.

And yes, I too like the transitions in Studio, but I can give up a couple cool transitions if it means I don't have to create (and render) rolling credits on the side.

thanks,
bruce
Former user wrote on 11/29/2001, 6:43 PM
Actually, Studio TitleDeko does allow you to import pictures with Alpha Channels.

Import them like any picture and if there is an Alpha channel, it will key over the background. VF and I assume VV offer more flexibility in the keying process, but Studio does allow this.

You are talking about dragging the picture on the Title line in Studio, and in this case, it is a chroma-key type super.

Dave T2