"And that's why having an intermediate codec like Cineform is so important. It's only going to get worse as 2K and 4K formats become more prevalent."

WAY off the mark.

Nobody trivializes the importance of Cineform for those that depend on it. That's not the argument and it NEVER has been. The argument is that it is not up to Sony to see that Cineform is working... it's up to Cineform. As I said before in another post Excalibur needed some updating and Ed Troxel was on the ball and did it. Ultimate S needed some tweaking to fit into V9. The Vasst boys were on the ball and did it. The transition was as close to seamless as one could get because these boys were paying attention. Now it's Cineform's turn. Personally speaking, it's MY belief (and yes... I'm allowed to have one)...

Cineform is asleep at the wheel.

Vegas 64bit has been out for a while and there is no reason that I can see as to why they should be so far behind in their updating. Now in all fairness (according to David of Cineform) Sony told them to hold off because there would be changes coming up. But if I was Cineform... I would have roughed in the ground work a long time ago in preparation for the changes so when they came I could affect them right away.

UltimateS has been updated
Excalibur has been updtaed
New blu has been updated.
Mercalli has been updated
etc....etc

They have all succeeded in doing what they needed to do to stay current and compatible.... but where is Cineform? Now I said it before and I'll say it again... This is a cineform issue, not a Sony one, and if Sony offers Cineform a helping hand then they will be doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

I thought the vegas/acdsee combo might be lethal, but I needed to be able to pick my images from something that could view my photos full screen, so I continued to use both simultaneously.

I use IrfanView for doing this.
It's free, does full screen and I've nhever had it "argue" with Vegas.

Mike

My reading of the various threads on this, is that it is a bug in Vegas 9 32 bit and that Cineform and SCS are working on it. Very little 3rd party software is available for Vegas 64 bit. I love Ultimate S, but if think that rewriting something like Ultimate S is equivalent to rewriting a state of the art video codec, then we will just have to continue to disagree on this.

Easy solution:

Stay with the version of Vegas that supports Cineform. Until Cineform changes what they need to.

Sorry SCS, but Cineform compatibility is FAR MORE important to me than Vegas9's RED camera codec support and new darker color look.

I feel like a child caught between a Mommy and Daddy fight. It's like I want to get them both on the phone together and MAKE them talk this thing out.

We are all being hurt by this, SCS, Cineform and their valuable (paying) customer base.

The compatibily of these two products together is VERY important to BOTH of them. (especialy because they were happily married for so long!)

CT

Thanks Mike. I've tried Infanview in the past, perhaps I will try it again. I've used ACDSee for many years and I generally love it. I keep waiting for an update that will fix it, but it's been a while now.

"then we will just have to continue to disagree on this."

Agreed.

"Sorry SCS, but Cineform compatibility is FAR MORE important to me than Vegas9's RED camera codec support and new darker color look.

Wow! I'm thoroughly impressed Cliff. A very sporting answer to a rather upsetting dilemma. I agree 100%... and you stated it quite well.

Sony has a patch coming such that existing CineForm codecs will work correctly as they should (likely in 9.0a.) The SNAFU happen in the 8.1 API, which we didn't support waiting as where waiting for 9.0 changes. This is why both CineForm and Sony were caught off guard.

David Newman
CTO, CineForm

Thanks for the update David. Your constant attention to Cineform issue posts in user forums is rare in the video industry, and much appreciated.

sebaz, I have already posted elsewhere about $. I didn't pay anywhere near $250 for the upgrade nor did anyone else who purchased during the deal, plus I was using Pro 8 right from the start with no problems preventing me from doing my work.
Vegas Pro 8 cost me $134.95 for the download. I bought it on 9/10/2007. Everyone else had the same opportunity.

I second the appreciation of David Newman's communication. This is why companies such as Cineform make it in this global world of many options.

Hey, Sebaz...it's the money.

Harold, one thing is to have a heated discussion on a topic but now you're just trying to lower the discourse to "It's the money", "No, it's not", "Yes it is", "No, it's not". I like heated discussions, not childish ones.

Whether you believe me or not does not make a difference to me. I will only buy Vegas 9 if Sony fixes at least the AVCHD playback bug, and the bug about the source files not found when they're still there. For that I would consider paying some money for it. Now, if they fixed all or at least most of the bugs I listed in the other thread, I would be happy to pay even their retail price of $250 for the upgrade. As it is right now, I won't even pay for the upgrade if I get it for $100 or even less than that, whether it's now or in 3 months.