Thanks :(
I think there's a 3rd party titler that can create titles from text files, might have to do some more research.
Bob.

I really can't stress enough how much of difference this funcionality would make!... So many people have asked me about this directly + I have seen it mentioned & requested here time & time again.

I have had clients wanting automated title or diverse caption scripts which could only be achieved if this were added to the API. There are just so many potential benefits for workflow!!

Yet more examples: During production of a program you could automatically import and place scene names or other internal references that would be used during by the production team and needed for "in-progress" screening sessions.

You could take text from markers and automatically turn them into captions.

You could dynamically keep online files up-to-date with real-time data by scripting a routine to re-render incorporating the updated text info.

You could produce:
* Countdown/count-ups
* After Effects style text-intensive sequences (but batch processed on demand)
* Stylised name captions including transitions & motion for your whole project in one keypress
* Amazing end titles sequences!


Does anyone know if 6.0c has any scripting enhancements? If so can only dream that this may be one of them!

If so can only dream that this may be one of them! Not in 6.0c

Ok, I've found a way to do this. It is part of the Excalibur 4.6 update. You can see details about the new "Quick Label" tool here

Ok.. it looks like you're doing the same as my workaround for this - ie. creating a temp preset by copying a default .dxp, changing the rich text portion and adjusting the little-endian length accordingly... I had always refrained from "releasing" anything that does this in case the dxp format itself were to change in the next Vegas release.

Can we assume this is not the case?

> I had always refrained from "releasing" anything that does this in case the dxp format itself were to change in the next Vegas release. Can we assume this is not the case?

Well... we all have. We all knew we could do this and the Media Generators in Vegas haven’t changed since at least Version 3 when I started using it so it seems a safe bet that this won’t break anything.

The bigger question is that this required Reverse Engineering the format which is strictly forbidden in the End User License Agreement.

2. RESTRICTIONS ON USE. You may not: ...(d) modify, adapt, create derivative works from or translate any part of the Software, (e) reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software ...

Since this is being offered for sale the question is: did this violate the End User License Agreement and is what Edward did Illegal? (‘cuz if it isn’t I can think of lots of hacks the we can exploit to gain more control over Vegas) It opens up a whole new can of worms.

~jr

First of all, what I did required NO "reverse engineering". Here's what I'm doing. I created a preset that had a line of 40 1's and a line of 40 2's. Now I simply open the file, search for the 40 1's and replace them with 40 new characters. I then search for 40 2's and replace them with another set of 40 new characters. Most of those characters are spaces. I am only changing the actual text that I typed in more akin to doing a "replace" in Word, for example. No other characters/bytes are being changed. I have no need to know what ANYTHING in that file means or does.

I have no intentions of creating a controversy, however, so I've just uploaded a version without this tool.

> First of all, what I did required NO "reverse engineering"

Well... some of us have though of doing that before but that requires that you actually look into the data file and determine what can be changed (i.e., the text), where it was in the file, and then figure a way to substitute your own text. That’s called reverse engineering; i.e., taking an undocumented format and see what makes it work the way it does, and the using that knowledge to your advantage in your product. It is not the same as search and replace in a Word document because that is a documented format. DXP files are not documented.

I’m not saying you did anything illegal. Only Sony can make that determination. Does reverse engineering only apply to code and not data files? I don’t know. I’m just asking the question. If it is OK with Sony, it does open the door to reverse engineering ALL of the media generator files and internal parameters to gain access to them. I’m OK with that if Sony is!

It would all be so much easier if Sony would just enhance their Script API with changes we’ve been asking for since Vegas 4 when it was first introduced. Hopefully they are working on this for some future version.

I understand why you did it. I’m as frustrated as you that release after release our requests for enhancements to the Script API go unanswered. I wanted to do the same thing with my free SubText script because this technique would be perfect for importing subtitles as text. (right now I just import them as regions) It’s obvious that drewsonix also though of doing this.

So while what you did was cleaver, others have though of doing that before and refrained because we felt it would violate the EULA. I now have customers asking me when Ultimate S is going to add that feature so I now have a business interest in whether this is legal or not.

It would be nice if Sony would weigh in on this one because it seems to be a grey area in the EULA.

~jr

If Sony ever decided to "go after" third party developers for creating products that support their product, that would be the dumbest move of all time. Even large companies cannot survive without partnerships with small players (just start with the Sony dealer network and then move on from there).

I too wish they would enhance the API, but I doubt we are going to see this. I am pretty sure this was the work of one person and I don't sense that person is still involved or possibly still there.

The direction of the product, other than to support new Sony hardware, has been pretty difficult to understand since the acquisition.

> If Sony ever decided to "go after" third party developers for creating products that support their product, that would be the dumbest move of all time.

I’m not suggesting they “go after” anyone, but look at it from Sony’s position:

What if everyone started writing programs that modified the Media Generator files, and DirectX preset files, and Rendering files, etc. Those files are used/read in by Vegas. So what if this 3rd party software introduces an error into one of those files that causes Vegas to crash when it reads it! How does Sony support that???

If I were Sony, I would blacklist the program that does that and ask any customer who calls for support to remove that program from their system and do I clean install of Vegas before I would field a support call. That’s the only position you can take under those circumstances because that software went outside the documented/supported API’s.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Sony should blacklist Excalibur. I’m sure what Edward did was very innocent and he was only trying to make his customers happy. I believe him when he said that he did NOT see it as reverse engineering. I have the utmost respect for Edward. He may be my competitor but he is also a man of great integrity and I trust his word. I was just pointing out that it could be a violation of the EULA.

The bottom line is I don’t see how Sony can support this. Perhaps I should have sent a private email to Edward to discuss the pros and cons of this instead of bringing it up in a public forum. I wasn’t going to say anything until drewsonix posted about how he was going to do this a while back but decided not too. There is a definite line that got crossed (i.e., modifying the data files of another application) that I think is dangerous behavior.

> I too wish they would enhance the API,

Dito, and as much as I don’t like the fact that Sony has not added any of the enhancements we have asked for over the years, I don’t think hacking their undocumented data files is the right answer either. I know it was done with the best intent. But it still opens a Pandora’s Box none the less.

~jr

OK - well.. there's only one answer. Sony's! I would much rather hear that or silence, than someone else's interpration of Sony's position.

The idea of Edward or anyone else being made nervous about trying to provide products which enhance the functionality of Vegas is very sad.


So then Sony - am I considered to be illegally "reverse engineering" if I write a function to replace a portion of the .dxp preset file?

For me the R.E. term has normally referred to people trying to disassemble or otherwise mess with a program exe or dlls.. whereas this is about replacement of bytes in an output file (and not even the .veg).

Obviously we know it is possible to do this in .js - if I were to publish here a routine which did that then (since I am not making money from it) would Sony have any objection? The reason for doing this is purely to expand the possibilities for scripting in Vegas.

I hope if Sony does have an objection than at least this functionality can be included in Vegas 7.

Thanks

drew

>"If I were Sony, I would blacklist the program"

Well... if *I* were Sony, I would be interested in seeing what creative ideas third-party scripters had come up with and simply want to test their apps to make sure there were no side effects. I might not officially endorse it, but I certainly wouldn't do anything to prevent it being available to users.


>So what if this 3rd party software introduces an error into one of those files that causes Vegas to crash when it reads it! How does Sony support that???

*I know third-party VSTs which crash Vegas when added to a session
*I know video camera device drivers which hang Vegas automatically on start up
*I know registry cleaners which remove keys used by Vegas if you don't know what "DXTransform" is when it asks you.
*My MTC won't sync correctly and my audio device port mappings jump around dependent on which other s/w I have open when I start Vegas.
*Friends with the UAD-1 tell me you should change internal settings to get the device working at its best with Vegas.

There are surely already loads of examples of 3rd party applications/plug-ins or other external factors which could cause problems in Vegas and I wouldn't expect Sony to do anything other than refer users back to the source with those.

I think it's safe to say if people were fore-warned and aware of what they were installing then most would be more likely to go back to the script source anyway.

According to my legal advisor the "restrictions" clause in the EULA relates far more to someone pulling apart the software code than to someone looking into or even "adapting" an output file. Otherwise I would be breaking the agreement if opened a veg file with notepad and typed a few letters at random and closed it again.

If the person who writes a script to do this doesn't actually own Vegas then are they even subject to the EULA? Are the users breaking any part of the EULA if they use but didn't write it?

> Well no response so far..

I’m not sure if Sony is going to make an "official" statement in reply to your request, but I did talk to Sony and they strongly advised against it. That was enough for me to not do it.

~jr

Well for now I guess I'll have to restrict use to my own system and consider it a way to speed up things I do for my clients.

In the meantime here's an example of what is so exciting about all of this... the following was done with js - I obviously won't publish the script here for the moment.

Check out:
http://www.vegasscripts.com/300Words.zip

....and imagine trying to do this manually!

It's obviously not a very sophisticated "look" (for this demo) but I gave the veg to a friend and he came back with a result that anyone would have guessed had been created with After Effects.

I'm so excited, once again, with what can be achieved in Vegas!!!


But will I be in trouble if I publish my very useful script? Or does it just need to come with a caveat?

Thanks

drew

I’m not saying you did anything illegal.

Actually, JohnnyRoy, you implied it severely.