DrLumen wrote on 4/23/2014, 2:51 AM
I don't see a problem with Sony adding watermarks with trial versions. I think Vegas is fairly popular with the kids so a watermark may get Sony some word of mouth advertising.

However, if someone does a truly horrendous home video, then Sony will have their name on it... A bit of a double edged sword IMHO.

intel i-4790k / Asus Z97 Pro / 32GB Crucial RAM / Nvidia GTX 560Ti / 500GB Samsung SSD / 256 GB Samsung SSD / 2-WDC 4TB Black HDD's / 2-WDC 1TB HDD's / 2-HP 23" Monitors / Various MIDI gear, controllers and audio interfaces

Grazie wrote on 4/23/2014, 4:20 AM
I'm going to knock out one that says GO BETA TEAM.


DGates wrote on 4/25/2014, 3:56 AM
---Cracked/hacked copies of Vegas are quite popular with the gamer crowd, perhaps SCS is merely trying to make it more difficult to pirate their software. I have no problem with that.---

That's EXACTLY why it's there. And I don't have a problem with it either. No LEGITIMATE user should.
_Lenny_ wrote on 4/25/2014, 6:22 AM
I'm sure that one of the freely available resource editing utilities could quite easily be used to remove the offending image.

Overcoming an time limitation would be harder, but from what I've seen, cracks for VP13 are already out there.
Terje wrote on 4/25/2014, 7:10 PM
>> About as absurd as expecting a rock solid initial release

I expect a solid release, I do not expect to do paid work with trial software, that's a silly request.
MUTTLEY wrote on 4/26/2014, 6:22 PM

I love this thread simply for it's ridiculousness, thoroughly entertaining! My clients don't get or even see a copy (via passworded post on Vimeo) of their project, with the only exception being at my home, until any balance is paid in full. That was a painful lesson to learn lemme tell ya.

Back to the original, a whole lot of bad arguments and unnecessary drama. I'll concede that there's no harm in a one line disclaimer somewhere, if there isn't one already, like I would ever look. This thread wouldn't be so rife with humor had you stuck with the one segment of your request that could have made sense if instead of a soap box, self righteous indignation, and baseless arguments trying to make an unsupportable point, you had simply said "It would have been nice to know before using that the trial version embeds a watermark on it's renders." I don't think anyone would have batted an eye had you just stuck with that.

- Ray
Underground Planet
Kit wrote on 4/26/2014, 7:48 PM
I love this thread simply for it's ridiculousness, thoroughly entertaining!

It was better before some posts started disappearing.
Rob Franks wrote on 4/27/2014, 3:20 PM
"Just the opposite here. The watermark i'd hardly even notice. The beeps drove me nutty."

The water marks only become noticeable when trying to make money from a product you don't actually own. Since *MOST* treat the trial version for what it is (a trial) and don't attempt to pawn the finished product off on a customer, then sure... the water mark isn't noticed ;) :)

The answer is amazingly simple;
PAY FOR THE PRODUCT before you start using it on a professional basis.
Kit wrote on 4/27/2014, 6:25 PM
So the watermark doesn't pop-up while you are editing? If it is only on a render that makes more sense.
OldSmoke wrote on 4/27/2014, 6:40 PM
It is in the preview too.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

[r]Evolution wrote on 4/27/2014, 7:42 PM
MUTTLEY: I love this thread simply for it's ridiculousness, thoroughly entertaining! My clients don't get or even see a copy (via passworded post on Vimeo) of their project, with the only exception being at my home, until any balance is paid in full. That was a painful lesson to learn lemme tell ya.

Not meaning to derail this awesome thread but, I'd like to know more about that lesson learned about Balance/Payment in Full.
ushere wrote on 4/28/2014, 1:11 AM
i've been posting client approval (hidden) video's to both youtube or vimeo (client dependent) for years now.

every one has prominent tc burnt in until i have client / approval payment in full.

i'm not sure how one would go about 'showing' the client (especially remote or extremely busy corporate ones) progressive stages and / or final edit otherwise? it used to be vhs with tc, dvd with tc, etc.,

how do you do it?
Duncan H wrote on 4/28/2014, 1:43 AM
I just did that very thing today, similar to yourself, simply uploaded the section of interest (an interview) to my Youtube account as an unlisted (and no watermark) file for their viewing. The two separate interview files represents only perhaps <15% of the total project. Asked them to comment / approve and on we go. If they did choose to download it, they only get a very small section of the total project as an .mp4, can't see that's much use to them. Similar approach to you for final approval.


larry-peter wrote on 4/28/2014, 9:13 AM
Re: client approvals, I have had no issues for years with simply providing low bit-rate files at a smaller size that the final delivery format. i.e., sd at 320 X 240, HD at 640 X 360. 90% of my clients are repeat customers, so they know the drill and I haven't been burned.

The one time an approval copy was attempted to be used clandestinely, the client tipped me off : "We wanted to show the video at a meeting and it looked terrible on our large screen in the conference room." "Yes, tell the people in the meeting it will look like this until it's paid for."

In the past, when working for another company, there was one client who had no problem using a full-res time coded version for their final use.
Ryadia wrote on 4/28/2014, 11:10 PM
Surely if the trial works to your satisfaction you could cough up the bucks and buy it before selling your work?

Watermarks are in place to prevent people who download trial version from selling their work. If you are good enough to sell it , be decent enough to buy it.

Rather not? There are several "free" in there is no free lunch type free not as good as Vegas but the authors let you sell your work without paying them for the time they spent developing their software.
MUTTLEY wrote on 4/29/2014, 12:51 AM
Sorry bout that, didn't mean to take it off topic, only meant to to serve as an example. I've never had someone say they were insulted. Low quality is an option but my thought process behind logo over low quality is I want them to see how awesome it is. I can't watch a clip from a movie at 640 on YouTube even if I love the movie and even if it was filmed in IMAX and I saw it at IMAX, makes my eyes bleed. That in mind, I don't want them to see my work in that light or or worse, force my client into a position where they have to say "This is lower quality then it will be" to whomever they might show it to. But I was also one posting video's in high quality and offering them for download way before YouTube or Vimeo for the same reason. I just don't want my stuff to look like that. As stated, others have their own preference.

As to [r]Evolution asking " I'd like to know more about that lesson learned about Balance/Payment in Full." I've been burned, that's the short version. And the thing about getting burned by a client is it's always the ones you totally trust. When I'm done with a vid I'm giddy as a schoolgirl, I can't wait to show the client and get it out there for the world to see. In that, I've forked work over and made things public trusting that the client that I know is tickled pink will fulfill their obligations. I do anywhere from a 50% to 75% deposit. I actually prefer 50% cuz otherwise the final 25% at the end is less exciting. What I've noticed, and it makes sense now, is that when someone gets their video before it's paid for it soon looses it's sparkle and paying a balance becomes exceptionally less important then when they can't post it or share it. I get it. Some of the bands work with don't have a ton of cash and depending on their situation, priorities are more likely to change if they have the goods. I still have a guy who owes me 2K from 2011. Could I sue? Yea, time, hassle, expense. But in retrospect it's my fault, I set us up to fail. I don't believe for one second that he intended to screw me, but he did. Handing over finished work sets both I and the client up to fail. Believe me when I say that payment would have helped me more times than I can count when things got lean, if it showed up today it'd be a life saver. And the other aspect of that is that I am a thousand percent certain had I just said nicely that I can't turn it over it wouldn't have been anything negative. That was the deal from the start. I love the vid, I'm glad people can see it, I just should have handled it better. Another incident was someone with a small label in Cali that came to town for SX and hired me to do camera work. Handed over my footage with the understanding the check would be sent once they got back. Weeks went by no reply to emails or calls until I said I have their address and would show up and would fly up there and be banging on their door if I didn't hear back. I didn't care if I just broke even on the plane fair. They FedEx'd it the next day.

One last story cuz if I'm gonna get burned at least make me laugh. I'm copy pasting it from another video I just did with an actress I like to work with speaking of another project I had used her on:

"Her role was as an office worker. Script called for her to look bored on lunch break. We were filming at the offices of the client after hours and when we got to this segment we grabbed a muffin off the counter for the scene. The following day I got this note from the client “I have to say I’m very disappointed that you, your crew/cast helped yourselves to some muffins and donuts that were in our little kitchen. Those items were meant for a meeting this morning. Very unprofessional to help yourselves without asking.” Because when I’m stealing I like to document it with video that I’m going to show the client a few days later. I’m sure those in attendance in the mornings meeting wept for the day old muffins they would have had. Best note from a client ever!"

Thankfully it wasn't a big budget, I was pissed but wrote off the loss. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, with bigger companies they have net 30, which I loath, but the checks do come. Warner Brothers isn't going to change how they pay because I wanna get paid differently. But again, the check will come and it will clear. With just about anyone else, cash in hand or the check goes through and we can all be happy.

- Ray
Soulmansblue wrote on 8/21/2014, 4:23 PM
Hi excuse me for butting in. I have read this thread with much amusement. I am new to SCS software but I bought Sound Forge Pro 11 and then went and bought everything else including Vegas Pro 13 because I was so impresses.

No watermark bothered me. I didn't need for ever to check it out so I could have lived with a trial time limit. I usually know within the first hour or so if the software is going to work for me.

The SCS software seems to follow my line of thought. This is the first time that I have used a high quality Video Editor, I used Cyberlinks Power Director for a little while. It just did not sit right but Vegas Pro and Sound Forge just fall into line. I just have to think about what I want to do and how and tend to find that is the way it actually works.

We should be discussing the software and how it works, how we use it and how we can help each other get more out of it. I have yet to use any of the SCS software to make money as of yet. I still need to learn at least a little more.

I should have tried this software a long time ago but reviews said it was no good. What they meant was it was to difficult for them to use. I found that it had a steeper learning curve than any other software of the same genre but the returns are far greater.

I could have learnt all of this with the software hidden behind a little watermark. Why shouldn't SCS protect their interests. You can knock them because of it but I don't hear any praise coming from you chaps. I have found both the support team and customer services to be great. They have helped me considerably over the last few months and given me some really fast assistance unlike other companies where it is not only impossible to get hold of them but the come back time is like forever.

I have had every issue that I have thrown at these chaps solved. Even the embarrassing ones when they see from your screenshot that you have pressed the FX bypass button :)

I have to agree wholeheartedly with that a watermark is no big deal and if you buy any work you've done can be used as the watermark is removed from all that you have done. Obviously if you have already rendered it the water mark will not go away.

Great software - what watermark. I paid out and it left. And Vegas Pro 13 rocks, yes it has some bugs but doesn't all software. I actually get a kick out of finding them. I enjoy telling them it don't work and I nearly always come up with a work around pretty quick.
BrooksAZ wrote on 8/25/2014, 4:17 PM
What's next, paying to use the software every month?

Hello Adobe? More and more companies are going to this model.