Zippy: "I knew it wasn't possible."

Yeah, I can't even follow the logic of that.

He's ignored.

<<With Sony cutting 20,000 jobs from it's work force, where will they find the people to address all of these "faults"?>>

Sony won't cut the boys/girls in Wisconsin (SoFo programmers) from the rolls. That would negate the $18 million they just spent on the SoFo product line. I saw a recent article in one of the digital magazines in which Sony and several industry partners are working on developing a universal DV format which will include hi-def, called HDV. Vegas is perfectly positioned to exploit this capability.

First off, why raise the price? What's laughable is how much people are willing to overpay for programs like Avid. I laugh at all of my friends who are in film school struggling to do things in expensive things like Avid that I do in seconds in Vegas. They refuse to believe that Vegas is as good as it is just because it costs so little. I'd much rather laugh because I got a good deal than pay more. I certainly wouldn't be able to afford Vegas with a price raise. Second here's what I think is missing from Vegas/what I've never been able to do:


1)
Is there a way to do in Vegas the equivalent of the Premiere razor blade, where you can make an exact cut in just one track of video and the respective audio that is linked to that video?
2) Is there a way to, after unlinking audio and video or introducing a third audio track or video track, to permanetly re-link a bunch of files together so that you can move them around together? Premiere 6 (I haven't used a newer version) promised this, but it never worked properly.

"...and the only thing that matches him to you in my book is that he's a self-proclaimed racist..."

I missed that one... could you tell me offline who that was?

I agree that Zippy can be pretty annoying, but I'm more surprised that anyone still responds to his posts. Come to think of it, by being on this thread at all I've just become part of the problem. CRAP!!! Oh well.

-Zippy, as trolls go you are truly an artist. You've learned how to push people's buttons (on this forum) so well that they even start threads about you BEFORE you've actually said anything... pure genious in my opinion; twisted and sad, but genius none the less.

I salute and pity you!

Thanks,

Shawn

dirtynbl

Hate to add to this thread, but that's where you asked, so ...

1) It's even easier than Premiere - no special tool to be grabbed - use the S key to split at cursor position. If no events are highlighted, then all clips at that positiion will be split. If one or more events are highlighted, then they alone will be split

2) Hold Ctrl down while you highlight a number of events, then hit "G" that will make them into a group and they can be moved around together ("U" to ungroup)

The benefit of raising the price, (at the risk of me being called a snob) is that it reduces the userbase to folks who are REALLY serious about editing. From the point of your post, "people in film school" which means that they are getting an education. On bloated, over priced software, perhaps....but they are learning from professionals, not a guy who sells insurance by day and dabbles in vid by night, creating (often) bad video due to his lack of knowledge of video in general and the app itself. THAT is the value. It raises the bar of the industry as a whole. AVID and FCP don't really have to sweat Vegas until the main body of the industry takes Vegas seriously. And as long as the price is so low, it never will.

Perhaps a Standard Package could be created with the basic feature set, and a higher priced Production Package could compete with the Big Boys... include the fancy features and what not...
G

DELETED

Spot I couldn't agree more. If FCP had been priced at half of what it is, it would not have been taken seriously by the industry as soon as it was released. Face it, it's not always the real value but the perceived value. A higher price gives it more of a perceived value and there are those in high decision making places that base their decisions on what they perceive is better. Pity.

Mike

whoa whoa whoa. there is much validity to what SPOT is saying, no need to attack him like that. If you want something to be percieved as better you raise the price. But my point is this...5 years ago Sonic Foundry could have gotten away with the huge price raise, however, now they have proven that editiing can be done cheaply and professionally at a cheap price. If Vegas 5 came out with a basic and a pro version and the basic looked like a prissy version of 4 you can bet everyone would be pretty pissed. What will convince the industry to switch to Vegas off of *shit* like Avid is that over time people using Avid and others like it will see the kind of things that can be done with Vegas. When they realize that the price is so much lower a migration will occur. What is essentially happening and going to happen for awhile will be an escalation of committment. Current users of high cost editing solutions will continue to use them due to pride. However, I can tell you that some of those film students have been convinced by me to switch to Vegas and some of them have even convinced their professors. I think a price raise is rediculous unless there are tons of new features included, and frankly, Vegas is so close to perfect I can't see that many new features that would warrant a huge price raise next time around. Besides, there is enough competition out there that will simply move in on Vegas's market. The price of editiing digitally is dropping. That's the plain fact. That's why Avid has launched a "basic" version. Raising the price is rediculous becasue the price isn't low due to anything except advancement in technology. 20 years ago it was inconcievable to think that you would one day be able to create your own CD mix. Hell, CD players cost $500 to $1000. 10 years ago, it was possible, but it was really really costly. Now you can buy and expensive settop CD recorder for a couple hundred dollars (like Avid) and some expensive CD-R music cd's (again like Avid) OR you can pony up $15 and head to office max and get a 52x CD burner that will burn a 6 CDs in the time it takes the set top player to burn one CD (like vegas, cheap yet effective) and you can use CD-R's (which are the same as music CD-R's) only they cost no more than 20 cents a piece (again cheap yet effective like vegas). Point being, idiots are going to pay a lot of money for something when a cheaper alternative exists. However, more people can pay for something that's cheaper and your saturation of the market will inevitably become stronger.

except, final cut pro simply bamboozled a lot of people. it's a lame editor.

That's exactly what I'd like to see happen, is follow the model of Pinnacle and Avid, with upgrade paths to hardware dependent or feature dependent tools. Of course, now it's fairly difficult to raise the bar far enough to justify a 999.00 price with the featureset that's already been released at the lower 300.00 point. But who knows....Vegas 5 will eventually pop it's pretty head, and maybe the feature list will justify a higher expense, with some options to move into additional features.
Maybe we'll see Oxford happen for Vegas. That alone would justify a 1K price tag.

I guess I'm just curious how much of a price raise you propose would be enough to make it pro? Don't take this as sarcastic, but what are you comparing Vegas to? I suppose Premier obviously wouldn't be considered pro because it has the same msrp as Vegas ($699), and in this case, I would have to agree. But at the same time, did you notice how many industry publications took notice of premier and its 'pro' level once Adobe added the 'pro' moniker even though there was no increase in price? Perhaps all Vegas needs is a name upgrade. Maybe adding more words to the name will make it better. Oh yeah, and put some film imagery on the box (like a slate), that works good. Sounds silly, but it's worked for others.

Would FCP be considered pro enough? It's price is certainly much higher at $999 to warrant a product that is more 'pro'. However, though some may contend this, I would posit that FCP is the primary catalyst to the increase in editors who are, as you put it, "a guy who sells insurance by day and dabbles in vid by night". I've seen more poorly edited video come from editors on that product than any other. Furthermore, this product stands as proof that raising the price doesn't reduce the userbase to only those 'serious about editing', as I would observe people every single day plunk down $1k for FCP, plus at least $2k for a decent G4 to run it (at my old workplace). I'm sorry, but I would find it absurd to assume all of these people are professionals. Yes perhaps they're 'serious' about doing something of quality, but with no training, they won't reach anything resembling 'pro' for a long time. Nevertheless, many non-industry pros are willing to put the money down to be 'pro'.

Moving on up, I would have to ask if you consider Avid Xpress Pro 'pro' enough? If a more elitist userbase means it's more 'pro' then I would have to agree. I would also agree that the ability to edit Stadard def (with the right hardware), or rather lets say "higher definition" video than another editor, would make it a more professional editor. Hmmm, did I read it right, but doesn't Vegas support HD video? I might consider that "higher resolution" than SD, wouldn't you. At any rate, many may say that the price might keep those less "serious about editing" away from the product. I would contend that the price has less to do with this than the attitude of many current editors using this product, as well as the general legacy Avid has as to the unweildiness of the product line (even though I believe that Avid's usability is much higher than in the past, due to their inclusion of many features from other NLEs, including Vegas). Nevertheless, I have seen work just as bad come out of Avid as I have from any other NLE, and at an msrp of $1695, that's some expensive trash.

I have always been an advocate of the idea that "the paintbrush didn't make the masterpiece" so to speak. A tool is simply that, a tool. What it takes is someone with talent to create something of value, but the tool doesn't automagically make anyone better. I would agree however, that the rather accessible price has made Vegas a choice for many people wanting to get into editing, and this could lead to saturation in the editor pool of less than 'pro' editors. However, as I have noted, I have seen terrible editing come from all NLEs. On the flipside, I have seen amazing editing come from every NLE as well. It only takes a few great users to get a product respect in this industry. Therefore, I would posit that it's the users that augment the perceived quality of a product, and not it's price. The only ones who are truly convinced of a product's merit based on its price are those who are not experienced enough to tell the difference otherwise. I would say that the reason that FCP and Avid are and should be sweating is pricisely a result of what you said should be changed, Vegas' price. It's make's it possible for professionals (and newbies alike) to shed reliance on specific hardware (the Mac platform for FCP for instance) and get down to business and edit. Even if the userbase has a large amount of less-than-pro users, it would not make a difference, as 1) nearly every product has this as a factor, and 2) those creating subpar work will be ignored, and the quality work will gain respect (for themselves, and for the product).

Don't take this the wrong way, I am not looking to argue, just looking for justification why price MUST equal quality. I think it would be more of a victory for Sony and Vegas if a cheaper product is able to overshadow much higher-priced NLEs (why BTW it has so on almost every full point revision of the product not to mention many subpoint revisions (0.1,0.2,etc.) as well). It has done it in the past, it is doing it now in many respects, and I believe that Vegas can gain respect in the 'pro' industry without going the same way as most editors and fixing their price to the "pro level".

Most software is grossly overpriced. Then again so is prescription medicine. Both camps argue they need the money to develope new products. Of course we have nobody to blame but ourselves. We pay it. Willingly. Eagarly sometimes.

Consider Photoshop. It has a retail price of roughly 6 times Paint Shop Pro. Is is that much better? Hell no, its at best marginally better. So why do people sit still for paying that much? Because the guy down the street bought it and if you don't you're preceived an less professional. So many people buy on that reason alone just so they can say of course I use Photoshop.

Ditto for NLE software. Because Vegas is still pretty much the new kid on the block at lot of "professionals" haven't even looked at it. They may have heard its good, they may even buy it on the sneak. But because it is "cheap" relatively speaking for so-called "professional" video editing software they won't tell clients they use it. Perish the thought.

If Sony decides to bump the price up and I mean way up like $999 or more just for Vegas and maybe $1500 if you throw in DVD-A then more "professionals" indeed may buy it because in their twisted thinking it will somehow overnight become a more "professional" package simply by having a more hefty price tag. If Sony does that it will probably rank right up there with Coke II as a marketing disaster.

Rightly or wrongly when SoFo first rolled out Vegas, then called Vegas Video for you new guys, they decided to price it moderately. Because of it a lot of people bought it that otherwise never would have. Bumping up the price by 50% or more risks alienating a sizeable portion of the customer base on the gamble they may attract more fancy pants "professionals". I don't think Sony will make that mistake and I don't think they will come up with a super-duper version with a price tag to match. I think version 5 will be priced about what version 4 is now.

Price doesn't equal quality. Not even close. Price equals perception in the market. Macromedia proved this years ago. Not only do they keep their prices high, but they also deliberately make their products difficult to work with. Price equals elitism. Is a Porsche really a better car than an Audi? Is an Audi really better than a VW? I don't think so. I think there are some upgrades, but in the end, it's all the same steel and designers.
but....
AVID and Pinnacle hold the name. yes, Vegas has an MSRP of 699 just like Premiere, but you never found Premiere available as a standalone for 299.00 like you did with Vegas for a period of time. That's part of my point.
Good heavens, the best built buildings are also the oldest, no power tools, no laser measurements, just knowledge of the craft. I've seen some awesome projects put together with iMovie and MovieMaker2, and they are free.
Unfortunately, cost equals perceived value. always has. Even crappy movies still announce 200 million$$ blockbuster, as though the cost makes it a great film....but yet folks walk out. then there are movies that cost virtually nothing to make that intrigue folks for years, like "Real Women Have Curves" or "One Hour Photo" and so forth.
Price doesn't at all equal quality. Not by a long shot.
Sonic Foundry was well known for delivering feature for dollar, and I hope it stays that way. (I'm sure it will) but at the same time, to move into the 'big leagues' the price needs to be higher, and then trickle-down economics work great wonders. AVID's professional team had a HUGE, MONSTROUS showdown when sales of Express took off. Now sales of Express eclipse the sales of all of the other, bigger products. Why? Because all of us wanted Avids. I bought a used Avid system years ago just so I could say I had one. Frankly, it was junk compared to what Vegas does at 1/10th the cost. But then Express came out and everyone could afford an Avid. Clients still ask for Avid even though they are too ill=informed to know the difference. It's branding and perception. I've raised this flag before, been castigated for it before. It doesn't bother me. I can't see Zippy's comments because I've ignored him, so if he's attacking me....zippy, have at it. All my silly little pieces of gold don't make me a better editor, better composer, or shooter, but at least I can speak with some qualification about what I know from experience without attacking or name calling or whatever else. No one doubts my love for Sony and what Vegas, Forge, and Acid are, and no one has argued for features harder than I, nor swore, yelled, kicked or screamed as loud as me. Difference is, I at least have the experience to know what I'm about when I do it. If you do have that knowledge and experience, I apologize. I've never seen indication of it though, and apparently neither has anyone in this forum. My work speaks loudly for itself. Both the good works and bad works. (and I've done a lot of embarassing work)

DSE,

Very well said. I'm a proud Vegas user, and even more proud that I use the same software that the Pro's use!

Next upgrade name of Vegas Video....Vegas Pro...!

Ok, I understand better what you were saying. I pretty much agree that price has a direct effect on the perceived quality of a product, especially to those without enough experience to determine via other means. However, I was stiffled by the proposed idea that the price MUST be increased to get respect in the industry.

I have only one example to the contrary, but it's a biggie.

Alias Maya

How much did it cost before? The base version (Maya Complete was $7500) and was as high as $16k for the Unlimited version. Last year (2002), Alias dropped the price to $2k for the base version. Now the question; did the lower price anyone think that the software had $5000 worth of features cut out? Did anyone think that the software was no longer one of the top 3d modelers out there? I would have to say no. Has the userbase expanded to include more users that may produce crap, heck yeah. But did this bring down the perceived quality of the product, not at all. Why? Because people like to look at pretty things. Everyone tries their darndest to forget the junk and fall in love with the awsome work. Therefore as a result of the price drop and resulting increase of users, more amazing work has been produced with the use of the software.

So, while in this example, price moved in the opposite direction, it does demonstrate the effect price can have (or rather lack thereof) as long as the actual caliber of the product is understood. Maya did not gain this perception merely because of its previously high price, but because it worked with its users, and its users produced great work.