I agree Mario, experts would be a far better source of comparative reviews.

A reviewer can usually not spend the time necessary to become fully versed on every product, but when pointing out shortcomings, I think one has an obligation to at least identify strong points. For example, there was no mention that I could find about scripting, which I view as a major feature of Vegas

I also get the impression that Mr. Capria did not fully explore the preferences options.

Capria is one of the worst reviewers in the industry--Trust me, the guy is an Avid/FCP fanboy. Never read his stuff anymore--

Maybe if Vegas users sent him some e-mails stating that, if he spent as much time with Vegas as he does Avid/FCP, he'd find that Vegas does indeed do things he thought it didn't.
Just a suggestion. Don't forget to be diplomatic. ;-)

Mario

The limit of one sequence per project relates to some user's desire to nest timelines. Basically, a project needs to be able to contain multiple timelines for any of these things to happen.

I was recently reading through a book on Flash 5 and noted that it supports multiple sequences in a project. They refer to them as "Scenes". Just a simple choice of terms but it says a lot. It would be very useful if Vegas could manage projects in this way.

I haven't received the november issue yet but maybe it's online...

Rob Mack

It's sad when someone of Frank Capria's ilk is the source for a product reviewl. His bias shows through every sentence. His errors of fact are glaring -- J,K, and L trimming are possible, for example, and what goes on in the Trimmer window is exactly what the name implies. His insistance that the program is inferior because it doesn't measure up to some workflow "standard" that he imagines simply serves to trash a program that serves many of us quite well. Placed in a consumer magazine such as DV, a review such as this steers many who would be far better served by Vegas 5.0 toward products difficult to learn and lacking in stability.

Review by comparison is the resort of those who don't/won't take the time to explore the strengths and weaknesses of a product thoroughly, impartially, honestly.

My friend's KIA can't hold a candle to my Dodge Caravan, but they both get us to work on time.

After two years of Vegas 4.0 without a single crash, I'm willing to leave Premier and the rest to Capria. Vegas 4 and 5 serve our shop well, even if the timeline is on top!

Jack

You can put the timeline on the bottom. Search this forum. It takes a small effort but there's a hidden pref you can set.

Rob Mack

I have to say I got the issue and I put it aside, but than I read this thread so I went and read the review. For those who have not read it, or just skipped it for whatever reason, it is not that bad...matter of fact it is pretty good and most of what he says has been brought up in these forums. So here is sort of a summation of it -

I mostly agree with everything said as well. For example - these above posts that dump on the review - since you are disagreeing with the review than also you disagree with the following:

The best audio tools among NLE's at any price range.
Great performance from an inexpensive package.
No EDL, AAF, or OMF import
Media managment tools aren't as feature rich as other NLE's in its class

These stood out to me because if you read what is above you get the idea that the entire review is not accurate and that it dumps on Vegas. The entire first part (5 paragraphs) is just a set up to the review - nothing bad in it - just setting up the "test" as it were. First real negative thing comes under the header "Setup and installation" - no printed manual. Is this news? No. It has been discussed here - was discussed a lot a while back because the one place that offered printed manuals was asked to stop doing so. And really how many times have many of us said to someone "Read the manual" to someone who asks something covered in it? But perhaps these people 1> Don't download the sperate (important fact - it is not included in the downlaod) manual and 2> that it is hard to open Acrobat and go back and forth between an app and a PDF manual. So I could go either way on this issue - but I would tend to lean towards people not reading PDF manuals as easy as a printed one.

The next issues he brings up have also been discussed here - the way SoFo/Sony names things. We had a discussion in the past about the whole source/record concept that Vegas does not use. It is fact that most other NLE's use that concept and Vegas does not and it is also true that is you come to Vegas from another NLE, or even the old tape based editing, the lack of a "source" display is a bit weird at first. And if you are used to opening a "trimmer" to trim than it is a bit wierd when Vegas is sort of the "Source" window. Nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious and you have to read what is said right after this whole section: Eventually you learn the lingo or give up. Vegas 5 has enough going for it that I didn't give up." Hardly a negative point to be taken in that, I would call it pretty good endorsment to "deal with it" if you will.

The next sections point out more obvious things that have been discussed right here by various people. The interface - Vegas 5 helps to solve the "upside down" feel. But by default it is "upside down" and with Vegas 4 I just move things around so the preview window is on top and the timeline is on the bottom. Vegas 5 makes it easier - and while Frank points out what many other people have voiced he also says Fortunately for me, the Vegas 5 interface is customizable. So what is the problem so far? Pretty much all the way through the first page and really not one thing that is false or has not been said already in these forums. Also not anything that I would look at and say "Man this guy is really negative."

Onto the next pages - he says he likes the new ability to customize keyboard shortcuts. He saysVegas offers you several options for projects (templates) - DV, SD and HD as well as 24p. He points out a "nifty little feature" in the Match Media button and says it is very handy. Again - nothing extremly negative or really biased yet. But now the point of concern maybe - he points out that Vegas can't do nested timelines. This is not news to those who have posted much about this, before Version 5 came out it was suggested a lot - and it was not included. (at least not in the sense that most people asked for it - yes Vegas 5 has "Nesting" however this is another way in how Vegas uses terms a bit different than other NLEs) Now the thing is that he doesn't mention, because maybe he does not know it - is that you can open more than one instance of Vegas. Yeah it is a workaround but it works. But even so - this isn't really something documented and if you are used to nested timelines you wouldn't think to open a whole new instance of the program (Frankly because with most programs you really can't) So I would 100% agree that on first look I don't like having to close the project and open a new one just to see what the sequence looked like yesterday. But the bottom line is that this is something that has already been talked about and requested many many times around here...nested timelines.

Back to compliments now - he calls the Vegas capture application "solid". He mentions it will even capture from a webcam and play back in real time without any hitch on a laptop. And before someone who hasn't read this review jumps on that - he points out I have no idea how I would use the latter feature but it was fun to play with.

He moves on to more good comments - he calls Vegas "Responsive". In a nutshell he says Vegas is built to work very well on almost any machine, even stating he was "impressed" with how it perfromed on slower machines. Then he goes on to say more good things - the design for audio reflect Sonic Foundrys audio expertise. Than the Vegas developers have done a good job in the UI that allows for creative decision making in real time.

So here we are - probably about 50% done with the review - where is the "vegas sucks", the "he doesn't know what he is talking about" or the "he is so biased" vibe? I am reading it again as I type this and I still don't see it.

He points out the source/record concept again and compares it to other NLEs that do offer it and says that with Vegas it is "just editing" and, in so many words, says that if you are coming from Premiere or Avid there will be somewhat of a learning curve. The next part is the J-K-L mentioned in another post. This I am not sure I get, but in the overall picture he doesn't seem to be saying it is a bad thing - just different. He says, in the same paragraph, that "the one-pixel feature is a pretty innovative approach..." and to me that isn't a bad thing to say. But he does go on to point out, again, that Vegas does not follow the "norm" with how it does things related to NLE. And, again, I agree with that - as do others. A look around these forums will show that same opion voiced by Frank being voiced by more than myself - that if a person has never edited before and starts off with Vegas they may not get nearly as frusterated as those of use who have used other NLE's.

EDL support and Vegas - even Spot has mentioned this. If you come down on Frank because he points out the lack of true EDL support you may as well come down on everyone else who has mentioned it - and that includes the SoFo/Sony staff. As has been pointed out here, and Frank also points it out - you can export a CMX EDL via a script. Be thankful Frank did not go into the details (limitations) of how to do it so it works or else you all might be even more down about this review.

Well - almost done - now he says that "Vegas is an able compositing tool" and compliments the fact you can add filters on a media, track or entire project level because it is harder in other NLE's. Now he even says that the 3D DVE in Vegas gives better results than more expensive, hardware based, system. And goes on to say that the "most impressive" thing is that Vegas can play back effects in real time...as they are being adjusted. And than he spends most of the rest of the review saying how amazing the audio tools in Vegas are. Oh, wait, I do see the bias now - towards Vegas 5 and how great it is for audio. The guy is going on about how great Vegas is, makes 2 or 3 negative comments and that makes him the anti-christ?

Oh yeah - sure he also points out that Vegas can not handle third party video plug-ins - After Effects seems to be his thrust. But we have all said that at some point as well.

And he gives high grades to Spots book on Vegas 4 and says that the Vegas 5 book should be out by now. Biased to Spot?

Overall - not a bad review, a pretty good one. For those who have been editing with Vegas, or another NLE, for a while he doesn't really say anything that we haven't already talked about in some form or the other.

My review of the review is 98 - the J-K-L comment brought it down from 100. If I hadn't ever tried Vegas it would make me look more into it. If I relied on EDLs, OMF or AAF I would probably still look at it but not use it in place of another DAW/NLE that did allow for that. I feel it did waht a good review is supposed to do - point out facts and give opinons based on those facts.

I was surprised to see it took a few threads before filmy mentioned that Capria loved Spot's book. A really nice plug for it for those of you considering buying the Vegas 5 book....

Mike

Filmy,
as I haven't read the review I'm only going on hearsay but I think I'd have to agree with you. People write reviews NOT product endorsements. Of course their JOB is to note the negatives, if they didn't THEN we're all entitled to attack their credibility.
Is a review of Vgeas that says it's the greatest thing since sliced bread truly a good review, does it add credibility to the product?
When I recommend Vegas to people I mention pretty much the caveats that the review covered.
Look, on the strength of my good words and SPOTs demo while he was in Sydney a gent who has had 4 decades experience as one of this countries most significant TV directors bought Vegas. Yes he's RTFM and he's still confused, he's used to film and Avid systems, so now he's offering to pay me to train him (I've declined the payment part, just to learn from him is payment enough!).
Vegas is a great tool, it isn't the only tool and I think we should be careful how we sing its praises, the world already has Macolites, lets not get tarred with the same brush. There is a groundswell of interest building in it, 80% of the people I deal with have heard of it now and they know it's something they should look at, setting unrealistic expectations is a quick way to damage a products reputation.

Bob.

What was the overall rating of Vegas? I think 3 1/2 out of 5--What does he give Premiere, Avid, and FCP--all of which have negatives and positives --I rest my case. Its great that he likes Spots book (its probably awesome, I got the first one) but remember, he will be seeing Spot often at industry gatherings.

I've never met him. That surprised me a LOT because the CMP Books and DV magazine, although owned by the same parent company, rarely get along.

The key here is that he would not have to spend as much time with vegas as with the others to gain a deeper appreciation and understanding of the programs capabilities.

Well and the fact too that it took him 6 months to finally get around to reviewing it..... We can all see it was on his priority list.

Reviews -- and reviewers -- are the responsibility of the Sony Product Management team. While they cannot cause a reviewer to write a good review, nor stop a bad one from being written, they CAN -- and should do these two things:

1. Write a reviewer's guide. As already pointed out, most reviewers do not use the product for a long enough period of time to ever appreciate all the things the product can do, or full comprehend its advantages vs. other products. A reviewer's guide provides all this information, and "points" the reviewer in the right direction. If Sony Product Management has not written a reviewer's guide, or if that guide is substandard, then they need to do some work.

2. Follow up. The product management team needs to follow up EVERY single review by calling the reviewer and/or editor with factual corrections, no matter how minor. Every review has errors, and every error deserves to be corrected -- on the record. This shouldn't be done in a confrontational or negative way, and it MUST be done by the product manager, not by some underling or -- the worst sin -- by the PR agency hack. While such follow up will probably do nothing to salvage a poorly written, unfair review, it can and will make a BIG difference in the next review.

Also, at trade shows and other public events, Sony Product Management needs to go out of their way to "stroke" the people that write these reviews. There are usually about a dozen that freelance and do most of the reviews. Get to know them, try to like them, and ALWAYS buy them lunch.

Just my 2 cents to Sony Product Management on how to win the PR wars ...

John,
Sony actually has a VERY nice reviewers kit. And with DV Magazine, unlike many magazines, reviewers often aren't encouraged to fact-check. Which is a shame. Jan Ozer lost permanent credibility with me with one of his recent reviews of Vegas and another product, simply because he was too lazy to make a phone call. (I was aware of some of the inner workings of the review)
Believe me, Dave and the team know what they're doing, and of course, I'm sure they could do what they do better....but they DO have a very nice DVD kit and reviewer's guide, etc.
Sometimes, and I'll assume this is the case with Capria, they "expect" an application to work like everything else they've used, and don't really take the time to dig in. I've been like that on a couple products I've reviewed, and been embarassed for it.

>>>Well and the fact too that it took him 6 months to finally get around to reviewing it..... We can all see it was on his priority list.<<<

That may not be true - many "monthly" mags are put together 3 - 5 months ahead of time. I know as a photographer I would have to submit images and articles with a 3 month minimum lead time - in other words I had to keep "current" based on what would be "current" in 3 months or more when the mag hit the streets. If you notice the review mentions Spots book on Vegas 4, but also adds that "by the time you read this..." the book on Vegas 5 would be out. If you look at when Vegas 5 was "offically" released at the trade shows to now it is an average turn around from any reviewer getting their hands on a "review copy" and getting it into a mag.

Another way to look at it - when someone writes a story/screenplay that trys to be current from the time it is written to the time it gets to screen many of the "current" things are 'so last year". This is very true with comedys - how many films do you see that have little "in jokes" that aren't funny when the film finally comes out 6 - 12 months after it was shot?

I agree with filmy in general. but Vegas is a lot better that stated.

Maybe I am still missing something here - but this review makes it clear that Vegas *is* worth the time to dig into things. The "learn the lingo" line I mentioned is perfect in saying this. Other than that J-K-L comment what is everyone seeing as so inncorrect? Seriously. It is sort of like he read these forums and re-wrote 99% of what has been said by many people who have used the produce more than he has (But that is a guess, for all I know he uses Vegas on every project). I think most everyone "expects" Vegas to be competitive with what else is out there so why is it strange to read comparisons with what else is out there?

Think of what could have been said - three pages about how Vegas does not have full EDL support, hardware support, OMF support, AAF support, sometimes weird ways of editing that can cause black frames, flash frames and so on. Fact is this was not the case. Hell we forum members are 100 times more harsh than this review was.

In the article, he states vegas easy of FX changes one's approaches to editing, the lack out plugin's from PRO and AVID was his complaint. the plugin issues has been raised there a few times, so that not being anti vegas.

Sony should take note of the multiple projects open in ONE instance of Vegas. Hell, we've been bitc*ing about this for a couple of years now.

Sony, GET' ER DONE!!!

i want to know the overall rating too.

Normally Adobe & Avid products get at least a 4 outta 5. I know Premier Pro did. Premiere 6 did good too, and I hate that. :)

I believe it was 3 1/2 stars.