Features to make Vegas deserve its "Pro" tag

Robert W wrote on 7/6/2008, 2:30 AM
This is a list of features Sony Vegas needs to acquire in order to merit it's "Pro" tag.

1) Proper MP3 rendering capabilities. As I understand it this issue is actually a wider problem with Vegas not fully supporting ACM codecs.

2) Saving your loop region as part of the project file.

3) A proper native batch renderer. This would support not only rendering of several loop regions within an opened project file, but loop regions in other projects and to multiple files.

4) Upgrading of project import/export options to provide full MXFs with pan data, and a degree of interoperability with third party editing platforms.

5) Clear and concise indicators of what colour conversion standard you are working in (e.g. Studio RGB or Computer RGB) and whether it is being accurately reproduced on screen.

6) This is a big one, but go with me on it... An object based graphical representation of Vegas's key routines and procedures, with the power to let the user assign them to a certain processor core. This may not produce the fastest results, but it could be useful to people who need to tailor systems for certain projects in which certain elements place unusual spread of loads on the processor.

7) Integrated "Stickies" notes system for the timeline.

8) Upgraded surround support. Support for nesting surround projects. Track settings for direct pass through of each channel to the correct channel when integrating existing mixes into your project. Support for 6.1, 7.1 and beyond.

9) Rock solid stability in every release. Certified to run without mishap on systems from P4 through to the current latest platform.

Please add yours.

Comments

ushere wrote on 7/6/2008, 2:48 AM
i'd be happy enough with 9 ;-)

TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/6/2008, 3:44 AM
*)take "pro" off so people don't get upset when it's not comparable to a $2000 program.

or...

*)change the price to $2000 for the "pro", add more 3rd party plugins to make people happy & leave the "non-pro" version as-is for a $150 upgrade price.
farss wrote on 7/6/2008, 4:28 AM
1) EDL export/import that's frame accurate.
2) 10bit YUV
3) Store capture log in project.
4) Audio LOCKED to vision.
5) Lock tracks
6) A functional version of Vidcap
7) Bins
8) Don't drop frames on playback, drop resolution.
9) Background rendering

I don't want more features, V4 had enough to keep me happy.
The core functionality needs work / rewrite before it can be called "Pro".

Bob.

[edit] Forget DPX and DNG etc files.
deusx wrote on 7/6/2008, 5:38 AM
1. Can't think of anything
2. still thinking
3. No, still can't think of anything
4. think man, think!!!!
5. I give up

Either I'm just too good at this or Vegas really is pro, 'cause I don't need anything else to edit Video or multitrack audio as much as I please.
Mahesh wrote on 7/6/2008, 5:48 AM
Save Preferences, current timeline settings and current cursor position on exit / lock up / crash.

No more features please. there's nuff there to edit creatively
blink3times wrote on 7/6/2008, 8:13 AM
-Hardware Acceleration
- New capture utility that allows logging/batch capture, as well as scene split AFTER capture, and a CHOICE of capture format (M2T, M2V, Uncompressed.....)
-M2V import support
-DIRECT AC3 import ability
- 3D support for an event and not just the track
Coursedesign wrote on 7/6/2008, 8:35 AM
1) Proper MP3 rendering capabilities. As I understand it this issue is actually a wider problem with Vegas not fully supporting ACM codecs.

Could this help you?:

http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-dshow-acm.php

Robert W wrote on 7/6/2008, 12:46 PM
Nope, unfortunately that doesn't help, but thanks for looking. As I said, Vegas does not properly support the ACM framework, which causes problems with all known ACM mp3 encoders. Well, I only know of LameACM, but that one doesn't work and there is no solution.

But again, this is one of these things that people for some reason have put up with. They say "oooh well, I can export to wav easy enough and then convert with a third party program. But of course, that is more hassle, it takes you out of Vegas and the chance of using the batch rendering system and the chance to embed markers etc. And how hard is it to implement ACM codecs correctly? I mean, some really basic freeware programs achieve it no problem at all.
Coursedesign wrote on 7/6/2008, 1:07 PM
What if you use the RIFFStrip freeware program linked in my previous post?

Shouldn't that fix the player/decoder compatibility problem at least?

That programs should be easy to batch also, with a minimal script.
farss wrote on 7/6/2008, 2:01 PM
I've made many hours of mp3 audio for commercial sale using Vegas, all done within Vegas. I can't see what's missing?

Bob.
video777 wrote on 7/6/2008, 2:10 PM
6) A functional version of Vidcap
I realize that this doesn't help your situation but - this feature works perfectly for me. In fact I was unable to capture from Liquid 7.2x with my Canon XL2 but Vidcap recognized it and captured with no hassle. I hope you get this resolved on your system.
rmack350 wrote on 7/6/2008, 2:24 PM
It's not that Vidcap doesn't work, it's just that it's really lacking in features. The ones I run up against that people at work would ask for are:

Ability to import a text file log as a basis for a capture.
Ability to export same
Ability to specify whether those imported timecodes are DF or NDF (yes, I know, DV is well defined as one or the other depending on whether you shoot PAL or NTSC, but many cameras allow you to specify which one you're using regardless of DV standards)
Ability to deal with 4 channels of audio
Ability to take audio in various ways, like ch1 or ch2 only, or none (again, this goes against the DV spec but it's the way a lot of pros work)
Ability for a Vegas project to know what vidcap files it's using (Hate it when I try to recapture footage and Vegas opens the last vidcap file and automatically dumps my clips info into it. I'd much rather that Vegas go find the right sfvidcap file.)

And finally, there needs to be just one capture application. Not two.

Rob
farss wrote on 7/6/2008, 3:11 PM
Vidcap has a KNOWN bug, been there since day 1 and I doubt it'll ever get fixed. It's quite possible that your audio will be captured at the wrong sample rate if you're not careful. Never use the "Capture Tape" button!
Also Vidcap does not work with tapes from Sony's PDX10.
The PDX10 flags it's audio as dual mono (the only camera that does). VidCap cannot handle this.

Bob.
CClub wrote on 7/6/2008, 3:42 PM
#7 in the original post's list just got answered http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=602661&Replies=29Here.[/link].

#3 is answered http://www.peachrock.com/software/VeggieToolkit3/veggie-toolkit.htmlHere.[/link].

GlennChan wrote on 7/7/2008, 12:42 AM
What would make Vegas deserve its "Pro" tag?

People using it for professional work. Hmm wait a second... ;) people are already doing that..!

2- Now if by pro you don't actually mean pro and mean high-end (e.g. online editing), then it might not make sense for Vegas to head down that route. There are a lot of companies making high-end editing systems and there are some fine products in that realm (Quantel, SGO Mistika, Autodesk Smoke, Avid, FCP for cheap stuff). Also, some of those areas have specialized needs that most current Vegas users don't have (e.g. speed, stronger compositing tools including motion tracking + stabilization, etc. etc.). And that market is so low volume that it's hard to make a decent profit unless you're charging six figures for the system.

So that being said, I think you should just request the features that would be most useful to you (which I think the OP has done anyways).
farss wrote on 7/7/2008, 5:04 AM
Strange, I thought most of us were "online" editing. Don't see many here doing offline and then bumping it up to a big post house for an online. So be definition we are online editing.
The rest of what you're saying misses the mark.
You don't have to spend six figure sums to get high end compositing, motion tracking and decent grading tools. If you want a luxury suite with a 2K projector and a HDCAM SR deck or two then you can add those to software that costs $10K and falling fast. You could throw in a Tangent control surface for a bit of bling and blow some serious dollars as well.
Of course if you want to store 4TBs of 2K DPX files in a high availabliity disk array you could spend serious money too or you could spend a lot less and keep under your desk. Reality is the high end is crashing down onto the middle and the middle is hitting the bottom of this business. Today there's over 150 cinema screens in this country that can show movies off "prints" that cost $100 and at least one Vegas user making content for them. Where the action is today isn't in $5M post facilities, it's in peoples homes and garages. I just hope Vegas continues to be a part of the revolution, talking down the users expectations is not the way to keep it at the forefront.

Unlike some I hear around other places I'm not saying the days of the high end systems are at an end. What I am saying is the players at the bottom end of the market such as myself have to lift our game, we've gone from DV to HDV, there will not be another 10 year lull in the pace. Already 2K/4K is on the horizon if not already upon us. This week I somehow have to test out a 3D 2K system for a prospective client. No, I haven't gone up in this business, it's come down to my level.

Bob.
Robert W wrote on 7/7/2008, 7:51 AM
Bob I think you are right here. I think I am only trying to point out things that either have been available and rock solid in past releases, or should have been implemented in the first place and are standard to almost every other type of application.

I have never paid any respect to these ideas of "high end" hardware. When I first got into computers on the Amiga platform, it was the most popular home computer in the world. At the same time, Amigas formed the basis of most of what they would now call Broadcast CGI solutions. At some point these system split off into almost bespoke designs, that could only be afforded by the richest academic institutions, and it therefore helped a minority of Oxbridge sorts to cloister themselves off and make computer editing and CGI a black art.

However, I think they are seriously frightened now. The post houses are in the middle of a rather bad recession, which is in reality, is probably actually the market of over bloated projects disappearing before their eyes. There is an increasing abundance of skilled CGI and computer video trained freelancers appearing from courses such as the pioneering one that started in Bournemouth about ten years ago that is making their skills not quite so exclusive. You can achieve more with the bottom rung CGI and editing software than you could do with the high end stuff of even a few years ago. A lot of businesses were built and priced their software on the costs of making big strides forwards. but now there are not many strides to make and they are havign to face consolidating as the exclusivity dwindles.

Through into the melting pot the fact that in the UK in particular advertising budgets have gone down and that there are severe restrictions on junk food advertising etc. and you have an increasing number of producers trying to capture a decreasing number of clients. Thus it makes sense that costs such as software decreases accordingly to fit the market.
Widetrack wrote on 7/7/2008, 2:12 PM
How about a way to have Track Motion move things along a constrained path with a shape you can see and edit, like a circle, oblong, triangle, etc.

I just put together a model of the solar system using nine 3D planets models I made. I composited them in Vegas and wanted to have them move along orbit-like paths, but ended up spending almost as much time trying to get a convincing motion as I did building the models. did the whole smoothness at 100%, Smooth motion thing, but it could be so much faster and more effective with pahts.
je@on wrote on 7/7/2008, 3:18 PM
Excellent posts from farss and RobertW! Those interested in the state of today's video business need to read, then re-read those posts.

Because the barrier to entry has fallen so low it really comes down to the talent behind the camera and at the editing system. And that, IMHO, is a good thing.

And while we're on the subject of what Vegas needs: OMF and true EDL export. If I had those two things I wouldn't need to be cutting on FCP. And (it must be said) Vegas needs a cosmetic makeover. Doesn't add function but it sure as hell sells software.
GlennChan wrote on 7/7/2008, 3:31 PM
Reality is the high end is crashing down onto the middle and the middle is hitting the bottom of this business.
I think it's premature to say that... right now the five/six figure systems are (A) fast and (B) have the necessary toolset. Desktop tools like After Effects(+Final Cut) have B but not A. Desktop tools like After Effects can do what a Flame can do... but a Flame is faster and there are people who will pay six figures for that speed (especially commercials where there are clients in the room).

Technically, I think it's possible for desktop tools to have both of these things as many of these systems run on commodity hardware. But there are no desktop tools right now that do that. Companies like Quantel simply aren't worried about Apple, Adobe et al cutting into their business. Because they aren't.

2- I wouldn't worry too much about whether a program is being used for some high-end work unrelated to what you do. Just because Walter Murch cut a Hollywood feature on Final Cut Pro doesn't make it a better program for FCP users. It might make users feel better about themselves ("hey I'm using a high-end professional tool") but that doesn't really help them edit any faster or better.

Anyways...
GlennChan wrote on 7/7/2008, 3:41 PM
Because the barrier to entry has fallen so low it really comes down to the talent behind the camera and at the editing system.
If you want to make a DVD, then absolutely the barriers to entry have fallen pretty low.

If you want to deliver for broadcast, the proper equipment still costs money. A serious post house will need to purchase the right VTRs (betaSP, digibeta, maybe HDCAM, maybe HDCAM SR). And if you want to do work for higher-end TV series (where they want the end product to look its best), then your editing/finishing system needs that toolset (e.g. motion tracking for image stabilization) and it needs to be fast because the post house has to churn out an episode every few weeks. Also, clients don't like to sit there watching stuff render. Anyways, different markets, different needs. There is a market for Vegas and there is a market for the six figure stuff.

In the middle the cheap desktop tools are definitely nibbling away market share... but I think it's premature to say that expensive systems are dead. If you look at film versus digital/video... people have been saying that "film is dead" for a long time (e.g. when the Sony F900 came out). In hindsight, many of those comments were premature.
ushere wrote on 7/7/2008, 4:39 PM
interestingly enough, ten years ago i retired both my facilities and myself. i'd been running a mid level production house (beta sp acquisition & post, along with vision / audio mixers, cg, etc.,) with an equipment base of around $150k. i sold out and recouped about a third - pretty much what i expected. (if i'd waited a year longer, well, i'd probably have had a real hard time selling any of it)

my main work was corporate with a few indie doco's, some low budget music vid's, 'cheap' tvc's and a bit of tv work when the producers budget was getting tight. as far as i'm aware, there aren't any similar 'online' post houses around now (all my contemporaries have also disappeared).

with the advent of the vx1000, decent nle's (that does mean stable!), and a bit of knowledge, there was nothing stopping anyone setting up in business - the only problem was, and still is, pricing - there was a great article a few years back titled 'rate prostitution' (would love a copy if anyone still has it) - but paraphrased (if i remember correctly, and if not, it still holds true), just because your equipment costs have come down, it doesn't mean your rates have to as well. when i was charging 6k for a project, it was partly based on equip cost and overheads, but most importantly, on my time and experience. when i took up digital, my over all rate remained pretty much the same, (rendering time IS billable as far as i'm concerned), but i had more flexibility and used my discretion when it came to quoting / keeping clients.

now, it seems everyone starting out thinks that a. equipment costs are not a factor and b. $50 or so an hour a reasonable rate. the 6k i would quote is, according to their calculations down to 2k, with the end product a mishmash of badly scripted dialogue, poorly shot footage, and a mess of over processed effects. that said, it would seem a lot of my clients were drawn in by the 2k tag - now they're coming back (at my rates). thankfully i have found life without them bearable, so they have to look elsewhere....

where's this downtime ramble leading? to the fact that if you can make money using ANY nle, it's a professional nle. ignoring the buzz words the hype and bullshit, i could probably make money using movie maker, just as i know people who've bought fcp and are never likely to earn a penny from it.

i really doesn't matter what hardwear / software you use. wetwear will always win out.

rant / render over

leslie