Having a Canopus solution since it came out.
About Vegas:
I have a feeling that much research is going into accelerating render times.
It is a obvious limitation of Vegas.
Right now I make use of both systems and use Vegas as a composite tool for sections that need complexity.
30 to 60 second spots are done using the powerful key tools of Canopus Hardware / software and the rest is completed in Vegas.
Now Canopus has a new edit software but it is a child. It also comes with a compatibility price. You have better chosen the correct hardware/M.B. memory and so on or your up a creek. Vegas will work with most configs.
If it was easy they would have done it.

I will except whatever solution they come up with that speed render times and quality RT output.
For now, I make it work.

My two

i lot of people dont use vegas for working in 3d - so hencefore even more a plug for network rendering -- but even if you do -- DV is supported fine over a network for rendering ..

and yes -- there are several video apps (not 3d apps like maya) for compositing and even editing that all support and use network rendering (as i mentioned - Fusion is a good example as well as shake) (except for networking rendering on shake - right now only macs are supported in the render farm but the workstation can be intel/win or linux - rather ass backwards) .

"If Vegas isn't doing what you want, go buy something that does. If you want Vegas to be like ___________ (fill in the blank), then go buy ___________ (fill in the blank) and allow Vegas do what Vegas does best."

This is a limited view in my opinion. Vegas is an incredibly innovative program so why not bring it up to the next level? The reason I'm using Vegas for many of my projects is because SF finally did what no one else in my price range has been able to do --create an editing package that is a joy to use.

There are a lot of real-time systems out there based on really terrible software and Vegas could fill the void big time. So while I'm all for keeping the software only people happy, if there is any way to port it to realtime hardware, I think Vegas would not only turn alot more heads in the industry... but help to secure it's future as more users jump on board.

Marc

NO - NO - NO - NO - NO We don't want no HW commitments!!!!!!!! Did I say NO?

I totally agree with those who say buy another computer vs. a dedicated hardware card. Last year, my friend spent $750 for a HW card that works with Premiere. IMO it is already obsolete. It took a major HW upgrade for him to be able to use his HW card without crashes. He spent even more money trying to get everything matched up to work correctly. For less than $500 I built another 2.53 ghz system. Actually, I have 4 computers for the money he spent on one. [They're little too - Shuttle SFF's!]

My 2.53ghz P4 systems are faster than I am. I run 2 computers with Vegas and divide my work into 2 halves [or more if needed]. I also have 2 computers at home. If I have to wait on rendering, I just work on something else on the other computer [KVM switching]. Usually when I project is doing its final render, I need to make DVD covers, etc. and by the time I am done with that, the job is rendered.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT WE REALLY NEED?
We need SF to make an add-in that would make Vegas render on multiple networked machines [like the 3D animation programs]. Vegas tapping into the unused power of 8 -10 networked machines would totally rock. Now the speed of Vegas would only be limited by network speeds which have recently gotten much faster. Instead of buying HW cards, we would just add another machine. Our old machines could still be tied into the network and their power still put to good use.

Personally, rather than constantly buying a new piece of hardware dedicated to my NLE every time a new version comes out, I'd MUCH rather put that money into a new, faster machine, or new Hard Drive.

Leave Vegas as it is unless it doesn't cost ANY more and uses hardware that EVERYbody has.

That network idea, interesting. But only if it doesn't mess up Vegas for people who don't have networks.

Okay, here's another opinion.

1. Vegas' strength is that it runs well without special hardware. I imagine that any changes would have to keep that feature intact. Hardware assist or network rendering aren't going to be added if it kills the core hardware agonosticism.

2. Vegas is friendly to home users and beginners while still providing a lot of features to more experienced people. The core program should always be accessible to new users.

3. As users gain experience they will be able to make use of more features, including hardware assist and network rendering but also project management and a bunch of other things. If they really need these feature to add to Vegas they will buy them as add-ons. If it'll make us money we'll pay for an add-on.

4. Same as three. Most Vegas users will have ever-expanding skills and ever-expanding needs.

5. Vegas will eventually need to expand from it's very usable core. I'd be much happier with add-ons than with changes to the core program because the core is cheap and attracts new users to the community. Add-ons attract programmers and hardware makers who might be a little more enthusiastic if there was an good reason for them to be so.

Personally, I love the networked render idea if it would work.

I also like the idea of a hardware card that can do color correction and blurs and things to the final output (both output via 1394 and composite or component out.) This is pretty much post-processing. It ought to be keyframeable from within Vegas of course. It would probably appear as a video bus track.

Rob Mack

Ok so how about Vegas with a hot rodded Sony VIO that maximizes the software

I'm considering to purchase the following items for my next workstation:

1. P4C800 Deluxe - An ASUS motherboard that offers;

a) Support for Hyper-Threading Technology (from Intel). This can offer a better multitasking performance.
b) Dual Channel Memory Architecture. This increases the memory overall performance
c) Support for RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 0+1 and Multiple RAID

2. One 40 GB system drive Ultra ATA/100 - 7200 RPM and four 80 GB Ultra ATA/100 - 7200 RPM -RAID (all from Seagate)

3. Intel 875P chipset - Pentium IV 2.4 GHz (because 3.0 GHz is too expensive)

4. 2 GB of RAM - DDR / ECC (for error corrections)

5. A Matrox 550 Video card with support for two monitors

6. LAYLA 24 Audio Card (from Echo Audio - www.echoaudio.com). It sounds amazing :)

7. A Sony DVD burner (I don't remember the model, but it recognizes all the main standars (DVD-r/-rw/+r/+rw, etc...)


The software will be:

1. Vegas 4 + DVD (Vegas also offers support for Hyper-Threading Technology)
2. Sound Forge 6.0
3. ACID 4.0
4. Noise Reduction 2.0
5. Windows XP Professional. Note that ONLY Windows XP offers support for Hyper-Threading Technology (from Intel).

This workstation is going to work with a Sony DSR-11 VT


If you have comments and / or suggestions, just let me know...


Thanks,


Lawrence
http://www.nucleodecriacao.com.br

See the Fash Intro... :-)

2 G of RAM seems a bit overboard but what the heck!

I run my drives in RAID 0 for more speed but be careful I think the mobo RAID controllers will only support two drives.

Matrox board is a good choice, I only say this because they do give better pictures on analogue o/ps. They have second order filters on the lines to really stop digital noise getting to the monitors. Be aware though, VV doesn't natively support dual heads.

I do it by having the desktop split accross two monitors and dragging the preview window outside the main VV window way over to the right. I find though if I want to use other Win apps it gets a bit confusing and I end up switching back to single monitor mode.

- no need for ecc ram... but 2gb is good for the render to ram feature
- instead of 4 80 gb, i rather have 2 x80gb + 1 250 gb for the same price

NO NO NO !!!

No dedicated hardware.

Instead it would be fine to make Vegas work with an array of computer. Just consider the price and the power of such a configuration :
- one big and powerfull computer
- some other computers (even without screen) just central units
- a gbit network

It would be nice to have a render on other computer feature.
Vegas will act as a server on the main computer and the othe wil do the work.

Vegas use intensive multithreading system so you can work while he is performing task in backgound (building peaks). This is marvelous. I would be pleased that this feature could be extended to network rendering.

Just imagine you are working on your project you set a motion blur for 5 sec of video. then, vegas split this in tasks and ask for other computers to render it and handle the result. Then when you clic on play Vegas will take frames on the other computers.

This is times more powerfull than any hardware acceleration cause your are not limited in wich effect could be rendered. Even if a computer in the array is 4 year old he will do his share of the work. There is no use for a old hardware card.

And most of all, the hardware could be use for other kind of work, like 3d rendering...

I don't see any reasonable argument against some type of render assistance. I know its easier said then done, but it would catapult Vegas and make users very happy. My preference is for an external device for render assistance.

I still think that another computer would be more pratical. Vegas is like the LInux of the NLE world. It pratically runs on any computer with minimal hassle. The faster computer you get the faster it renders (im not talking about running since like i said im doing rough cuts on my 350mhz laptop then dumping the project to a faster machine.)

Like many have said before, yeah sure in theory a hardware device might speed up the render process, but the TIME spent on setting it up, solving problems when they arise, and overall maintanence (drivers, updates, compatible hardware) is going to be more time consuming than the actuall render process itself.

ANecdotal experience: I just picked up a dual Xeon from a friend really cheap. The reason: When he wanted to put together a Canopus hardware based system he didnt realize that the hardware cards would not work when the 2nd CPU was installed. The cards were only compatible with a SINGLE CPU System. So he could use the card as long as he took out the other 2.4ghz processor. Come on, I high end system that would costs thousand of dollars that cant use a second CPU. I bought his system for under $900.

Edit: Everyone talks about taking it to the "next level" Well actually Vegas is at the next level when it comes to terms with compatibility and reliability. All these cards people mention only work when you have all the right equipment. With Vegas the right equipment is the equipment you own.

I still think it is possible to split the render stream into lets say eight parts then
put it back together again just like TP/TIP when it gets busted then starts back up
without losing data. Even if you have to tack on track codes to the streams. And I
still think you can "DV" the "HD" stream to capture even if you have to use five or
six codecs in parallel, then put it back to HD in the render. Of course I don't know how
but its nice to speculate even if I am programably challenged.

JJK

Hardware will come along when a vendor sees a profit in it. Consider: both premiere and fcp are really software only programs. (although they don't do it nearly as well as Vegas.) They can also make use of hardware but the point is that no one is forced to use hardware. It's an option.

I don't think that hardware will be anything but optional in Vegas. There won't ever be a requirement.

Network rendering might come along-at a price. Consider that network rendering requires (at the least) more vegas licenses. I can easily imagine a "Render only" vegas that can be made to look at a "render jobs" folder on the network. You'd want GB ethernet or some sort of peer to peer transfer system (1394b might be offering this). Evidently GB eth can swamp a PCI bus so it makes me wonder if you really want your edit machine to be serving files to a render machine. Happily, rendering is slow enough that you might not need to serve data that fast.

As for the benefits of hardware...we have an 844 system at work. It' actually similar to Vegas in many ways except that it works at much higher bit rates in real time. Almost everything is realtime or close to it. You can work VERY quickly in it. But it's expensive.

We don't want a system that requires hardware but optional hardware could suit the needs of some. Imagine if you could do a keyframed video bus track of hardware effects (like motion blur and supersampling). Play the project out from Vegas after a short render of the internals. Play it direct to tape or direct to an encoding machine (we do this at work-play out from edit and directly into a machine for real-time mpeg2 encoding).

Personally, I think the worst thing SoFo/Sony could do is get fully behind any one piece of hardware. Better to make sure the program could be accessible to hardware in general. That's plenty of work as it is, I'm sure.

Much better to work on the core program. Improve the interface and tools to make them more effective and clear. Go through these forums and find ways to address the recurring questions so that fewer people have to ask them. Keep working on rendering to make it more intelligent and efficient. Add an ability to import and export text logs as well as working on edl support. Add sub-comps to the timeline (these would lend themselves well to network renders). There's tons that could be done without ever concentrating on hardware.

Work on the Batch Converter program to add network and background rendering of veg files along with it's other features. That program seems to have a lot of potential going untapped.

The biggest task is to keep both the bottom and the top of the vegas user base happy. Eventually, people who've used vegas for several years wil have several systems working on parts of the same projects. They'll be going back to old footage and re-acquiring it, and they'll need vegas to meet demands that are much greater than when they first started.

Rob Mack

I agree about BeOS...dynamite operating system that Palm got for pennies on the dollar (sound familiar?)...there is the OpenBe project but don't hold your breath...

James Green

I think we're thinking about this all wrong. Maybe hardware acceleration isn't SoFo's problem, maybe it's a hardware manufacturer's problem.

When I was using Canopus' excellent hardware, I argued long and hard (and to no avail) that Canopus should develop a real-time card that looked to software as if it were a standard OHCI firewire card. That way, you could use any editing software you liked, and get the benefits of RT-out-the-firewire hardware acceleration. (I hate rendering!) I still think the idea has merit, if it's technically feasible.

Adobe doesn't endorse a particular hardware setup for either Premiere or After Effects, instead, you see hardware manufacturers like Canopus, Matrox and ICE develop their own plug-ins to make the software benefit from their accelerated hardware. Same with Final Cut Pro: you can buy the "vanilla" FCP, then go get a Matrox RT card and install the card plug-ins to get a souped-up RT Final Cut Pro. Vegas' plug-in support is pretty good (witness Satish's efforts), so I don't see any reason why Vegas couldn't support such a scheme.

If Vegas' market share increases, I predict you WILL see people developing hardware acceleration solutions for it. Certainly sounds like something Sony could pull off in its sleep, if it chose to devote the resources to it.

I agree witht hat BStanding. I had made mention up there somewhere that it was a two way issue so to speak - that the hardware side would have to work with the software side for the higher end of things. I am not sure how this works on the SoFo side - does SoFo go to a card manufacturer and say "We would like our softwatre to interact with your hardware. Here is a free copy of the software so you can work on a plug-in for us."? Or does the card manufacture just go ahead do what they want and than say "We would like our card to work with your product, we need some code added for that to happen." ?

Over the last few days I have been checking into the HD VCRS and I am a bit more confused because it seems you can use firewire. Now VV supports any OCHI 1394 card...for DV. But if the concept is 'plug and play' why can't you plug the JVC SR-VD400US or HM-DH30000 into the OCHI compliant card and have VV be able to not only capture from it, but also output to it? In my looking it seems that *only* Windows XP has driver support for the JVC HD VCR's, and it seems that driver is combined with a Direct X/Direct Show filter that allows it to work in Windows Xp. So now I have to ask it this also a Direct X issue? An Os issue? In other words - VV uses the windows/Direct X/Direct Show system to allow for any compliant device to be read in it. Basicly if Windows will see it by 'default' and allows for capture than VV should as well without any outside drivers. So if a HD device, via firewire, shows up for use in Windows XP as "AV/C TapeSubunit Device" that means VV should have HD in and out support without a hardware add on. But in another thread SoFo said that currently there is no way to *output* HD material from within VV, which would lead me to think that some bit of code to ineract with "AV/C TapeSubunit Device" is missing from VV.

I dunno...just thinking out loud here.

If anyone into programing, Satish? , wants to look into this and grasp it better than I can - AV/C TapeSubunit Device info here. So is the "microsoft DV camera" interaction using the same avc.sys routing?

I agree with you! It would be very nice to have hardware support for Vegas. The post house I work at is a good example. We have 5 NLE's here and many of our editors have tried out Vegas and would love to make the jump however any NLE we use MUST BE REALTIME. I applaude SOFO for making and great product and bringing it to the masses. It is just a crying shame that a product this good stops short of providing us pros with an option to use this thing in true real time. If they had offered this early on the pros would have supported the product and perhaps SOFO would have sold this as a higher end option and would not have had to sell out to Sony.
It's a cryin shame.
I love Vegas and use it at home, but here at work we have to use Premiere with an accelerater card. I'm cryin again.

I was hoping now that Sony is in control They will Leave Vegas as it is and have the Brilliant SF guys work with the engineers at Sony and come up with the greatest software/hardware combination to ever hit the market. Am I dreaming? Hope not.

I couldn't agree more that proprietary hardware cannot compare for dollar efficiency -- especially for dedicated Linux boxes. Wow! And Intel is going to love that idea, and all the other firmware manufacturers. Not to mention those who invest in power generation stocks!

I just checked the price of a dual-monitor KVM switch -- whew! It's about $600. Just an FYI that using DVI-VGA multiple combo cards (i.e. two cards, each with these two outputs) will let most upscale monitors switch between two computers if one computer uses the DVI out and the other the analog. There are other combinations including using one older dual VGA only output card. Also you have the second output using dual cards that can drive something like a projector.

I should mention that some of the new p-TV's are very flexible in their inputs, and can accept and display dual monitor outputs via DVI, VGA, RGB, etc. Also that all these signal standards can be changed from one to another with just a cable, except **TO** DVI (which is probably pointless anyway). FYI the standard for quality remains RGB (or RGB with sync). It is, for example, much cheaper to go DVI to RGB than to use a DVI repeater or even a super-cable.

I don't think your surmisation is right.

First the bandwidth required to move fat files is certainly available by either GBit-Ethernet OR firewire networking which are becoming ubiquitous. This was NOT true when 3D rendering was implemented. So time marches on.

And even more importantly a proper "farm" program will greatly reduce network traffic and use the most effective routes and means. For example it is much lower bandwidth to transmit only a preview video stream than (potentially multiple) DV and other files. Also multiple CPU's can potentially share a single drive array! This will vastly reduce the typical hard drive bottleneck and will let those multiple data-streams fly.

Am I wrong?