I like the interface for Vegas BECAUSE it is simple. I don't want to have to search all over a busy screen to find a function.

The one thing I like about Avid and Final Cut is a seperate monitor screen for preview of source video. I like having the master screen and the preview screen.

That is the only thing I would change in Vegas.

Dave T2

There are some things I would change, but it'd be awesome if we had a bunch of colour/button schemes to choose from, sort of like REAPER (semi-freeware audio multitracker).

The Liquid interface is the most non-intuitive thing I have ever seen (or attempted to use.) I was a Liquid beta tester for a while and they booted me when I said that I absolutely hated the interface. Second worst is the Avid interface.

There is no quicker or easier way to edit video than Vegas and I have no desire whatsoever to change the its interface. Anyone that criticizes Vegas has never really used it.

John

from DaveT2: The one thing I like about Avid and Final Cut is a seperate monitor screen for preview of source video. I like having the master screen and the preview screen

You can get that with VP8.
Go in internal preference and set "Trimmer Single Frame" to TRUE.
You have to uncheck "Show Video In Preview Windows" too (right click the Trimmer).

Just don't look at that second screen too closely. It looks like it runs at a low color depth.

If you want a source monitor, this method isn't enough.

There are things that could be done to make Vegas look a little more like it means business, But it seems like Vegas is built on a very common set of widgets. I'd say it looks more like an office application than it does a "toy".

There's nothing about Vegas that says "this is something special".

One place I think could use serious improvement is in the transitions/FX/Generators windows. These could look better and provide more graphical feedback. For example, Photoshop's Levels effect gives you a lot more feedback than Vegas gives you. Maybe embedding a dockable scopes window in it would help. It'd drive home the idea that this is what you use to judge levels. Just an example.

Rob Mack

Depends on the criticism, but the sorts of things Bigrock is repeating are kind of useless criticisms. Still, it's a question of aesthetics versus functionality. Vegas could be aesthetically nicer and it could also be more functional.

The main restriction is that you don't want to increase the number of steps it takes to do things. Vegas is quick and fluid.

People always complain about unfamiliar interfaces. The comparison needs to be made by people familiar with both.

Rob Mack

Every piece of software i've used that breaks away from the standard Classic Windows interface style has been much harder to use than those that stay with the style. Microsoft put an enormous amount of time and resources into coming up with a simple and intuitive interface. In my opinion it's even much better than the Mac interface as far as just doing what i want to do and having things where i can find them.

Developers who try "cool" things with the UI most often aren't doing anyone any favors. There has to be an extremely compelling reason why a Classic Windows UI control isn't the best for a particular task to make it better by replacing it with something nonstandard. The problem is, lots of developers do cool things simply to make their UI look cool without any consideration for how much more difficult they make it to operate their software.

Is Vegas boring to look at? Old fashioned maybe? Yes, i'll agree with that to some extent. However, Vegas Just Plain Works and it gets the job done. Most people who use it don't even have to think about the UI and how to operate the controls. Instead, they get to use their brain power on the task of ... dare i say it ... editing! What a concept. Every other NLE i've tried using takes so much effort to figure out how to use and to remember how to use after learning it that i don't have much concentration left over for the actual task of making my editing look good.

So, give me plain ol' boring UIs. I'll take them any day. They assist me in getting my work done rather than hindering me. In my book, that's the definition of 'professional', and that makes Vegas' interface the most professional looking of the lot.

Final Cut Studio is the one who makes your heart beat faster.

Vegas is the one you marry.

Still--if she'd just try on that bikini...

I'm surprised that so many of you say "as long as it works i don't care about how it looks." It's like you never expeienced life or something? Whan was the last time u made purchasing decision on functionality only? Even people who sell trucks, forklifts and farm machinery spend serius $$ to make their machines "attractive." What about whole iPod, Mac trend where people are ready to spend serious dough to have their slow but cool looking gadgets. Likewise in editing/post prodiction. When u work in AFter Effects CS3 u feel "cool" because the interface is just so cool looking. Would i by a piece of software based on looks alone? Of course not! But looks can't be "overlooked."

Any new interface takes getting used to. Took me a while to get used to the new Vegas 8 layout. I still sometimes press the explorer preview play button instead of the play button at the bottom left of the screen - it should be closer to the preview window.

Vegas is uncluttered and familiar which is one of its strengths - makes things quick and easy to do.

Don't particularly see how AE CS3 looks cool in comparison. At least Vegas has previews of what the VFX do. Then again, I am new to AE CS3 and its interface certainly takes some getting used to.

Most Mac addicts buy into the Apple clickish, cheesy interface-in-their--products because of the cool factor. Incidentally, the cool factor has changed over the years, what is considered cool now in any aspect defies all logic. I am not looking for approval from geeky-cheesy-FCP users, they can keep whatever world they have going on and live the hard stuff to us.

Not that I've ever used anything Liquid.
The Hello Kitty look of Vegas is a very big put off. Complained about bitterly when it first came out by the audio guys. Most of them have left the building for that Vegas knockoff that costs next to nothing.

One of my own brushes with the big end of town doing a supervised edit started with "what is THAT?". So before anything gets done I'm already off on the wrong foot. I still get work from this guy but still the stuff with the real money he send elsewhere. It's hard to break the low rent view when the opposition looks a million bucks because they spent a million bucks.

Another local Vegas user nearly lost a long term client because the TVC looked like a "home movie". I had a look at it and well sure it did. It was lit and shot like a home movie, duh! But this is a viscious game and the competition will use any BS to shaft you, truth is the first casualty of war and we do work in a war zone when you're trying to compete for clients with real budgets. So the job goes off to a uber expensive post house that has the right coffee and all the skirts. Thankfully the invoice and the final realisation that it wasn't Vegas's fault saved the day but it was a close shave.

It's funny this came up now, there's a similar thread over at DVInfo on the FCP forum. Again the way Vegas works, works against it. There's plenty of people there with nice things to say about Vegas but when most other NLEs work much the same way and can easily do much the same things that Vegas can't the user resistance is easy to understand.

Bob.

why would we be upset that someone prefers looks to functionality? Strange, I never heard anyone say "man, that nuke reactor looks like crap but the coal one looks sooooooooooo sweet... we should just not use nuke power at all!" :D

As you know rock, I have liquid... what ever I can do in liquid, can be done twice as fast in Vegas.... and it's BECAUSE of the interface. One of the greatest things I think is the Vegas time line. It is used to actually carry out a lot of the work and is much more detailed. The Liquid timeline sits there with nothing but blank blue color with with ONLY head and tail pecons... What an utter waste of space. I think the Vegas interface is one of the most forward thinking, advanced interfaces so far.

Liquid's interface on the other hand is a total confused disaster... they don't even have animated picons to display the effects/transitions. I agree VERY much with what Charlie White stated... it's old and badly outdated. Charlie was also right about another thing.... He didn't think Liquid had too much of a future left.... and of course he was right on the money... Liquid is being discontinued.

If you want my honest opinion though, it's mostly Sverkalo, and Lew on the liquid board that raises so much stink... I'll use Charlie White's words to decribe them.... "FROZEN IN TIME"

"Strange, I never heard anyone say "man, that nuke reactor looks like crap but the coal one looks sooooooooooo sweet... we should just not use nuke power at all!" :D "

Well if you've ever seen a Russian reactor compared to an Amercian designed and built one I sure as hell know which one I'd prefer in my backyard!

I worked in power generation control for nearly 20 years, made to read all the detailed incidence analysis reports including the one from Three Mile Island. Much of the blame for the operator screwups was assigned to the design of the GUI, simple things like using confusing colours for what is hot water and cold water matter enourmously when someone is under extreme stress and needs to make instant decisions.

We spent large sums of money not just getting the GUI correct but even the layout of panels, operator reach, chair height, operator ethnicity were all factors, lighting, ventilation. It all matters.

On that scorecard most NLEs are badly designed. Just a simple example from Vegas. That dreaded "Quantize to Frames" thing is hidden in a menu and yet it's a mission critical setting. It should be a big bold icon that's dead obvious to tell the state of.

Bob.

Having been an AVID editor for years and have sampled most of the pro and consumer NLE's out there...

I'm first to recommend VEGAS to everyone...except my compeition.

I'd like Vegas to stay as is with a choice of a "White" look (current) and "Black" look, my preferred choice. I have three large monitors I stare into up to 16 hours a day. I switch between my animation software; Mirage, which is made of various shades of black, and Vegas, various shades of white.

Each time I open Vegas I squint for a few seconds and feel a little stress overcome my face.

Whenever I enter Mirage, I relax and it feels like entering a video house control room. I think what I describe here is much beyond the realm of personal taste.

I am convinced that the reactions I described can be actually measured by instruments and scientifically proved to generate degrees of eye and brain wave stress.

Mirage went from White to Black but because there was huge oposition to the idea among the majority of beta testers, the developers left a choice to the individual users between Classic (white) and Default(Black). After a couple of years it is clear that virtually no one uses white anymore. Every time anyone posts a screen grab of the interface it's always the black one.

Quantize to Frames

Please forgive my ignorance - what does Quantize to Frames mean???

Cliff Etzel
bluprojekt

It would be nice to have a "brightness" slider on the interface, but the somewhat bright Vegas interface isn't a deal-breaker by any means.

"On that scorecard most NLEs are badly designed. Just a simple example from Vegas. That dreaded "Quantize to Frames" thing is hidden in a menu and yet it's a mission critical setting. It should be a big bold icon that's dead obvious to tell the state of."


And after you find the "Quantize to Frames", its difficult to figure out if you are clicking On or Off. It doesn't seem to brighten or dim to signify on or off.

Cliff: Please forgive my ignorance - what does Quantize to Frames mean???

"Quantize to frames", when enabled, means all of your cursor positioning, event positioning, etc., will snap to video frame boundries.

If disabled, you could have one video event end in the middle of a frame, and another butted up against it, and the rendered result will be like a one-frame cross-fade rather than a simple cut.

Somebody (gently) correct me if I'm wrong, but I think conventional wisdom is to always keep "Quantize to Frames" turned on, and to only turn it off (temporarily) if you are doing something with audio that needs positioning detail finer than what frame boundries would allow.

Tim L

Well if you've ever seen a Russian reactor compared to an Amercian designed and built one I sure as hell know which one I'd prefer in my backyard!

I've seen. :D

But going strictly by outside appearance. I hope a power plant has a very user-friendly system. :D

But look at Photoshop... the UI in that program is changed nearly every single release. Things moved about, shifted, etc. I hate that UI, I don't know anyone who loves that every new version requires a new book just to learn it. But everybody uses it because it's a "Great" program (prefer The Gimp!), regardless of the GUI changes.