I'm in one of my contrarian moods...

john_dennis wrote on 9/28/2012, 5:43 PM
I recently loaded Vegas 4.0e on an old Pentium 4 machine at work. The theory was that I would throw a VHS tape in a drive from time to time
and, eventually, I would transfer all the tapes that are cluttering up my house. Then, I started knocking out a little video



here and there for no special reason except that the machine was available.

My observations:

1) Vegas has been a competent editor for a long time.

2) youtube does a better job preparing Windows Media Video than most people give it credit for. I don't care, I just observed it.

3) It's suprising that I was able to work with downloaded video from the Canon 5d Mark III with an editor that old.

This is not to mention that I was actually able to upload a rendered sample to youtube.



I used the latest version of Quicktime (7.72.80.560).

Now, you folks can go back to talking about Vegas Pro 11 and 12. I loaded 11-701 on my laptop last night, then went to bed and forgot the whole thing.

Comments

farss wrote on 9/28/2012, 7:48 PM
V4 still rocks.

Bob.
Grazie wrote on 9/29/2012, 2:40 AM
Nah, you're not being contrary. You're being sensible in choosing that tool for that job. Why pull out a micrometer or electron microscope of all you want to do is knock a few nails in a log? No, you're a Craftsman. And a Craftsman using the correct or appropriate tool for the job.

What would be interesting would be to give a noobie VV4 and tell it to edit MXF HD 422 footage and then colour correct and colour grade it in, let's say 20 minutes using 5.1 surround sound.

Now, of your posting to give us all a reality check on where VP12 is compared to VV4, then right on!

There's a difference in be contrary and being sensible and choosing the best tool for the job.

Grazie
john_dennis wrote on 10/1/2012, 6:27 PM
"What would be interesting would be to give a noobie VV4 and tell it to edit MXF HD 422 footage and then colour correct and colour grade it in, let's say 20 minutes using 5.1 surround sound."

Hmmm! Let me think about that one.
john_dennis wrote on 10/1/2012, 7:06 PM
My 20 minutes are up and the closest I came was Sony MXF DV. Not very close at all.

Going home to look at Vegas Pro 12.
farss wrote on 10/1/2012, 7:29 PM
I think anything inside a QT wrapper V4 will read, that's the trick. By updating QT Vegas 4 can read files never thought of when it was written.


Bob.
john_dennis wrote on 10/2/2012, 6:21 PM
"I think anything inside a QT wrapper V4 will read, that's the trick. By updating QT Vegas 4 can read files never thought of when it was written."

I found that to be true. I converted some of my MXF files to MOV using a converter from an Internet search called Pavtube HD Video Converter and was able to use the files in Vegas 4.0.

Still, the output options were limited. I was able to render to 5mbps wmv at 1080-30p.

I'm just doing this to satisfy my intellectual curiousity...

...and I'm a lot more curious than I am intellectual.
ushere wrote on 10/2/2012, 9:37 PM
I'm a lot more curious than I am intellectual

i think you can't have one without the other ;-)
john_dennis wrote on 10/2/2012, 11:54 PM
I'll take that as a high compliment.
ushere wrote on 10/3/2012, 3:55 AM
you should, but i hadn't even lit my joint....