"I really don't like vegas..."

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 10/10/2006, 9:54 AM

I was on a job, and there was a news crew their doing some shooting. I struck up a conversation with one of the camera men who was thinking about starting up a production company when he moved, and asked me how I managed to stay afloat in a city where there is such customer scarcity and big competition. We started talking about how he just bought a new macbook, and how I didn't edit on a mac. "what do you edit on, avid?" "no" I said, "I actually use Sony Vegas" "Oh? I've heard of that, I don't really like it though, I've heard it's not that good" Anyway, I proceeded to tell him about the many things that I liked about Vegas, how it's very fast, it's format agnostic, it's resolution independant, it has the most audio support out of the box of any software NLE, and it's been able to do HD for years. Anyway, I'm always amazed at how people don't like something that they've never tried it, and they don't even really know *why* they don't like it, they just "don't like it that much."

silly people.

Dave

Back to post

Comments

barend wrote on 1/16/2007, 1:18 PM

I have very good memories of the years I edited Discreet's Edit. D*mn I miss that software! It's too bad its been killed, although it was a bit pricey. I have also worked with Premiere and have trained people how to use it, but when I see it now it makes me puke. Yes, I love Vegas Video, but I'm in difficult position when it comes to advising people what they should buy - I'm currently teaching film in a high school. I am frequently asked by colleagues world wide what kind of equipment they should buy. I explain them that we use Sony Vegas Video, for it has an extremely powerful user interface and excellent audio capabilities. It's a lot cheaper than FCP, enabling one to invest more in recording equipment. However, if you like it or not, movies finished on Final Cut Pro LOOK better. Why? Because of the build-in title and credits options of FCP. I know this issue has been discussed thoroughly on this forum, but I would like to point out that many people are willing to pay more if it'll make their films LOOK better. Actually, so am I. If Sony would improve their title and credits generator I would gladly pay some more bucks. And no, I do not want to have to buy After Effects in order to get good titles. If I want additional FX I'll buy it, but I think titles are rather basic and should be part of the package and workflow. Like with Discreet's Edit - RIP.

Barend

seanfl wrote on 1/17/2007, 12:30 PM

big agreement here that titling is the area needing the most improvement. It really hasn't changed over the past number of versions and FCP and others do a much nicer job of titling. You're correct...folks that use FCP often can produce a better looking product because of the built in titling. Like you said, I don't want to learn after effects to get good titles.

Sean

barend wrote on 1/17/2007, 1:54 PM

My students will send their short films to film festivals world wide. So what do I tell them when the others walk away with the prizes possibly because their films LOOK better? "Well, at least you had the luck to work with really user-friendly software..."?
I don't want to suggest that titles make a winner, but a professional look does favor judges. I'm sorry to say this, but so far basically every Vegas Video film I have seen has lousy amateuristic looking titles and credits.

Barend

deusx wrote on 1/17/2007, 2:27 PM

>>>Because of the build-in title and credits options of FCP. <<

You said movies, so I assumed major productions, but maybe I'm wrong.

In case we are talking about decent budget to big budget productions, nobody in their right mind will use FCP for titles and credits. There is far superior software for that, even aftereffects will do a much better job.

Likewise, you shouldn't use Vegas for your titles and credits.
So if you are willing to pay more, don't pay more for FCP, just buy a good titling software or aftereffects, or if budget allows something even better

Another option: You can get XSI foundation for $500 or lightwave for about $750. That would give you a real 3D program, and you can do whatever you want, 2d, 3D, more options than you'll ever need.

GaryAshorn wrote on 1/17/2007, 3:01 PM

Well, I will have to admit one of the comments I get is about my titles I did in VM using either Cayman Graphics or other software that really show their quailty. Titles I do in VV just don't hold up as well as the others I have used. Any people do notice it and comment to me about that part of a production. My experience at least. So I must move to those programs if I am going to continue full use of VV etc.

Gary

kentwolf wrote on 1/17/2007, 3:21 PM

>>Titles I do in VV just don't hold up as
>>well as the others I have used...

I use Boris Red for titles. That nixes the titling disparity.

I think the main reason a film does/doesn't look good is the skill of the editor.

I know guys who have a sky's-the-limit set of editing tools; but if you're not skilled, it won't matter.

In my opinion, a modest set of tools in the hands of a skilled editor will have a better output than all the bells and whistles in the hands of an unskilled editor.

Just my opinion...

barend wrote on 1/17/2007, 11:31 PM

I consider my self a fairly skilled editor and I have studied graphic design in the past. I'm not a pro-graphic designer, but I think I am able to distinguish the difference between a well designed title roll and a poorly designed one. As I mentioned I have worked with Discreet Edit and credits and titles were never an issue. The Sony Vegas titling options are not simply modest, they are limited and of poor quality . It's time Sony addresses this problem if they take themselves seriously, for many aspiring film makers out there do and want to show good LOOKING films to the world.
Anyway, I'll have to look around for some titling software. I'm not thrilled about the idea of having to switch between applications though.

Barend