Indie Filmmaker - Wish List

busterkeaton wrote on 4/13/2006, 9:52 AM

If Sonic Foundry didn't "sell out," we wouldn't be worrying about what's in Vegas 7. We be moaning Vegas doesn't exist.

The Vegas 7 new feature list has been locked for a long time, we'll know shortly if it has what you need.

GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/13/2006, 8:42 PM

i first heard about vegas with version 5.0 (just before sony came in)...i heard about them because they were cutting edge...one of the first NLEs that offered compatibility with the pani DVX100 2:3:3:2 advanced pulldown mode. i'm afraid we may have lost some of that entrepreneurial aggressiveness. that's what drives product (features not name)! sony threatens to turn this product into a "consumer" app. vegas should have been the first to offer dvcprohd compatibility and hdcam compatibility (they didn't do this because they want to continue to sell a crappy 100K xpri system that no one likes to use). that's what i've heard from top names in la. let's see if vegas 7 turns out something good that will get coverage in hollywood-post magazines like "millimeter" and not just crappy videographer trade rags. come on sony...let's kick some adobe premier ass!!!! and show apple what "intuitive" really means!!!!

farss wrote on 4/14/2006, 3:03 AM

Vegas already has HDCAM support, had it for quite some time.
Has XDCAM support but needs to add support for CineAlta XDCAM.
Also needs to add support for MXF Op Atom wrapper and MJ2K.
Agree with need for 10 bit (and beyond) support.

Why in the world waste time (and give buckloads of money to Panny)on a legacy codec like DVCPro? Well maybe they do need the money, their R&D efforts of late seem to involve nothing more than rehashing bits from the museum.

Bob.

GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 5:58 AM

Thanks, Bob.

Vegas supports HDCAM via uncompressed HD/SDI correct? It does not have the proprietary Sony HDCAM codec...only Xpri has that codec -- please correct me if I'm wrong. Sony keeps that codec all to themselves to sell the Xpri monster -- which is a joke.

Lastly, you're not really worried about Sony shelling out money are you? Come on, it's one of the richest companies in the world. :) Sony should give editors the codecs they need to do their job and stop playing games -- namely, Pani HVX200 (which kicks ass) versus Sony Z1U (which has a laughable 24f mode) -- that's what it's really about. At the very least bundle the DVFilm Raylight Codec for DVCPROHD. Oh yeah, I just remembered, give us native JVC ProHD 24p support too. Why haven't they? Think.

One more thing and I'll shut up: Sony should start marketing Vegas to the same audience Apple markets FCP...the indie film crowd. They don't! Not effectively anyway. Why? God only knows. Sonic Foundry was doing something right there.

Spot|DSE wrote on 4/14/2006, 6:24 AM

Boy, are there a LOT of misconceptions, Goodnight.
First....Vegas didn't support XDCAM the day it shipped. Since XDCAM HD has *just* started shipping, why would it be expected they'll support it out of the gate? Has absolutely nothing to do with Xpri. Vegas 6 has supported XDCAM all along, you can download demo XDCAM clips from several websites.
You think the Pani HVX kicks a$$? Either you haven't used it yet, or you aren't a serious shooter. It's not possible to even key decently with that footage. As one purchaser put it, "I was sold a race horse and ended up with a very nice looking donkey." I feel it's the most finely featured low-cost camera I've ever seen. It's unfortunate the image it puts out isn't equal to it's features or live up to its marketing hype. Not a bad camera in 720p mode at all. But to say it "kicks a$$??" Not by a long shot. I'll keep my Canon, Sony's, and JVC cams, thank you very much. (We're keeping our HVX too, but only as a rental)
JVC is supported, Vegas was the first to support it.
Here I sit with Z1u, A1u, HVX200, XLH1, and HD100 all next to me. I also have the BR50 and M10u, plus a couple of other HDV decks. I'm very comfortable in my knowledge of Vegas and all of the cameras. Other than your comment about codecs and Panasonic, you couldn't be much more off the mark.
As for Sony being "rich? "
1. Apparently you don't read the papers.
2. Should Sony be hijacked by a camera company for a codec that other companies got for free, especially when it likely wouldn't sell that many more copies of Vegas? Say Sony invests 100k into a codec. Does that translate into AT LEAST 500k in ADDITIONAL revenue? Just for that one codec? Likely not.
Maybe they will bundle Raylight. Who knows? Those who know can't say, and those who don't know, speculate.

winrockpost wrote on 4/14/2006, 6:54 AM

(which has a laughable 24f mode)
every video 24 frame mode ,24p, 24 this or that, is laughable, all is jittery and unpredictable and one of the the greatest marketing jobs of all time.
Just an opinion

GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 7:07 AM

First off, let me reiterate my utmost support for Sony Vegas. I really think Sony has the "potential" to be the best NLE.

Vegas does not support the HD100U's native ProHD 24p mode...you have to buy CineForm for that -- unless it's part of 6.0d (I'm not sure here). Next to HDCAM, DVCProHD is probably the most widely used HD codec in indie feature filmmaking. So, to not support it (for either 100K, 200K, or 500K) is a mistake and shows a lack of vision on Sony's part. If they don't want to give into Pany then buy Raylight (what the hell, buy the whole company while you're at it). Bingo...instant DVCProHD support.

Spot|DSE wrote on 4/14/2006, 7:24 AM

Vegas does not support the HD100U's native ProHD 24p mode...
It doesn't?

Captured just a few minutes ago.

GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 7:37 AM

I'm happy to hear (and see :) this. It was always my understanding that JVC's 24p implementation of HDV was non-standard...after all, the HDV specs don't make mention of 24fps--only 25, 30 and 60i. The JVC shoots in what they call "ProHD"...it would be nice if Sony updated the Vegas specs to make it clear that support for "ProHD" is in the box. That's not what the guys at CineForm told me.

GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 7:39 AM

How is ProHD/24 encoding the frames? As 2:3 or 2:3:3:2 pulldown? Straight 24fps? Or something else?

Spot|DSE wrote on 4/14/2006, 7:42 AM

First, Sony supported it long before it was part of the spec, and,
Second, the HDV spec was modified 2 months ago to include 24p and 4 channel audio.
Nobody currently fully supports ProHD. There currently is no way to access the audio. As I said, I have a JVC cam sitting next to me, I'm well aware of what it shoots. That said, even JVC wouldn't comment on what they plan for ProHD when they were asked to contribute information for my new book on HDV.
I don't know what the guys from CineForm told you vs what you might have heard, but the JVC was supported from the day it released.

farss wrote on 4/14/2006, 8:04 AM

Straight 24p, no pulldown, I think, which is why support is light on the ground. Certainly a better way to encode the vision as there's no redundant data. Same goes for its 25p mode but I could be wrong on that one.
Bob.

GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 8:13 AM

>I don't know what the guys from CineForm told you vs what you might have heard, but the JVC was supported from the day it released.

this kind of info needs to be disseminated better. if you go back you'll see that adobe premier (and FCP) were both "explicitly" stating their support for the JVC HD100U (when the camera first came out). Sony didn't do this for Vegas :(

GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 8:16 AM

> Reply by: winrock
> Date: 4/14/2006 9:54:45 AM

> every video 24 frame mode ,24p, 24 this or that, is laughable, all is jittery and
> unpredictable and one of the the greatest marketing jobs of all time.
> Just an opinion

You're not one of those film snobs are you? (kidding! ;-)

farss wrote on 4/14/2006, 8:31 AM

You are indeed correct.
The only system that support native HDCAM is Xpri and I'm told 1 Avid system. You need dual HD SDTI to get enough bandwidth. You can squirt the signal down HD SDI and capture to the Sony YUV codec via a BMD card. You could do exactly the same thing with DVCPro HD.
I'd suspect part of the reason for DVCPro HDs popularity is Apple's support of it, why? Less CPU overhead. Apple will always compromise quality to avoid exposing the limitations of their hardware. Just because something is popular doesn't make it good.

The HVX 200 though represents a new set of challenges and so far I don't think anyone has 100% support, it's not just a codec issue. The vision is contained in a MXF wrapper, a different one to XDCAM however it is an industry standard unlike the XDCAM wrapper which is a subset of the standard. Add support for the Op Atom MXF wrapper and you unlock not only the HVX 200 but also the Grass Valley Infiniticam, which by the way would be a far more suitable camera for a Independant film maker.

Bob.

GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 8:42 AM

Thanks, Bob.

>HD SDI and capture to the Sony YUV codec via a BMD card.

Do you know how Vegas performs with 1080/24p material using the Sony YUV codec? What kind of horsepower would I need for this?

Again, unless Sony adds (at least) 10-bit effect/transition support this option would still not work for me. It makes no sense to shoot using a 100K CineAlta and then whack the material with 8-bit effects. Correct? I refuse to EDL stuff over to a post-house and lose all my vision/hardwork. I'm not sure how successful the AAV/XML support has been with regards to reassembling the project on an AVID or FCP system. Thoughts here?

busterkeaton wrote on 4/14/2006, 8:47 AM

i first heard about vegas with version 5.0 (just before sony came in).

Version 5 was from Sony.

Sony Pictures Digital acuired Sonic Foundry's media software products right after version 4 was released. If you look around this forum, you see that Sony Media Software (the current name for the Vegas Division) is not the biggest priority of Sony Inc and still a very small division.

sony threatens to turn this product into a "consumer" app.
Sony has made an excellent decision in getting a great consumer version of Vegas out there. The execution on this has been excellent too, Vegas Movie Studio is now one of the best-selling consumer apps, if not the best selling. I would wager that nothing else is more important for the long term viability of Vegas than that. It's going to be an important revenue stream, that will allow the funds for higher end development. It's getting the Sony Vegas name out there in the big retail channels. The big retail stores will probably start to stock the pro version too. There will be a ton of users who graduate from Movie Studio to the professional app. For younger editors, it's going to create a generation of editors who think that FCP sucks.

ForumAdmin wrote on 4/14/2006, 9:00 AM

data point you may or may not care about:

HDCAM format (Cinealta) is 8 bit. If you are sourcing on or delivering to HDCAM, 8bit is what goes on tape.

XDCAM HD, also 8 bit.

GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 9:12 AM

> HDCAM format (Cinealta) is 8 bit. If you are sourcing on or delivering to HDCAM, 8bit is what goes on tape.

> XDCAM HD, also 8 bit.

Thank you. I did not know this! :)

GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 9:14 AM

> For younger editors, it's going to create a generation of editors who think that FCP sucks.

I'd like to think I'm one of them. :)

farss wrote on 4/14/2006, 9:14 AM

Obviously you'll need lots of horsepower, not so much CPU grunt as disk i/o bandwith, think SCSI RAID, which really pushes the cost up.
As said though, both DVCPro HD and HDCAM is only 8 bit depth, really nothing to gain running that through a 10 bit pipeline and then going back to a 8 bit codec.

Bear in mind that many display system are only 6 (SIX) Bit, i.e. LCD monitors and projectors.

Bob.

apit34356 wrote on 4/14/2006, 10:18 AM

"Bear in mind that many display system are only 6 (SIX) Bit, i.e. LCD monitors and projectors." Burn this into your memory! Bob stated a very important fact, editing in 8/10/12/16 bit color space, you do not want to view your work in 6bit color space.

Jayster wrote on 4/14/2006, 12:48 PM

This has probably been mentioned before, but I'd like to see Vegas 7 include a version that is compiled for and completely supports 64 bit Windows operating systems (XP x64 and later Vista).

Applications compiled for 64 bit windows have usually been found to be faster (and long renders can use whatever advantages we can find). Perhaps more importantly, 64 bit applications are not limited to a 2GB address space as are their 32-bit counterparts. Anyone who has ever experienced the "out of memory" error that killed a render, despite having lots of unused RAM available, will appreciate this. The "out of memory" error is what pushed me to upgrade to Vegas 6 (which has far better memory management when working with HDV and the Cineform codec). But Vegas 6 is still limited to using 2GB of address space (RAM + swap file).

winrockpost wrote on 4/14/2006, 1:24 PM

.....................You're not one of those film snobs are you? (kidding! ;-)

Not me , never even held a 16 or 35mm cam, would't know kodak vision 5205 from 5218 , would be cool to have a focus dude though !!!

Indie Filmmaker - Wish List - Vegas 7.0

Comments