GPU-accelerated rendering Adobe Bridge
This is cool, but makes it an even bigger pig on the processor
Multicam editing Already available in Vegas with 4 different plugin tools ranging from free to 49.99, and it's a LOT faster than it is in Premiere
Native HDV editing Native SD and HD Only an editor not concerned with total quality would edit native m2t files, meaning color correction isn't important, or you don't mind having lower quality files, or don't composite much
support Enhanced color-correction tools "Enhanced...without Bob Currier's Color Finesse, (purchased plug in) they still haven't caught up to Vegas
16-bit color resolution support 32-bit internal color processing
Maybe someday they'll even start processing color and keys in 4:4:4 like Vegas and Canopus.
Accelerated client review.
This is part of the GPU, so not sure why it's listed separately. Additionally, the GPU-assisted effects are few.

Bottom line is this, and many of those who have tried the two side by side have seen this already. Premiere Pro 2.0 is a bloated pig on the proc, you MUST have the latest, fastest, greatest computer to even run it, and even then, it's slow and piggy compared to Vegas. On my dual 275 machine, it's slow to respond by comparison to Vegas. It renders faster, and yes, it uses the GPU to help in that process, but that's about it.
Read this thread to see what others have found with PP2.0. Download their demo and see for yourself if you really *need* these features.
I'm surprised you don't bring up the 10 bit issue; everyone else does, or the speed with Axio (everyone should have this kind of $$) or thenew Bridge (which is definitely cool) or the suite of tools that allow easy round-tripping with Photoshop, Audition, After Effects, and Encore. Additionally some folks really like the timeline creation of DVDs in PP2.0, I didn't like it with Pinnacle tools, and I don't care for it much with PP2.0, either. But that's just my opinion.
The Clip Notes (embedded PDF file) is pretty cool, but this again is just part of the bloat. In Vegas, we do this with project summaries and markers on the timeline.
I do like the transparent clips/video track that allows you to drop on an invisible video clip, that's cool. But again, we can do this in Vegas with a parent track, or at the project level. Output to Flash from the timeline is nice, but Swishflix does a much better job.
Gee whiz, now you can move sequences around (just like Vegas 6 offered nearly a year ago) and you are prompted to change tape names when you capture. (Just like Vegas 2.0 6 years ago) and now Premiere no longer screws with your audio. (Just like Vegas 1.0 8 years ago)
the only thing cool about PP2.0 IMO, is the non-recompress of MPEG, and the Dynamic Linking from app to app, and the way the GUI is scalable. If I had to pick one "super cool" feature of PP, it would be the scalable GUI, because I think that's very cool across 2-3 desktops.

Douglas has prepared a perfect anwer again. However, I think that Vegas 7 will have to show some improvements, as discussed earlier here. And I am sure it will do so!
:)

I can attest to EVERYTHING DSE has said. As an owner of PP2 and the like, I was very unimpressed with what Adobe came up with aftter 2 years of developing for it. The only saving grace of the entire bunch would be AE7 and even that is being generous. I sure wish I would have known when purchasing just to get AE7 but I admit that I got sucked into the hype and marketing.

The ONLY thing PP2 has over Vegas right now is Clip Notes. Clip Notes is quite brilliant but definitely nothing I would fork out $200 for. Multicamming? Its ok but nothing to write home about. Limited to 4 cams whereas Inifinitcam can support up to a 100 and more and performance depends soley on your system unlike Adobe.

Scalable GUIs are ok. I particulary like it for AE7. Encore is boring other than onscreen flowcharts which if you are planning your DVD properly will have been done even before DVD creation begins. Audition...looks fancy yet is still chasing Vegas.

Where Adobe has failed is that the majority of changes have come with the GUIs and a few bells and whistles. They have failed to deliver any H.264 AVC support or HD authoring outside of HDV/WM9 HD.

Sony has a real chance to lengthen its lead over Adobe provided Vegas 7 delivers some new innovative features. While GPU rendering is nice, in Vegas its not needed to get decent speed while rendering. In PP2, its almost a must have. Same thing for native HDV editing. Adobe screwed up royally by not including Cineform codec this time around. Add to it they delayed H.264 AVC support and HD DVD/BD authoring until the summer so they can turn around and hit their customers up for a .5 upgrade (I have sources on this information) just like they did with PP1.0>PP1.5. It will not be pretty for Adobe users.

Hopefully we will see 6d before V7 is announced. Hopefully Sony will unlock H.264 AVC totally to support the entire specs allowing for tweaking of B Frames, RDO, etc... I wont hold my breath though.

What I absolutely hope to see in Vegas 7 is the ability to do what DVRack does. Perhaps this would be a good time for Sony to partner up with companies like Nero, Mainconcept, and Serious Magic to start including their apps to provide an all around solution. Because honestly, are there really that many more features that NLEs need?

I think the key will be to start bundling more features that are found in plugins. I would be really shocked if Vegas 7 didnt offer at least some sort of multicamming out of the box. I hate to Sony compete with the plugin developers by incoporating features already offered by third parties (Vasst, JetDV, etc...) but what else can they really invent for future versions.

Personally, I think after we see HD DVD/BD authoring, 10bit editing, support Photoshop Layers, and GPU assisted rendering, theres really not much else out there to be added other then whats being offered in plugins now. Clip notes type perhaps but not much else.

As an editor, I absolutely hate having to get additional plugins especially after buying an app. Too many things to install and keep track of and god forbid it has a bug and you have to track it down (imagine trying that with 50 plugins for AE, its a pain.)

But ever since V4, it doesnt seem as if each new version has been earth shattering other than HDV. Hopefully Sony has something huge for V7 to further its grip on the NLE world.

it is getting to the point where adding editing features is getting kinda pointless.... practicly everything can be done with plugins & most people don't really need tons of fancy editing gimicks.

I'd like GPU accelerated editing but I belive that if it was added it wouldn't help much. Not because it can't but because when you get someone (IE the programmer) who's been working a certain way for a decade then say "Hey, everything's 100% changed!", they don't 100% change.

Spot,

Why would offloading rendering to the GPU make it a bigger pig on the processor? Wouldn't the CPU be free to coast while the GPU is doing the work?

What is the difference in multicam speed between Vegas and PP?
In both cases you press a single key to pick a camera, in both cases it's realtime, and in both cases you can go back and change this later.

Synthetic Aperture's $595 Color Finesse is only bundled with the $999 After Effects Pro (it doesn't come with PP 2.0). I haven't used it enough to see if it is better than Vegas in practice, although on paper it does have some strengths.

I think PP 2.0 does internal processing of at least keys in 4:4:4 too, and Color Finesse of course does it for those who have it. This just seems easier to do, and then you strip out the samples you don't have room for from the output. Do you have a reference for this? I could ask Jacob Rosenberg who is pretty good about not taking Adobe's [or anyone else's] marketing BS at face value [I grilled Jacob recently about whether PP 2.0's 10-bit support was real this time (because PP1.5 was said to do 10-bit, but it was found not to be able to output it), and got a clear no-waffle answer to my detailed test question.]

It was very clear to me after seeing side-by-side comparisons of the same 8-bit footage going through the same exact effects at 8-bit vs. going through at float precision, the end results (both in 8-bit video) looked vastly different, and there is a simple mathematical explanation for this. Even simple blurs look indeed vastly better.

I think Vegas needs to pick up at least 10-bit, or it will sink down into the multimedia realm again. Film makers everywhere, at many levels, are seeing the advantage of having more latitude in the camera. This even has positive cost implications for some. My prediction is that Vegas will not be able to sweep this under the carpet and survive long term.

I understand that there were performance concerns in the past, but this is today and both harddrives and CPUs are orders of magnitude faster.

Note that 10-bit is primarily a camera format, while Adobe's 16-bit is a Photoshop inheritance that was their first step towards getting superior quality out of many filters.

The Clip Notes (embedded PDF file) is pretty cool, but this again is just part of the bloat. In Vegas, we do this with project summaries and markers on the timeline.

If I understand correctly what you are suggesting for Vegas, this works only when you can send a whole project to another Vegas user who can go through it and put markers on the timeline before returning the gigabytes of footage to you with comments.

My clients don't have Vegas (or any other NLE). I have to send them a timecode burn, and the clients can't "put markers on the timeline." All they can do is scribble notes on a piece of paper like "at 2:03;12 change the sign on the building to xxx," or at best do the same via e-mail, and inevitably, unless they have been really well prepped, they will screw up the time code reference which means more work for me.

The Clip Notes feature in PP 2.0 makes a PDF with a WM or QT video in it that you can e-mail. The recipient can even go to a public internet computer and pick this up with the free Acrobat 7.0 reader. They click Play to start watching your footage, then pause when they want to make a comment, and the comment will only be "fix xxx here" because the time code is entered automatically. When they're done, they e-mail you back the PDF, web mail works fine. You receive it, Import Clip Notes, and markers appear in your original footage where the client made comments, with the comments in place. Simple and efficient.

This is a genuine time saver that I think it would be great (and easy) for Vegas to adopt in some form. Hey, I would take it as a plug-in too if that was possible.

The Dynamic Linking was one of my favorites too, it is a genuine, no-BS timesaver.

Personally I'm really fed up with the NLE wars. I found trying to chase all the latest and greatest features in different packages gets in the way of the visual art that is my end goal anyway.

Vegas is extremely flexible, and my workflow allows for long render times, so this is not a big issue with me. There is so much that is great about it, that most other NLEs can only dream about.

PP2.0 is new, so there may be all kinds of problems waiting to be discovered (remember Vegas 6...), and I certainly don't want to be among the first to find out.

Still, for all of us, it's hard not to think about some of the things that Adobe has implemented very well. Especially for those who need to use After Effects with lots of changes, the roundtripping isn't that wonderful.

But it's more important for me to stop the continuous inflow of new ways to do things.

If I currently use a tool that takes twice as long as a new tool to do something, I have to weigh that against the time it takes to become proficient with the new tool and the time it takes to develop a tested workflow with it.

Without a tested workflow, nothing else matters.

"I'd like GPU accelerated editing"

No, you really don't. One of the strongest features of Vegas is its independence from any hardware or third-party software. If the PC will run Windows XP, then it will run Vegas.

Adding hardware dependence adds to bloatware, potential interaction problems, and makes Vegas far less versatile - try running Premiere on a laptop.

We would all like faster render times, but as well optimized as Codecs are, there's only two ways to get faster rendering: Faster PC or compromised quality. I'll take the slower rendering and higher quality of Vegas over GPU accellerated rendering any day.

Steve Mann

I dont like GPU dependence but offering some sort of support would be a good move so that those without can still utilize Vegas. Vegas should remain hardware independent but it would be nice for those that want the extra speed the ability to add GPU rendering. I will say this much, once HD authoring (H.264 AVC) hits, you have no idea how long it takes to render/encode 1080i for a 2 hour film. On my AMD 64 3700+, we are talking almost a day and a half sometimes two. Thats just the encoding not the authoring/burning.

Unless encode time speeds up dramatically, I can forsee me buying my first hardware encoder card. :(

You make some great points, and some of them, I can't address without violating NDA from a couple of companies, so I'll leave it at that I was a beta tester for PP2.0, and worked it to death. It's a pig, and was a pig the second the GPU code came in. Whether that is solely responsible for the slower reaction times or not, I can't say (cuz I don't know) but that was the point where it got slow.
As far as the multicam, it's a lot more than just one click to modify the file. Maybe I'm too used to the US2 workflow or the infinitiCAM workflow, because I'm never, ever married to a sequence. I can go to any point in the timeline, click the camera I want, and hit "Update Tally" and I'm done. In PP, the sequence has to be opened, you then select the cam, close the sequence, and wait for it for a few seconds to update.
Synthetic Aperture's Finesse does indeed have some benefits over Vegas as a plug to Premiere. However, without it....Premiere still has some catch up to do.

Yes. We really do want GPU acceleration - as long as it works

I find it hard to fathom why you think having GPU acceleration would somehow make Vegas hardware dependent. There's no reason for that. I'd expect Vegas to be able to render even if it was a headless render machine. No need for a GPU at all, in that case.

There seems to be a couple of types of GPU acceleration. There's 3D, like what Bluff Tittler does (evidently quite nicely), and there's more generic GPU acceration where the GPU does some heavy mathematical lifting whether it's tailored to it or not.

If GPU acceleration makes your CPU work harder...well, maybe the implementation sucks. Or maybe it creates a bit of overhead but overall you get more done. I'm not supporting or defending PPro here. Just saying that GPU acceleration has promise and if it actually slows things down then I'd say it's a bad implementation. Not a bad technology.

Now, as far as the speed over quality question goes, it seems like some people prefer speed. If Vegas offered "faster render, lower quality" as a render option, I'm afraid that you'd see a lot of users take that road. Sad but probably true.

Rob Mack

Since I'm going to be forced to use PPro a little bit, I downloaded a demo of 1.5 just to take a quick look at. At about the same time, I read a post here about putting animated gifs on the timeline so I thought I'd try it on both systems. I suspect my experience is about the same as it would be for any media.

First of all, in Vegas you can drag a file from the desktop or an explorer window straight into the pool or onto the timeline. You have to go through a couple of steps in Premiere but with Vegas you can just get media onto a timeline faster.

Second, Vegas just played the animated gif. Premiere Pro 1.5 choked. However, Premiere Pro put it onto the timeline at actual pixel size, while Vegas scaled it to fill the preview window. That's a strike against Vegas, and always has been. But it was the only strike.

With Vegas I could play the animated gif, do track motion, do event pan/crop, do time stretching, all at full frame rate while Vegas was playing. Premiere pro couldn't even play the file properly.

Vegas is a great performer in a lot of ways, and it's stable. Yet it has some problems that make it not "in the running" for a lot of people. These seem to be issues of hardware support, render time, large project management/media management, and 10bit or higher processing.

Personally, I think a lot of competitive and very basic features could be built into Vegas without disturbing the current users. Things like multiple timelines in a project, hardware acceleration, a media management database server (improvements on the current one), GPU leverage, client review tools (Really a tool for anyone to review footage and create a log that could be imported back into Vegas), all of this could be added as long as there is a requirement that it not impact the current features and speed.

Rob Mack

Dynamic linking actually sounds like a Microsoft technology. You know, Dynamic Linking and Embedding.

If Adobe is actually using this then maybe Vegas (and everyone else) can start to use it too. It wouldn't surprise me if adobe is opening up AEFX for other NLEs to access in this way. The tool is used by an awful lot of people.

As far as making a plug in for client review goes, I wonder if this can be done with Windows Media Player, (or with quicktime, for that matter). Basically, you need a tool that can view the media file and keep track of time code, allowing you to add log information while you review. It needs to pause, fast forward, reverse, go to a time code coordinate, etc. And it should be capable of either exporting the log file or mailing it directly from the application. You don't nee to send the media file back and forth.

The thing that seems like the killer feature here is that the Acrobat player is free and cross platform. Windows media player is free but not cross platform. Flash is, though, and Adobe won't be the sole source for the VP6 encoder unless they buy On2.

Rob Mack

Rob Mack

It is certainly conceivable that the new code needed to hand off rendering to a GPU isn't very efficient at this point. They may have gone for safety rather than performance this time around.

I noticed that some people are still concerned about "hardware dependency." This is a non-issue with GPUs, because the protocols used to communicate with them for video rendering are standardized.

OpenGL 2.0 is supported by every manufacturer with a worthwhile card.

When OpenGL 3.0 comes out, new cards will still support OpenGL 2.0, just like current cards support also OpenGL 1.5.

I think Adobe should at least be commended for taking a deep breath and overhauling the supremely ugly and inefficient old user interface (rather than adding to the bloat with hoards of new features). Even inside Adobe they were talking about "palettosis".

I saw a hands-on demo of multicam when it was released, but didn't see it with multiple sequences. Typical of first impressions not always matching the reality of working with something on an ongoing basis, although it seems reasonable that one would be multicam editing one sequence at a time anyway. I don't see why anybody would do a lot of starts and stops of all cameras that would necessitate that a lot of sequences be created.

I am not sure how most people generate money from thier NLE. I am fortunate to be surviving from weddings for now and hopefully real projects later.

But I tell you that render times kill me. I really need more juice. 99 % of my work is simply cross fades, color correction, resizing or aspect change.

It would be great if Vegas 7 could offload the basics to the GPU. I would buy the best video card, DSP processor because it cost me money not to have it somewhere else.

I don't get this hardware dependance stance. If you need to edit on your laptop use Version 6.0c. Weddings are 3 hour monster projects that need to be done in limited time. And I am crazy enough to record them in HDV (JVC H100 and Sony FX1).

Even just previewing such files in draft mode multicam is a bit of guess work (better with the cineform plug). If the gpu even made previewing smoother it would be worth it to me.

Does anyone know if Sony will even hint or illude to to wether or not some of these feature will be in the next upgrade? Because I really don't want to learn or invest in a new system. It hasen't been Sony's style to wait for NAB to annouce anything why should it be different with Vegas.

"If GPU acceleration makes your CPU work harder...well, maybe the implementation sucks. "

Or, maybe the GPU doesn't do all the heavy lifting that you would like.

In my time on this forum - sony's said nothin to noone no how until the release. Rest assured, I've got no doubts that they'll release something at nab - wether it's an update or a new version number, I'll almost bet dollars to doughnuts that they will have a new version at NAB (at least if they keep with previous versions - yea, cuz I've been around for sooooo many :] ). Anyway - I've got my $200 bux (HOPE against HOPE that they give us the discount again) ready to drop as soon as it's out, I'll be at NAB, maybe I'll even get the box this time (if they have it there for sale - is that how they do it there?).

Dave

Very true. There's always going to be someone complaining that GPU coprocessing doesn't do enough and it'll be Madison's task to set clear expectations.

In a way, it doesn't really matter if the CPU is running a little harder if more work is getting done. What would matter, of course, is if the CPU ran harder and less work got done.

Vegas's 3D tools would work a lot faster if it leaned on the GPU. Even if that's all you got from the graphics card it'd still be worthwhile for many people.

Rob Mack

No. Seriously. Vegas versions usually get announced at NAB. You might find out something during the month prior if things get leaked out.

If you need another system "right now" then you should start shopping. Otherwise, if you wait til NAB you'll be able to get a better view of the market. Vegas isn't the only app that waits for NAB.

Vegas is never going to require hardware. There's no reason to be afraid of Vegas supporting hardware because they'd be just plain foolish to release a Vegas that can't run on a vanilla system. It's one of the biggest attractions of Vegas - that it runs so well and does it without hardware.

Rob Mack

Vista requires 3d hardware acceleration so it's only a matter of years before ALL of us will need it.

3D accelerated cards don't cost much eigther. You can get decent ones for ~$50. People here spend more then that on sound cards. most laptops already have 3d acceleration too.

Plus, if implimented correctly, GPU acceleration wuldn't just speed things up a few extra frames per second on render but possibly reduce your render 2,3,4x. It's done wonders for 3d apps. A few games are even comming out with FX very simular to Vegas & Photoshop (color correction, DOF, gausian blur, etc). At HD quality they render slow but faster then Vegas I belive.

True, 3D accelerators (the ones required by Vista) can be bought for well under $50. However, those cards typically only offer rendered video output to the display device. If you want to use the GPU to perform actual data manipulation (such as rendering) as a true coprocessor, then you're limited to some of the new cards which are designed for this. These cards have API's specifically for this purpose.

This type of workhorse card is still relatively expensive compared to the baseline 3D video output accelerators. Of course, if there are significant performance gains, it would be worth it if video is your bread-n-butter.

Besides the GPU part of the equation, there's also the need to move data in and out of the graphics card. There could be bottlenecks on the system bus, requiring a high-bandwidth PCI-Express connection.

Video is a hobby for me, not a career, but even so, life would be great if I could generate an hour of MPEG-2 output in just a few minutes!

David

Hi David,

So we know that PCI Express provides high throughput both to and from the video card (In contrast AGP has low throughput coming back from the card). Are you saying that some of the cards themselves are designed to just send data to the display device?

It would make sense, especially for cards that were ported from AGP versions. You certainly wouldn't want to blindly buy a graphics card without first seeing some peer reviews.

Rob Mack

I have no problem at all playing m2t files with the MY-HD 120 computer card and wish that Vegas would just output the preview to media player to this card with the tp file ending. Or just some other way that I don't know about to monitor and preview Cineform AVI & m2t files flawlessly.

JJK

I gave premiere 2.0 a whirl...

I like it.

I dont find it bloated or a pig at all. Infact its quite fast. While true, vegas can do more in realtime, Premiere Pro 2.0 with GPU can playback video at high quality (without interlacing showing like vegas does). Premiere Pro 2 has far better management of rendered clips on the timeline. You can trim them, move them, and they do not revert back to their unrendered state. (Thats a basic NLE feature that saves time, and vegas is horrible at it)

Premiere Pro 2.0's trimming tools are far better interface wise. I should clarify this... Premiere Pro offers better visual information when triming/sliping etc. I think its easier in vegas to trim, slip etc... but Premiere Pro gives you great visual feedback such as good before and after frames, also source monitors, trim window etc. It even has an overwrite mode... Vegas needs one.

PP2.0's bins and media management is nicer, the UI is nicer in general. It has source monitor/timeline monitor.

PP2.0 has sequences within a project. Open multiple sequences in a tabbed like UI. Copy between them, or nest within. Very fast, far superior to Vegas. Instead of having different .vegs, i can have one project with many sequences... ah like all other NLEs. It just makes sense.

PP2.0's integration with audtion, afterfx... hell After FX 7 is pretty nice.

I think Adobe stepped it up BIG time this time around.

Granted it took them more than a year to even go from 1.5 to 2.0, and YES the new features are slim. PP2.0 still lacks good speed ramping, but the new features are certainly nice.

Vegas has a lot of things going for it. Vegas is still insanely fast, but all of that realtime power goes out the window when you start needing to prerender clips in vegas, simply because Vegas has poor management of prerendered clips on the timeline.

The UI in vegas HAS TO CHANGE. It cant stand the same dull looking windows standard ui. A source monitor is needed. I want to see BEFORE and AFTER frames when doing color correction, slipping etc. I want to see the frames surrounding where i'm editing. Atleast with a source monitor workflow you can see it, but PP2 has gone step further with its own Trim window, and also multiple frame trim/slip ui in the timeline monitor.

Vegas is faster... but i think PP 2.0 is more robust and thought out. Slower, ya... but turn on the GPU and pan and scale highres frames realtime. The new 3way color corrector is a beast. A slow beast. Again vegas is faster, but Vegas breaks the color correction process into many seperate fx, while premiere tends to lump a crap load all into their 3way color corrector, including secondary color correcting (though i like vegas's ui for this better)

I tried editing some of my footage in premiere pro 2, and i'm liking it a lot. Its not easy giving up the power of Vegas, but its also not easy using Vegas, when its so poor at some fo the basic things needed in an NLE.

The media manager in vegas, crashes constantly... Its useless. The ui needs an overwrite mode, a quicker keyboard workflow (hell, A keyboard workflow). It needs a source monitor, it needs a new ui.

I like Vegas, and it certainly has more tools... i just feel its time to for vegas 7 and perhaps a new direction. Less cramming stuff into the old ui... and more so, reinventing the ui, and handling of prerendered clips on the timeline. Better bins like avid.

I think Adobe has taken itself in a new direction. Perhaps their serious this time around. I think Sony needs to do the same thing. Vegas.

I'll say this... I had an award winning film editor over my house the other night, and he's a final cut pro user that does a lot of HD conforming and film editing. He told me today "I was quite impressed with what you had shown me in Vegas, it looks incredibly powerful to do that much in realtime". He also said "i can tell its more of an audio editing workflow" Which i think is kind of part of my problem with Vegas. I want it to be both, more avid/premiere/fcp, and still retain the good ui ideas behind vegas.

Am i switching to Premiere Pro 2? Thats too early to say, but i'm having fun exploring it, even though i do miss features found in Vegas.

So i wouldnt bag on Premiere Pro 2.0 as others here have. I think its pretty dam nice, and certainly excells at cutting/assembly.

It exports a great AAF that imports into vegas just fine too :)

Time will tell, but i think Adobe's did something right for once. Granted, its not enough... but its a start. Hopefully it wont be another year and a half before the next Premiere Pro version...

And hopefully Vegas 7 will be the Vegas 6, we were hoping for.

I still think Vegas is the king of the hill on the PC feature wise. But i'm not going to act like it doesnt have its issues. Premiere is a better cutter but hell navigating the timeline in premeire is an arm wrestling event, if there ever was.

Nothings perfect. I want vegas to improve. Premiere has. Its that time of year, Vegas 7 will be coming soon enough and i'm sure the code monkeys at Sony/soundforge have some big plans.