Liftoff: Vegas 7 launch (press release)


rmack350 wrote on 9/7/2006, 3:04 PM
Of course it does, and you ought to be able to skin Vegas. However, it's not nearly as important as getting good tools built into the program.

Not that both can't be done, but decoration is definitely not as important as function in this case.

<edit> Now, here's a case where being able to decorate Vegas would help. I work with a lot of programs open. I'd love to make Vegas a different color so I could tell it's toolboxes apart from other applications.</edit>

Rob Mack
fixler wrote on 9/7/2006, 4:30 PM
MPEG-2 re-endocing is a dream for me. Are there any NLE that actually allow for that?
Ateembo wrote on 9/7/2006, 4:58 PM
I was hoping it would have a plug that I can connect directly into my head! Maybe that will be available with version #8? I heard FCP has that coming up. Time for you negative folks to go Mac/ FCP. You can sit in a coffehouse all day, look cool and talk about how great your program is.
[r]Evolution wrote on 9/7/2006, 5:18 PM
FCP, Premiere Pro, Avid, & Edius... all have a 'Designer's Look' to me. Actually, even Media Studio Pro 8 has a pretty decent look. -Although it still does look 'amatuerish'.

I do have Windows Themes enabled. Maybe it's just a Windows thing for me. Windows just looks dated. Maybe Vista will cure that... but I hear it's mostly BloatWare.

I now run Stardock WindowBlinds to Skin my Vegas interface. It doesn't take up much if any processor power to Skin and it makes Vegas look pretty sleek. I've also arranged my windows the way most NLE's are... with the Timeline at the bottom and Source/Record Window, Scopes, Audio Meter, etc. at the top or wherever they would normally be. I also change my skin sometimes... just to freshen the vibe and keep the Creative juices flowing. Note: this does not change Button placement or function. It's merely to relieve stress on the eyes and keep things Fresh.

To me, it makes a big difference. Especially when you're editing with a Client that has already sat editing with FCP, Avid, or Premiere. You've got to think... that's what propelled people to believing that Apple/Mac is for 'Creatives'... its look, period.

I'm not saying to sacrifice Functionality for Looks. I'm just saying... Make it look aesthetically pleasing. I'm not a hobbyist. I've got to stare at that thing for 8+ hours a day.

Afterall, we all want a pretty Girlfriend/Boyfriend, Car, House, don't we?

I'll gladly admit it... I also want a pretty NLE. (and 10 bit color with 1:1 editing)

deusx wrote on 9/7/2006, 5:27 PM
>>>I'm not saying to sacrifice Functionality for Looks. I'm just saying... Make it look aesthetically pleasing. I'm not a hobbyist. I've got to stare at that thing for 8+ hours a day.<<<<

If these NLEs were actual girls, then I'd still take Vegas. To me it looks better ( an I'm talking about old style Win2K simple look, not on Win XP ) . Those other NLEs look like girls with way too much makeup and a lot of something stuffed into their bras. Same goes for ACID, looks much better in its simple form tha those other DAWs with millions of colorful buttona and knobs.

I don't think anything needs to be changed here, or any more time spend on the look of the app. Make sure it's stable and works with what we need.

Other apps that I keep using even more are XSI and Fusion, that is probably what most people would call more modern/pro or designer looking, but to me they don't look any better, just different.
All of Macromedia apps , on the other hand seem to have the same Vegas type simple look and I have't hard anybody complaing about those not being professional looking..

I don't see how FCP looks more professional. It looks like a toy, a cheaper looking Poser or Bryce look.
bStro wrote on 9/7/2006, 5:47 PM
MPEG-2 re-endocing is a dream for me. Are there any NLE that actually allow for that?

I think you mean MPEG-2 not-re-encoding. ;-) Vegas will re-encode MPEGs -- that's precisely why it's not good idea to use them in it: Re-encoding MPEGs takes a long time, and it gives you lesser quality.

There are NLEs, on the other hand, that are what's called "smart MPEG editors." They re-encode whatever has changed and just copy what has not. Now, that's good if your project is mostly cuts, but doesn't do you much good if you make a lot of adjustments to the video. Anything you do to a frame will result in a new frame having to be made, and that's a whole frame that has to be re-encoded. If you've adjusted the whole timeline (color correction, for example), then you still have to get the whole thing re-encoded even in a smart MPEG editor.

Oh, while they do suit their purpose, most NLEs I've seen with smart MPEG editing are nowhere near as swanky as Vegas. ;-) That said, when I need to do some quick work of an already rendered MPEG file, I use Womble's MPEG Video Wizard. There's also TMPGEnc MPEG Editor, which I haven't tried.

David Arbogast wrote on 9/7/2006, 8:14 PM
>>>Other apps that I keep using even more are XSI and Fusion, that is probably what most people would call more modern/pro or designer looking, but to me they don't look any better, just different.<<<
Well, undoubtedly we all have our opinions. If anyone likes the way Vegas looks, that's absolutely great. But, I think it looks anemic (not the work of a talented graphic designer). The best answer is not to permanently change the look of the UI, so as not to dissatisfy those who like the current anemic look :) , but for Vegas to allow total UI customization. This is how the 3ds Max UI works. Most every major aspect of that program's interface is customizable (color, size, font etc.) allowing each user to make the program look and feel how they want.

How does that sound? Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

Yes, Vegas supports Windows Themes, but that provides very limited customization. For example, if you want the background color for the Vegas explorer window to be anything but white, you're out of luck. I have tried and tried to get Vegas to look good through the themes, but there's just not that many options to a Windows theme. Even the Window Blinds plugin cannot change the look of certain major elements (like the color of the explorer window) or certain fonts, etc. within Vegas.
PixelStuff wrote on 9/7/2006, 10:10 PM
I for one, am fine with the way Vegas looks now. One thing you have to be careful about when going artisitc with an interface is the balance between obvious function and "what does this do again" buttons.

Cinema 4D, Dreamweaver, Photoshop. None of those have really artistic interfaces. But I prefer those over the glitzy consumer options out there. I've always assumed the best interfaces for art software doesn't impose it's own artistic "color cast" on the work being done.

On the other hand, I am wondering how compatible this new version will be with Windows x64 systems (XP or Vista).

Ayath The Loafer wrote on 9/8/2006, 1:00 AM
"Automobiles, for example, are machines for travel and houses are machines for living, but most people want more than a car or house that "gets the job done." I am a designer by trade, so I really dislike the notion that we can't use tools that BOTH get the job done and look really pretty doing it.
Did you design this??

Just a bit of fun.

Personally I'm very interested in features where Vegas gives me features I can really use. I'm not a professional video"thingy" in any way and just want somne stuff that makes it easier to use.

Not sure what it's called but a feature where you can have a PictureInPicture follow a defined part of a moving bit in background picture is good. (Motiontracking??)

An "anti shake" feature would be nice. Yes I have heard of (and use) Virtual Dubbing and Deshaker.

Jonathan Neal wrote on 9/8/2006, 1:05 AM
Ayath, have you heard of Virtual Dub or Deshaker? They do a great job........

Just kidding. Here, let's download the Vegas 7 trial and make our assessments. Wait ... where is it?
BrianStanding wrote on 9/8/2006, 6:54 AM
Hmmm... interesting. To me, nothing screams "amateurish" louder than flashy eye-candy that produces little of substance. "Professional" to me means streamlined, efficient and relatively unadorned.

But then, I've always been a "straight-cuts and dissolves" kind of guy. I leave the star wipes and "whoosh" sound effects to those people who appreciate them.
[r]Evolution wrote on 9/8/2006, 7:41 AM
mmm... interesting. To me, nothing screams "amateurish" louder than flashy eye-candy that produces little of substance. "Professional" to me means streamlined, efficient and relatively unadorned.

'Professional' to me... means being able to do both.

Do NOT do away with functionality for aesthetics, naturally.
But for those of us that are indirectly competing with Apple's advertising... sometimes we need just a little 'Prettiness' to grab the attention of a Client. When they walk in the door... everything they see needs to scream Creative & Innovative.

The tools you use need to look Expensive even if they're not. This is all merely Perception. They are spending Thousands of Dollars with you. For them it's not just an end product. For many of them who have never been around 'Our World', it's an experience that some of them will talk about for years to come.

Of course, I'm in Southern CA... the most pretentious place on Earth.
rmack350 wrote on 9/8/2006, 7:52 AM
I get the sense of what you're saying.

There are defintely programs out there that have decorative but awful designs. Most of the skins for Windows Media Player stike me that way. They're WAY too intuitive in that you have to GUESS that the buttons do.

On the other hand, I always thought that Media100 was a very pretty NLE and it really wasn't hard to figure out the widgets. The program was/is a pleasure to look at and it was very easy to tell which windows belonged to it on a crowded Mac desktop.

I kind of like lists so here's one for the Vegas interface:
-- A look that identifies the program at a glance (I think it has that)
-- A look that is pleasing without being overwhelming (Nothing particularly pleasing about Vegas. It's a plain white sedan.)
-- A look that establishes a brand and attracts new users. (Yes and No)
-- Control interfaces that are easy to understand and reduce support calls and questions (Vegas falls down in a few spots here. Any time people repeatedly ask how to do something when the buttons are right up front, that's a design failure. How many times have people asked how to grab a still frame?)
-- Control interfaces that provide good feedback. (vegas' FX windows really fall apart here. Sliders aren't the right tool for every single toolbox!)

Oft-times, good design will visually propel you along in your tasks and hopefully be pleasing to look at too. The most important thing is that the interface shouldn't demand so much thought that you forget what you were doing.

Rob Mack
David Arbogast wrote on 9/8/2006, 7:54 AM
<<<"Hmmm... interesting. To me, nothing screams "amateurish" louder than flashy eye-candy that produces little of substance. "Professional" to me means streamlined, efficient and relatively unadorned.">>>

I wholeheartedly agree. But I will also say that good design is not about choosing between performance and aesthetics - it's both. Ipods are a great example of superb design - unadorned, streamlined, AND exquisite appearance. Nonetheless, I've done a bad job of expressing my opinion, so let me revise it this way:

What I wish from the Vegas interface (that isn't there already) is to be able to customize the UI components within the program (like 3ds Max does), instead of relying on Windows themes to do it. Different people have different ergonomic needs for the UI. For example I would like to make the colors in Vegas look like the Combustion interface: [I have no experience with Combustion, just responding to the interface]. Undoubtedly there are lots of people who would hate that look, which is why providing comprehensive UI customization tools would be so nice. But, I also acknowledge that that is asking a great deal of low-budget software (which is the aspect I love best about Vegas!!!).
rmack350 wrote on 9/8/2006, 8:13 AM
I worked in production for a number of years in NoCal and I've seen the same thing. I'd describe it a different way, though. A client wants to get the feeling that they'll be creative, prosperous, and successful. So you try to deliver that with good presentation.

Rob Mack
PixelStuff wrote on 9/8/2006, 11:38 AM
As I said above, I'm a fan of a clean non-flashy interface in most cases. However Darbo mentioned something that I've wanted for a while and that is an easy way to create a dark interface. Like Combustion or Shake. This is not for the purpose of being artsy, but instead for the purpose of increasing contrast between the product and interface.

Kind of like the reasoning behind setting a neutral grey desktop background on color correction stations to prevent the operator's brain from creating a fake color cast in the final product.

I like this ability in media creation software dealing with precise color (Combustion, Shake, Jahshaka, etc.), but I don't necessarily want to set my whole desktop interface to such dark color. Especialy on a hobby type setup.

As a side note, you notice that most of the dark interfaced software out there is primarily for Compositing or 3D Modeling. The other big name NLEs seem to just use the standard color schemes based on whichever OS they are running on. (Apple Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid Xpress Pro)
Jonathan Neal wrote on 9/8/2006, 12:27 PM
jbjones, not sure if you knew this already, but the latest Adobe Premiere Pro uses a very dark color scheme, even on Windows. Click here or here for a screenshot!

P.S: Here is the official IBC press release from within our domain:
David Jimerson wrote on 9/8/2006, 2:26 PM
Hmmm. Kind of an underwhelming list of new features.

With things like PSP and iPod support, and support for DVD consumer cam audio (two of which are already in 6.0d), as well as Cinescore support, one can't help but think that the direction Sony wants to take Vegas is more toward the consumer side of things.

"Support for the latest formats" is laughable on its face, of course, considering there's no hint of OP Atom MXF support, DVCPRO, or AVC-HD.

Still, I find the upgrades in DVD Architect pretty nice, and I'll probably upgrade so I can have DVDA 4.
BrianStanding wrote on 9/9/2006, 6:19 AM
At $15,000 a camera and up, XDCAM is hardly a consumer format.

It seems more likely that the priority is to support all things Sony. That's obviously great if that's what you use. Less so, if you're hoping for DVCPRO HD or JVC 720P support. I thought I saw some mention of "DVD-based camcorders" in the list of new features. Wouldn't that likely be AVC-HD?
p@mast3rs wrote on 9/9/2006, 6:38 AM
Will we be able to import 5.1 ac3 files and not have it mixed down to stereo? Thats a huge thing for me.
rextilleon wrote on 9/9/2006, 7:45 AM
I think you hit the nail on the head. I can't blame Sony because I figure some executive decided that Vegas should support the sales of other Sony products. I'm not sure that this is a good thing for the typcial Vegas user. Its still confounds me that after all these years, they still haven't put a decent titler into the program.
DJPadre wrote on 9/9/2006, 7:56 AM
maybe they shoudl buy out Bluff titler and integrate it... then everyone will be happy..
or maybe if the titler is such a bitch, find one that does do what u need it to..

dont get me wrong, there are better titles out there of course, but lets focus on the work at hand, and that is to ensure that the bastard is stable and powerful enough to do what we need it to do...
If theyr esaying support for DVD cams and increased support for XDCamHD and HDV, then its reasonable to believe that they have improved the engine to a point where it wont shit itself when it hits multiple tracks of XDCamHD footage...
In relation to this, i woud also say that its safe to assume that SD DV is also been imporved upon as the drive access and maybe even the codecs themselves have improved. Whos to know..
Until the unit it out, its all speculation.

When have you ever known Sony to let the whole cat out of the bag prior to release? At the moment, the poor bastard is struggle to get out, but theyr eholding it back.. fuk knows why, but its coming. and when its out, maybe then, after intense testing, we can bitch and moan about what it cant do.... like we always do..

p@mast3rs wrote on 9/9/2006, 8:08 AM
I have to agree about the titler. I mean seriously, go back to V4 and here we are 3 versions later and we are pretty much stuck with the same thing. I HATE having to title in PP. Its stupid and senseless. If Sony would just add support for import PSDs with layer support, then I would care less about inept titling. DVDA supports PSDs with layers right? So why not Vegas? Surely it cant be that hard to implement or license.
Wes C. Attle wrote on 9/9/2006, 8:24 AM
There must be some mistake. This "upgrade" cannot qualify as anything more than 6.0e or 6.5. Really really disappointed and cannot find any reason to pay more than $19.99 for this upgrade.

Did the entire Vegas software development team get fired last year, or were they all on vacation? I remember a day when Vegas upgrades meant something. I guess that was pre-Sony.

Compare this to the last Premiere upgrade. Nuff said.