I use it every day and frankly I don't see a whole lot of new features that I need. All of my ACID Loops, all of my Digital Juice HD Jump Backs, all of my stock music, VASST TrakPaks, and stock video are at my fingertips organized the way I want regardless of how they are organized on my hard drive. It doesn't get a whole lot better than that. (OK, I agree if I worked on a team I'd want that shared on a LAN so that would be a cool feature for collaborative work.)

In fact, I find the Media Manager way better that the Digital Juice Juicer because the Juicer doesn't support having the files on your hard drive and you have to shuffle DVD's every time you want to use it. I have all of my Jump Backs categorized in the Media Manager with the full version on my hard drive. I can click on a particular volume to find them, or search for them by keyword, and when I find them I can preview them right in Vegas.

I believe that the Media Manager is now an optional install because so many people whined about adding Microsoft SQL engine to their Microsoft Operating system like it was poison or something. So Sony is being extremely responsive to customer demand by making it an optional install for those who don't need it and now it is perceived as if they are abandoning it. You can't win!

There is a lot of depth to the Media Manager and once you learn how to use it, it becomes in integral part of your workflow.

~jr

I certainly use it, but passively. I do nothing but let it run and then I search for clips once in a while. It's VERY fast when you've got thousands of clips, and because I take everything into vegas from a shoot log, everything has an informative name and I don't need to do tagging within MM. Others would have to put more effort into it.

It's really the fastest way for me to find old clips from a year or two ago that I need to use again today.

You're pointing out something I see frequently with Vegas development - great ideas get implemented but never seem to mature. To me, it seems like to few resources spread too thinly by project managers who are more focused on new features. The new features are great, really, but sometimes they don't seem to get refined afterwards.

Rob Mack

I use adobe bridge for things outside of Vegas but I've never thought of it as competition for Media Manager. It's pretty much essential to me for browsing raw files from our still camera but other than that I find the program generally awkward and inconvenient because it can't give me the condensed listings that Explorer gives me. It's very clumsy to use.

It would be seriously good if MM was a standalone network application and I'd be looking at what Apple is doing on the server end as a model. Of course, the problem with that is that Sony Creative has nothing in the way of server applications. They might very well consider it...networks like NPR and BBC radio must need and use these sorts of things for audio, and on the lower end, smaller businesses with a few edit seats could use centralized management.

Rob Mack

I use Media Manager all the time.

It's excellent for quickly cataloging and reviewing the thousands of music files I have as well as video clips.

Adobe bridge looks pretty good, but there is no way I will ever commit any sort of cataloging that requires a lot of time to make with anything made by Adobe. I did that once with their photo organizer; cataloged thousands of files, took a lot of time, then they pulled the plug on the product. They never even acknowledged that the product was discontinued in their own Adobe forums. They left us in limbo as to whether an update was coming to address some issues.

Never again will I use anything by Adobe for that sort of thing.

Media Manager works well for me.

The only thing I did note in Media Manager, when I execute a search to check for new/updated files, if I stop the search before it completes on its' own, I get an error message that pops up with all sorts of gibberish. The search results are still OK, but it doesn't look like a very refined product.

"I believe that the Media Manager is now an optional install because so many people whined about adding Microsoft SQL engine"

I would agree with that and maybe perhaps they are planning a future stand alone cross application version like Adobe Bridge. I like the way Media Manager is a blend between Adobe Bridge and Digital Juice Juicer and Google Picasa.

I use MM all the time but I would like to be able to scan clips rather than just play and stop them (I guess now you'll tell me that facility is there! Good!). Be very nice to be able to add project clips (cuts selected in trimmer) but I guess that's asking a lot. CS3 Bridge has better facilities.

What I want to be able to do is shift the SQL server to a, um, server. Then I'd do my own thing so I can access the data outside of any SCS application. The advantages of being able to do this seem overtly obvious to me.

I'm not one to frequent Area 51 but somehow the idea of having MY data sitting in a database that I don't have the password to is just not acceptable. Why are SCS stopping us from doing this, I could crack their password very easily but is that legal, is them locking up my data legal either.

MM is just begging for 3rd parties to make something of it, once (IF?) that starts to happen Vegas could become a very viable competitor, heck I could have sold a few copies last week just based on MM but it needed to run over multiple desks.

Bob.

I use it all the time. Wither on the vine? Not for me Bob.

MM is a real godsend for working with clients who haven't the foggiest notion of what they want, but know they want something that is about their organisation; I can get to the narrative real quick, grab what I want and move on. I really appreciate being able to see ALL the clips, even though NOT in the Project, at one time. BUT I can sort to TAGS/folders and assemble first draft/ideas on the run. And that is without messing with the project itself. - Explorer ( no thumbies!) and Project Media just does NOT have that slickness and flexibility.

THEN I can access my audio: foley; ACID; Royalty Free music likety split. THEN I can access any graphics I've created: BGs; lower thirds; stingers and so on.

MM has become my "palette".

Wishes:

* Looping play

* 16:9 as a given!

* Subclips as MM-media

I easily get to Trimmer by dragging the clip. Maybe a MM-Trimmer<>Thumbnail Play?

Bob, you are asking for something that would make your workflow with MM better. Good. But that is NOT the same as myself who uses MM for reasons that are not the same as yours and is very happy it IS there.

So, asking if anybody IS using it - I think you've got your answer. But it is NOT answering your "workflow" request/observation, which sounds about right, for yourself and others that want to work over several "desks". Or are you making a further point, and that if this is to be a "appropriate", global SQL then it would be doing XYZ for itself. And you're saying at present it doesn't. However, and again, these ain't the reasons that hamper me from using it - at all. So, are you also saying that there are/is "several desk" workflow options that would benefit from an open SQL? Obviously you are.

So, maybe then your question should be pointed at those that HAVE several desks and WOULD use MM if only it . . . IMO, asking the question "Is anybody using" is implying that surely this is not a well used function and kinda should be dropped? However, for the reasonable reasons, the global value reasons, which we only found out later from you, that this wasn't behind your initial question. What you were wanting, I;'m guessing here, is for all those multi desk editors to nod appreciatively that if ONLY . . . however, asking "Is anybody using . . ?" is getting you the answers from the group of people who DO - yeah?

I enjoy using MM and how it assists me getting to my creative ideas - quickly!

Regards

Grazie

You are absolutely correct, my question is from one perspective very badly put. But then again I don't think I ever implied that I thought it should be dropped.
Asking if anyone here running multiple desks would use MM if it was global etc I don't think would elicit a single response. Those that must have media management accross multiple desks simply wouldn't be using Vegas. That's the problem to a large extent with systems, you don't buy them for the features they do have, you just don't buy the ones that don't have the features that you do need, once you short list the ones that meet your minimum requirements then and only then do you start comparing features and price etc. This is largely how companies such as Avid stay in business, not by the bells and whistles but by meeting the minimum feature set requirements.

But even aside from the multiple desk thing, there's got to be advantages to opening MM up for you and me as well, even for the one person business I can see plenty of potential to make our lives easier. Simple example from my experience. I'm typing this on my old clunker office PC, the one I'm in front of when I answer the phone when clients ring. I can see being able to search and browse my MM database from this PC as being very usefull. At the moment I've got spreadsheets tracking various aspects of the clients jobs, I try to keep assets like company logos etc in some sort of order through folder management on a NAS box but it's hard work being disciplined, more so when information is scattered.

To get back to what you are saying, I know you use it, I know it'd have to be ripped from your dying hand, I know those that use it love it and wouldn't be without it but they seem to be in the minority. So yes I'm thinking outside the box, I'm thinking this MM thing could be a killer feature AND those that do use it and love it would love it even more and those that don't might find good reasons to also fall in love with it. Of course not everyone will need it, I don't ever expect anything like 90% of the users to have a pressing need for it.

And in the end I'm not asking SCS to put in any major effort here, maybe they don't have the resources, maybe they don't think it worth the effort because no one's jumping up and down about it. So why not open it up for 3rd party development. I can't see any downside and I can see a lot of advantages for all of us.

Bob.

When it first came out I saw it as being the killer feature, asset management is huge issue for many productions and MM could have really propelled Vegas to new heights but to do that it had to be 100% reliable and shareable accross multiple desks.

Hmm it might be that people have different ideas about what "media management" means. The possibilities:
1- The ability to efficienctly log and search through your footage. e.g. to easily log footage that was shot, not stock library elements.
2- The ability to search through stock libraries. And log your own material into that library. Many stock libraries come with their own tools for this. And IMO this is what Media Manager is aimed at.
3- The ability for teams of people (editors, producers, etc.) to work off a shared pool of footage. (Sometimes called media asset management.) e.g. something like Sony HDXchange.
4- The ability for a team of editors to work on the same project without stepping over each other's toes. e.g. something like Avid Unity

Perhaps any disappointment was because people wanted #1/3/4 whereas what they got was #2. (As for myself, I think of media management as #1.)

I would use it more if it had the "double click add files to trimmer" feature that project media has. Media Manager seems like a nice feature that they left half developed.

Marc

OK . . . .

But then again I don't think I ever implied that I thought it should be dropped.

Well . .. . your very first sentence, kinda clinched it for me?

It almost seems like MM is going to be left to just quietly fade away.

Now THAT was a real Call-To-Arms for me, Bob?

And yes, yes, YES . . openning up the MM interface, has to be a good thing. I can imagine "certain" programming gurus here would love the challenge, maybe supply plugs and event one or two tutorials too! But you kinda knew I would say that.

I really like your comment: "That's the problem to a large extent with systems, "

A very good point!!

However, then . . .

I know those that use it love it and wouldn't be without it - Steady on Bob!

How many other "minority" features would you list - would you list for the chop? How much would YOU strip out to make that "perfect" s/w? And in doing this just how many "others" would consume Vegas - if that IS your goal here ( BTW, just what IS your goal here .. ? anyways . . - to get more users to purchase this s/w?

No, I think you are mixing/confusing feature-set over consumer-profile. Which is a pity, 'cos I like your premise that is somewhere in there: Opening Up MM for development - Now THAT is where I think you are needing to focus on. However, in attempting to "Poll" for potential users to your idea/cause/concept, you may have turned-off/alienated those that would have voted for the "improvements" anyway! And I KNOW that wasn't your intention. And that is ALSO why I am writing this long-winded piece, to give myself credibility as one of the "other" minorities and for you, a platform to push for "better", which I am most wholeheartedly behind.

"Waddwe want?
Free MM!
When do-we wan'it?
NOW!!"

"Waddwe want?
Free MM!
When do-we wan'it?
NOW!!"


.. yeah?

Regards,

Grazie

YEAH

Well, something new has happened on my installation - the Reference Library no longer works properly. I'll post the details in a separate message to avoid cluttering up this thread.

I agree it's a shame that no further development has been made to MM. It's a very useful facility and is a good solution to a number of the problems with asset management that people keep complaining of here, but for some reason people seem very reluctant to use it. But it's always worked very well for me in the past.

Mark

> I'm not one to frequent Area 51 but somehow the idea of having MY data sitting in a database that I don't have the password to is just not acceptable. Why are SCS stopping us from doing this, I could crack their password very easily but is that legal, is them locking up my data legal either.

My guess is that if they gave you the ability to access the data from 3rd party applications then you could corrupt the data from those same applications and you would come crying to Sony that the Media Manager no longer works. From a support perspective alone, I can see why locking up the data will save them a lot of money in support calls.

I agree with you that it would be great, but it's not in Sony's best interest to invite 3rd party updates to their data. Trust me, I would love to write a utility that tagged data with the names of the folders it is found it. This is my #1 feature request for the MM.

~jr

I just set-up a Vegas editing workflow for 5 editors on a 8TB raid system network. I set-up 2TB for the Media manager data. All our stock graphics and audio are located on it and we can use media manager to view, find and to preview our stock media. The network is set so the editors cannot write over or change files. They can use the media in their time lines and render to their local drives for finnish shows for air. SONY PLEASE continue to support media manager it is a great tool for us that are making a living with Sony Vegas software.

OK,
but what if anyone adds new media to the shared pool?
I assume from what you're saying every edit bay is running it's own instance of the SQL Server?

Bob.

The media we put into the Server for media manager are graphic loops as art beats or digital juice loops, we also have sound effects tracks and music we use. Instead of everyone putting whatever into it and filling up 2tb space the next week only 1 person as admin rights to select what goes in. We have each about 2tb of local Hard drive space for our own files and another 750gb personal space on this server for other stuff. No one but the person that has admin rights can write over the files for media manager but anyone can put the files on their timeline. These are files we use everyday for our shows and we can get to them and manage them with media manager. Media manager makes thumbnails of the mov. files and allows us to see the graphic without opening it in vegas or quick time it saves time if you have a couple of hunded and need to pick one you like for your project . We have a master media manager file which is updated and stored in the server so everyone is on the same page.

AdobeBridge kicks' MM's butt.. and without the onerous overhead of having a local SQL server gobbling up memory and running all the time in the background.

MM is dead. Never used it, never will.

Adobe Bridge kicks butt. Much better implementation.

-k

"We have a master media manager file which is updated and stored in the server so everyone is on the same page. "

So does this mean you're running one instance of SQL Server in the backend server that all the Vegas desks connect to or what.
You don't have to sell me on the usefulness of MM, that's a given. The problem is trying to get it to meaningfully work across multiple desks. It sounds like you've managed this but some more details about your implementation would be usefull.

Bob.

All workstations network cards ip address are set at 192.162.3. ?(each workstation has its own number here at Question mark. This is the same network path as the server. Then each workstation maps //192.162.3.1/mainmedia as network drive Y this is the static ip address of the server. The server has a section called mainmedia already placed on it from its own software so the workstation will see it. You should have C as your local drive some have a second drive mapped as d for media then your dvd burner is mapped as E. So when I save the media manager file on my work station the path for the media is the same as all the other workstations. Then I copy the the Media manager file which is on the c drive and place it on all the other workstations. So everyone uses the same media manager file. Then all workstations set their Media manager not to update so their media manager always remains the same unless I make a new one if I added any new media to it. Give me a call you can get my number from my web site www.omegatimesproductions.com maybe I can answer any more questions for you.

Thanks Mikey,
understand what you are doing.
All your workstations run on the same subnet. All workstations have a network drive mapped to the same drive which is on the NAS. The common database is stored on that network drive. All workstations are running their own instance of SQL Server.

Bob.