While I agree with most of the opinions about there being no real need for this particular project, I have to defend the practice of crowdfunding - at least philosophically.

It is democratic in that the public opinions of a project's value can determine if it is pursued. It also demands rational consideration so that you don't get burned - i.e. the street hunchback scenario.

I've used crowdfunding on a few documentary projects with varying degrees of success, and always fulfilling my promises to supporters. It's allowed me to take on a few projects that weren't of a nature to receive grants or investments from traditional sources. If used ethically it can be a good thing in connecting a specialized product directly to those with an interest in it.

Buyer beware certainly does apply, but it's not globally a bad thing. I do feel that this forum should not be used to promote fundraising.

There is a whole lot of things you can argue Philosophically. I enjoyed my Philosopy courses immensely and still ponder lots of ideas. The problem really is the real world where things turn in strange ways. For example the earth actually turned out to be round, and yet our mere concept as humans dealing with it continues to be one flat space spread border to border.

So crowdfunding is a lot like charitable giving - sure it could be useful but there are so many obstacles in the road, well it is very very bumpy. Witness the RedCross - largest of its kind shrinking now before your eyes. I recall as a consultant for them many years ago being approached by "do-gooder" on-line charitable collection parties - who wanted to partake in the pie so to speak-mind you they said ethically?!

"All you guys have managed to succeed is the MOX will likely avoid Vegas. Yet another reason Vegas will struggle for market share. Nicely done."

While I respect and value the input of our users, the comments here are just the opinions of some of our users. The comments here have not decided anything.

I cant say whether we would or would not support MOX. As the foundation is built for MOX, I assure you we will follow it. It is just a promise right now. It has compelling arguments on both sides. There is never a simple yes or no answer to things like this.

Market share is rarely decided by such a technology and problem that MOX is attempting to solve. The other formats (containers and codecs) wont just go away because of MOX or any other format that may come along.


Peter

[I]" It is just a promise right now. It has compelling arguments on both sides. There is never a simple yes or no answer to things like this."[/I]

Open source is never as good as one would hope simply because it is open source i.e. anarchy.


[I]"The other formats (containers and codecs) wont just go away because of MOX or any other format that may come along."[/I]

Indeed.
MOX appears primarily focussed on using open source codecs that don't use interframe compression so file size is going to be large, not a problem for a DI but a problem for consumer level cameras.

As I see it, it wouldn't require any great coding effort for Vegas to support MOX, it already can read the MXF container, just not every codec inside the MXF container but it can already read some of the codecs proposed to be used by MOX.

Bob.

While I have great respect for SCS Peter jumping in, the obvious nature of his fence straddling is plain silly IMO.

SCS, why haven't you included the freeware Avid codecs in the render drop-down, why haven't you included over the years great consumer codec/ containers like DIVX or MKV? The list could go-on for the major -not minor players! Where are the answers to these long-standing concerns?

Silly fence stradling or not, I am not in a position to promise something like this one way or another.

I was discussing the tiopic presented : MOX. I cant anwser why any format is not supported.

I will ask about DIVX and MKV, and let you know what I can find out.

Peter

Thank you Peter, I understand your position and why. But the gaps in communication with your company is astounding.

Here is but another example - are your development folks picking up on the magicyuv 4K development kit so that you can really include 4k editing to the masses with a tool like VegasPro. It seems to be a more natural fit than striking a deal with Sony XAVC. Although of course I understand the pressure to push XAVC!

"But the gaps in communication with your company is astounding."

Why do you say this?
What can we improve in how we communicate?

These forums are not the only place we recieve feedback. It is not that we have not heard specific requests - be they file formats/codecs or any other feature/workflow - we have to weigh the benifit. We do read and pay attention to these forums and our other sources of customer feedback. Anything new is weighed against the demand, alternatives, and workflows.

Of couse Sony formats are very important to SCS, and yes, they can take priority over other formats. No conspiracy or anything omnious here. That is just the reality of being a Sony division. This is a constantly moving target with a lot of moving pieces - Sony formats or others. It is one we invest resources into because it is important to users.

With regard to the MagicYUV. We have discussed this. Not sure of the status one way or another. I have looked to see where this format is supported elsewhere, and I am not having much luck finding anything. I must be searching wrong. Perhaps you can point me to other hosts that are supporting this, so I can investigage further and see what real-world user feedback is for MagicYUV.

Bottom line: We have to be carefull about which battles we take on.

Peter

Peter, agree largely with your position.

The one thing that bothers me a whole lot in the topic of this thread - which began with the silliness of crowd funding- is that no one is taking responsibility for the thorough investigation of codec, container, format need.

I have conducted a personal thorough investigation as best I have resources to see how well magicyuV can work as a digital intermediate in professional workflows using Vegas versions back from 8.0b thru 13 builds and I can say I am totally impressed. When the differences between formats are that stunning I have to question why there is not more momentum among the corporates out there.
Oh yes, poliitical I assume - and then we are back to the philosophy of MOX.

And granted, because Premiere and others guard their territories as well - we seem to make it in very small increments headway forward.

"GoPRos" are kind of a big deal... why hasn't that been fixed? A member here fixed it in 30 seconds using PREVIOUS versions of Vegas.... I'm sure this issue has been communicated for about 2 years now

New, popular cameras like GH4 C4k footage showing up wrong in timeline....

But, I'm sure there is a big list of bugs to dig through. I see those two popping up in the forum repeatedly, and I am certain people have communicated it via bug reports

GoPro and encoding by Cineform is a big deal. I have also heard that the fix on end-user side is pretty effortless - am I wrong?
Also the GH4 topic has been bandied about and yet was there not a user fix script introduced right away that cleared it up?
I guess I am wondering if the fixes at these levels not only need attention by SCS but the larger community needs a bounce back board so every one knows what is what.

I am reminded of the latest help desk technology where the user input and fixes become a part of the help database. So example, SCS maintains a support desk database beginning with internal knowledge of their making, but user input gets absorbed as validated, then coughs up the answer at next user query.

Even the encoders that primarily use open source libraries have their share of headaches and restrictions; it makes sense the Sony has chosen not to mix its commercially-licensed libraries with gpl libraries in its Vegas products.

Musicvid10, of course so true. What I wonder is "does that make open source coding more or less vulnerable to an incomplete software state" and ultimately what can be done about it. It seems ALL software is incomplete even upto its final death state.

>Yet another petulant response from someone when others don't agree with their view. >Sad to see immature responses like this, and it does your cause no good.

The only petulance I read here is the naysayers complaining about internet begging and such instead of intelligent responses to the merit of MOX, its developer's track record and it's current industry support.

MOX is not "my cause" - I'm not even the original poster and nor it is his. If you are going to take potshots at people at least have a reasoned argument for doing so.

>I cant say whether we would or would not support MOX. As the foundation is built for MOX, I assure you we will follow it. It is just a promise right now. It has compelling arguments on both sides. There is never a simple yes or no answer to things like this.

While nice to see a Sony response here, but I don't think anyone has presented a compelling, informed argument against MOX. The interview link I posted has a very intelligent discussion of the benefits, risk and motivations - but not the arguments here.

>Market share is rarely decided by such a technology and problem that MOX is attempting to solve. The other formats (containers and codecs) wont just go away because of MOX or any other format that may come along.

I'm referred to Sony Vega's NLE market share in the professional world. If you don't believe market share is determined by support for key file formats and standards, well, I find that a tough argument to make.

[I]" I'm referred to Sony Vega's NLE market share in the professional world."[/I]

Which part of the professional world are you referring to?

In the broadcast world networks buy cameras that they know will work with their NLEs. If you go to any new camera launch much attention is given to how well the three "A"s support any new codec the camera uses or how the camera vendor already has a plugin available for them.

In the world of big budget cinema production post houses usually have their own preferred codec that they know works with their own pipelines.

Having watched the presentation I'm far from convinced there is a serious problem that MOX is needed to solve. We already have a pretty decent range of choices that are open that get the job done. The whole thrust here seems more political than practical. CinemaDNG and Avid's DNxHD are open in the sense that any vendor can implement them.

My only gripe regarding what SCS are doing is I'd like them to better support MXF, in fact I don't really see why their MXF code cannot be written so that it'll work with any codec that's inside that container. That alone would probably mean that Vegas could at least read MXF.

Bob.

The presentation is not only weak and obtuse but the whole program would not even pass Mark Cuban of Shark Tank and he ,given one of the most free-ranging investors!

Wreaks of political positioning and just as much political failure.

Bob's last post is on point. The present containers like MXF are really what we should be dealing with, not new mountains we have to climb. As far as big camera makers are concerned Panasonic and Sony playing big time this year with new codec/container play to work into professional workflows.

>Bob's last post is on point. The present containers like MXF are really what we should be dealing with, not new mountains we have to climb.

It's so off point it's not even worth arguing with. I'm done arguing here. If you don't know what's wrong with the current MXF wrapper and why it cannot be fixed then this is a pointless discussion.

[I]"It's so off point it's not even worth arguing with."[/I]
.MOX will use the SMPTE open MXF container so it is relevant.

[I]" If you don't know what's wrong with the current MXF wrapper and why it cannot be fixed then this is a pointless discussion. '[/I]
The issue with MXF is that it is open i.e. any codec can be put inside it. MOX will attempt to limit what codecs can be placed inside it i.e. it will be closed. Exactly how something open source can be closed escapes me.

There's a somewhat more in-depth discussion at Pro Video Coalition here with Brendan Bolles.