The reason for the large amount of interaction with "support" on Catalyst Edit is because it is a product in infancy and beginning of its own development cycle.
IT is also the forward direction for the company.
And I digress, but if Vegas products had been a moneymaker and the forward direction of the industry, then it would have received similar support in the last few years. Unfortunately its development cycle largely ended years ago and its viability in the marketplace was at best questionable.
I have looked only at the promo I received yesterday from Sony, but to me that indicates Catalyst is the product intended to replace Vegas Pro. Starts with a fresh software approach unencumbered with a lot of legacy code and designed from the ground to become a professional post production tool.Not unlike Apple's strategy with Final Cut. Will there ever be a Vegas Pro 14?
Indeed it was a long thread. I missed it because I don't usually get involved in speculations about the future of Vegas Pro (just get on with using it). However I see that I was generally correct about Catalyst for all the reasons put forward by farss, JR and others. What we want is the functionality of Vegas in better architecture. I've always considered that Vegas is more intuitive (easier to use) than NLEs developed from the old reel-to-reel tape days.
Interesting – in a recent thread in the Catalyst forum a poster was told by SCS, “No, you cannot slow down or speed up a clip in Catalyst Edit 1.0 …” and they said they’d pass along the suggestion to the development team,
Should that list include at least everything Vegas can do already?
- or are there some things we could do without?
e.g. I haven't used 3D Track motion for ages, but I don't mind it being there.
> Posted by: PeterWright "Should that list include at least everything Vegas can do already?"
No, I don't see why any new product would think that it has to implement 10 years of legacy functions to be competitive. Does it need DV tape capture? Does it need 3D Track Motion? Does it need 3 Titlers, none of which are any good? ;-) Does it need Audio Buses that very view video editors even know what they are?
As someone pointed out, this is the approach that Apple took with Final Cut Pro X. In a world where all future customers would surely have a tapeless workflow, the first version didn't support tape capture. All of the old FCP 7 customers claimed it was toy because they couldn't capture their tapes. Eventually Apple included tape capture but it was by customer demand not just adding in an old function in a new program because it was in the old program.
I think Sony is taking the correct steps. Focus on the core video editing functionality, and only add back those functions that customers request from the previous product. Its the best way to "separate the wheat from the chaff" so to speak.
JR said: [I]" No, I don't see why any new product would think that it has to implement 10 years of legacy functions to be competitive."[/I]
The lack of functionality in Catalyst doesn't concern me, that can be added. It's how what is there already has been implemented that does concern me. I see the same issues in Catalyst that have dogged Vegas for all these years, it's still the same issues causes by the same half done approach.
For example, metadata. Vegas kind of, sort of, supported it, really depends on the codec supporting it. Same in Catalyst. SCS say they're looking into this. That should have been looked into before one line of code was written. Choose an industry standard way of handling this and implement it. It shouldn't matter what camera / codec shot the footage it should be able to flow from Browse to Prepare to Edit. Advice from SCS that the issue could be solved by transcoding in Prepare misses the point. To be brutal it tries to deflect the issue. Sure, they'll look into it. How many issues has Vegas had that have been "looked into" for over a decade.