To me the most disturbing part of Sony's customer relations is the silence. Let's face it a lot more customer loyalty and internet praise would be the result of more open communication rather than the current silent treatment imagined to prevent revenue lost by competitors stealing Sony's "secrets and plans."

I personally have no regrets in going with Vegas after Ulead collapsed. Sony did give it an honest effort to make it work. Perhaps a little more feedback with the advanced users could have made a difference, perhaps not.

I hope Sony will consider a ground up rewrite of Vegas, no GUI changes but everything under the hood new. I would even put money up front for such a development effort. Start with a clean slate, even do away with the features that are problematic from a coding point of view in the first few releases, just keep the core functionality that we know and love.

Maybe the guys from Sonic Foundry will come back and buy it!

Unfortunately I predict a long period of silence now followed by a Sony announcement saying something like the following.

"Due to Sony Media moving in a new direction dictated by the newest and most popular technologies Vegas Video will no longer be supported. Latest versions and activation codes will continue to be available from Sony Media but there will be no further development of Vegas. Thank you for your support of Sony Vegas and we urge you to download the trial of "blah blah blah..."

This Catalyst discussion (shown below) is about Catalyst customers, NOT VegasPro customers or even likely previous users of VegasPro. But rather the customer for which Catalyst meets a need. The actual number of Catalyst customers is small, but they are far more strategic in Sony markets, than VegasPro ever thought of being.


Subject: RE: no Vegas Pro 14
Reply by: rstrong
Date: 9/18/2015 10:16:30 PM

In an interview with Michael Bryant of Sony, he stated Sony's customers asked for this. Reading all these posts, I haven't seen anyone that wants it. Does anyone ever remember asking for this Catalyst software? He goes on to say that we need this, infers that we must have it. I was really put off by his words........anytime someone tells me how I have to be, I just wanna kick the you know what, out of them!
I hope SCS is reading all of these posts!

robert
Message last edited on 9/18/2015 10:22:05 PM, by rstrong.

then:
Reply by: OldSmoke
Date: 9/19/2015 1:50:42 PM

....re..... rstrong

He goes on to say that we need this, infers that we must have it.

Does that mean SCS sold already a thousand copies or more of it? I doubt that.

@VidoeITguy

Sorry but what is your point?

Bummer - just at about the time I was expecting the Vegas Pro 14 release rumors to emerge....

I've read every posting in this thread.

I think this speaks of an on going issue with why Vegas Pro has never really been taken seriously in the post world. Yes, its editing paradigm is unique, yes it "CAN" be a fast, efficient editor, yes, it handles audio better than any other NLE.

The problem for SCS is too little too late.

I've stood back lurking off and on, and every so often, voiced my desire to use Vegas instead of Adobe's products.

The challenge is that SCS has totally missed the boat. Sure I'm begrudgingly still using Adobe CS6 products. They don't support the latest acquisition codecs. But it has been rock solid and has NEVER once failed to help me deliver a project on time. I cannot say the same thing for Vegas Pro. It requires me transcoding to an intermediate codec - I'm willing to do that as needed.

Do I enjoy using PPro - Not Really. It's a major PITA on resource use and requires rendering the timeline whenever I apply Magic Bullet Looks for example. The ease in which I could cut in Vegas Pro makes Premiere seem archaic and laborious. But given it's the tool that I know will open and allow me to get right to work - even if it takes somewhat longer than if I edited in the Vegas Pro paradigm - I know I won't have any major issues. I cannot say the same thing for Vegas Pro.

IMO, SCS should have started rewriting Vegas Pro clear back when GPU acceleration became unreliable. That was the writing on the wall for me. A few users I have corresponded with privately from this forum lament having to give up VP - but they are also one man shops like myself and cannot base their business on software that calls itself Pro, but fails to deliver for them. I earn a living delivering projects to my clients - not a PT hobby. Adobe - as much as I loathe how they moved to a ransomware model - did it right by rewriting Premiere. Apple did the same thing with Final Cut Pro. They caught flak for it and yet they now own the majority of the market. AVID languishes other than in Hollywood which is resistant to change. Their editing paradigm is archaic as well.

Vegas Pro could have been a contender - instead it was kept on life support, held together with duct tape and bailing wire. And the end result is what it is today.

Many times users asked SCS (myself included) for tested hardware recommendations to make Vegas as stable/reliable as possible. Those requests fell on deaf ears. Adobe and Avid clearly state what hardware is more or less guaranteed to be the safest and most reliable setup. Too many users wanted to edit HD video on low end hardware and when things didn't work, they pissed, moaned and complained about it. The more experienced users on this forum called it right by beefing up their systems accordingly and saw less stability issues.

It took JohnnyRoy testing himself to determine which video card was considered the best option for editing with Vegas Pro - this was something SCS should have done and then made available to its users.

It seems apparent now that the user base is left with an uneasy feeling they are about to be left holding the bag. Whether any of us likes it or not, SCS is moving in a different direction - one that requires change - something most human beings do not like to go through. I went through the same thing learning PPro and Audition. Reality is, once you move past the discomfort, it's bearable. The same thing is occurring for me now learning Davinci Resolve - It requires having to set aside what you know and become a student all over again. I don't like what's happening any more than the rest of you. I was hoping to see a Vegas Pro 14 announcement with the possibility of testing it to see if it was worth moving back to since it can import a pared down Premiere project file. Instead, SCS has made available in what I see as an unfinished product line known as Catalyst to replace Vegas Pro while stating right now nothing will happen to the product. Again, I believe JohnnyRoy has called it accurately about the future of Vegas Pro.

I will say that for all we know, Vegas Pro has been in top secret rewrite and no one is the wiser for it. But I'm not holding my breath.

TBH, for the foreseeable future, I'll open Vegas Pro 13 on occasion but anything being done for paying clients is deferred to Adobe's Professional products - The term pro in their products seems appropriate.

I'm done with my rant now.

Very elegantly put, Cliff.

One can only hope that someone from SCS will collect the thoughts expressed in this thread and feed it up the line to the 'Powers That Be'.

Tom

Cliff pretty much nails it.

The irony of course is that years back, it was Vegas that was the stable NLE of the bunch. But they rested on their laurels and the others caught up and then surpassed.

Cliff, I feel that was a very well written accurate synopsis. I agree with you completely.

Peter

I must say that I never had a reason to switch over to another NLE becasue Vegas was unable to do what another NLE could. Especially when appropriate plug ins are used.

This includes fully producing from start to finish:
- TV programs for TV Broadcast.
- Documentaries.
- Feature films, from pre to post production.
- Audio masters.

Yes it would be nice if SCS gave a list of compatible hardware.
But I must say that since the upgrade to VP13 I never had a crash with Vegas.
I have worked with 40+ Audio Video tracks on the timeline.

But that might be due to my hardware configuration and the source material used, which I am thankful for.
You can use my PC info as reference.

With the help of the admin one could make a 'compatible hardware list' as sticky on this forum.
If not for Vegas, then for the next NLE.
The users could give their experience about the hardware, to let it grow.
That would give SCS a reference of which hardware is being used most and test those instead of randomly testing all the hardware in the industry. Just saying, I am not sure of how those tests are done by companies.

VMP

Fascinating thread and situation.

Some of you guys are doing no doubt much more sophisticated stuff than I am. For my jobs, V9 is just perfect. Totally stable, no black frames, and a very-well-known interface. I really have no need for anything more. If I were part of an editing team that used a different product then I guess the situation would be different, but gosh, I remember that movie a few years back looking at some of the greatest editors of all time. I seem to recall that back then it was largely a one-person deal. Perhaps it still is in many instances.

So if SCS no longer evolves Vegas then it's okay with me. What else is coming down the pike that Vegas would need to adapt to? 8K sourcing? To me it would be better to clean up existing bugs in later versions. But then, as I said, V9 is already pretty solid.

And, as mentioned, this board is one of the nicest features of Vegas.

"as I said, V9 is already pretty solid"

I have stuck with V9c up until now because it smart renders (usually!) AVCHD. I get a crash/lockup now and then but the worst aspect is the replace-media bug. I have learnt to live with it and be alert for it because it doesn't show up until after you have saved your work and reloaded it.

I will soon be using Progressive AVCHD (AVCHD II) so am likely to switch to V13.

I really don't understand why Vegas needs a rewrite to accommodate new technology. I use a variety of software that has been in existence for at least 10 years and it has moved with the times. 3D modelling software I use has added GPU rendering for example. Unbiased rendering was a pipe dream 10 years ago for the level of software I use now but is commonplace among even entry level 3D software now. Nowhere have I read of the necessity for complete rewrites from the ground up concerning these kind of updates so I really don't believe that it's not possible to update Vegas accordingly. It just doesn't make sense that new Sony architecture written from the ground up is needed to edit and render 4k when other well established software I use has overcome past limitations.

There is of course always the option of adding 4k proxy editing which on lower spec systems might be necessary anyway. Until 4k compression reaches the point that it's viable for the average Vegas user to store and edit it I think it will be premature for Sony to cease development of Vegas. I use Vegas for animation - HD is more than enough resolution to produce great results even when compositing with filmed sources.

I accept that many cameras are now 4k so the need for editing of that content is much more common but how many Vegas users have systems that can handle 4k content - not just editing it but storing and distributing it as well. My system is 18 months old and was built using the latest components at that time and it would probably still struggle to edit multiple 4k content. Of those producing and selling video made in Vegas, how many of their customers are able to stream 4k content or even play it back on their systems? 4k TV's might be much cheaper to buy now but where is the content and who is buying it?

No doubt 4k is the future but not right now and even if it were currently ubiquitous I'd still like to know why Vegas can't accommodate these developments when other software has managed to adapt its ageing architecture to new technology without having to be completely reinvented from the ground up. Be careful what you wish for because investing in new, untested software is not always conducive to smooth, uninterrupted production. The last thing I want is to be caught in a no man's land between similar and competing products. It's not just the financial outlay on a completely new software range that's prohibitive but the time wasted relearning everyday tasks and dealing with new sets of limitations and glitches that concerns me.

> "I'm done with my rant now."

That wasn't a rant at all Cliff... that was a very well thought out observation. +1

~jr

unfortunately cliff your rant was pretty much spot on.

> "I really don't understand why Vegas needs a rewrite to accommodate new technology."

It helps if you understand how software frameworks work. Once you base your design on a framework it's hard to change. You are committed to that architecture. Some technologies can be grafted on and some can't. To take advantage of GPU support, for example, you need to make good use of parallel processing. That means you need many things in parallel to get done. When you design a program to be synchronous doing one step after the other and then suddenly determine that now you now have to be asynchronous and take many parallel things and send them off to a GPU to process and wait for it to get the answer back while continuing to process other events, it takes a different architectural approach. Depending on how your code is written at may be hard to adapt. The 3D applications may have already been a multi-threaded design and GPU's actually helped them a great deal. It's hard to say.

The other driving factor for a rewrite is support for OS X on the Mac. Sony wanted to have a Mac product and none of the Microsoft technologies that Sony designed Vegas Pro around (e.g., Video for Windows, .Net Framework, MS SQL Express) exist on a Mac. So they also had to switch to use open technologies that are available on both platforms. This decision expands the client base for Sony because Mac editors who are unhappy with Adobe's subscription model will now have another product to consider and they are talking about it on the Mac forum at the Creative COW so Catalyst is getting noticed by the Mac community. Don't forget, Sony's two biggest competitors, Avid and Adobe, have cross platform products. Now Sony does too.

~jr

Further up somebody asked, what will you do now that there won't be a VP 14?

Well first off...my wife and I both (still) drive Saturns. When GM axed the brand along with Pontiac, we knew there weren't going to be any new Saturns made. Did we immediately sell ours and buy something else? Of course not. The same holds true for Vegas. We'll continue to use Vegas 13 as long as it meets our needs. I suspect that will be years (just like our cars LOL!).

Beyond that? I'd have to see what's on the market at that time. If I had to make a decision today, right now, I'd look as hard at FCPX as anything else.

[I]We'll continue to use Vegas 13 as long as it meets our needs. I suspect that will be years (just like our cars LOL!).[/I]

That's great and true for those of us who already have Vegas Pro but how about new customers? Would you buy VP13 toady if you already know that it is discontinued? That very soon 3rd party plugin vendors will drop their development too? No new customers for SCS means they will close shop soon and I doubt Catalyst will be ready in time to prevent that from happening.

JohnnyRoy, I understand why they are developing new products. I also remember the caustic responses from many users here when they previewed the new catalyst products.

Their is a large group of VP users who don't understand or want sophisticated media management or the ability to easily fit into a production pipeline, and they attack those who do.

So I don't blame Sony for not talking about their plans. Some of the posts were incredibly abusive and down right stupid.
VP shouldn't be restricted to the needs of a one man shop or very small boutique outfit. The single biggest reason Avid is still in use is because the ease of moving projects from one system to another, anywhere in the world. Neither Adobe or Apple have matched that. For those of you who don't care, fine, just don't ruin it for those of us who would love to see that from Sony.

As long as Sony provides bug fixes to 13 and provides a clear and affordable path to their new products, I'm on board. I use Adobe CC for a lot of things, but VP is still my go to editor.
I also use OneDrive and Amazon to successfully move photo/video/audio files around. Nothing to fear folks.
If you are wondering why there are so many problems with OpenCL, look no further than AMD. I actually hope Sony starts supporting Cuda.

[I]Some of the posts were incredibly abusive and down right...[/I]

And so is the silence of SCS. As long as no one from SCS comes forward and at least gives us a glimpse into the future of VP, this will go on. I am sure there are users standing on the cross road whether to invest into 3rd party programs that support Vegas Pro or not.

I agree that AMD and their drivers are @#!$ for a better word and I would love to see full Nvidia/CUDA support.

No one is rejecting improvements to Vegas Pro. In fact it's the exact opposite. Bring them on! But don't dump thousands of Vegas users into the wilderness over Mac compatibility or to emulate AVID. What makes Vegas special is that it's not AVID or any of the others. If you need all AVID's features then why not buy them now? Catalyst certainly doesn't offer them and it's unlikely that it will any time soon. So if Vegas development stops then what? The claim that Vegas architecture can't be adapted to 4k and it can't support CUDA when software that's almost as old as Vegas has done so comfortably is still supposition. With the right resources it might be possible but Sony have a reputation for dropping software and reinventing the wheel unlike Adobe and AVID. Ongoing innovation and commitment to their users and products is why AVID and Adobe lead. I hope Sony have learned this and these rumours are wrong.

[i]So, what does everyone plan on doing here for editing in the future?[i]


I have been a long time Vegas user. Discovered it in version 2, purchased V3 up to V13 and only skipped one version, I believe it was 6. While V11 was a nightmare, V13 has been my greatest and most stable version ever.

I never liked Premiere or FCP, while Avid was out of reach and needed specific hardware. I also never liked having my audio events separated from my video events, where video tracks would be layered upwards and audio tracks downwards: V1-V2-V3 / A1-A2-A3 paradigm. Even tried Resolve 10, 11 and 12. I just wish they would drop that editing paradigm (but their color grading application is powerful and hard to beat). So the Vegas editing paradigm suited me and has served me well for all those years. It was also the most cost effective NLE in regards to hardware. Vegas saved me a lot of money and I could literally beat it.

Several years ago, Apple demoed FCPX, and from that day, I was sold to it. But FCPX was not quite ready for primetime. It was lacking many features and Vegas remained my number 1 NLE. But then FCPX matured and what made me move to it for my new clients (my main client remaining on Vegas for now) was the ability to filter “used” and “unused” media. That and features like adding keywords and filter them, the media browser, the magnetic timeline, the timeline index, roles and skimming where just great features to have, making the editing process even more efficient and rediscovering the joy of editing all over again.

All that time I had been a Windows user and FCPX made me discover the mac OS which I now embrace. Seeing Sony developing software for both platforms makes plenty sense to me. While I was hoping newer versions of Vegas would adopt some of those features, I now believe the Catalyst suite will inherit some as it evolves. And not being a fan of the subscription model, I discovered great affordable apps and plugins on the mac side, replacing photoshop, AE to some extent and so on. So an entire new world to discover.


Rob

I don't think Sony will convert too many FCPX users. Nor will they pull many from Adobe. But there is a definite need for sophisticated on site tools, including "first Light" options when passing footage to editorial. The good stuff that is out there is very expensive.

I say again, I wish Sony would come out with an affordable competitor to Nuendo. They have the expertise for conforming various types of video to Audio, add support for 8.1 surround and game codecs and charge 600 to 700 dollars for a copy. (New copies of Nuendo are 1800.00 and people pay it).