There are quite a few people out there with inside information ... but they aren't talking for legal reasons. The only ones willing to tell you all the "good stuff" are the ones that have no real knowledge. Pssssst - can you keep a secret ??? Me too :-)
Sony will release Vegas Pro 10 when they feel it's ready to be released. But I do hope their selfconfidence is sufficiently shaken after Pro 9, that they take their time to test it just a little better this time, even if it means delaying it for another month or two. I'd hate to see them repeat the somewhat problematic Vegas Pro 9 release that some even dubbed 'Vegas Vista' at the time.
I just hope Sony manages to pull a "W7" out of their "Vista" embers. Though 9e seems to be running pretty good.
Well it's running better than anything else with "9" in it but there's still bugs in it.
I seem to have found yet another one today, I doubt it's affecting too many people but it would be nice to get back the basics of V6 where things just worked.
"Did V6 import avchd... or even have to deal with it? Did it have pro titler? I can go on but the point is... 2 entirely different programs for 2 entirely different times. "
No but it did work with an external monitor, with V9 it didn't work, it worked and now it doesn't work.
The issue I just found tonight is that sometimes, with MXF files at least, the TC displayed in the thumbnail and the Trimmer isn't source TC at all, it's time into file. Copy the event into another V9.0e project and it gets the right answer, wierd. Never noticed this in any previous version of Vegas.
To say that "everything has bugs" is pointless and to use adding support for new codecs as an excuse is plain daft. Codecs connect through standard interfaces or at least they should. Maybe you're right though and the problems get back to Vegas still using VFW. If you doubt what I'm saying look at the number of codecs that simply plug into Vegas, SCS don't have to change a line of code, they just work, even Prores from Apple.
As for Protype, what the heck are you smoking?
It's a plugin or actually a .com addin. It's barely integrated even into Vegas, it doesn't conform to the rest of the GUI design either.
On the other hand I would point out that I do use at least one other NLE. Sure it has the odd dummy spit and crashes unlike V9.0e. Thing is though the basics just work, EDLs are correct, timecode is correct, I don't have to scratch my head about vision levels etc, it doesn't flip field order in the middle of a shot when reading certain media and I've never had a project file get trashed.
Why do I complain about the bugs in V9.0e and want them fixed?
Because they force me to use a competitor's NLE. It doesn't matter if it crashes once in while, I hate it when it does and I'd rather not use it for that reason but I have to because there's simply in no way I can get the project out the door using Vegas.
Your attempts at making excuses for Vegas achieves only one thing. It harms the product. If we all go "hey man, everything has bugs" where will the impetus come from to fix them and get things working correctly? One of the bugs I mentioned I reported years ago, acknowledged as an issue and still not fixed. It's bitten another local Vegas user badly and I believe he's jumped ship because of it. Maybe he'll have more issues on the other ship with it crashing but he cannot come back to Vegas until the Vegas problem is fixed.
"To say that "everything has bugs" is pointless and to use adding support for new codecs as an excuse is plain daft"
Poisoning every other thread with bug complaints is also pointless. Start your own thread on the issue and contact Sony through proper channels.
"It's a plugin or actually a .com addin. It's barely integrated even into Vegas, it doesn't conform to the rest of the GUI design either"
Now who's coming up with the excuses... (and side stepping the point)?
"Your attempts at making excuses for Vegas achieves only one thing. It harms the product"
No... your belly-aching in the wrong place harms the product.... and wastes otherwise good threads. You have a list of complaints? Then start your own thread then that way people who choose not to read it (such as myself) don't have to.
I don't think Vegas will ever have CUDA but since its in Vegas platinum maybe its a possibility.
People trying to control what other people write on a forum is a BIG JOKE. No one cares how your feel when you read someone's complaint about software they bought.
No one cares except people who think they own everything and know better than everyone else.
We have the right to write on this forum about the problems/wishes for Vegas. If you want a more camp ANAL CONTROLLED forum go to dv info. They have a ton of controlled debates that don't represent what the next generation feels to be the real issues in video.
I would not hold my breath about that Vegas Pro will ever have CUDA... It is the only obvious direction for SCS to keep up with the competition. TO harness all the horse power possible that is needed for a smooth editing and rendering experience. Doesn't the not-so-pro version of Vegas already support CUDA? As stabilisation, among many other features their PRO version is lacking... I fully agree that whatever of whenever SCS releases a major update - it must be thoroughly tested. So that the 9x fiasco does not repeat. I too miss the rock solid performance of V6...
For example; a broken feature as the HDV-capture scene detection, has not been fixed since version 7.
Is this negligence or what? I have a right to complain about a feature that is advertised, but is not working as it should!! And still not yet fixed, even if there have been an number of major and bug fixes!!! Just to take an example... My complaints are meant to be constructive, I want these bugs ironed out so that I can continue to use this lovely piece of software :) And, yes, I have raised tickets with SCS about these things..
If they incorporate cuda, I hope they use it in the playback engine and not just in one plugin to quicken render times like they did in the consumer version. I would rather have smooth playback during editing than save 30 mins off a render. Just my 2 cents...
Cuda's speed comes from parallel processing with multiple cores. However, multiple cores can only be utilized when the task has steps that can be done in parallel. Encoding does have steps that can be done in parallel, preview probably not as much.
Finally got the answers you were looking for - hacked my way into the main system computers at Sony and found all their project timelines - according to that, you can expect Vegas 10 on ........ zzzzzzzzzzzzzz [no carrier] ................................
Not surprising that we now have Rob Franks having a go at 'farss".
If he spent less time having a go at people and more time observing the positive contributions of members like Bob we would all be better off.
He is the worst type of fan boy PITA.
Reminds me of Blink with different name?
At least Blink left one positive legacy.
If you can't control your aggression Rob please crawl back under the rock you emerged from last December.
You don't even bother to list your System profile.
I think people here need to be a bit more realistic in their expectations about just what CUDA can deliver. We've sort of had this discussion since I joined this forum back in V4 days, well before the GPU was the next big thing.
If you were designing a system from the ground up to do a specific task and only excel at that task then yes, purpose built hardware is perhaps the way to do. Then again in the decade or so since V4 there's been a lot of such editing systems come and go. In fairness the nice thing about CUDA is we've got to have a video card anyway and if a lot of the logic on it isn't being used for rasterizing vectors etc then better it does something usefull.
I sat through Adobe's day long CS5 roadshow and their new Mecury engine got very little mention, in fact perhaps more talk about how you didn't really have to have it. They're sure not hyping it up. Same went for running a CPU with a zillion cores, in fact they were quite specific in saying that their code would use no more than four cores.
The other problem that many seem to ignore is the architecture of the video card itself. Of the 16 PCIe buss lanes, 15 are write and only one is read. That doesn't seem to me to be so good when you're trying to feed lots of highly compressed data into the board and read it back uncompressed.
It's great if you only need the data to go to the display but not much use if you've got to read it back to apply FXs etc. I've seen great use made of the GPU in the SI2K camera and in the Scratch color grading system but they're very specific, limited applications.