I agree with John on the titles. When I need something more, I use SwishMax, export to flash, then import to Vegas. I'd post my last one if your interested.

Also, easy on the transition variations. Too many different types of transistions make it look ametuer. Only use transitions for a reason, not just because it looks cool; and never more than two types in a 30 sec clip.

Just my 2 cents

What a small world. My Sister-in-law lives in New Philadelphia.

I have to disagree with John's statement. Titles in Vegas do not "stink and cry out 'amatuer.'" Nor is the titler in Vegas "a horrible piece of software."

Remember what they say about the artist that blames his tools!

As far as your titles go, if you have Vegas, there's a good chance you have Graffitti. Try it. You'll like the titling program there.
I, for one, would like to see the results from Swish. Please post a few examples for our comparison. Most educational.
Also as a personal preference, I liked to the size you posted your spot at. I like seeing as much resolution as I can download. Of couse, I'm quite spoiled on my cable modem.
As for your spot, these are my opinions only: First, let me say that it was a good job and that I'm sure it will be effective for your client. But if it were me making the spot, or one of my team, I would have aimed for more of a "direction." It didn't seem to me to be decisive enough to be either FUN or classy. It was something inbetween. If you were aiming for fun, you needed bouncier music and sharper, more frequent cuts of people enjoying themselves. If you were going for classy, support that with music (on my system, I could barely make out the music), smooth cuts (1/2 - 1 second cross fades) and elegant shots of food and ambiance. Your VO guy had a good voice, but he wasn't specific enough either. It was a very Matter-of-fact read. He didn't seem like he was trying to generate any kind of emotion. Not trying to excite or entice - just inform. Maybe that's what you were going for; a more "news-style" spot. That's fine. It's just a desire *of mine* to bring an emotional response to a spot. Whether that be excitement or glamour or an element of class. I never like when I am obligated to do a "purely informative spot. It's just not in my heart to do that. For me, the very last shot is what I would have expected the entire commercial to be similar to; fun, cute, sexy.
Overall, a good effort, make no mistake. Mine are just thoughts from a cable-commercial makin' kind of guy. They don't mean much.

I have to disagree with John's statement. Titles in Vegas do not "stink and cry out 'amatuer.' "

Oh yes they do. Yours is virtually the only post I have seen in four years of reading this forum that says that Vegas title capability is great.

Would you suggest someone switch to Vegas because of its titling capability? No you would not.

Is there one piece of commercial video editing software that has worse titling capability? Perhaps, but none that is successful.

Why did Sony include, in Vegas 5, a bundle with a piece of software that provided titling capability, if they thought they had that part of Vegas "nailed?" (Too bad the UI on that bundled software is so impenetrable that dozens and dozens of people have posted here trying to find some help on where to find the "on switch" so they can simply try it out).

Some have suggested that Vegas cannot do everything, and that expecting decent titling is asking too much.

I do not agree.

I bet there are fewer than 5% of all videos made by users of Vegas that do not contain titling of some sort. Given this, and given that the titles created by using just the title module itself look like something that escaped from the 1981 NBC sports graphic department, I think my assessment of what they did to Harold's 30 second video (basically, they ruined it) were exactly on the mark. The problem is, all the rest of us -- because of Sony's failure to fix this glaring deficiency -- have users that look at our video and are making the same comments to themselves.


Remember what they say about the artist that blames his tools!

I don't know what they say about the artist that blames his tools, but I suppose you are trying, awkwardly, to make the point that if I want to take enough time, and if I had enough talent, I'd be able to create the "Mona Lisa of titles" using the tools in Vegas. If that is what you are trying to say, I agree completely.

However, I have neither the time nor the talent to pull that off on every project I create (I've done it on a few, but it was an extraordinarily difficult exercise).

I have downloaded the sample VEG files at VASST that show how talented people have managed to create decent titles within Vegas itself. However, lacking the 1/2 hour that it takes to combine 5-10 tracks of fX, tweak all the interactive settings, and change the colors to fit my video, I instead usually find myself settling for the schlock that I get from the titling plugin itself, or I go to another program.

I have to agree with john meyer here. titling is one area that could use improvement.

In a few of the organizations I work with, some of the guys are final cut guru's. I've asked a couple times how they did some cool titling effects. They showed me. Simple, quick, and pretty nice looking.

Vegas does simple titles fine. However, many other aspects of this program are not aimed at only simple projects. Sony would be smart to improve this section in the next release. Some cool title effects (similar to what can be done in swish) would go a long way.

Sean

Since we're on the subject of titling - Has anyone used WildFX Pro?

John, I never said the titling tool was great. I said it wasn't as bad you were saying it was. To say it stinks and cries amatuer is neither true nor accurate. If you don't want to take the time nor have (nor want to develop) the talent to improve your titles, that's no one's fault but yours.

Where did I suggest that anyone switch to Vegas because of it's titling capabilities? I didn't!

Some have suggested that Vegas cannot do everything, and that expecting decent titling is asking too much.

Well, I agree with you there.

I think my assessment of what they did to Harold's 30 second video (basically, they ruined it) were exactly on the mark.

Sorry, but again, I disagree. I don't think the assessment was on the mark. In this specific case, I think the user is at fault, although "fault" is an awfully strong word. It takes as much taste, talent, knowledge, experience, etc., to make good titles as does to make good video, or good anything, for that matter.

I've been using Vegas for a little over 5 years--professionally--and I have always used the titler in Vegas, with maybe one exception. Never in all that time have I ever had anyone say anything negative about the titles.

I have downloaded the sample VEG files at VASST that show how talented people have managed to create decent titles within Vegas itself. However, lacking the 1/2 hour that it takes to combine 5-10 tracks of fX, tweak all the interactive settings, and change the colors to fit my video, I instead usually find myself settling for the schlock that I get from the titling plugin itself...

Well, here again, you have shown that you simply have chosen not to take the time required. That's your choice, and I respect that. But it's clear by your own admission that "decent titles" can be made with Vegas. So what's the variable between their titles and yours? You! You simply choose not to do what is required.

By-the-way, the quote is: "It's a poor artist that blames his tools."

Sean, I agree, it could use improvement, as I said above. I think increased resolution alone would greatly enhance the ability of the titler.

Well now, this is a subject very near and dear to me. Just two days ago I had to convert PAL video to NTSC, Vegas did it's usually more than passable job except for the crawling text, the damn stuff now blinks, VERY annoying and it looks totally amateurish.
But wait, this text crawl wasn't done in Vegas, it was done in FCP! Yes, the latest version.
Good text is extremely hard to do. When I say good I don't mean fancy, I mean correctly rendered text for VIDEO.
Take a long hard look at simple text coming out of a broadcast system on a broadcast monitor, just simple white text on a black background. If your title generator can't get it to look that good then your entire effort is just rank amateur in my opinion. Forget about chrome 3D text with bevelled edges, just getting the most basic stuff right is the true benchmark of a job well done. Text scrolls and crawls that are correctly rendered are a real stress test of any system.
I've watched a few sample videos from guys here that have used various 3rd party apps and to be honest they all scream rank amateur, it's not the content I'm complaining about, it's the fault of the render engines and I think it's the Swish stuff that looks the worst.
Just thinking about this and what strikes me is this: We all buy the best cameras and lenses we can afford to get the best quality image. Yet oddly enough the thing our eyes notice most isn't the quality of the actual video, it's the text and graphics! You think I'm nuts, well consider this. The eye has incredible resolution, way, way beyond what any system, even Imax is capable of BUT it takes many seconds for the eye / brain to resolve to that resolution but what's the one thing that's static on the screen long enough for us to resolve to that level, text and graphics! Get them looking as good as possible and the viewer may well forgive the slightly soft video.
Bob.

Without getting into the argument of Vegas' capabilities in titling, I do notice that I pay attention to the titles in films. Generally, the high end films employ very simple titles (less is more effect?)

The hottest thing is generally dated in a few years. Simple endures.

Whilst I agree with what you're saying that's an artistic call and as I'm no artist I'll stay well away from that aspect. What I'm on about is things like aliasing, jitter and mosquito noise. No matter if the content looks like a bad acid trip or it's white Ariel on black it's the render quality that gets my attention.
Bob.

Bob, I understand what you're saying, and I agree with your comment whole-heartedly.

Ralph, I also understand what you're saying, and I whole-heartedly agree with your statement as well. I think what you pointed out is at the heart of the matter, especially as it pertains to this thread and the example.