OK, here are my personal reasons for getting Vegas 6.0 / DVD Architect 3.0: I am not a video professional in that I do not earn my living from video editing and DVD authoring, but I do some small projects for organizations, musicians, and small businesses that require serious editing tools to accomplish the video "choreography" that I design. I am in the high-tech corporate software development business and my personality is such that I demand excellence in quality.

For at least four years, I used Pinnacle Studio, but became utterly frustrated with its abominable lack of quality and lack of features that prevented me from implementing my editing "vision/design". Additionally, I am a Win2k Pro user and I do not care much for XP. Pinnacle decided to make XP a requirement for all its latest releases.

Having had enough of Pinnacle, I began my search for a product that had the editing features I required, was very stable with regard to quality, ran on Win2k Pro, and was available at educational pricing (which I am fortunately qualified for) at less than $400. For me, Vegas + DVD Architect was the answer. Though I feel it comes up short in some features compared to the competition, it has still turned out to be a wonderful tool that I am glad I purchased.

I'm not sure who is your typical Vegas user, but I suspect that I probably don't fit that profile.

You're asking what the market is and that's kind of hard. I think the focus has shifted because lots of users have wanted to scale up.

I think the core Vegas customer is someone on a budget who wants a very capable desktop edit system that is trouble free and runs on a modest home or business computer without additional hardware. This user want's to take in DV footage (or analog converted to DV) and output a finished product suitable for DV, DVD, or any one of many formats suitable for computer display or the internet. Add HDV to this because HDV is also targeted at the DV audience.

There are three types of users that Vegas needs to give more attention to:
1--New users. Vegas could use some work on the interface to clarify concepts, squash misconceptions, and generally prevent new users from making the same mistakes over and over again. Address the common mistakes that people make. Essentially, making it a bit more foolproof (and we know that fools are ingenious so "good luck").

2--Prosumers using HDV. HDV puts a lot of new stress on Vegas. The program should either handle native hdv media effortlessly or, if it can't, seamlessly build proxy files or otherwise conform the media.

2--Professional users. Vegas kind of works for professionals, and kind of doesn't. Personally, I think there really does need to be some sort of "Pro" version of the application. This would, at least, separate the prosumers who think they want all sorts of great stuff (but don't want to pay for it) from the actual pros who know they need certain things and want them enough to actually pay for them. (I think there are a few things in Vegas right now that ought to be moved to a pro version, and more things that ought to be added. The prosumer version would be like Vegas 4 and the pro version would be quite a bit more than the current version)

I haven't really given any specifics here, but then again, the question was about the core market.

Rob Mack

The question seems to be phrased towards identifying the market that Sony has at the centre of their intentions, and that I don't know but would guess it's the prosumer. The design philosophy appears to be one of platform-independance (so no hardware acceleration) and very rich in features, which are good attributes for the general market. Unfortunately doing everything in software places great demands on the specifics of computers used, and speed is not just a matter of processing power. How successfully Vegas can be expanded for fully professional users will be depend on its architecture and modularity, and that's completely hidden from my sight.
If Sony is not aiming for the professional market, then the future of Vegas must be in question. People at the consumer end are casual editors (at best) and don't want to learn to properly use a editor like Vegas, and people who are making money as capable editors will move to systems that give best return for cost and effort. Obviously Vegas is currently serving the needs of many professionals, but we are hearing murmurs in the ranks.

I’ll 2nd Rob Mack’s comments.
I really like the idea of a “pro user” version – something like “Vegas High Roller”
Liner: “editing so powerful its sin full” and make the box black.

I went to Vegas after looking at most of the other NLEs including some very expensive eccentric edit systems.
My search was for features that were most similar to my $40k Mac based system.
And I was very surprised to find Vegas had about 70% of it and at a low cost.

Addendum: to answer to the question posed – I’ll 2nd Serena’s comments.

Logan5

Dave, just why are you asking the question? G

seems to be alot of varried speculation from different folks on the forums lately about the subject. I just want to get an idea of what most folks think, and provide data for Sony to have :). Seems to me that any help that will give them information as to where their product falls in the minds of their consumers is good for us and them. So I guess the question is two fold, more or less.

Dave

I think while Vegas will never be as widely used as FCP or Premiere, I believe it's partly responsible for making those apps better (especially Premiere).

If no one is using Vegas to edit TV shows or movies, that's fine with me. It works for what I use it for, and that's all that matters. If Sony doesn't feel like putting the amount of time and resources into Vegas that Apple puts into FCP, that's their call.

A lot of the editing systems out there only get RT from particular effects... which makes for a great demo, but somewhat disappointing performance. In FCP for example, the 3-way color corrector is highly optimized and runs circles around other FCP filters. However, it'll get bogged down when you touch its smoothness settings... it'll go sub-real-time.

That being said:
1- Other programs may be more intuitive, or have a better workflow (less button pushing).
2- I think a big problem with Vegas (and any NLE really) is that most users only know a little bit of what the program can do. Myself, I have no idea how to use the media manager and just left it disabled.
3- I would like to see Vegas demo'ed on a 16-core Opteron system and with a render farm. Such a system is possible, and some kind of turnkey product would be useful just for its marketing value. Such a system would cost a little more than a Nitris DS and could presumably hit around 8/16 streams of real-time or whatever... and have insane rendering speeds. Many of the NLEs out there aren't going to render fast... network rendering should really give such a system a huge advantage.
A 16-core beast could likely network render onto itself too, if it isn't using all 16 cores at once.

If no one is using Vegas to edit TV shows or movies, that's fine with me

I would be concerned with that.

Not because i want to edit with what everyone else is using (although that does matter for pipeline reasons) But I want the capability to do what other applications can do.

I think Vegas is very Prosumer level and not pro level. Thats not to say it couldnt be used for professional work. Its a very powerful program albiet rough in some areas.

I think the point that someone brought up about "growing out of Vegas" makes the most sense. I tend to feel that way myself. I've grown out of it in some respects. I dont use the bezier masking, i do that all in digital fusion "Fusion" for you new guys ;) I'll do post in combustion, etc... so I dont need an editor to do those things for me. I know that an editor needs these functions because editors do overlap with post effects BUT an editor that spreads itself too thin and neglects its basic editing needs... is going to unwravel.

I'd rather see Vegas be as solid as Avid workflow wise for an editor, than see more "fusion" or "after effects" or "Combustion" like tools added.

There are far better tools for composting, than vegas.

Thats not to say Vegas shouldnt add these features, but it shouldnt do so at the cost of cluttering the editing workflow.

Avid got editing right, thats why everyone uses it. Vegas needs to get Editing right, before adding any more compositing/effects etc. That includes revamping the ui, the workflow etc. I Want to see a well thought out editor. I came to Vegas from Premiere 6.5 (which was garbage) Vegas was like "WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is so easy" but as you evolve into a better editor, you grow out of it and quickly find the short commings.

Vegas has a great way to work that needs to be made better by stealing from Avid a little :)

So i do agree it is a "out growing" issue and that suggests to me that Vegas is for Prosumers.

I agree with Yoyodyne, it's broadcast/corporate/indie work. I'm a low-budget indie film person and I can't begin to describe the excitement as Vegas 4 and 5 came on the scene when I had been utterly frustrated trying to create professional-looking work prior to the Panny DVX100. For my purposes Vegas is full-grown, so me hoping it will continue developing its markets is like a truck driver sending his son off to law school. its future uses will probably take it out of my budget range, but it would be a fine thing to see Vegas start developing its interface potential into the kinds of connections Avid has in the industry.

Quite simply--people who edit DV. Therefore, prosumer.

Quite simply--people who edit DV. Therefore, prosumer.

I have to strongly disagree with this comment. A lot of material is being shot every single day on minisDV and delivered to broadcasters for airing. Most of them (in my area anyway) ask for it on BetaSP. Do a dub from miniDV to BetaSP and that's it. If they want it on DigiBeta, once again, it's a simple transfer job.

The post houses in my area work, for the most part, with miniDV, primarily because of the cost of the decks. One of them does have a BetaSP deck for the few remaining clients who "must" have the camera masters in that format.

Are there drawbacks to the format? From a technical standpoint (primarily the 4:1:1 colourspace), absolutely but you learn to work around them.

Mike

What/Who is Vegas' Market?
I dont think sony knows.

My opinion is it is a lot more hobby type users than pro users, the pro (broadcast)users have other apps available they use with vegas or instead of when vegas is not quite up to the task. wait, also a ton of event users, which are also pros,
I'm totally guessing here.

I was reviewing the latest issue of Movie Maker, and Sony had a full page ad for Vegas / DVDA. This at least shows where some of their marketing budget is going.

Chad

hardcore hobyist's/small venu's & TV stations. IE same as Premiere. At least that's what it looks like is their target. I'd say there's more $$ in that sector anyway (sell 4/5 copies for a big budget movie or 500 to small timers)

I agree that you can't entirely tie "prosumer" and DV25 together. For instance, at my workplace we've been shooting DV with a DSR500 camera for quite a long time now. It's not a high end camera but it's definitely professional gear.

Being a prosumer NLE has a lot to do with the total suite of equipment that the user is likely to use:

--A prosumer is likely to have just a camera and a desktop edit system

--A prosumer will use a camera with a non swappable lens or a lens that lacks manual (mechanical) controls. (no pulling focus, no snap zooms, lo choice of lens)
--A prosumer is unlikely to buy studio or field monitors
--A prosumer probably won't own a waveform or vector scope
--A prosumer is unlikely to be able to output video to a deck via Component or SDI
--A prosumer is unlikely to buy a good fluid head tripod
--A prosumer is unlikely to buy a good sound kit
--A prosumer is unlikely to have a mixing board in their workspace
--A prosumer is unlikely to hire professional crew for a shoot.

Vegas kind of teeter-totters between prosumer and professional:
--it can support SDI and component IO (although I don't know how well)
--It can support RS232 deck control (Again, I don't know how well)
--It provides scopes
--It provides quite a bit of color control
--It supports audio control surfaces

On the other hand...
--Support for cards that would provide SDI, Component, and deck control is very narrow (one card?)
--Support for managing a project within a group of editors is pretty much nonexistant.
--And so on, ad nauseum.

I think that Vegas started out as a prosumer tool. It was perfect for output for the web, for low budget indy, doc, and non-profit use, perfectly good for home enthusiasts, for most wedding videographers, for people making videos of your helicopter trip around Kauai, etc.

Since then there has been a bit of effort to address more professional needs and Vegas is no longer just a prosumer NLE, yet doesn't quite fit into a professional suite.

Vegas is still in the same space as PPro and FCP. I think that trying to fit the professional features into a prosumer product is hurting it, though. It would be better to put the pro features into a pro package, charge 1200 bucks for it, and give good attention and focus to the people who want to pay for it. For the rest of us, take a couple of features out of the prosumer version of Vegas (SDI support, for instance) and make it more of a laptop version of the pro software (more like Vegas 4).

Rob Mack

It would be better to put the pro features into a pro package, charge 1200 bucks for it, and give good attention and focus to the people who want to pay for it. For the rest of us, take a couple of features out of the prosumer version of Vegas (SDI support, for instance) and make it more of a laptop version of the pro software (more like Vegas 4).

******************************************************************

Rob, that is a statement that I had to repeat as it makes so much sense it's almost scary :-)
I truly hope anyone from Sony that is reading this takes it to heart - and back to the developers and marketing departments for implementation.

Mike

rs170a,
I kind of agree w/ both of you, but you have to be careful w/ this. I think as others have said that the market is the prosumer group, but because of vegas' speed and core editing capabilities some professionals use it.

I use it as a hobbyist because of what was stated at the beginning of this thread, "my personality is such that I demand excellence in quality."

The thing I tell people that always makes them get vegas on my reccommendation is that I can do anything w/ vegas that you see on tv or in a movie (other than CG effects). That is amazing! That is why I love it. I really don't like making home videos that much, but I love being creative and making a home video that looks like I sent it to hollywood.

I think you have to be careful, as I said in the beggining, because if you make the two separate programs you could drop stuff that would keep people like myself from achieving that "excellence in quality."

Take out all the stuff that you need in a movie house or similar situation that I would never use as a prosumer, but keep everything that allows me to achieve the highest quality end product possible. That's why I love vegas.

cheroxy, I'm definitely not saying to take anything out of Vegas. I think it's a great app and the students and staff at the college I work at are constantly amazed at how easy it is to learn.
Instead, as others have suggested in the past, I'm all in favour of Vegas Pro (or whatever you want to call it). Vegas Pro would have the features that have been requested for a very long time such as decent batch capturing/logging (I talk to Mac friends with FCP about this feature and get VERY envious), real EDL support, a kick-ass titler, RS-422 control of external decks, 10-bit video, etc. etc.
These are features that a lot of folks, me included, have said they'd be willing to pay more for.

Mike

Maybe the way to think of it is to have a continuum of Vegas versions. The step below "Pro" would be the one that you can take on the road and use with a laptop. The one below that is the one you give to an intern to pull stills, log clips, do simpler cutting (limited tracks)

For the most part, I envision the "Pro" version as adding the features that you'd want in a well outfitted facility with at least two suites, a variety of source and destination decks.

And of course the two lower versions also need to fit in as light and prosumer versions while also complementing each other in a work envireonment.

I think Prosumer as well which is a very large market. If Sony had the "major" share of that market they would be thrilled.

John

I edit professionaly with Vegas 5 and use it mainly for for producing corporate DVD's, "webisodes" , parties/events, and some tv - (mini DV transferred to BetaSP) and have had no complaints with quality or delivery issues in the almost 2 years that I've been using it. Poor quality sound, colour, etc. originated during filming, and was cleaned up in post .