Yeah. I still wish they'd offer packages of icon looks...

Maybe I can find a way to hack together my own skins...

- jim

Now that Vegas makes use of XP themes, you might be able to get what you want with StyleXP, available at www.tgtsoft.com. This program opens up the built-in skinning capabilities in XP, and you can download tons of custom styles at www.themexp.org. They cater to all kinds, but some of the styles are actually pretty good.

Thanks for the advice, but I was looking more at the Vegas control icons, specifically. The sliders, buttons and functional icons would look better (IMO) as they had in Vegas 4, or as a set of customizable icons. In other words -- if you're going to fix what ain't broke, fix it the way that makes everyone happy.

- jim

I don't use StyleXP myself, but I see that it supports custom icon sets--thus you might actually be able to get what you want with a bit of work. The sliders probably are locked in, though.

[edit: I see upon closer examination that "icon sets" only refers to folders, drives, etc. and not toolbars. WindowBlinds might be able to do it, though, as a more obtrusive "skinning" tool.]

Perhaps a simple solution that Sony could implement (if so inclined) would be for the program to revert to the old control appearances when you turn off XP theme support? That's usually how it works with other apps that have the feature (i.e. WinZip 8/9, Directory Opus, etc.)

There is no big deal. Some people have too much time on their hands.

Amen, brother. The incredible amount of whining on this non-issue is amazing.

I KNOW color and edge design doesn't change functionality. I KNOW that Vegas 5 is Vegas 4 plus some improvements.

Then, honestly, what are you complaining about? It's like saying you won't eat a wonderful meal cooked by a friend because you don't happen to care for their hair style. Silly....

Then, honestly, what are you complaining about?

My post is still there -- reread it if you want to have your answer.

planders:

Uhm, yeah, my guess is that Sony would have to release a skin or icon pack for the changes I want. I guess that's something I could hope for, but I rarely spend money on upgrades in the hopes that it might meet my likes/needs at some later date (DVD-A is a notable exception and ultimately may be the only reason I'd upgrade my Vegas+DVD.)

It would be nice if they tipped their hand to say that this is in the works -- and likewise, if the user base would have a "say" in the looks.

I know BJ_M for one had changed his Vegas 4 to look "like" an Avid -- it would be fun and somewhat funny to have a skin that let you do just that. Not saying I'd prefer to work on an Avid, but...

...as was said before, some of us didn't see the need for a UI change in the first place, and least of all a change to a softer, more playful look. Vegas has enough trouble getting respect with its name! Now everything's soft edges and pastels... why that instead of a more "advanced" pro look?

And why -- pay attention here Johnny -- why all the obvious time and energy spent on creating such a non-professional look instead of constructing more pro workflow and feature set (i.e. better media management and nested sequences)? If icons are soooo insignificant, then why the bother to change them in the first place?

My point is -- where Sony decided to direct their energies with this release potentially says something about what they see Vegas as, and where they want it to go. I'm not sure I -- and my money -- are willing to go along for that ride if superior tools are forgotten for gimmicks and toys.

- jim

" The incredible amount of whining on this non-issue is amazing."

I completely agree, who cares about the icons. This is an amazing software package at a great upgrade price.

"Vegas has enough trouble getting respect with its name! Now everything's soft edges and pastels... why that instead of a more "advanced" pro look? "

You echoed my sentiments exactly.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

Wow! I just don’t see what all the fuss is about. At first I thought this thread was strictly tongue-in-cheek. You guy’s are actually serious?

I’ve spent 6 hours now with the new UI and dare I say, I like the new look. The only way I see ‘hello kitty’ is if the icon saturation and tint sliders are well to the right. What are you guys viewing on? With XP and dual 18” LCDs at 1280x1024x32, and at the default display settings, I think V5 looks great.

JL

I'm in XP on a dual-head card set to something like 2048x768 projected across two 19" monitors. You're missing the point I'm trying to make -- it's not the size or number of your monitors, it's not the icon "saturation" -- it's the "look and feel" which I feel is decidedly unprofessional.

To be even more clear, extend that idea out -- I'm not saying I care what a client thinks looking over my shoulder (not much at least, though for others, e.g. those in a pro environment, this is a concern), I'm not deluded into thinking this changes the functionality of the sliders (as I said yesterday, I think the UI "feels" snappier), what I'm saying is:

Think about how something (the UI) previously thought as incidental has suddenly taken not only a front seat, but has been redirected from Pro aspirations toward home hobbyist and family video shooters. No thanks, man! Vegas 3 had FCP 3 and Premiere 6 for lunch, feature-wise. Vegas 4 beat them to the market with a LOT of functions and had a few tricks up its sleaves.

Vegas 5 still has some surprises (network rendering, uhm, and...I'll think of something), but nearly every other improvement is either a "catch-up," a "hasn't quite caught-up yet," or misguided energies. The UI really bears this out -- Vegas 5 is a step back if you were looking to have Vegas inserted into Pro markets, or if you were looking to improve longform (e.g. feature film/TV) workflow -- instead it looks like it would make plenty of kids and moms happy with its interface, or at the very best, I'm told "Well, turn the colors off and in a day or two you won't notice it."

Plenty of people are pleased as punch to spend their money on the new toys in Vegas 5 -- but there's a large contingent of people for who Vegas 5 left them out in the cold because it aims to please a crowd more eager to accept a soft look than learn the steep curve of more comprehensive -- more pro -- feature sets. I, for one, was planning to use Vegas 5 for a feature -- now I'm going to have to rethink my plans. I'm not eager to spend my money to make other people happy.

Memo to Sony: I would love nothing more than to eat my words on that last paragraph -- show your hand and let us know that custom looks and better media management are in the works and imminent (i.e. in a 5.0 letter upgrade).

- jim

"I, for one, was planning to use Vegas 5 for a feature -- now I'm going to have to rethink my plans."

Jim, let me make certain I understand you. You're serioulsy considering not using Vegas 5 for a feature because of the way the UI looks?

If I've misunderstood, please correct me!

J--

this is sort of reminidng me of the car joke - the short version is a person goes out and gets a brand new, very expensive car. It looks great...but the catch is there is no engine. ..it just looks good.

Vegas has a great engine, but with it's HKI is isn't looking so good these days.

My 5 year old thinks it looks pretty. I guess Vegas is now officialy family friendly? He he.

Vegas needs a producers knob - except it needs a producers interface. (yeah Skins would do it too)

Jim, let me make certain I understand you. You're serioulsy considering not using Vegas 5 for a feature because of the way the UI looks?

Yes, you're misunderstanding me.

I'm not saying I'd look elsewhere to edit because of icons, I'm saying that, given that a UI design shift and other consolation prizes took priority over EDL, media managament, nested sequences, better capture tools and other pro features and that the UI is an eyesore and decidedly unprofessional (IMO), I'm not sure spending my money with Vegas 5 is a wise bet on the future.

If a soft-n-cuddly UI is more important than pro editing, there's no room for me as an end user.

Network rendering and DVD-A2 are noted exceptions to that statement, and I'd be glad to have them -- I'm just skeptical and at the moment not so wealthy that I'd just take Sony word for it that users like me will be taken care of in future Vegas updates. Then again, I don't even have their word...

- jim

Thanks for the clarification! I understand, now, where you're coming from.

By the way, what will the feature be shot on--film or video?

J--

I'll add my 2 cents to this thread.

I was part of Vegas 5 beta team and I have to agree with the majority of your points. I'm primarily an audio user of the app. I'm also pretty disappointed with the look. I felt a little blind sided on the beta team and didn't express my viewpoint soon enough. As we beta test, the early beta releases always come with a lot of rough draft graphics, just so we can test out the new features functionality and then later these get molded into the final UI. The messages we received during the beta testing was "hold back on UI comments, lots of changes headed in this department." So I was graciously, holding back. Then the next email for a beta release said, "This is the intended final UI interface, no changes from here on out, press people start taking your pictures now." When, I received this one, I was like, "WHAT!? This is the final UI!?" I then expressed my disatisfaction, which had a lot of the same points mentioned throughout this post, and I also considered this a step down from Vegas 4's UI. I had a side discussion with another beta tester and he agreed, that he just didn't get "excited" by the new UI. I'm inbetween on my feelings for this UI, by looking at other audio apps. I look at Protools and think this is one of the ugliest UI's out there, but for some reason, it's also the most popular audio app. I look at other audio apps like Logic Audio, Cubase SX, and Sonar 3.0 and think these look really professional on the outside, but hell if I can figure out the interface to use them effeciently as Vegas.

I'ld like to let you know, that my comments where heard and the reply from Sony was that they take these comments seriously, because they agree the look of the app is very important. Unfortunately, my comments came too late for a change, but I know Sony is listening to your comments as well and will take these into heavy consideration.

Being a beta tester for the audio side also gave me some insight reading these posts in the video forum. For example, I can see the point about having a UI color that would be too distracting for color correction in Vegas. Of course color doesn't effect my ears too much, so I would have overlooked this viewpoint.

I heavily agree with a cusomizable skin option to attempt to make more people happy and I agree the saturation adjustment doesn't give you much control. I don't like the Windows XP theme adjustment approach also, because I prefer the Standard Windows Theme, rather than the big fuzzy button XP themes. I also don't think it should be necessary for me to change the look of my operating system UI, which I currenlty like the look of, so my video/audio app can look more professional.

Hopefully this gets addressed. For the meantime, just keep telling yourself the same thing that I have. "It's not the paint job on the car that makes it fast, it's what's under the hood." And I think we can all agree, Vegas got some pretty impressive things added to the engine in this release.

Red

This is getting funnier by the minute. Now I know why my friend dropped out of film school. I'm so glad I don't have to work with people that would make this into an issue.


by the way, just looking at the fact that they gave us the ability to use PNGs as script icons... and this is pure speculation... but skins may actually be in the works. Certainly someone could hack it! :D

I would like to see a contrast slider for the icons. Also the ripple edit timeline indicator is way to hard to see. But I don't see how the comparisons to Tomy, fisher price, etc are on target. The icons are very nicely drawn and give a consistent look to the interface. It's really not that different from V4.

I was planning HD video. I'm a digital video guy through and through. I was really looking forward to using Vegas 5 with Cinelerra for some serious, and seriously cheap, DIY HD feature work. The idea of setting myself up with a file server for $400, a lot of cheap/fast SATA storage ($10,000), a gigbit ethernet network ($250), and a few boxes from parts I've got lying around ($400 each) was VERY attractive.

Now I'm not so sure. Nework rendering is nice, but it alone doesn't justify the upgrade. The other "features" -- like 3D and beziers -- I could do without entirely or could (and still can) get as better and/or free tools for Vegas 4 elsewhere. That's why I call them consolation prizes -- I've no need for 3D planes, but if I did for some odd reason, Satish is here. Beziers are found in Combustion and they're much, much more advanced there (again, not that I need them.) With the Vegas 4 upgrade, you could make the argument that there were more necessary changes that any working editor at any level needed: color correcting, scopes, etc., and added to that a few SoFo niceties that we all welcomed. Vegas 5 seems to offer answer to fewer needs than it does likes and conveniences, and many of the niceties are half-hearted attempts at things already available.

I'm in the thick of editing a short right now and at most half of my media is logged and sits across 310 gigs of media drives, in about 250 clips. I have trouble keeping track of it all without good media management tools as is, and I can only imagine how out of hand a feature will get without the right workflow, when 200 clips becomes 2000, and 310 gigs becomes a few terrabytes.

I applaud the Sony team for looking to save us money by including features reserved for compositing and other helper apps -- I just wish they would have given those who would've been willing to spend more the option of getting more pro tools.

- jim

Jim, thanks for sharing that--very interesting. I certainly hope it all works out for you in the end.

J--

You bet. Thanks for being so civil and reading what I've written :D It's not often I get the pleasure of disagreeing with such an agreeable person.

Very concise, hit the point on the head -- thanks for your comments. Hopefully you're right about being listened to.

- jim

"It's not often I get the pleasure of disagreeing with such an agreeable person."

LOL -- Thanks for the kind words. I can think of one person for certain, maybe more, who would disagree with you on that one! ;o)

J--