Petition - I think its about time...

DJPadre wrote on 2/10/2008, 9:16 AM
That we put out a petition for Vegas to have its known issues worked out.

Forget the marketing and forget what the compeition are doing.
Just look at what is happening here and consider what we need to make Vegas work for us

Im not complaining about what vegas cant do, and believe me when i say that it does more things in a more efficient way than any otehr NLE.
BUT it seems this mad rush to compete has lost focus on what an NLE is all about. And that is to provide a solid working environment where the tool does what it says it does.
Like a mechanic, there are a myriad of tools, makes and brands available to us. We can also use certain tools for differnt purposes, such as a trolly jack vs a hydrolift...
You get my meaning. They each get us from A to B.
HOW we get from A to B is the important issue here.

Im going to list elements here which i believe need to be looked at. As it stands, if these elements are not rectified by V9, I will be jumping ship.
Not because i want to but becuase i have to. I wont have a choice as Vegas wouldnt be able to delivery what i need.

1) TRUE SSE4 support. Not jsut within the render engine, but within the preview playback engine also.
If resources are available USE THEM.
Adobe have done this for a very long time now, and theyre obviously doign somethign right.
I would however like to invite my clients over to review their edits, however since i started usign vegas, i cannot do this as i CONSTANTLY have to explain that the dropped frames during preview wont be there in the final.

Vegas supports SSE4 on the render side, but we still need either a buffer, BG renderer, or proper SSE4 support for realtime playback

2) Progressive scan support. As it stands, vegas does not manage frame interpolation well.
A couple of examples.
You have interalced footage, and youve resized a 4:3 clip into 16:9
Youve cntrl dragged it for slowmo to 50%
Youve then rendered it out to progressive to match the another tape from a different camera and it looks fine.

Now to the same thing but before you render, REFRAME your pan and crop (is slide your frame up or down) to an odd number or a number which doesnt calculate within a factor of 2
Now render it and tell me what you see...

The slowmotion is all jerky and stuttery, with duplicate rubbish frames

Render to interlaced and it looks fine

In addition to this issue, the move of technology into HD forces the work itself to be of an even higher accepted value than waht SD used to be.
1080p footage is the bees knees at this time in regard to consumerism and frankly, Vegas cannot cut it.
Those wanting 1080p cannot utilise slowmotion. If stuttery Slowmotion is acceptable, then good for those people accepting it. But I paid 100bux for a slowmotion app which has absolutely NO ISSUE with offering a true interpolation of frames.

LLLets face it, the bulk of Vegas users are in fact wedding and events producers. The NLE falls within their budget, and once they realise that its a Vegas fault (when demand for 1080p increases to a point of saturation) then and only then will they realise that there is a serious issue with Vegas and Progressive scan

3) AC3 5.1 encoding should be faster than MPG 2 encoding. As it stands, irrespective of what CPU you use, AC3 encoding can be as fast as realtime, up to 4 to 5 times realtime. THIS is now what is slowing down render times. Not the other way around.
God forbid yo uuse the clipped peak restoration plugin.. youll be there for 6 hours for every hour..

4) 32bit rendering should be offered on a clip level, not project level. The colour space shouldnt automatically jump from studio to computer RGB. If it wasnt for Glenn Chan, noone would know WTF to do with it. 32bit rendering on teh outset also shouldnt affect colour gamut. Not until the process is running and viewwable to the editor. As it stands, those that do not understand how it works, (thanks to Glenn) would think there is something wrong.
Sadly this is the majority of users as not everyone comes here

32bit rendering should be an OPTION within a certain clip due to the fact that most times, its not needed.

That and the fact that it needs to have it memory management rebuilt. It just doesnt work

5) Vegas is in sore need of some new filters and motion manipulation

6) Timecode data per clip needs to be visible, much liek the data seen on an unporcessed DV stream previewing through 1394. Time date stamps are visible as are camera settings etc.
There is no reason why this data cannot be viewable. If not within the timeline in the media properties area

7) HD delivery. I dont know what the issue is surrounding DVDs support of DB or DVD5/9 to BD formats are. I also do not know why HD DVD has been looked over completely.
As it stands, teh only format which supports BOTH playback devices is VC1.
Admittadly, its MS< however rendering from Vegas, its as fast as DV. Using Bitrates between 12K and 17k the image quality is comparable to 25mbps HDV. 12k might sound a little low, but consider that Terminator 2 HD WMV commercial release is only encoded up to 8mbps

Somethign needs doing. If Sony dont want us to author BD using blueprint, thats fine, however there is no reason not to have teh ability to author a proper DVD-like menus with VC1, AVCHD, M2t or any other format we might want to use.

As it stands, Vegas is stunted in this regard and the mad rush for HD delivery has left Vegas and DVDA behind everyone.

Consideirng BD is a Sony product, one would like to think that its brethren companie would be the first to offer such possibilites.
Sadly its a case of the blind leading the blind.

8) HDV support.. I am sure there are many users or beta testers who use canon or other equipment which SCS could borrow for extensive testing. There is no reason for one camera to be supported while another is not, then to see totally new formats being supported while the older acquisition tools are forgotten.
It seems that SCS are forced to play a "get in in quick" game.. then lets fix it later mentality. This doesnt cut it. Consideirng it doesnt even support straight MXF on teh timeline of Sony EX material, it makes you wonder what the hell is going on there.
Even FCP supports straight MXF

9) speaking of testing. Extensive care needs to be taken with tis obviously. However it seems bet testing of the new apps has gone to an all time low.
Im sorry, but this has to be the worst management of released NLEs i have ever come across.
I used to sell and distribute turnkey NLE systems and Beta test for Pinnacle.
EVERY release has its issues, but NOT like this.. Not on such a global workflow scale.
Editors shoudl not need to spend hours troubleshooting. Theyre job is to edit. their time is precious.. beleive me.. I live it 29hrs a day and i write ths as i render
The point is, is that more extrremem through testing is paramount to Vegas success. Differnt enviornments, workstations, configurations. and what teh tester reports NEEDS to be actioned IMMEDIATELY before release.

Like i keep saying. im happy to wait lan additional 12months for Vegs to do what i need. I dont care about the other NLEs but if i can wait 12months to make sure Vegas does EXACTLY what i want it to, then im happy to wait that time to get the tool i need to get my job done.
this wil never happen becuase they obvioulsy think we want vegas to keep moving..
Keeping it "unfinished" but moving nonetheless...

As it stands, vegas is unfinished. Ther are no ifs or buts about it.
it cannot handle the most basic of Progressive scan streams, i loathe to imagine how it will handle 1080p or 2k in progressive.
So those working in PAL land wanting to use interpolation to change frame rates for NTSC delivery (25p to 30p or 60i) then your screwed if your using progressive, its that simple.. 24p shouldnt be a problem though, but this brings me back up to BD formats as 25p isnt even supported with BD (ie its not an approved format for which to deliver.. nice to see Sony think of the rest of the world...25p isnt even on the spec sheet...

10) HDV black frame.
A simple soluiton would be to create a database of timecode data in txt file format which is saved along the vidcap file after cpature. vegas then accesses this data if there is a break in timecode or GOP structure
As the clip is thrown on the timeline and the audio and frames are drawn for NLE access, this should occur at the same time.
This optical scanning of the clip will ensure that any timecode breaks are found and the clip is stitched back together as one clip opposed to creating random clips.

11) Smarrtrendering
Why is it slower than realtime on a dual core? All that is happening is the GOP is being rebuilt and stitched where required. The scanning of said clip shouldnt take this long. Yes its good to have, but its pointless if its as fast as rendering a whole new clip. The point is to retain quality and deliver faster is it not?

12) Vegas crash force reset.
If vegas crashes, in most cases you MUST reboot to remove the dead V from your pagefile. Even force removal apps do not work.

Ok my render is done time to get back to it..

BUT before i go, i really do think we need to petition these issues. They are known isues, they have ben bought up in the past and theyre are solutions to this.
I mean really how SCS can handle knowing people are using a $100 app to author hybrid BD discs is beyond me. I know if I was a boss, and my clients started going to someone else becuase they offered what i wasnt offering at THAT time, id be furious.
Irrespective of the politics behind it, the fct remains is that SCS are losign clients EVERY DAY
Be it throgh vegas issues or DVDA issues...

If something is not done quickly, i honestly dont see vegas and DVDA lasting for another year...Things are now moving forward so fast that were just keeping up with our clients. the only thing slowing us down is this particular tool whch we choose to use.
Im happy to wait (be it for a render or for an update), but i know many who are not








Comments

craftech wrote on 2/10/2008, 9:23 AM
This thread is going to go nowhere just like similar threads in the past. While it is well intentioned these threads always turn into a laundry list of things people want to see in the next version.
As such they become more than the software developers can wade through. They become huge with no consensus that anyone can sort through because of its sheer volume.
You have already started it off that way.

You could find dozens of similar threads over the years exactly like it if the search engine worked like it used to.

John
TheHappyFriar wrote on 2/10/2008, 9:32 AM
BUT it seems this mad rush to compete has lost focus on what an NLE is all about. And that is to provide a solid working environment where the tool does what it says it does.

Wasn't this EXACTLY what people said Vegas DIDN'T need to do? That they needed to add crap to compete so it could get a bigger userbase? All the stuff that was already in there be damned?

That's all the conservations I remember said.

Every other NLE has issues too. Stopping what you're doing to apply FX doesn't drive those people away.
CorTed wrote on 2/10/2008, 10:01 AM
Adding various features to make it more interesting, can be a rather personal request, and that list can grow exponentially quite quickly.

I would be very happy if SCS could AT LEAST make the current version crash proof and reliable. Unless they can deliver a piece of software that works as it is marketed, then and only then should they think of adding more sophisticated features.
A current working version will keep me from jumping ship !

(but they should really hurry up and start releasing fixes....)

Ted
Coursedesign wrote on 2/10/2008, 11:11 AM
Friar, what are you saying?

Vegas was solid, but lacked features without which many pros could not use it. So it was suggested to add those features.

They were added, but at the cost of breaking the engine.

Yes, all NLEs have issues. So Patryk edits in FCP and color corrects in Vegas, and DJ edits in Premiere Pro whenever his progressive footage needs more than the most basic work.

Many here are forced to use other NLEs for a lot of work where Vegas cannot be used, even though we would like to use Vegas for everything.

This is not a recipe for Vegas' success going forward.

What if Adobe makes PP better? Don't laugh, it could happen.

What if Thompson buys FCP and makes it killer, conceivably even dual platform? That could happen/have happened too.


DJPadre wrote on 2/10/2008, 11:34 AM
I wasnt talkin about wishlists.. im specifically talking about essential elements detrimantal to the life of the program..

Yes vegas is good.. but its also broken...
DJPadre wrote on 2/10/2008, 11:37 AM
if its a concensus we need, then im happy to monitor it.

If i could create an online form, i would. I have no idea about that kinda stuff though
farss wrote on 2/10/2008, 11:40 AM
Recent email from Videoguys.com. Sales for 2007:

#1: CS3
#2: FCP
#3: Vegas

Bob.
Darren Powell wrote on 2/10/2008, 12:57 PM
I'm with DJPadre,

Vegas is broken and it needs to be fixed.

Otherwise it won't be long before it's Goodbye Vegas.

I'm seriously considering jumping ship if something doesn't happen in the next month or two ... I simply can't afford to be using software that doesn't work ...

Darren Powell
Sydney Australia

Sol M. wrote on 2/10/2008, 2:11 PM
Where are you guys going to "jump ship" to? I don't know how much you've used other NLEs, but none of them are 100% crash-proof and reliable. All of them have their workflow issues that experienced users wish would be fixed.

It may seem so, but I'd wager that the grass will NOT be greener on the other side once you get there.
ushere wrote on 2/10/2008, 2:40 PM
well if sony don't bloody well fix vegas i'm going to jump ship - i've got 2 X low band machines and an rm440 lying around in the store room. yeah baby, you watch me rock n' roll.

now, if i could just find the 8" disks for the aston....

leslie
Coursedesign wrote on 2/10/2008, 2:42 PM
NLEs don't have to be 100% crash-proof. They just have to work properly with the formats each person uses.

For some that may mean PP CS3, for others it may mean FCP.

One alternative for some here is also outsourcing some of the work that Vegas can't do properly to After Effects.

GlennChan wrote on 2/10/2008, 3:46 PM


I'm not able to reproduce that from the instructions (but I'm not sure if I am doing it correctly).

Something to watch out for is that progressive/interlaced handling is in multiple places.
Do check your render/codec settings. You can choose between None (progressive), LFF, UFF in the custom codec settings. This is not obvious and unintuitive since I believe it overrides the project settings.

When the clip comes back in, you have to tell Vegas that it's progressive (e.g. Vegas just assumes that DV clips are lower field first / interlaced).

2- Perhaps Vegas would be a lot more intuitive in that area if the render settings inherited the project settings. Then you can have a checkbox which lets the render settings override the project settings.

By default you'd have that checkbox ticked, this way the behaviour is exactly like previous versions of Vegas.
rmack350 wrote on 2/10/2008, 5:07 PM
This is a very good point. In FCP I guess the crashes are manageable, In PPro it depends on what you're doing. In our shop the PPro crashes are nearly unmanageable, enough so that we installed anFCP system for a long form project. Vegas is my choice for personal use but it isn't even a close match for what my employers want in a system.

In the last 4 years we've been through 4 systems. Media100 was the longtime choice for over a decade, then we brought in Media100's 844 system, which was hardware heavy and nearly broke our backs. It was what finally got us to move off of Media100 products and the Apple platform.

From there we went to PPro and Axio. Axio looked like a great hardware accelerator for PPro and hardware acceleration was a requirement for any new system. We bought three.

Last year we finally conceded that PPro/Axio wouldn't be able to handle a feature, especially if it was shot on DVCPro HD. And now we have an 8-core FCP system, which is NOT hardware accelerated and DOES reboot at random times. A Quad core loaner is quite stable, though.

There's really nothing wrong with trying some other systems and seeing if one of them is a better fit. We came to the same point with each system we've had, the point of just wanting OUT.

Rob Mack
FightingIllini1977 wrote on 2/10/2008, 7:05 PM
I'm pretty happy with Vegas Pro 8 BUT there is 1 thing I would really like improved. I would like to see the PREVIEW PLAYBACK TO HAVE A BETTER FRAME RATE. This was your first listed item.

When I'm working on large projects, I have to create the projects in sections and render out to .AVI and then add all of my .AVI's to my final project. Also, I hate how Vegas can't handle full size pictures from my Nikon camera. I always have to spend time reducing my file size/type prior to using them in edits otherwise my preview is even worse.
farss wrote on 2/10/2008, 10:47 PM
Glenn,
you're right. It's confusing in 50Hz land because there's no 25p templates or support for it on tape so we're forced into using 25PsF. To get that out to tape etc can be tricky. I think during one test I had to first render to DV 25p to force Vegas to process everything as progressive. Problem then was you cannpt PTT from that file.
So then I had to render that AVI file to 50i and then PTT from that file. Of course if you bring that tape back into Vegas it will not recognise it as being progressive unless you change the media properties.

Even more troubling. That 25PsF stuff can might bring you unstuck if you don't tell Vegas it's 'P' not "i'. It looks like Vegas might get the field dominance wrong and REALLY make a hash of it. By that I mean it's merging F2, F3 instead of F1, F2. If you render that out to 'P' it looks like you get double sized artifacts.

For the record I've not noticed any nasties working with 25p that I couldn't make go away by working carefully through my workflow.

Bob.
DJPadre wrote on 2/11/2008, 2:11 AM
and thats the point bob, YOU must work AROUND vegas limitations with progressive management.
This issue will only ever increase as peopel begin to use progressive formats from a variety of cameras.
I can most certainly guaratee you that most of these people WONT know the workaround.

Fact remains, there shoudl be no workaround.
The 25p in a 50i stream should not requrie rerendering.
A basic 2:2 pullsown service should be avaialable EXACTLY as used within any given progressive camcorder.
Yes its doubleing the frame, but this shouldnt require rendering The MPG stream upon delivery should also carry this pulldown metadata as doe 24p DVD's streamed through60i

Its the exact same conncpet, just different maths

Put it this way, if progressive scan is a function which Vegas cannot fulfil to a point of what it can do with interlaced streams, then vegas will surely die a horrible from anyone who wants to take advatnage of the benefits wich progressive scan can provide.
Its that simple.

If people cant use it to delivery the hiest possible res the market is seeking, then they wll look elsewhere..

As it stands, i use CS3 for slowmotion and certain transtiioning of progressive footage.
Vegas is still king in regard to editing, but there are just some things that it cannot do.

farss wrote on 2/11/2008, 3:18 AM
It's NOT a Vegas limitation. No current delivery system supports 25p.

I can shoot 25p (V1 and EX1) and Vegas will correctly recognise it. I can render/encode it to 25p but guess what, you cannot deliver it. It MIGHT play, so far so good it seems on BD but you're taking a big risk unless you test it in everything your clients are ever likely to use.

You can deliver as 25PsF and if you're lucky 20% of the display devices might get it right. If they don't it can end up looking pretty bad.

24p is much safer.

What's probably saving you at the moment is your camera(s) have limited V res. Get a camera with over around 700 lines and the problems really start. Thanfully Vegas's Median/GB FX can be used to reduce the V res. Dang long render times though.

You want decent slomo, well shooting interlaced gives you a big leg up. You're starting off with twice the temporal resolution compared to progressive. You can use pixel tracking interpolation but that's pretty outdated when cameras with overcranking (EX1) aren't that hard to come by.

Bob.
Chienworks wrote on 2/11/2008, 4:18 AM
"If people cant use it to delivery the hiest possible res the market is seeking"

DJ, you stick this in the middle of a discussion on progressive vs. interlaced. You do realize that interlaced is the same resolution as progressive, right? 1080i is exactly the same resolution as 1080p. I know a lot of folks work under the mistaken belief that interlaced is only half the resolution of progressive, but this just isn't true.
Coursedesign wrote on 2/11/2008, 4:36 AM
And now we have an 8-core FCP system, which is NOT hardware accelerated and DOES reboot at random times. A Quad core loaner is quite stable, though.

FCP, Motion, and key plug-ins use OpenGL acceleration for a lot of things. This is not the same thing as Axio's hardware acceleration, but it sure helps.

A lot of 8-core systems croak because of memory starvation; they need lots of RAM, for heavy use 16 GB.

farss wrote on 2/11/2008, 4:57 AM
Sorry but it is true!

Sure you can try using 1080i at 1080 line resolution but if the image contains detail at that resolution you are in for major problems.

I don't have the official figures at hand for HD but for SD PAL the standard V res is 480 lines! 576p is classed as HD in PAL land.

I've spent days grappling with this problem, created by pushing the boundaries of vertical resolution in 50i, carefully masking out stills with too much vertical resolution. This is why interlaced cameras deliver no more than around 70% vertical resolution but have 6dB less noise, line pair averaging. This why there was months of anguish on DVInfo over the V1E, it delivers too much V res in P, go figure. It's a complex story.

If you don't believe me, try this simple test. Create a 1080 frame of alternating black and white lines (it's easy in Vegas). Now try displaying it on a HDTV. If you don't have one try it on a 1920x1080 monitor using VLC switched in de-interlace = Bob (no relative of mine). The image falls apart. Yes you can stuff all those line into the image but nothing can display it properly. A few, very few HDTVs may get it right. Spot tried my test pattern at a trade show, less than 20% of HDTVs didn't make a mess of it.

So interlace is 70% of the V resolution of progressive for all practical purposes.

Bob.
farss wrote on 2/11/2008, 5:09 AM
i hear it'll now run 100% reliably on vanilla hardware. One lucky lad I was just reading about is running a 5 PC cluster of 8 core non Apple machines, for the price of 1 Apple 8 core box.

Bob.
Kennymusicman wrote on 2/11/2008, 5:16 AM
Bob - you got me thinking on this... SO I created a quick veg project, @ HDV 1080 50i (1440 version). Inserted gen.media - checkerboard. I'm finding that the gen media is only working at about 70% horizontally -the horizon is upside down on teh right 30% portion, and other presets affected similarly. At the 1920 project everything looks fine.

IS there a "render-test" equivalent veg for testing a monitor & output displays? I'm not referring to SMPTE test cards - I'm referring to a forum created veg that picks on HD displays and gives them a going over - akin to your test pattern?
farss wrote on 2/11/2008, 5:25 AM
The gen media will I think create itself at 1440 so it ends up wrong. Switch your project to 1920x1080 HD to get the gen media to work right.

Don't know about projects to test monitors.
My test pattern was created by merging fields of black and white, turn off Quantise to frames to do this and slip one field with the black and white media crossfaded. At the middle of the cross fade you get alternating lines of black and white. Save a still image.

Someone could probably figure out how to do this in PS but I cheated and used Vegas.

Bob.
rmack350 wrote on 2/11/2008, 9:25 AM
Maybe it's because I'm looking at the forum in threaded view, but I can't tell what you mean by "i hear it'll now run 100% reliably on vanilla hardware".

What's "it"?

Rob