Nope, if you edit a file it does not exist until you render it.
That's by definition.

If you want glue from dead horses bones, you have to render them down. Then you have glue. Before, all you had were bones. Now you have glue plus a pure version of Calcium, which in turn was the best=purest form of calcium that could be had for . . ta tah! - BONE CHINA!

Grazie

The OP expresses concern about using DI's and workflow possibilities. Of course a lot of emphasis was placed on maintaining file size as others commented - but this is certainly of no concern -

More to the point for DI use, file rendering speed, visually lossless, or math lossless, handling of decode on the timeline and overall preservation of quality throughout generation loss. Use of the MagicYUV codec would be an overall answer to these concerns.

Thanks for the input, Oldsmoke.
I've never even used the trimmer, how does it make things easier/more effective than just putting the whole file on the timeline and then splitting, copying and cutting etc?
Cheers

"If you want glue from dead horses bones, you have to render them down. Then you have glue. Before, all you had were bones. Now you have glue plus a pure version of Calcium, which in turn was the best=purest form of calcium that could be had for . . ta tah! - BONE CHINA!"

Looks like someone was a little bored tonight!

Thanks VideoITguy but I'm not sure why file size is of no concern?
What is "DI"?
I will have a look at the MagicYUV codec which you mentioned.
Thanks.

The correct answer was given early on, but then this thread went off the rails.

The answer to the question you've asked is indeed "smart rendering." The phrase refers to the ability to do a cuts-only edit (which is what you described), and then get a video file from that which is bit-for-bit identical to the original, but with the junk removed. There is no rendering involved (no dead horses, whatever the heck that was supposed to mean) so the video is precisely identical to the original, and the file size is exactly proportional to your original, meaning that if you cut out half the video, the file size will be precisely half the size of the original.

However ...

As Oldsmoke said, whether you can smart render your video depends entirely on what codec your original uses. Vegas only smart renders a few formats.

Fortunately, there are tools, other than Vegas, which can smart render additional types of video, so there is a good chance you can do what you want.

So, to get the complete answer, you need to tell us exactly what video format you are trying to edit. The free Mediainfo program can tell you, and even Vegas can be used (just post the File Properties for the video file).

Percepto

The trimmer allows you to place markers and regions which can be saved with the file for later use in another project.
Yes, using the timeline would be the same and if you don't care about markers and regions then it is no different.
For example: If you have some small clips that need almost need no cutting and in addition a very large one from which you only need certain portions at different times on the timeline, the trimmer may come in very handy.
My skiing video usually consists of small clips from my AX100 and some rather large files from our GoPros. The GoPro files are very long and only a few portions of it are actually used in the final video and for that I use the trimmer with markers and regions. All is done in one project and I don't need DIs either.

BTW, unless you have huge storage space available, DI or Digital Intermediates are sure a good but also very time consuming. Each and every file would have to be transcoded to a DI.

Thanks johnmeyer and OldSmoke for your helpful insights.
Your suggestion johnmeyer is exactly what I am looking for and thanks for explaining what a "DI" is OldSmoke!
Below are the various formats I use. For the GoPro stuff I can do what I want in GoPro Studio before I bring in the files to Vegas.
Thanks again

Sony HDR-CX280E
Type: Sony AV *.MP4 file
Video: 00:00:35.040, 25.000 fps progressive, 1280x720x12, AVC
Audio: 00:00:35.029, 48,000 Hz, Stereo, AAC

Lumix DMC-LX5
Type: MPEG-2 Transport Stream *.MTS file
Video: 00:06:28.780, 50.000 fps progressive, 1280x720x12, AVC
Audio: 00:06:28.780, 48,000 Hz, Stereo, Dolby AC-3

Panasonic HDC-SD40
Type: MPEG-2 Transport Stream *.MTS file
Video: 00:04:08.400, 25.000 fps interlaced, 1920x1080x12, AVC
Audio: 00:04:08.400, 48,000 Hz, Stereo, Dolby AC-3

GoPro Hero4
Type: Sony AVC *.MP4 file
Video: 00:08:52.532, 119.880 fps progressive, 1920x1080x12, AVC
Audio: 00:08:52.544, 48,000 Hz, Stereo, AAC

Sorry if I posted too much info but I wanted to be sure.

"

The answer to the OP's question is no.
Smart-rendering does not have the slightest thing to do with the question.
The edited, effected media file does not exist beyond Vegas' preview, so how on earth could one smart render it?

As far as smart rendering the intermediate, the answer is "sometimes."

. .

The info is useful.

VideoRedo (commercial program) will probably do the smart render you want. I own it and it is reasonably easy to use. The only reason I say "probably" is that there are quite a few subtle variations on h.264/MP4 video, and there is no way to know whether it will work without trying. I'm pretty sure they have a trial download.

The free solution is tsmuxer. It is actually a very handy utility to have around, although being donateware, it is a little rough around the edges, and closer to a utility than an editing program. However, it does work well for most of these chores.

@musicvid

[I]I want to import video and do basic edits with no fx, basically just to get rid of the part of the shot that I can't use.[/I]

But this does! Please read the whole post before you dismiss someone's reply!

The original question is worded ambiguously, by sequence if nothing else.

IF the question is, can the intermediate be smart rendered, the answer is "sometimes."

IF the question is, can the edited, effected video on the timeline be smart-rendered, the answer is "no."

IF the question is, can both the intermediate and the timeline be smart rendered, the answer is still "no."

I doubt the ambiguation is any result of my reading the post incompletely. If reading it completely and sequentially is my shortcoming, so be it!

Best.

I want to import video and do basic edits with no fx, basically just to get rid of the part of the shot that I can't use.

IF the question is if basic edits (cuts only) can be made and then smart rendered, the answer is depending on the codec.

But honestly, I don't know how to interpret the sentence otherwise.

I read back my original post and if you just read that in isolation, then I can see where you could correctly accuse me of being ambiguous. You might have read my post completely and sequentially, but with respect, I don't see how you could misunderstand if you had properly read the other helpful replies.
As johnmeyer wrote:
"The answer to the question you've asked is indeed "smart rendering." The phrase refers to the ability to do a cuts-only edit (which is what you described), and then get a video file from that which is bit-for-bit identical to the original, but with the junk removed.
and then my subsequent reply:
"Your suggestion johnmeyer is exactly what I am looking for…"
I think it is fair to say that from there on, it is difficult to be unsure of what my original post was asking.
I only learned what smart-rendering was through these posts (and Google of course!), I'd never even heard of it before tonight, so you are making your own assumptions as to what the alternatives to my original question actually are.
And lastly, sorry but I really couldn't resist this, but it's "ambiguity" not "ambiguation"! (written with a friendly smile, I promise!)
Thanks to everyone who helped, I'm certainly a little wiser because of your input, but it seems I still have a way to go.

Thanks for clarifying.
My longtime mentor John Meyer, and Oldsmoke were all over it.

You would be amazed at the number of folks who indulge in magical thinking here, so it's good to know you're not among them.
As always, precise language is appreciated.

In that same sense, "ambiguation" is the correct nominative form of the verb "ambiguate."
"Ambiguity" is the correct nominative form of the adjective "ambiguous," and is probably more common in nontechnical use.
Either would be acceptable in my classroom.
;?) <-(Friendly Smile)