Slightly OT: ProType = preview of V9?

Tattoo wrote on 9/25/2007, 3:45 AM
Background:

- the look/feel of the protype titler is way different than Vegas
- "insiders" such as Spot insist that protype was coded by the Madison folks & not purchased from someone else

Question:

- was the protype code "stolen" from the 64-bit next version of Vegas for use in V8? Are we looking at a HUGE change in the way the next Vegas version looks/feels? Protype has that darker, more "serious" look that many folks on this forum have been asking for.

Just a thought. Surprised that no one has mentioned this yet (that I've seen).

Brian

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 9/25/2007, 4:23 AM
"Surprised that no one has mentioned this yet (that I've seen).".

Maybe because most of us don't indulge ourselves in idle conspiracy theories. ;)
Grazie wrote on 9/25/2007, 5:07 AM
And is that a conspiracy theory of yours, Kelly - that, most of us don't indulge in conspiracy theories? You think?

Grazie
farss wrote on 9/25/2007, 5:09 AM
"insiders" such as Spot insist that protype was coded by the Madison folks & not purchased from someone else"


The only comment I've read from Spot was that it was written for Vegas and not licenced from a 3rd party. Close but not the same thing as coded by.


Bob.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 9/25/2007, 6:14 AM
i mentioned this to not much support. :) And here's why...

*ProType is sluggish compared to other Vegas components.
*interface is lacking a lot of basic things all the other vegas components have such as: snapping, sync to timeline, timecode to say where you are, standard windows shortcuts (CTRL+A, copy/paste for keyframes)
*it's written in .net 3

i'm sure they could make a theme that looks like that (which i'm not a 100% fan of, to dark for me) but if they changed all of vegas to work like it does in V9 I *HIGHLY* doubt i'd upgrade unless it was improved a lot. IMHO ProType is kinda pushing the interface of vegas back a few year to Premiere 5/6. For one component I don't mind. It has to many advantages to worry about the interface limits imho.
Chienworks wrote on 9/25/2007, 6:50 AM
No, actually, that would be either a metaconspiracy theory, or a conspiracy metatheory. I'm leaning more towards the latter.
Chienworks wrote on 9/25/2007, 6:51 AM
Another thought ...

"was the protype code "stolen" from the 64-bit next version of Vegas for use in V8?"

What gives you any indication that the 64 bit version of Vegas will look and feel any different from the 32 bit version? Other than the fact that it will be 64 bit, why should anything else change?
TheHappyFriar wrote on 9/25/2007, 8:54 AM
No, actually, that would be either a metaconspiracy theory, or a conspiracy metatheory. I'm leaning more towards the latter.

I just did that "hand moving over head with whoosh noise" thing right now. :D
Chienworks wrote on 9/25/2007, 9:10 AM
Check out Douglas R Hofstadter's "Gödel Escher Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid". Your local library should have a copy. That'll really make you go whoosh!
TheHappyFriar wrote on 9/25/2007, 9:33 AM
no. :( I'm going to have to go to the country library in the next county then.
Tattoo wrote on 9/25/2007, 10:18 AM
Ah yes, "built for Vegas from the ground up" vs. "built by SCS." Darn! That thread got side-tracked on credit rolls & farsi, so we never got a definitive answer to who did the coding, but I suspect you're right.

I haven't dug into it to detect all the interface differences, but on the surface it seemed to be significantly more "serious" than Vegas looks. Moving to 64-bit seems like a major change that might bring other major changes. Since they answered the long-standing improved titler, 10-bit (32!), & multi-cam requests, it only seemed logical that they might address the appearance, too.

Oh well. Doesn't matter to me. I don't have clients to impress.
barleycorn wrote on 9/25/2007, 12:55 PM
Have you not read this thread?

Velvetmatter were more or less established as the authors.

'Are we looking at a HUGE change in the way the next Vegas version looks/feels?'

Why on earth would SCS ditch the elegance of Vegas for the mess that is ProType Titler?
farss wrote on 9/25/2007, 1:55 PM
"Why on earth would SCS ditch the elegance of Vegas for the mess that is ProType Titler? "

Is Vegas really that elegant a solution for compositing?
Certainly I've never found it to be and judging by the number of requests for certain changes I don't think I'm alone. Start building comps of even medium complexity and you soon get a very hard to manage mess of tracks. Without background rendering also it's dang frustrating trying to judge what you're doing.
Vegas has a very elegant interface for editing.
Compositing is a different task altogther that needs a different way of doing things to be manageable.

Bob.
Dreamline wrote on 9/25/2007, 3:03 PM
There's no doubt in my mind that velvetmatter had some influence on th PTT. I almost bought the overpriced velvetmatter plug but after trying it, I realized I could do everthing it does with more control with other plugs and programs that I already own.

As with most things I have purchased recently the PTT feels rushed without QC.

Hell, I purchased a training DVD from vasst only to watch a DVD that is poorly lit with a cam that hunts for focus throughout the entire DVD.

As for Vegas 8 Pro, I like it for the speed and quick control. I even like the PTT, but I like Boris G even better. There will be times that I pull Boris out for a project or PTT depending on which tool fits the bill.

All in all, I agree... the PTT has lost the Vegas Elegance but is still a useable tool.
rmack350 wrote on 9/25/2007, 4:39 PM
I'm hoping we can all get together in private and agree not to believe in conspiracy theories.

And then not tell anyone, of course.

Maybe some of us already did. Hmmm...

Rob
Dreamline wrote on 10/1/2007, 2:36 PM
Well, whatever that means Rob.

The fact is that the PTT is kind of ass backwards and the customers want to know why. We will never get an answer for the obvious reason.

Vegas is not just a tool for others to make money on by selling plugs and how-to DVDs. Sometimes it seems that there are other forces(motives) for the denial of cam or software deficiencies that are not in the best interest of the user.

If I listened to some of these so called gurus I would have been shooting with the sony z1 or some other test-the-market cam.

I know of some forums where they are really more commercials for their own products. Any post that has difference of opinion is deleted with the user being banned. Or it is called a conspirarcy theory.

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 10/1/2007, 3:18 PM
but after trying it, I realized I could do everthing it does with more control with other plugs and programs that I already own.

FishEyes, certainly there are other plugs out there, but Velvet matter overpriced? perhaps you don't have an appreciation for the quality of some of its effects. It does a very nice job of what it does, and it fills in some shortcomings of vegas alone, of course if you don't need the effects or if you already have plug-ins capable of doing the same things then you wouldn't need to buy it (anyone with a good business sense knows this, as you have demonstrated you seem to have one as well because you saw that you had 3rd party plugs that were capable of producing the same results). If, however, you're going to put the plugs down (and the people who make/price them) perhaps you should take the time to gain an understanding of what you are putting down. The Velvet matter plug-ins provide several filters/effects that are of a very high quality with good control, and for a little over a hundred bux, that's nothing scoff at in the world of quality plug-ins.

Please don't take offense at what I've said, but it seems that you don't seem to have a grasp on what a good filter can cost.

Dave
Dreamline wrote on 10/1/2007, 5:36 PM
If I own Boris, how could I not know what a good filter costs...?
Boris comes with a lot of filters!

If you like the VM filters good, more power to you. They are not for me and I find their controls lame.