Suggestion for Wider Adoption of Vegas


DGates wrote on 4/18/2008, 4:04 PM
Bragging rights are one thing, and the numbers can certainly be skewed to favor one over another. However, as I mentioned before, you won't find Vegas being taught at any film school or college film/TV program. You will find FCP being implemented alongside Avid in more and more programs.

That's more than bragging, and shows the realities of what professionals are really using now and in the future.
John_Cline wrote on 4/18/2008, 4:20 PM
I have Avid Media Composer, Premiere and Vegas. I actually use Vegas, Avid and Premiere were a waste of money.

Avid is the defacto NLE standard, in part, because they were first. FCP is popular because the MAC cult includes a lot of video editors and they need something to run on their Macs. Vegas has a large enough installed base for Sony to continue its development. I'm fine with that. I also don't want everyone to own the same kind of car that I drive.
DGates wrote on 4/18/2008, 4:27 PM
I'm fine with that. I also don't want everyone to own the same kind of car that I drive.

blink3times wrote on 4/18/2008, 4:48 PM
"It's not straying from the topic, John. There will not be a wider adoption of Vegas, now or in the future.

I TOTALLY disagree with that.

Sony IS interested in seeing expansion... and it shows. The Vegas deals all over the place... the NAB attendance.... vegas 64 bit... the blu ray upgrade....etc. They're not exactly doing this because they simply have too much time on their hands. They WANT expansion.... and they're getting it. According to the NAB announcements, Vegas usage is up 50%
DGates wrote on 4/18/2008, 4:51 PM
What Sony says and what the actual facts are may be two different things.

They've certainly dropped the ball marketing-wise since they bought Vegas. If they're honestly serious about it now, then good for them.
blink3times wrote on 4/18/2008, 5:07 PM
Dropped the ball??? Are you kidding me!?!

I have a few different NLE's myself, and of the ones I have, Sony has gone A LOT further in advertising, and awareness campaigns. Maybe they can do more... but from where I'm sitting... they've gone MUCH further than others.

Sony Vegas is becoming a house-hold name in some of the less known areas and or the camcorders section of the AVS forums. The word IS getting out. And we now have Avid liquid users looking this way.

It happening.... I just don't think you're seeing it.
John_Cline wrote on 4/18/2008, 5:08 PM
"They've certainly dropped the ball marketing-wise since they bought Vegas."

If it weren't for Sony, Vegas would have been a distant memory, they have certainly done a better job of marketing than did Sonic Foundry. There were also 1500 people at the SCS party at NAB, so it seems like somebody has heard of Vegas.

For those of you that don't think Sony is doing enough to promote Vegas, EXACTLY what would you do? Consider that NLEs are a lot like word processors, one uses what they know and it's very difficult to get them to change.
farss wrote on 4/18/2008, 5:20 PM
No I haven't "switched".
I still earn the money that keeps me able to enjoy this business with Vegas. At the moment I'm using V7.0d to edit one XDCAM project, one HD / SD graphics program and another plain DV project. I have V8 but I find it simply too unreliable. Not a big issue for me in reality. So long as I can get done what needs to be done with 7.0d I'm happy. Not to say that I'm not concerned for the future of Vegas and how things seem to have taken a turn for the worse.

I think this market and many of the people in it are slightly nuts. There's far too much hype and BS. No one cares what saw a carpenter uses.

However I also have CS3. For the money you do get a lot in that box. PPro is a much heavier NLE than Vegas. It needs more and uses all of it. For what I'm using it for you do need serious hardware. Reason I bought into it is we've bought the SI-2K camera. Vegas simply cannot handle that kind of data. Vegas still seems stuck in 8 bit RGB despite the 32bit feature in V8 Pro. With PPro 10bit YUV just works. With PPro and AE 10bit Log works. Even FCP has issues doing that.

Is PPro more friendly than Vegas?

In some ways way more, in others it could drive you nuts. It's based on a traditional video editor. I've had no problem getting my head around it. Installed it, dropped some 2K video onto the T/L and edited it just like I would in Vegas. However to really start using it fully it is more complex than Vegas. Some of the things that are dead simple in Vegas, PPro makes really difficult for you. But then again if you're editing a movie, by that I mean something with a serious budget, crew, a script, shot lists etc, etc. you most likely will not be doing any of the things that PPro doesn't do so well.

So no, I haven't switched, I've just expanded sideways.

Coursedesign wrote on 4/18/2008, 8:13 PM
Amen to that.

I just bought Avid Media Composer for one feature only.

There are actually several (a few) good things in the new MC that stand out, but they are generally not worth learning a new NLE for.

Except ScriptSync. That is a real time saver, as it allows you to work 25-30 times faster with scripted long form material.

I also have FCP with Motion etc., and sometimes that is just faster and easier than anything else.

And I have PP etc. as part of an Adobe Master Collection, it also definitely has some strong points (although 10-bit works perfectly in FCP since a long time).

For everything else where reasonably possible, I prefer Vegas.


Because of its UI paradigm that I think we will see in other NLEs someday also. It just rocks, it feels very intuitive, and the scripting is awesome (Ultimate S Pro is a particularly awesome NLE tool that can tempt a lot of switchers).

deusx wrote on 4/18/2008, 8:57 PM
>>>The last I heard, there were around 400,000 Vegas licences in Europe alone. <<<

I heard even more, but it's futile arguing with these guys.
There are probably more chinese using cracked versions of Vegas than there are Mac users worldwide.

They will believe Apple's numbers ( which are fake by the way ) and call Sony's claims manure, without really checking either one. Even if you don't have access to information like I do, some simple math is enough to prove Apple is lying ( as usual ) .

They will cling on to that Cold Mountain deal ( he has a book to sell ) , and falsely add movies like 300 and Letters from IwoJima to FCP edited movies, and the list just goes on. Even Cold Mountain used AVID too. If you only cut on FCP, but have to finish on AVID it does not count. How do you think they did the sound? Isn't that part of a movie, and I can guarantee you FCP had nothing to do with it.

This is the same company that claimed for years nonsense like 5 x faster than any intel, and these are the same people who tried to convince me of that back then. Facts are even in professional environments, twice as many studios use PCs over Macs ( most have both ) , and FCP number of liceenses is nowhere near Apple's claims. They count every single upgrade as a license, so somebody who bought version 1-6 counts as 6 licenses. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

>>>>Desux is just a sniveling fanboy. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are we able to set a person on ignore in this forum? That would be a handy tool.<<<<

It's right next to where you checked: "Ignore common sense"

It's possible some movies were cut with FCP, but for the final time AVID is still the king in Hollywood, and if you count the movies that were done with FCP all the way, without using any AVID product, you'll most likely get ZERO.
Coursedesign wrote on 4/18/2008, 10:15 PM
More bad news!

The Cohen brothers are lying too!

They described in an interview a few weeks ago how they were sharing their editing work between them, with two FCP systems accessing a shared server, with the brother who did the rough cuts ringing a bell when he was done with each part, at which time the other brother knew there was another scene ready for him to polish.

They claimed to be using 100% FCP, but since they were using Macs, they were obviously lying every time they opened their mouths.

They will believe Apple's numbers ( which are fake by the way ) and call Sony's claims manure, without really checking either one.

I sure wish I had access to inside information like you do. With that, I wouldn't have to go by their official statements.

Btw, where do you get this information?

And which studios are you counting to get that "twice as many studios use PCs over Mac"? I was surprised, not only because it doesn't fit my own observations at many studios in Hollywood, but also because many Avid systems still run on Macs.

If you only cut on FCP, but have to finish on AVID it does not count. How do you think they did the sound?

Do you mean that if an FCP editor does 100% of the picture editing and then hands off to a sound department that uses Protools, "the film is cut on Avid?"

Be sure to mention this in your footnotes when you are writing about editing platforms.
deusx wrote on 4/18/2008, 10:36 PM
>>>The Cohen brothers are lying too!<<

no, they are not lying, but they are not a big hollywood studio either, and if anybody paid attention 90% AVID means there are some features edited with other editors. I never said 100%.

Well, if FCP cannot handle audio, I'm sorry, to me, it's not a complete package. That is exactly why I use Vegas, It is a complete tool that can do both and can do it better.

>>>And which studios are you counting to get that "twice as many studios use PCs over Mac"?<<

In this context I was reffering to all studios or shops , not just Hollywood, but tv, all video facilities. When it comes to Hollywood only, it's AVID land, there is no discussion there ( whether mac or PC ).

Do some research, these stats are not difficult to find.

>>>Do you mean that if an FCP editor does 100% of the picture editing and then hands off to a sound department that uses Protools, "the film is cut on Avid?"<<<

In cases like 300 and Letters from IwoJIma, where it's claimed that it was edited on FCP, not even video was edited on FCP. Like I said fcp was used to capture some hdv footage, some rough cuts may have been done for 300, but both of those were edited on AVID, and it's the same case with a lot of the movies that were supposedly edited with FCP.
DGates wrote on 4/18/2008, 10:40 PM
Btw, where do you get this information?

Probably the person he sees in the mirror.

C-design, it's pointless going back and forth with Desux. While we can say good and bad things about Vegas and FCP, he can only trash Apple's product and heap praise on Vegas. That's the definition of a fanboy.

He's simply a hobbyist with a chip on his shoulders, and we should treat him as such.

deusx wrote on 4/18/2008, 10:49 PM
>>>He's simply a hobbyist with a chip on his shoulders, and we should treat him as such.<<<

It's nice to have a hobby that enables you to work for yourself from anywhere on the planet.

Lets talk about you and the fact that you lie and do not back up even a single claim of yours?

Rent Letters from Iwo JIma and 300 and look at the credits. Those are two from your list I know for certain were edited on AVID. I'm sure if I bothered to check I'd find more. Fact is you just resort to name calling and haven't backed up a single claim of yours.

Then prove Sony's claims are manure as you called it.
MarkFoley wrote on 4/19/2008, 2:29 AM
These posts can be humorous at times....

I could care less who uses/not uses Vegas....and I would be just as happy if I was the only user:

1. I have a business
2. I use Vegas
3. It makes me money...period
Dan Sherman wrote on 4/19/2008, 5:08 AM
I think you're more advanced than me in this business, but it's still how I make my living too.
We're about to embark on our first HD project which will be shot with the Panasonic HVX200 using P2 cards. That's one learning curve.
The other is editing HD in Vegas.
Is this NLE up to it?
If not, then the only option is to farm out the editing as I don't have time to learn FCP or PPro.
If Vegas can cut it, (or if I can cut in on Vegas?) where would I go for the definitive primer?
Over the DVX User now to find out how to run the HVX200!!!
Take care

busterkeaton wrote on 4/19/2008, 5:53 AM
Lots of folks have been editing various flavors of HD in Vegas for years.

DVX User has a whole Vegas section and when you get there you'll find tons of folks using the HVX200 with Vegas.

Vegas does not support the HVX200 MXF files natively. However, there is a proven workflow with a plugin called Raylight. It's $200.
Real HD - Real Time - RAYLIGHT

farss wrote on 4/19/2008, 7:09 AM
No experience with the HVX200, don't know why anyone would still shoot with one now the EX1/3 is out. Still, each to his own.

If you're cutting a longform project in any NLE my best advice is to not try to do it all in the one project, especially with HD. Keeping things manageable makes life easier for the NLE and you.

craftech wrote on 4/19/2008, 7:28 AM
Some of you are making the discussion more complicated than it really is. Some are not. Let me see if I can put it back on message.

1. Premise: Any company would like more sales.

2. Fact: FCP, Adobe, and now Avid work on MAC platforms.

3. Why not Sony Vegas?

farss wrote on 4/19/2008, 8:17 AM
Avid has always been dual platform.
Adobe was, then wasn't and now has gone back to both. Rumour has it that they've still got some wrinkles to iron out on OSX.
Well FCP, which was originally developed my Macromedia I don't know. Good grief, it might have started out life as a PC app.
You forgot to mention Media 100.

FCP would seem to be one of the central drivers of OSX sales although the largest supplier of Apple software is Microsoft, go figure.

There's already quite a few suppliers of NLEs for OSX, would another player have a show at gaining any traction?

I suspect once your under OSX you're stuck in Quicktime land. That's not a good thing at all. QT has many limitations and of late quite a few stuff ups as well.

Doing the port involves more than just the cost of the coding. You've then got two platforms to support. SCS has products other than Vegas. Would seem daft to only port Vegas and not SF and Acid and Cinescore.

Oddly enough latest series of articles from COW is about running Windoz for MAc users. Lots of good examples of why even a diehard Macolite should also run Windoz.

Overall in my view precious little to gain from an OSX port in terms of sales. Really , really, hard to get people to switch NLEs. If you were so pissed off with FCP that you'd make a switch you'd probably not baulk at using Windoz anyway.

Much bigger problem I see is the market is pretty saturated. I suspect Apple didn't show at NAB in part because they figured there was not many left to make a sale to. If you were going to buy you had already. Also the industry is in decline anyway. Last years growth in the movie business 4%. For games 46%. Marketing dollars are leaving TV and heading elsewhere as well.

Look at it in cold hard dollars. The OSX port has got to add 50% cost from the bottom line, if not a lot more. That's an ongoing cost too. Would they recoup enough from added sales to cover that, I really doubt it.

craftech wrote on 4/19/2008, 8:38 AM
Most of you probably get the free publication Event DV. While it deals with all platforms for the Event videography business, after reading it since it came out I can safely say that most of the articles deal with Final Cut.

busterkeaton wrote on 4/19/2008, 1:29 PM
1. Premise: Any company would like more sales.

Your premise is wrong. It should be any company would like more profits.

If creating a Mac version costs $2 million, but sales only bring back $200,000, is that worth it?

As has been pointed out, how big is the market for a new NLE on the Mac Platform? How many FCP users would make the switch? Abobe had a hook to get back to the MAC market, great integration with Photoshop and After Effects. If you mainly did motion graphics, that integration might be enough of a reason to switch.
TimTyler wrote on 4/19/2008, 3:28 PM
> after reading it since it came out I can safely say
> that most of the articles deal with Final Cut.

That's exactly why I cancelled my subscripton. Same thing with "Studio" magazine (or something like that)

I got the feeling that those mags are just mouthpieces for Apple.
Terje wrote on 4/19/2008, 4:21 PM
1. Premise: Any company would like more sales.

BZZT! Wrong. Any company would like more profit. If Sony spends $X on developing Vegas for Mac, and another $Y supporting it, Sony wants not just more sales, but enough sales to offset the X and the Y. The development cost for Sony would be significant, the chance of massive penetration is minuscule given the entrenched competition. I can't see how this is a winning proposition for Sony.

2. Fact: FCP, Adobe, and now Avid work on MAC platforms.

FCP is a given. Adobe has to port to Apple given the FCP competition and the danger that they might lose customers to the platform. The core of Adobe was also written cross-platform so the cost of porting is less than it would be for Vegas. Avid is in the same boat as Adobe.

Vegas is probably mainly competing against Premiere in this market, and that only on the PC platform. There is no compelling reason for Sony to port across.

3. Why not Sony Vegas?

Because it would be a bad business decision.