Thanks SF - A story to tell for the bored or interested...

Kris_Blom wrote on 10/28/2000, 12:51 AM
I've had mixed emotions about posting this for a few days,
mostly because I have had about all I can take of reading
rhetoric from the likes of Irvin. But I have noticed that
lately SF is doing a good job of deleting his posts rather
rapidly. Now that it's the weekend he will probably sneak
a few in before the crew is back at it Monday... They will
probably even delete this as it is non-topical in the first
paragraph...

Anyway, I write code for a living and develop software
solutions for the U.S. Navy that are being deployed
globally. My leisure is in the form of writting songs and
playing in a rock band, that is until I discovered Vegas
Video.

Last year our band recorded a professional album (CD) at a
local studio (yes, of course they used ProTools and used
their 24 track mixing boards as coasters). Anyway, after
that project finished, I felt like we were not done yet.
Everyone loved the CD and it really helped us gain
exposure. But being the band's multimedia boy, I felt like
we needed to capture this rock and roll moment in time on
film. I set out to produce a full length feature film of
us on a shoe string budget. My goal was a
rockumentory/comedicmentory with 90 minutes of a
rollercoaster ride of highs and lows of music video and
behind the scenes type stuff with a lot of comedic fill,
with the number one objective of total quality video and
audio. Script and storyline would be secondary.

I first analyzed all the analog options and it became a no
brainer that this would have to be DV. So I went and
bought a couple of DV cameras and a Pinnacle DV500 package
and built a computer capable of launching the space
shuttle. But about 2 months into the project I was pulling
my hair out. Every single time I wanted to try something
new, I would have to wait for ever just to see if I liked
the results or not. Usually I didn't and realized that I
just wasted a whole fricking night for naught. Premiere
was bringing me down fast. The GUI is so outdated it's not
funny. The program is so slow it almost turned me off to
NLE. And I'm not talking about just rendering and preview
functions. Try moving events once you have more than a
dozen tracks. Try changing the timeline view after a few
tracks. Audio? What audio???? Did I miss something? I
can write a DOS program with better audio than Premiere.
But instead of giving up I started looking for something
else. Then came Medea Pro 6.0 O.K., enogh said about that
toy. I then found VV.

This program flat out rocks. Remember that I develop
programs for a living and I know a little something about
GUIs and intuitiveness. But they didn't stop there, I
laugh now everytime I read about hardware based realtime
processing! Ha. Realtime what? 1 second simple
desolves? OK, what about 20 to 30 tracks at a time of
video madness superimposed on CD quality audio???? With VV
I can do this. I can make broadcast quality music videos
with all the tracks I want, and most importantly, see the
results as I go. Yes there are skipped frames etc. in
preview mode, but gee, it sure the hell beats waiting for
hours to see a 10 second effect.

For all the pro audio guys, I can't really relate to all
your requests (bitches), as I didn't have to do any
multitrack audio recording. But I did have to do a lot of
punch in type stuff with standard sound cards to fix
dialogs and everything worked great for me. I do want to
get into some audio recording of my own and appreciate your
committment to stay on SF to get it the way you want.

So here I am. 8 months later with a full length 90 minute
feature film in hand (yes, I know it is not film). The
band is just in shock how it came out, and from the sneak
previews I have provided to others, I done did good. A 90
minute video rock and roll extravaganza all from one
program??? Is it possible? Yes... (Well, that's a bit of
a lie as I used Acid 2.0 for some interlude fill
occasionally :-})

Thank You SF. You have somehow built a total video and
audio solution into one package that not only works, but is
laid out better than any software I have seen (including my
own), is fast, is intuitive, and is reliable.

Because of VV, I have retired from the band and am now in
pursuit of happiness by starting a music video service at
little to no cost for the local talent in my city.

Now then SF: 1. Fix the audio stuff that Brian and others
are talking about. By the way, shouldn't there be some type
of mixing board GUI? Just a dumb question from a non audio
person. 2. Get busy with Pixelen and get us some more
effects. 3. Don't waste time building 1000 transition
effects; how many damn transitions does one need? The only
thing Premier has on you is actual video effects. Give me
more, but not at the cost of non real time preview. 4.
Last but not least: DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH THE GUI IN 3.0

Respectfully
A Very Happy VV Camper

Comments

karlc wrote on 10/29/2000, 12:51 PM
Excellent post, Kris.

As one of the audio guys who is concerned by the apparent video
centric nature of the successor to Vegas Pro (VV and VA appear to be
the exact same code set with the preponderance of the video code
disabled in the latter), I enjoyed reading your tale and heartily
agree with your assessment of the GUI.

My concern about audio issues is the unfortunate and direct result of
my experience with audio being treated like a red-haired step child
in most of the video productions I have been involved in over the
past twenty years.

Despite SF's protestations to the contrary, the buggy nature of the
VA/VV beast with regard to *audio* issues clearly indicates to me
that audio did indeed take a back seat to the video side for this
release ... IOW, here we go again.

Instead of the upgrade path that we Vegas Pro purchasers expected, it
can be argued quite forcefully by those of us who have been the
victims of the audio problems that the purchasers of VV/VA have
actually taken a step backwards with regard to audio *functionality*.

While I agree that it is nice to have both sets of features in one
code set, I find it quite disappointing to see the same subjugation,
so to speak, rear its head again in a program that had so much audio
potential.

I can say with certainty that we will not be able to absorb another
release of this nature in a commercial audio envrionment unless it is
very clear, from a user's perspective, that audio is garnering a more
equal share of the development effort.

KAC ...

Kris Blom wrote:
>>I've had mixed emotions about posting this for a few days,
Rednroll wrote on 10/29/2000, 4:39 PM
I totally agree with you Karl, I think what us audio guys
really wanted was a "Vegas Pro 2.0", which had the Track FX's and
envelope automation that would move with the waveforms. The only new
video function that I liked was being able to have more than one
video clip open in a project. I think that pretty much describes
Vegas Audio, but that's not what we got. Yes, I too think the Video
features are really cool and having them in the same program is nice,
but at the cost of the now slow responsiveness of my system, this
update was not worth it. I'm still in a delima, on whether to go
back to Vegas Pro 1.0b at the sacrafice of losing these features.
I'm hoping Sonic Foundry will come through for us all and let us have
our cake and eat it too. I downloaded the new Protools Free this
week, after hearing how quick it was, and was highly disappointed,
because it does not work on my system. I think it's because I have a
VIA chipset motherboard....whatever the reason PT is not an option
for me either. Nuendo, that has it's issues too with dongles. Logic
Audio Platinum, bad user interface. Cubase...good luck doing simple
editing and also a resource hog. Cakewalk Pro audio, there's
no "Pro" in that program, looks like a kids program. Cool edit Pro,
is not bad, but still not as swift as Vegas on user interface.
Samplitude also has bad user interface and sounds kinda grainy on my
system. Saw Pro, is not bad but they have their own method of
editing also, which makes it hard to navigate,but it's quick and
stable.

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>Excellent post, Kris.
>>
>>As one of the audio guys who is concerned by the apparent video
>>centric nature of the successor to Vegas Pro (VV and VA appear to
be
>>the exact same code set with the preponderance of the video code
>>disabled in the latter), I enjoyed reading your tale and heartily
>>agree with your assessment of the GUI.
>>
>>My concern about audio issues is the unfortunate and direct result
of
>>my experience with audio being treated like a red-haired step child
>>in most of the video productions I have been involved in over the
>>past twenty years.
>>
>>Despite SF's protestations to the contrary, the buggy nature of the
>>VA/VV beast with regard to *audio* issues clearly indicates to me
>>that audio did indeed take a back seat to the video side for this
>>release ... IOW, here we go again.
>>
>>Instead of the upgrade path that we Vegas Pro purchasers expected,
it
>>can be argued quite forcefully by those of us who have been the
>>victims of the audio problems that the purchasers of VV/VA have
>>actually taken a step backwards with regard to audio
*functionality*.
>>
>>While I agree that it is nice to have both sets of features in one
>>code set, I find it quite disappointing to see the same
subjugation,
>>so to speak, rear its head again in a program that had so much
audio
>>potential.
>>
>>I can say with certainty that we will not be able to absorb another
>>release of this nature in a commercial audio envrionment unless it
is
>>very clear, from a user's perspective, that audio is garnering a
more
>>equal share of the development effort.
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>Kris Blom wrote:
>>>>I've had mixed emotions about posting this for a few days,
>>