Whilst I agree about having a reference system and have said much the same myself as well as bemoaning the lack of turnkey systems I don't believe that is the answer to the current troubles. So far none of the issues seem related to hardware.
The ability to repo the problems relates more to the type of media, project settings etc. So far the only problem I've tried to repo and not been able to is the audio plops with meters reading +54dB. What is really quite troubling about this issue is how support have simply dismissed it, despite someone going to the troubling of producing a video clearly showing it happening.

Bob.

hi bob,

i'm not suggesting it as a cure - fcp is on a 'dedicated' hardware / os system and it has problems / bugs too, but more a 'direction' as to what hardware is 'advisable', ie.what it's been tested on, and it's configuration relative to os bit versions.

there is no doubt (in my mind at least!) that media is probably the single biggest 'problem' in vegas, that's why i try to run a vegas happy tl - and it seems to work most of the time.

i'm with jack in as much as i'm over 60 now - i've had it with building my own systems, finding incompatibilities where there shouldn't be any, and generally losing hair (HA!) over 'problems' that seem to lay in between software and hardware in a sort of no-mans land of electronic misinformation.

all that said, i'm happy enough with my new system and the way 9a has been running. YES, there is the text problem, no 1280x720 mp4 in mainconcept, occasional pops on my tl for no explicable reason, etc., etc., but i still prefer it over all the other nle's i've used in the past.

leslie

I've made several 1280x720 MP4s both 24p and 30p. Just fill in the screen size.

hi bob,

i get an error - out of memory.... don't get it in 8. (pal)

sony codec works ok at same res.

Since Vegas 6, the problem Vegas has had has been terrible beta testing whereby PAYING punters are finding more faults than testers themselves.
Where glitchy and defective software is released on the onus that a fix will be found within 12months or whenever the new version is released... (and usually is fixed 99% of the time)...
I could go on about certain other beta testing elements such as those who abuse the priviledge for their own agenda, but in a nutshell, if beta testers did their job, then these issues wouldnt exist.
And if SCS DONT take action on a fault a Beta tester has raised, then boo for SCS.

As it stands, Ive been messing with about 4 other NLE's to simply deal with certain issues were facing with Vegas, however we still keep coming back to it, simply because of its relative speed within the timeline.
As a whole Vegas works a treat, however alot needs to be done to in regard to testing and R&D.
Lets face it, nothing Sony does now in regard to vegas is a secret. Its already been done as far as we can see and has also been bettered by the likes of CS integration of HW GFX cards, as well as Matrox integration. GV have their edius system which has been around for a considerable amount of time (Edius SP is sittign here collecting dust) and Avid (be it broadcast or prosumer Liquid) has stagnated to a point of mosquitoes dying.

Nothing is new with Vegas and hasnt been since version 6 (introduction of multithreaded rendering and media manager)...and even if it was new, it wouldnt shake anyones feathers.
Nowadays, anything new from SCS is a simple "yeah ok"

Its all been done before..

as for minimum spec, Considering Vegas has been sold as an open free spec app, i dont see how it could improve peoples experience. Instead, it would sway people into making misinformed decisions based on recomendations.
I can easily tell u Vegas 9 screams with HDV on my Toshiba laptop, but if Acer decide to "sponsor" a marketing pitch, then Acer would be touted as the bees knees... when those who dont knwo may end up with a fairly decent system THEN, but for future prospects who knows...
Buyers should KNOW their spec and KNOW what to look out for (ie GFX card settings for use with MB2 <as an example>)
I knwo its been doen to death with Avid and other NLE systems, however most of these are hardware dependant, hardware optional, or sponsored turnkey systems

>>>I've worked with computer hardware and software since 1979, but at this point in my life and professional career I really don't have the the time or inclination to fool around trying to get various iterations of software to work.<<<

Ditto

*just vote with your pocket book. wif you bought 9, don't buy 10. They'll either fix the issues or go out of business. Either way won't be bad, will it? A company that doesn't make a good product deserves to go out of business.

*The idea of recommended software has come up quite a few times. When people complained of Vegas 8 issues that I couldn't reproduce, let alone have almost no issues, I said "build what I have, that works." People didn't want to, they wanted the hardware THEY like. So I don't see how if sony said "build specs by blah-blah-blah" would make anyone happy. Once again, I'd like to point out a good majority of the people in this thread have intel/nvidia combo's in their system specs. I don't. I don't have Vegas 9 (installed the demo to help confirm something between that & Vegas 8, but that's it), so I can't say about amd/ati & 9, but it definitely seemed better with 8. But everyone recommends intel cpu's because of their speed here, but most report issues. Not starting an argument, just pointing out that nobody's going to change what hardware they like any time soon... I'm not switching to intel any time soon, that's for sure.

"i'm just wondering what people think about sony putting up an 'optimum' system specs (32 and 64 bit) - hardware on which they've tested this that and the other,"

I would agree on some sort of referenced or certified system as well, but I don't think it would be the full answer. I think the complete answer would do little more than stifle Vegas which... would be to have a single certified codec that Vegas uses like MC or FCP does. There would be no such thing as native avchd or red editing. Everything would get transcribed to this one certified codec and then imported. What a pain in the ass that would be!

As I said in another post, bugs are a pain and nobody wants them (including myself) but due to the rapidly changing times and technologies these programs have become fairly complex beasts to the point of almost becoming alive. Couple that with the simple fact that bug hunting/killing costs money and what you end up with is having (to a certain extent) to rely on your customers for a bit of beta testing.... either that or a SUBSTANTIAL increase in the ticket price (which if you'll notice, Sony hasn't done)

Now one can argue weather or not "customer beta testing" is a fair thing to do until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that they're ALL doing it now. Adobe.... divide frame.... cineform....etc.

From my point of view.... so long as I can continue to get Vegas upgrades at a price that doesn't break the bank and Vegas continues to offer the kind of flexibility it does.... then hey.... I'll gladly put forth my share of elbow grease in bug exterminations.

"would be to have a single certified codec that Vegas uses like MC or FCP does"

What are you talking about?
Both have their own preferred inhouse developed codec but support most other codecs.

Bob.

"Both have their own preferred inhouse developed codec but support most other codecs."

MC and FCP both support native avchd??? That's certainly a new one on me! I can import a MTS 5.1 surround clip directly to the time line??

There are things that Vegas can do that MC and FCP simply can't do...now weather you think these things are "pro-ish" or not is kind of a moot point... the point is they come at a cost. They drive the level of complication up (hence the increase in bugs )

"single certified codec"

Which single certified codec, please name it.

Bob.

The Avid DNxHD36 codec (and it's respective levels).... and Apple's pro res codec.

Look... I answered your question. You said these products can handle most other codecs. They can't. I can't throw a raw avchd clip on a mc or fcp time line. I can't natively import a mts 5.1 surround file to either one of these without a whole pile of converting a fritzing around before hand. I can use the Vegas trimmer on a 5.1 surround clip and I can't do that in MC or FCP Now is this a fact or not? Does adding these kinds of powers to Vegas raise its level of complication or not?

I should also point out that Adobe is TRYING to follow this "native import" ideology as well (although I don't think they're doing it at as reliably as SCS) and PP is got its own fairly serious list of bugs too.

"You said these products can handle most other codecs"

But they can. We've certainly tested AVCHD in FCP and that was not even the latest version. I'm hard pressed to thing of anything it cannot handle. I can think of heaps of things that FCP and MC can handle that Vegas cannot handle, like OMF and BWF. Probably more to the point too is that these applications can preserve source timecode for matchback in an online suite and good luck doing that with Vegas.


"Does adding these kinds of powers to Vegas raise its level of complication or not? "

No, it does not. It's the codecs job to handle encoding and decoding the streams passed to it.

More to the point good code is modular. That means the complexities in one module do not spill over into another. It means each module can be tested independantly of the others. It's also why project management is such a big cost to good software development.

Certainly none of the current crop of Vegas problems seem to have anything to do with the complexities of the supported codecs. Rather I'm left with the unsettling feeling that there's a lot of spaghetti code inside of Vegas, that's how you get into the problem of fixing one bug and creating two more.

Bob.

speaking of codecs, consider most of these HW dependant NLEs DO run specific codecs, such as Matrox (ie matrox RTx and RT2 systems WONT run RT files NOT captured within those specific codecs) in addition, youve got GV/Canopus YUV locked into Canopus Storm2 and SP systems and the like... etc etc

the point however is the fact Vegas ISNT codec specific... which can be a good and bad thing.. Personally, i think if sony worked on a HW based SonyYUV RT unit, i'd definately invest... but thats me... i WOULDNT invest if their progressive support fails to evovle though...
Im sorry but 7years of using Vegas since V3/4 without a change to the engine is pathetic IMO

Goin back to system specs, i recall a couple of years ago some huge announcement was gonna happen with Vegas and AMD and ATi... blah blah.. nada, nothing zilch..

Like i said, Vegas hasnt changed since V6, i dont see it changing again anytime soon...

speaking of codecs as Bob has so detailed, consider the fact that FCP is tooled for the editor on ALL walks of life...
Vegas itself, by restricting codec access (DVCPRoHD, DV50 outside of QT, etc) is putting and LEAVING Vegas in a category which will always remain overlooked by the professional houses.
If it cannot take in a codec, let alone manage it accordingly (take AVCHD as an example... 20frame lag time is a lil nuts if u ask me) then it can never be taken seriously.

Many moons ago when Pinnacle were touting background rendering in liquid, talk of BG rendering was also put into place about Vegas. Talk is cheap and nothing eventuated, however considering the lowly MainConcept Main Actor from 5yrs ago (an NLE MC whipped up) DID pull off BG rendering effectively, it too didnt lead anywhere.. Was this a codec thing?? No... its a support vs buyer thing...
If Vgas had BG rendering, do u think playback problems would exist? Do u think it would drop frames whenever u throw on a filter? Would u be embaressed to bring a client to view a preliminary edit of their work? Or woud u have to explain "oh its only dropping frames as its not rendered yet" God knows how many times ive had to say THAT line...

No, Vegas and its entire machine (ie SCS internals, marketing, R&D and sales (ie beta) need a rehaul...

"But they can. We've certainly tested AVCHD in FCP and that was not even the latest version.
So you're telling me that I can take a 5.1 surround MTS clip and throw it on a FCP or MC time line and it will open up up and display the video and all 6 audio tracks, ready for editing.
I KNOW you're wrong Bob and I would need to see some proof otherwise

"No, it does not. It's the codecs job to handle encoding and decoding the streams passed to it.'
Again Bob I think you're wrong. First there is nothing "modular" about introducing a 5.1 surround clip on a time line the video decoder must operate, the 5.1 audio decoder must work in conjunction, the trimmer must handle the 5.1.... yadda yadda... And if you don't think that adding these kinds of things raises a program's level of complication then I got a bridge to sell ya.

But I'm not going to get into an argument with you over this. You're certainly entitled to your point of view.... as am I/ What I do see happening here (as usual) is another tangent being developed so I'll stop here.

BTW, BG rendering was VERY successful on single core CPUS, can you imagin if you have one dedicated drive simply to manage BG renders, while one thread of your CPU is allocated for that task, all teh while you continue to wrk on the other 3 cores and source drives...

the effectiveness of that alone would save countless hours in post production and alleviate the need for any GFX card based filter or codec management....

Even on a quad core, rendering 1080p takes a considerable amount of time. IMagine most of that rendering happening while you work.. then to have those segments (lets say every 5 minutes of a project or however long the editor wants the BG renders to update) a new file is made... lets say you want to go back to the 7th minute after youve reviewed the piece for 97minutes...
and within that first 7th minute, theres a colour tweak you need to do...

Bang, theres your master file, in realtime, tweaked, and that 5 to 10 minute BG render bracket renders THAT PART of that 7minutes ONLY...
This is SMARTER than smartrendering, because smartrendering ONLY works on the nle...nowhere else.. hell DVDA doesnt even accept smartrendered MPGs....

Im yet to have a smartrendered MPG2 or M2t playback without failing outside a PC environment... Try a smartrendered M2t on a PS3, and watch it fail... ...

time to draw the line you say???
Lets jsut say that I agree with you and the line itself is so fuzzy right now, it isnt funny.. .

SCS have failed on so many levels its laughable.. they seem to think Vegas exists only to sell as an aside to their camera gear...
Who needs AVCHD support when the bugger wont even play back in full framerate at full res... Who needs 1080p when slowmotion looks like crap?

Give us a WORKING TOOL and then worry about the extras...

Right... this (as I knew it would) has just turned into yet another STUPID scs bashing thread with a bunch of STUPID comments.... I'm outta here.

Hows it stupid???

Its not bashing anyone. Its clearly stating facts which we have seen occur over the last 5 or so years. Its comparing elements of this product to other elements already in play from its competitors as well as explainign how and why elements may or may not work within the SCS scheme of things.

Stupid comments??? I dont think so... Theyre informative and detailed.
if you think its stupid, maybe you need to take your blinders off and start looking outside the square that is Vegas and SCS, and admit the fact that there are things that SCS could do better.
The OP suggesting specs, while others suggesting codec management etc etc... others discussing HW etc etc

There are many elements which can be discussed on a variety of levels which is what were doing here.... i dont see there being a problem unless you go out of your way to find one.
If your THAT sensitive about comments pertaining to SCS or its products all I can say is that toughen up coz this is polite compared to what ive heard others say about SCS and Vegas... especially in higher end markets where teh money really does speak...

Lets face it, OP suggested a tactic SCS could use to ensure a problem free and efficient workflow. I dont see any other post which deviated from that subject matter... if you do, then maybe youre looking to much into it and taking things a lil too personally?? I dunno. to each their own I say...