UPDATE-Nested Projects...Close, but not quite

Sol M. wrote on 11/25/2005, 10:48 PM

UPDATE: I talk too much! I got so caught up in explaining my reasoning that I went off on a tangent. Here's the short version, hope it makes more sense.

The Short Version

---------------------------------------

What?
Vegas needs multiple timelines in one project file

Why?
It would be very useful on any project consisting of more than one scene/segment (as each segment could have its own timeline). Never have to open another instance of Vegas, or close the current one just to work on a different scene that's part of the same project!

Reasons

1) Easier to manage a project
- Since all of the sequences for a project would be in a single Vegas project file, you wouldn't have to worry about misplacing scenes (compared to how each scene currently needs to be in its own veg file).
- Backup and sharing/collaboration would be simple because all you would need to do is copy ONE veg file (not one for every scene as it currently is).
- You could work on multiple timelines in the same instance of Vegas simply by clicking a tab. Several timelines could be open at the same time and you could jump between them with ease (think tabbed browsing in Firefox and why it's faster than having multiple windows/instances open)

2) Proven workflow
Just to name a few NLEs that let you create and work on multiple timelines in one project file:
- Final Cut Pro (since version 1!)
- Avid
- Adobe Premier Pro
- Adobe After Effects (I know, not an NLE, but the workflow still works)
- Ulead Media Studio Pro (wha!? how can it have this feature, but not Vegas!?)

I'm not saying that "just because everyone else is doing it, Vegas should too", cause we all know Vegas doesn't follow the same rules as all the others (one of the reasons I love Vegas!), but if there is a proven feature, it might be worth some consideration. It happens all the time...

- Mouse wheel timeline zooming/navigation in After Effects 6.5?
- Multi-codec clips on the same timeline in the latest version of Avid Xpress?

Wonder where they got those great ideas from? Hmmmm......

Does this make sense? Is there anyone coming from the other NLEs I mentioned that doesn't miss this feature? I've used all the others extensively, and I've chosen Vegas because when it comes to actually assembling the footage, it's hands-down the fastest editor I've ever used. Nevertheless, I severly miss this productivity booster, and would love to see multiple timelines implemented in Vegas (and no, this is NOT the same as nested project files, tho multiple timelines should of course be nestable).

---------------------------------------

The Long Version

On the timeline, I think Vegas is second to none in terms of workflow efficiency.
But, ever since I started using Vegas, I felt a major feature it was lacking was the ability to have multiple sequences/timelines in a single project file. Nearly all other NLEs in the same class as Vegas have this ability. FCP, Avid, Premier Pro, After Effects (OK, not an NLE, but still has multiple timelines), and even the latest version of Media Studio Pro (definitely not in the same class as Vegas) have the ability to create and work with multiple sequences within one project file. Vegas 6 introduced the ability to nest project files in other project files, which was a great enhancement over previous versions of Vegas. However, while similar to having multiple sequences in one project file, I think they missed the mark on this one.

For long form projects (features, documentaries, etc.), media management really becomes an important part in an efficient and productive workflow. The inclusion of the nested projects feature aids assemblage of projects consisting of multiple scenes that are more easily managed when worked on independently of other scenes. However, as all of these "scenes" are still separate files, certain issues introduce themselves:

Note: To avoid confusion, "production" will be use to refer to an overall project (all scenes/segments, etc. combined), while "Vegas project" will be use to refer to an actual project file created by Vegas consisting of one timeline.

1) All Vegas project files must be managed via Windows
The more complex a production is, the more Vegas project files will be necessary to effectively manage the assembly of all the scenes/segments that constitute the production. This means that for every "scene" or independent segment that a production contains, a new file must be created in Vegas and is managed mainly by the Windows operating system. Thus, for every scene, there will be another Vegas project file that can be moved, deleted, or otherwise modified outside of the Vegas environment. As a result, the larger and more complex a production is, the more chance there is that a Vegas project file will be misplaced, deleted, or corrupted. The point is that any scene or segment that is part of a larger production should be tied to that production, so that they all stay together. Leaving it to be managed by the operating system by means of directories and naming conventions (to keep track of all the Vegas project files that are part of the larger production) is cumbersome and detracts from Vegas' usefulness in project management.

2) Asset management becomes more cumbersome as a production becomes more complex
As each Vegas project file is part of a larger production, it is understandable that they should all have access to the same assets (source video, audio, etc.), as different scenes often make use of the same source media as other scenes. Currently, when new source media is brought into to be used in a production, it would have to be added to each and every Vegas project file so that it can be used in its timeline. Perhaps, then, one might suggest that assets be managed via the Explorer tab in Vegas, and directory structures be created to appropriately manage the assets. Of course, this would negate the usefulness of the Project media tab, as well as introducing possible issues with data integrity since the user would have directly manipulate the actual files rather than references to them. More importantly however, using the explorer tab for asset management would potentially be more cumbersome than it currently is depending on the type of production. Just one example would be a weekly episodic series, where each episode makes use of the same piece of source media. How would they efficiently manage source media specific to that episode as well as source media needed globally for the entire series without having to move up and down through many directories in the Windows file system?

3) Inefficient use of resources
If the need arises to access another sequence in a production, a user would currently need to either close the current project or open a new instance of Vegas and navigate through the windows file system to find the Vegas project file. Whether this method (i.e. concurrently running multiple instances of Vegas) is more or less efficient than it would be to have multiple timelines in one Vegas project file is uncertain, it is inefficient use of other resources, such as time. A user would have to go through several steps simply to access another sequence. Even though with time and practice a user would become proficient and fast and executing the necessary steps to open another instance of Vegas, navigate through the file system to the proper project file, and open it, it will never be as fast as simply selecting the timeline sequence from Project Media in the current Vegas instance and opening the timeline in a new tab. The user would have access to multiple sequences relating to a production without leaving the Vegas environment, and without even running another instance of Vegas.

In a world where a Vegas project file can contain multiple timelines/sequences, the user would virtually never have to leave the Vegas environment. This is the first and most important difference compared to how things currently need to be done. The only time a user would have to access the Windows file system is when source media is imported. Once this is done, the user can remain in Vegas and work on segment after segment without the need to "step out" of Vegas to access other parts (segments or source media) of the same production.

Secondly, having multiple timelines in one Vegas project file would cut down on redundant operations that the user currently needs to go through for each Vegas project file relating to a larger production. For example a user would currently need to add the same source media files to every Vegas project file that is part of a production whenever a new file is acquired as all source media for a production should be accessible to any segment relating to the production. The issue is not whether the source media will be needed for use in all segments or not, but knowledge of and access to all source media files available for a production is very important for numerous types of productions (features, documentaries, infomercials, etc.). If Vegas had the ability to access multiple timelines in one project file (and thus all segments could be contained in a single Vegas project file), then the user would only have to add source media files to the project a MAXIMUM of one time for the source media files to be accessible to any segment relating to the production.

While there are surely other areas for enhancement in Vegas, this is the main missing feature keeping me from personally using or recommending Vegas for any long or complex productions, which is a pity since Vegas has the most efficient workflow when it comes to working on the timeline compared to any other NLE, hands-down.

Sorry for the (extra) long post. This is something that I really see as lacking in Vegas and would love to see it implemented. I submitted this as a product suggestion and if you think it would enhance your production workflow I would highly recommend you do the same.

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 11/26/2005, 4:58 AM

Regarding comment 1) above, i've used systems that manage their own resources internally and, to be blunt, they stink! In no particular order, here are some of the many problems i see with this method:
- it's a new interface to learn
- it doesn't provide all the flexibility of Windows' explorer
- it makes sharing files between applications more difficult
- if something goes wrong it's nearly impossible to recover data
- corruption of the resource table is difficult to recover from due to lack of 3rd party tools
- integration with 3rd party applications often requires some export/import procedure that is often buggy or incomplete

Regarding 2), some good thoughtful planning of your folder structure for storing media can eliminate just about all the problems you list. On a personal note, i find the explorer tab to be much more useful than the project media tab anyway. It's probably just my personal style, but since i do use well planned project folders for my media before even launching Vegas, i find the project media tab to be somewhat redundant and useless.

Regarding 3), any newly acquired media must be added to a project it's used in somehow and at some point. In order to use media it must be placed on the timeline. You can do this from the project media window if it's in the project media tab which requires adding it to the project media first, or you can drag it from the explorer window to the timeline in one single step, which automatically adds it to the project media! Since one step has to be done anyway, it seems to me that having to do one step isn't a huge burden. I can't really see any huge advantage of some system that adds a new file to multiple project's media pools as that useful or time saving since one must still go through the editing process of actually using that media anyway. And, using a well thought out and appropriate folder structure from the beginning makes keeping track of and adding media a much simpler process.

Here's one of the biggest strengths of using Windows file management: let's say i've created a nice fancy title graphic in a 3rd party image editor. I then place that image in my Vegas project. Down the road a bit i realize i've got a spelling error in the title. I open the image in the 3rd party editor, make the change, and save it. The Vegas project now has the corrected version. No importing or exporting necessary, no media management issues at all. It's just done, that simply and easily. In fact, every Vegas project that uses that same title graphic is corrected as well, whether those projects are open or not. That's the power of using the OS' file mangement system.

jlafferty wrote on 11/26/2005, 4:36 PM

Three words: Copernic Desktop Search

I've given up on the Media Manager.

- jim

Sol M. wrote on 11/26/2005, 9:23 PM

I've updated my initial post because I realised it was far too wordy and not concise enough. Check out the short version for a better explanation.

Chienworks, I agree completely that your directory structure should be well-planned. However, what do you do when you need to access source media from another project (perhaps an earlier production, etc.)? If you rely on your directory structure in Windows and the Explorer tab in Vegas, you may find yourself having to navigate back and forth into different directories and on different disks just to access source files from other projects. It would not make sense to move the source files into your current project's directory structure because you would mess up the source file relationships for another project (especially if you're working on multiple projects concurrently).

A well thought out directory structure is not a replacement to proper project management within Vegas, but rather it is something that should be used in conjunction with Vegas' own asset management features.

Here's one of the biggest strengths of using Windows file management: let's say i've created a nice fancy title graphic in a 3rd party image editor. I then place that image in my Vegas project. Down the road a bit i realize i've got a spelling error in the title. I open the image in the 3rd party editor, make the change, and save it. The Vegas project now has the corrected version. No importing or exporting necessary, no media management issues at all. It's just done, that simply and easily. In fact, every Vegas project that uses that same title graphic is corrected as well, whether those projects are open or not. That's the power of using the OS' file mangement system.

I agree! But how is this differen than if the graphic was in your project media tab?

In my opinion, the best reason to use the Project Media tab in Vegas to organize your project's assets is that it not dependent on any physical directory structure. This means that any number of projects and users can access the same source files wherever they are located on the disk and organize them in the best way for that specific project. No other projects will be compromised by the way you set up your bins in the Project Media tab as they might be if you decided to change the directory structure in Windows to better suite your current project.

Furthermore, all files in the Project Media tab are actually just references to actual source files existing somewhere on the computer. This can be a very good thing. If you accidentally deleted your nice fancy title graphic from a bin in your Project Media tab, the actual file is still safe as you've only removed the reference to it in your current project. You want it back in your project? Just re-import it. Now imagine if the same happened if you were relying solely on the Explorer tab and your Windows directory structure. Now imagine if that graphic was used in several of your projects. I'd be hoping I was diligent in making regular backups :)

rmack350 wrote on 11/27/2005, 12:28 AM

I've had to crash my way into Flash these days. I spend much of my time wishing it was more like Vegas.

Despite all it's warts, Flash provides a good example of a program that can open multiple projects at once and let you copy and paste library items (vaguely similar to media pool). Not only can you open multiple files at once, you can create a project file that brings them all together. All the project file seems to do is provide you with a panel to open up members of the project, and to set some "Check-in, Check-out" options. This project file is entirely optional.

Flash does all this in a faily low impact way. If your project file were corrupted the individual FLA files would still be fine.

Vegas could do this pretty similarly. Have tabs somewhere in the interface to indicate all the open veg files. Tabs would be a good choice because they are very visible and you'd be more likely to close them when not in use. Also, have a separate "Project" file that keeps track of all the member veg files, media destinations, temp directories, the default project template for new veg files, etc. Maybe it would largely serve as a template from which all the member veg files would inherit settings.

Is all this neccessary? Well, it'd probably be helpful for long form projects and if the "project file" were optional then I don't see how this would really impact anyone who didn't want to use it.

One sure thing, though, is that users should still be able to open multiple instances of Vegas. So many people are used to it and happy with it that you'd want to keep that ability even if a single instance of Vegas could open mutliple files.

Rob Mack

fongaboo wrote on 11/27/2005, 12:40 AM

Here's an idea.. Why dont we take a tip from Firefox, and allow tabbing of project files within one instance of Vegas. Then maybe some method to save a group of projects, akin to how Firefox allows a bookmark of multiple tabs.

rmack350 wrote on 11/27/2005, 11:20 AM

Yeah, I think that's covered by what I was describing.

I have nothing against multiple instances of Vegas. I think it's a great feature and even if you could open multiplr Veg files in one instance the files should be separate files. I'm suggesting something more like an overall "glue" file to handle the whole bunch and collect presets for the set.

Rob Mack

Sol M. wrote on 11/27/2005, 4:19 PM

I'm suggesting something more like an overall "glue" file to handle the whole bunch and collect presets for the set.

I think that would make it overly complicated. You would still have to manage mutiple veg files (plus the "glue" file on top of that). What I'm proposing is for ONE veg file to have the ability to contain MULTIPLE timelines. The benefit would be that you would only have to keep track of a single veg file.

Of course, if we could have multiple timelines in one veg file but a user wanted to have a veg file for each scene, they most certainly could still do it that way. I just don't think many people would want to work that way ever again once they find out what it's like to have multiple timelines in one veg file :)

I'm not proposing that any features be removed from Vegas (i.e. multiple instances, etc.), but rather a new feature be added to be used in conjunction with the current featureset, not replacing those features we've grown to use and love.

rmack350 wrote on 11/27/2005, 7:28 PM

Suppose you had the option of starting a new "project" rather than a new veg file. If you had started (or opened) a project then I suppose every new veg file created in the project would inherit the project settings - things like the project template, media locations, custom filter settings and other custom templates.

I don't see any reason at all why you couldn't create individual veg files and have them all managed from an overall project file. It's actually just about the same as having individual media files all managed from one veg file.

Part of what we're talking about is having global management of veg files as well as local management. So each veg file could have local effects templates and the project file could contain global templates. Probably the project file would just import all the local settings of a veg file and make them global automatically.

I think that you would find a lot of resistance to the idea of having ONE veg file containing multiple timelines. Not because it's a bad idea but because users of this forum usually see something like this as automatically excluding an existing feature. I rarely see people here catching on to the idea that Vegas could do "this" and "that". They usually get into a panic because they assume Vegas would do "this" orthat. They don't want to lose "this" just to get "that". And rightly so.

Sol M. wrote on 11/28/2005, 3:51 PM

I agree that there may be some resistance by Vegas users who may not have had experience with other NLEs that have this feature (which is nearly every other NLE in this class). I just hope that the developers at Madison see the importance and usefulness of this feature and determine how to best implement it.

rmack350 wrote on 11/28/2005, 10:05 PM

I think people can have their cake and eat it too in this case. No reason you can't have both features coexisting peacefully. And that's the best way to introduce a feature.

Rob Mack

Sol M. wrote on 11/29/2005, 12:25 AM

No doubt. I don't think they're mutually exclusive in the slightest. No reason to take out a current feature just because you're adding a new one. That'd be like removing DV support when they introduced support for HDV! :)