Vegas and FCP working together... slightly OT

FullCircle wrote on 6/26/2006, 2:18 PM
Hi all..
i've been reading a lot of posts -been a while- and I see many different opinions about the position of Vegas.
Example: http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=451513

Now I make a living from editing with Vegas, making tv, commercials, presentations etc. To become a bigger player in the broadcast market here the little Netherlands, I need to expand my customerbase and I decided to invest in Final Cut Pro, running an a new Macbook pro.

I don't want to get into any comparison/discussions etc about what's better about Vegas or FCP. What I DO like to know is how some of you - I know there are people that use both - are integrating Vegas and FCP.

Do you for instance use Vegas for offline and FCP for online edits?
Do you use the same captured media in both programs or do you have to convert anything?
What things do you use from FCP and what things do you do in Vegas for a good workflow?
Any other tips?

Please don't misunderstand me.. I don't want to get into differences, I want to see how these progams can be combined / complementary.

thanks
Mark

Comments

Sol M. wrote on 6/26/2006, 8:57 PM
What is it exactly that you want to do? IMHO, neither NLE can do something the other cannot (though one may be faster/better suited to certain tasks compared to the other). So using them together on one project is kind of a foreign idea to me.

I can't think of any reason why you'd offline in Vegas and then do the online edit in FCP (or vice-versa). What would you gain from having to change your workflow mid-project?

The way I see it, they're both capable NLEs, and as such, do not really complement each other because both can do the same thing equally as well.

Now, if you're wanting to share work with others (who might be using FCP), then it would be important to know whether work done in Vegas can be continued in FCP. The answer is yes (sort of). Vegas can export to AAF which can be imported into FCP using Pro Import FCP by Automatic Duck. I haven't personally tested the XML import/export functionality for either NLE, but from what I've heard, they don't seem to be compatible (but don't take my word for it).

I've used both Vegas and FCP for some time now (started with FCP and then added Vegas), and I can't say I've ever needed to go from one NLE to the other to complete an edit. Perhaps a conversion in the end to another file format at most. I think it would be counter-productive to jump from one NLE to another during a project. I pretty much decide what NLE I'm going to use at the beginning of a project and use that NLE through to completion.
Coursedesign wrote on 6/26/2006, 9:30 PM
IMHO, neither NLE can do something the other cannot

FCP works properly with 10-bit video such as DigiBeta, F900, etc. footage. Vegas can't work with this without giving up the extra bits for lost.

FCP also works properly with the latest drivers for Decklink and AJA cards, where Vegas is about 10 versions behind on the DL and AJA is not supported.

FCP is convenient for use with Motion (this can really speed things up), and with the help of Automatic Duck, it can work with outside data that Vegas can't handle.

Correspondingly, for simple audio work, Vegas can't be beat.

If you can use Ultimate S etc. scripts, you can work very quickly in Vegas.

Lots more, only you can decide what's worthwhile.

rmack350 wrote on 6/26/2006, 9:32 PM
What drives the decision to use one NLE or another?

Rob Mack
GlennChan wrote on 6/26/2006, 10:02 PM
My guess:
A- What the client wants.
B- Whatever is the most productive.
C- Quality.
D- Whichever option is cheapest. Not much of an issue unless you're dealing with suites with hundreds of thousands of dollars of gear in it... in which case, you don't want to tie up your better suites or you may want to rent something cheaper.
FullCircle wrote on 6/27/2006, 1:58 AM
Thanks for your answers so far.. The 10-bit thing is an important one. Basically I can probably do some jobs for production houses that use only FCP. That's why I want to learn it. If they capture footage for me on a harddrive I'd like to be able to edit that in my own office.
Especially with 10 bit material I can't do anything for them with Vegas only.

I could also imagine something like editing (H)DV projects in Vegas, and use motion (or other nice things from FCP) to make the result even better. In such a case, both NLE's are helping each other.
Just like doing a FCP project and quickly use Vegas to do fast and great audio-stuff for that project.
Maybe that's all bullshit, but if not they could be making each other stronger, right?

mark
farss wrote on 6/27/2006, 2:24 AM
If you want to work with 10 bit why FCP?

PPro seems to be way ahead of FCP in this field at the moment.

Bob.
FullCircle wrote on 6/27/2006, 2:32 AM
Might be, but for now I choose this because these people have FCP jobs to do..
Sol M. wrote on 6/27/2006, 12:36 PM
Yes, FCP can handle 10-bit (which is good if you need this AND if you've got the hardware to ingest/run it).

And yes, Vegas can do things that FCP can't.

My point was not to make a feature-by-feature comparison of what one NLE can do and the other cannot, but to reiterate that both NLEs are capable in their own right.

FullCircle's question was how to make Vegas and FCP work together.

If you need work with 10-bit material, why not just do the whole edit on FCP? If you've got both, I'd suggest using the best tool for the job at hand.

Both a ball peen hammer and a claw hammer are both fairly capable at doing their main function (i.e. hammering stuff), but one or the other may be better suited to more specialized things (e.g. pulling out nails). If you know what the job requires, there's really no point in bringing out both tools if you know one will be better suited to do the whole job on its own.

If you're saying that you'd like to be able to move back and forth between NLEs because you work faster on Vegas (workflow, scripts, etc.), then I'd say spend a little more time with FCP. Getting up and running on any new system takes a bit of getting used to. But in time, you may find that you can edit just as fast on FCP as you can on Vegas (well, maybe not, I've been using Vegas less than half as long as FCP but I still feel I can edit faster with Vegas).

In the example of a 10-bit project, the time it would take to conform/compress the footage to a format usable in Vegas, perform the offline edit, export to AAF, reimport into FCP, find and fix any inconsistencies, reconnect the sequence to the 10-bit footage, and then complete the online edit in FCP, far outweighs the time it would take to simply do the edit in FCP from the beginning.

The good news is, if you NEED to move a project from one NLE to the other, you can-- it's just not the recommended workflow (at least not for me).
Laurence wrote on 6/27/2006, 12:46 PM
On another forum, a Cineform rep mentioned that they are working on a Quicktime wrapper for Cineform avis. This would help in such things as rendering HD Quicktime and moving files back and forth between FCP and Vegas or Premier.
FullCircle wrote on 6/28/2006, 1:37 PM
Thanks for your replies!

I guess I'll be figuring stuff out along the way to create the best workflows. I know I'll will be working with Vegas for DV projects, but I'm also very curious about all the possibilities of sharing the footage and the possible benefits from that sharing!

Again thanks!