and yes, the quality of these tutorials is lacking, and often full of misinformation (like "record your gameplay video at 200fps! It'll make it look smoother when you render it out of VEGAS at 60fps!"), but there isn't much that can be done about that. VEGAS now comes with VEGAS Hub, which has a bunch of tutorials built right into it.
 

@fr0sty Even today you have no idea that you're wrong about that, even though it's been covered on this forum, and I showed it's a real thing, Premiere can't do , nor can Resolve (without Fusion), nor can any motion blur effect, it's unique to Vegas, a unique selling feature, but here you are saying it's not a real thing driving away sales due to ignorance.

It's such a quick and basic thing to test for yourself. would have taken all of 1 minute, and that would have stopped your misinformation about Vegas, and your ridiculing and deriding of Vegas users.

Recording at 200fps just to downsample to 60fps doesn't work, as 60 doesn't divide into 200. You are losing frames unevenly, which actually creates judder, and reduces the quality of the final render because a conversion is having to take place. Nobody has successfully proven that doing so results in a better quality image. I've tested it myself, it doesn't work. It makes the motion look worse.

Even if you do record at a multiple of 60, you're just throwing away frames until you get to 60, and the end result doesn't look better than just recording at 60. I've seen the "comparison videos", and I'm not at all convinced.

@fr0sty Look at difference, I can see what they're talking about when they say it delivers the smoothness of 240fps at 60fps

Vegas can do this due to it's unique way it can blend all 4 frames when converting from 240fps to 60fps

You can see it here, looks silly as a still frame but works great at full speed.

I think it looks far worse... smearing everything all over the place. That doesn't look more like 240fps to me, it looks less... Look at the shadow going across the trees, and the massive tracers it has trailing behind it. I've seen far better results from motion blur... that said, in the case I'm talking about, the user said to do 200fps then downsample to 60, which looks even worse since it not only was a smeary mess, but it also juddered really bad.

@fr0sty Whether you like the effect or not is immaterial, the reality is that the process of 240fps to 60fps does what the kids say, it delivers a smoother movement because it's not a artificial effect, it's using all the data from 4 frames and mixing it into one. Something that only Vegas can do. The tutorials are correct, you used a bad example of Vegas misinformation.

All you've shown is that having VEGAS resample an image from 240p makes it a smeared mess... and your opinion is that is makes it look smoother... My opinion is that it makes it look even less smooth, because you can't even properly see the motion of everything on screen due to it being smeared away by ghosting. It's an amateur tactic. Thinking it looks smoother is subjective. What is objective, and can be shown by your freeze frame, 240fps does result in the image ending up far more blurry due to the resampling (which I always disable for this very reason)... far more than using motion blur.

Let's steer this one back on track, though, your comments have nothing to do with this thread.

You've summed up the problem with Vegas at the start of your reply. Why on earth is there even an 8 bit legacy setting required in 2024 when most of us are now using 64 bit multi-core processors and accelerated codecs in hardware! Is there an 8 bit legacy setting required to be engaged on any other editing software in order to make it bearable to use? Why a 32-bit video and a 32-bit full range option? None of those settings are beginner friendly or intuitive.

First of all, you seem to forget that VEGAS Pro is exactly that, professional software. Second, you don't seem to have any grasp on what 8 bit or 32 bit, etc. even is. Any video you see on TV, youtube, etc. that isn't HDR is 8 bit. 8 bits are used to define each primary color. 8 1's and 0's can be arranged to describe up to 256 shades of each primary from black to full saturation of that color (this doesn't even get into YUV compression, we'll keep it simple) for a total of 256 red x 256 green x 256 blue shades available, or a total of 16.7 million possible colors. 10 bit ups this to 1024 shades, or 1.07 billion possible color shades.

This is what VEGAS means by 8 bit... 32 bit video and full range have to do with gamma levels... and the 32 bit means it is using 32 bit floating point math to calculate the pixels. It's what you want to use when coloring 10 bit or higher video. If you want beginner software, you're in the wrong spot. Honestly, even Resolve is the wrong spot if you don't know these things, you can get yourself into trouble with render settings, color grading, etc. if you don't have a basic understanding of how these things work. If you want beginner friendly software, I'd suggest with starting with a consumer level NLE, otherwise, you're going to have to be willing to ask for help to learn some of these concepts you don't yet understand. This forum is always there for that purpose.

Why not just accept the criticism of a sincere user as VEGASDerek did? The comments weren't malicious or false and are feedback based on experience, nothing more and nothing less.

I agree that video processing ought to be at bit depths higher than 8 in this day and age regardless of the source or render bit depth. Once the 32-bit performance penalty is done away with, or a new >8 bit mode is introduced in VEGAS, we'll never need to use the 8-bit modes again and be in the wrong mode because a piece of 10-bit log footage made it to our timeline and the LUT or IDT precision is no longer sufficient with only 256 shades per channel.