Vegas is schizophrenic

Astronaut wrote on 7/9/2003, 4:48 PM
A couple of weeks ago, there was a number of discussions about dedicated hardware for Vegas. With cards from Matrox, Canopus and others you get several videostreams with effects in realtime.

Nice! But… they don’t work with our favourite piece of software. Instead you have to use them with evil editors that are irritating to work with and crashes your computer.

But it might not matter, because you can render overnight, in the background or have another computer render while you keep on working. True.

I think that Vegas has a “problem”: It’s a bit schizophrenic. SoFo probably set out to write a program that was inexpensive and simple to use. A consumer video editor. But they managed to hit the one thing that professional editors want: speed.

I was happy, but not the slightest surprised, when I read the “MAKING A LIVING / $$$” postings. As it turns out, a lot of people use Vegas 100% professionaly. I have made a living editing both audio and video (I first used Vegas as an audio editor for radio commercials) for 15 years, and a couple of times been really close to buying a system of my own. Last year I considered an Avid. Vegas 3 was interesting, but not quite there. But Vegas 4 is. Now, editing in Vegas is so fast, you save an hour a day compared to working with the Avid.

BUT:
I need the multiple videostreams and effects in realtime. Because deadlines, stressed out clients and Vegas rendering-times don’t go hand in hand. I can stand editing in preview quality, because I know that it’s going to come out great in the end. But my clients don’t.
Do I want hardware acceleration? Yes. Do you? Of course.
I want to edit in Vegas, but toys like the ones mentioned above forces me to sometimes be unfaithful.

Am I stupid complaining over hardware acceleration for a $499 editor? Yes.
Am I asking too much of Vegas? Definitely.
But to all you guys at SoFo: This is what happens if you write a program that’s too powerful for it’s own good! It’s my obligation to complain! Suite yourselves, loosers!

And pllleeeaaasee, Sony… Give us a nice juicy piece of Japanese hardware for around $399 that gives us everything we dream of in realtime. That’s why you bought our heroes, isn’t it?

Comments

Ssssteve wrote on 7/9/2003, 5:08 PM
You're right. Vegas is so powerful it's easy to forget it's not a "professional" system. But it could be. Hope sony gets that...
JonnyMac wrote on 7/9/2003, 6:14 PM
What's not professional about it? People are making money using Vegas every day. I find it humorous that FCP 4.0 (considered a *pro* product by many) ads tout software-based realtime effects....
rmack350 wrote on 7/9/2003, 6:25 PM
I have to agree here. SoFo did such a good job with Vegas that they're going to be under some pressure to accomodate hardware cards.

Is it SoFo/Sony's job to integrate the hardware? No. But it IS their job to talk to hardware manufacturers and find out what they need to make their hardware work with Vegas.

In some ways I suspect that time may be on their side (Not ours, mind you). I think that Microsoft may push (Or are pushing) through some hardware specs that would make it easier for hardware and software vendors to cooperate. If MS sets a goal and hardware and software vendors both aim for it then you may find hardware that works for a wider range of software. Both sides win.

I think that SoFo has created a problem for itself. The program is good enough that moderately capable and highly ambitious users will buy it. All of those users will get better at what they do and ask for new features. We will place increasing demands on Vegas and SoFo/Sony will need to keep up with us. As it stands, Vegas sets a good example for other software vendors who WILL produce products to compete with and even surpass Vegas.

It's kind of a great problem to place yourself in-being so good that everyone wants a lot more of you.

Rob Mack
rmack350 wrote on 7/9/2003, 7:24 PM
Vegas not "Professional Software"? I think it's really a matter of the application. There are plenty of things that you can do professionally with Vegas. The small company I work for could do just about all of it's money generating activities in Vegas. Three or four Vegas stations could support our 5 employees very nicely.

However, we don't use Vegas because we made our initial investments many years ago and we're not going to make such a drastic course change. We also use our equipment for documentary projects which are better suited to an 844 system. We need the speed.

You can definitely use Vegas professionally to do all sorts of corporate communications, vanity videos, short form docs, and streaming media. There's a lot of room for improvement and I think it would be worth the money to a small shop if SoFo offered a Production Suite or extension that would improve Vegas' professional capabilities. These could be:

Network Utilities
Network Rendering
Batch Rendering
Network Media File Server
Hardware support for the above tools
SDI interface and deck control-ways to get media for Vegas to use (like 10 bit or HD footage)

Probably the biggest roadblock to professional work with Vegas is speed. You really don't want your edit stations totally tied up for a day while you render-especially if you've got a lot of work going on at once. Oddly enough, we rarely have clients watching over our shoulders so we don't have to have instant renders. Still, the faster the render, the faster we can make decisions and the faster we can work.

Rob Mack
PeterWright wrote on 7/9/2003, 8:04 PM
A few musings on the oft used equation, speed = professionalism.

Granted, some professionals work very fast, but It is also possible to produce high speed rubbish.

To me professionalism is in product quality - how much thought goes into how a programme is put together - Content, that's what makes something professional. Unless the tools used compromise this quality by limiting creativity or outputting at low quality technically, any software can be considered professional.

For same-day news gatherers etc, yes, you need to be able to put stuff out to tape quickly, so software solutions like Vegas are not suited.

As for the client over-the-shoulder syndrome - if they raise the question, show them a sample of output quality using Ram Render, explain that's how it's gonna look, then go back to previewing normally. I do a fair bit of editing on laptop in client's offices, and they are amazed by the instant viewing of effects, titles, composites etc.

I am a full-time professional, and I know that in the 18 months since I switched from Premiere to Vegas, the quality of my productions has soared, because Vegas gives me the time and the tools to express myself creatively very easily.

My projects can take between a week and a year to complete, so render times have simply never been an issue.

I have seen all the other editing apps at work, and although there's some good stuff around, I don't consider any of the others to have the fluidity, flexiblity, good design and depth of Vegas.

Look at all the features sitting there - how can anyone say that it became professionally "accidentally"? It was carefully put together by folks who know what editors need and how they work, and it's getting better with each update...

back to work

peter
vicmilt wrote on 7/13/2003, 4:00 PM
As an aside...
I do lots of stuff with major graphics - 10 to 20 layers not unusual.
Vegas was way easier and quicker (for me) than After Effects.
What I'll do is use two machines at the same time (one at a time).
I'll keep the "main show" on one and slug the "super edit scenes". I then do sub-edits on the other. The sub-edits are the effect laden scenes (no - not EVERY scene needs super effects). I'll render the effects on machine 2 as AVI's and import the rendered piece into the "main edit".
This way, I'm never waiting for either machine to render.
It's important to keep careful labeling on everything so you don't get confused, if you have to change any of the sub-edits.