Will these GPU improvements speed up proxy building? I find that it still takes a bit of time to build one even with a PC with a i9-9900K processor and a RTX 2080Ti card in Vegas 16 (10 bit HEVC 4K MOV files (150 bitrate) and GoPro 2K files)

@Richvideo I would expect at least a small improvement if they bring gpu acceleration to proxy creation. Because I just ran some tests with and without a gpu and they are clearly not using gpu now for proxy creation. Which struck me as odd at first since many of their render presets do benefit from gpu. Digging a little deeper, proxy files always seem to be in xdcam35/mp4 720p format at 23,.976 fps no matter what format the project or clips are. The XDCam encoder happens to be one of the fasted non-gpu encoders in Vegas. Coming close to equaling the performance of their best gpu-assisted ones. But it's not popular with Vegas users or the public, because output is larger. Which might be why they have not bothered to accelerate it already.

Thanks for that info, I did not know that about the XDcam

"Digging a little deeper, proxy files always seem to be in xdcam35/mp4 720p format at 23,.976 fps no matter what format the project or clips are."

This is a widespread misunderstanding of how about the Vegas Pro proxy workflow works. If the regular proxy workflow is used, it is made up of two processes. One of it is using the video stream of the SFVP0 files, the other one is using some of the meta data of the source video. Regarding the frame rate, the meta data of the source video is used. Thus the frame rate of the proxy files will always automatically adopt to the frame rate of the source files, no matter what the clip property of that SFVP0 file says.

Still small icons though :( It's so hard to see the buttons and click the buttons in the UI for people with 4k monitors and bad eyes. :(

Just wondering if VEGAS POST will work with VP 16 or will I need to get 17 for best functionality.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.

I would assume, since V17 has so many performance-enhancing features added, that it would be a V17 thing. Post may rely on some of those features to work smoothly. We'll see.

True, but what I am wondering is how fast can I work?

For example, currently I apply FX to a bunch of events, then for each event I have to select the event, then select the specific FX, then start making adjustment. Same again & again for the rest of the clips.

What I would prefer is to just select the event, make adjustments, select next event... much faster. Looks like it might work this way as it is a separate panel.

PS Even better would be to autoselect whatever is under the timeline cursor.

For applying the same FX to multiple events, I use 'Paste event attributes' or 'Selectively Paste Event attributes' and then adjust each effect individually, if needed.

Sure, that's a start, and something I have done for years. However, it's still too slow for colour grading work where you might want to work on several hundred clips in a timeline. This is where every click saved counts (because you are repeating.)

Also, I would like to reiterate the idea of integrating a hardware controller for this work (Tangent Wave, Loupedeck, etc.) - that would really make things fly. :)

It has lut export, so if you are grading hundreds of clips, and the clips are scattered across various tracks, group the clips that will get the same grade into their own group tracks, grade one of them, export a lut, reset the grade back to normal, then apply that lut to the group track. Or, you can select the events that need to be colored, make a nested timeline, and apply the LUT to that project/timeline.

Actually, I used to work a little bit like this with the Filmconvert plug-in as it has the capability to export a LUT. But in the end, I still felt a need to visit each clip and tweak black point, gain, etc. so I just ended up applying a standard FX package (Filmconvert, curves, secondary cc, sharpen, unsharp mask) with all the CC elements I typically needed and then working clip by clip. YMMV. It's probably an OCD thing :)

I love Filmconvert because it has a great GPU support and delivers very nice results with my FS7 UHD slog3 footage. However, Filmconvert has up to now no HDR workflow - sure, you can grade log but only to SDR or rec. 709. What is fine as long as you do not wish to grade to HDR - either PQ or HLG what I tend to do more and more

The ACES workflow in Vegas grades both to SDR AND to HDR and is easy to handle given the new grading tools in Vegas Pro 17. it was possible with Vegas Pro 16 too, but now it has become even simpler.

Will it be possible to export HEVC in 12 bits in version 17? Can we export exceeding the 4k resolution? There will be new video codecs for export (mkv or other recent)?

Will it be possible to export HEVC in 12 bits in version 17? Can we export exceeding the 4k resolution? There will be new video codecs for export (mkv or other recent)?

In about 6 days time, you will know for sure.

IMO: 12 bits and MKV seems very unlikely. Some limited form of >4k seems likely.

@Wolfgang S.

Do you think Filmconvert will make a HDR version any time soon?

From the Filmconvert website regarding their upcoming "Nitrate" version:

Nitrate now uses a full Log image processing pipeline, so you can retain the full dynamic range of your footage through the grading process.

So , maybe HDR ?

I asked Filmconvert tech support about this. Here is their reply:

Hi there, thanks for your email. Yes, you will be able to use FilmConvert in your HDR workflow if you stick to the Cineon Log film emulation. Apply our print film simulation will clamp your footage down to REC709, but can avoid this by keeping the print film emulation slider at 0. Obviously, you'll need to originate with 10-bit Log footage to be compatible with HDR.

Best Regards The FilmConvert Team

Hmmm, sounds not soo great really what they answered here.

Why? care to explain?

The idea that you have to disable a setting to keep it from limiting colors to Rec709 doesn't sound good for the end result being as good as it would be with software like Vegas 17 which is natively set up to grade HDR very well.

"Digging a little deeper, proxy files always seem to be in xdcam35/mp4 720p format at 23,.976 fps no matter what format the project or clips are."

This is a widespread misunderstanding of how about the Vegas Pro proxy workflow works.

"Digging a little deeper, proxy files always seem to be in xdcam35/mp4 720p format at 23,.976 fps no matter what format the project or clips are."

This is a widespread misunderstanding of how about the Vegas Pro proxy workflow works. If the regular proxy workflow is used, it is made up of two processes. One of it is using the video stream of the SFVP0 files, the other one is using some of the meta data of the source video. Regarding the frame rate, the meta data of the source video is used. Thus the frame rate of the proxy files will always automatically adopt to the frame rate of the source files, no matter what the clip property of that SFVP0 file says.

Actually I only mentioned that observed detail because I was thinking more about the wasted time and effort on the part of Vegas and that there might be room for improvement. I've noticed if I make my own proxy and match the project and proxy rates to the rate of the original clip, or the lower multiple if it's a double rate clip, things go smother and quicker every step of the way. Faster proxy render up front and smoother preview while editing.

The idea that you have to disable a setting to keep it from limiting colors to Rec709 doesn't sound good for the end result being as good as it would be with software like Vegas 17 which is natively set up to grade HDR very well.

That is exactly my Point.

You guys may be right. I will take a look at Nitrate once it is available for Vegas. I do like the look it gives footage; quite hard to replicate in other ways.

When coming VP17 ? Tomorrow ?