So4 already incorporates code to enable So4 to accept data from AMD, Intel and NVIDIA hardware decoding. I'm not an expert on the Vegas architecture, but those plugins are then feeding data into the Vegas video engine which likely dates back well into the Sony years and may never have been intended for high bit depths, framerates and data rates like we have now.

GPU preview support has been added and refined over the years and that interacts with the decoded data, sometimes producing errors. With regards to performance, we don't know what the bottlenecks are exactly but there appear to be some that affect certain formats worse than others. Things like long GOPs do seem to show limitations to the approach for AVC and HEVC.

So4 works with ProRes, h264, h265 and possibly other formats. I hope it will work with other formats still decoded by Quicktime.

Editing software has to read all the frames, not just throw them out as needed to keep up playability (watch stats in VLC- it doesn't always play 100% of frames). Premiere, Final Cut and Resolve take different approaches which use GPU and CPU resources differently and their own engines have changed a lot of the years.

My wish for Vegas would be to modernize the video engine and make it as future proof as possible. I don't know if it would be possible to have the team do almost just that for a year, and market a version of Vegas with that as the only new feature (would people buy it for just "new video playback engine"?), but if I had my way...

 

My wish for Vegas would be to modernize the video engine and make it as future proof as possible. I don't know if it would be possible to have the team do almost just that for a year, and market a version of Vegas with that as the only new feature (would people buy it for just "new video playback engine"?), but if I had my way...

A year of work dedicated to the radical improvement of playback is a short time, because this topic has been addressed since the creation of SO4 and is still not resolved. And it's been about 6 years. Maybe more.

Personally, I will put up with it for an extra year, if the result is smooth playback and stability.

A new customer may be enthusiastic about Vegas from the beginning, but as soon as he finds out that his formats cannot be played smoothly, he deletes the program and goes to the competition. But that's just my personal opinion.

Todd-b's point is along the lines of what I've thought as well... a lot of VEGAS' issues stemmed from it being old code and also from being designed to run on weaker hardware than what Resolve targets. I remember having VRAM issues with Resolve as well, it does require a lot, especially for things like noise reduction.

It's a delicate balancing act, put the requirements up too high, and you alienate a large portion of the user base, but put them too low, and you cripple the program.

MEP got a new engine a few yrs ago, it drastically improved performance & render/export, Vegas either needs to invest in a drastic modernisation or accept that the buyers will slowly dwindle, revenue will slowly decrease & the small team that they can afford to employ will cease to be, Sad but they can't keep patching this old software forever,

If Magix would quit wasting time and money releasing products that compete against VEGAS and actually put some resources behind VEGAS, that might actually happen. The fact that Magix is willing to invest in new engines for their competing products, but not VEGAS, is telling as to where their priorities lie.

I've had MEP since 2004, Magix aren't going to quit on their own product, I suspect there's a handful of suited people at Magix who have the final say & control over the money, who don't quite realise that with a bit of investment the poss potential earnings that could come from their 2016 purchase of Vegas, I think they're just letting Vegas manage itself & from all accounts of only a 'small team' the're managing to stay afloat but not having the resources to make leaps n bounds in modernisation, From a comment, i think it was V Gary or Derek that I got the feeling a lot of mentioned in comments above would require a rewrite of Vegas, which isn't going happen, not soon anyway.

Considering how much more well known VEGAS is than any of their other products, I'd bet VEGAS is their top seller. If not, likely close to it. It would be nice to see it treated as such.

If Magix would quit wasting time and money releasing products that compete against VEGAS and actually put some resources behind VEGAS, that might actually happen. The fact that Magix is willing to invest in new engines for their competing products, but not VEGAS, is telling as to where their priorities lie.

Problem is different or maybe even contradictory goals. VegasCreativeSoftware has [i believe?] a long term focus on ongoing development and improvement, and laying on both old and new customers. While Magix is a marketing company with focus on short term winnings, to get mostly just new "short term" customers.

A simpler and cheaper Dram might be better than the Vram. What do you think?

For example, from version 20, the minimum requirements would change to 64Gb Dram. It is certainly a cheaper upgrade for users than a GPU with 25Gb. No?

I like Shift + B very much, but I would like it automatically with the option of selected parts in the project.

I'd rather invest in 128GB of memory when I know it's efficient. In the years that I have been here among you, nothing else has been solved, than why a 12GB GPU is worse in performance than a 4GB, why there is such a small difference in performance between GTX1080 and RTX, and which card is the best if not the best, many other topics. Isn't it better to solve only if the speed and capacity of DRAM?

Any interesting insights with Premiere where this should work?

It's faster to use VRAM, not only because VRAM has higher bandwidth, but it also is accessible directly by the GPU.

If Magix would quit wasting time and money releasing products that compete against VEGAS and actually put some resources behind VEGAS, that might actually happen. The fact that Magix is willing to invest in new engines for their competing products, but not VEGAS, is telling as to where their priorities lie.

Problem is different or maybe even contradictory goals. VegasCreativeSoftware has [i believe?] a long term focus on ongoing development and improvement, and laying on both old and new customers. While Magix is a marketing company with focus on short term winnings, to get mostly just new "short term" customers.

I believe it has more to do with VEGAS being more popular in some markets and their other NLEs being more popular in others, but I still think that them existing side by side is harmful. They could rule the NLE world if they'd just focus on making VEGAS the best that it can be.

That said, they obviously have reasons for what they do... money talks, after all. We'll see how it goes.

A simpler and cheaper Dram might be better than the Vram. What do you think?

For example, from version 20, the minimum requirements would change to 64Gb Dram. It is certainly a cheaper upgrade for users than a GPU with 25Gb. No?

I like Shift + B very much, but I would like it automatically with the option of selected parts in the project.

I'd rather invest in 128GB of memory when I know it's efficient. In the years that I have been here among you, nothing else has been solved, than why a 12GB GPU is worse in performance than a 4GB, why there is such a small difference in performance between GTX1080 and RTX, and which card is the best if not the best, many other topics. Isn't it better to solve only if the speed and capacity of DRAM?

Any interesting insights with Premiere where this should work?

Doing more with precaching data could help or even forcing the creation of optimized media where Vegas knows it can't decode it in real time. I used to be annoyed with Final Cut for doing that but it always edited smoothly once that was done.

I wouldn't set high minimum requirements as it would prevent many systems from using Vegas. High-end Alienware X14 or X15 laptops have soldered memory, so if you have 32GB you are stuck with that.

If Magix would quit wasting time and money releasing products that compete against VEGAS and actually put some resources behind VEGAS, that might actually happen. The fact that Magix is willing to invest in new engines for their competing products, but not VEGAS, is telling as to where their priorities lie.

That's one of the reasons I feel Vegas will never really be fixed. Although truth be told given how old Vegas is, it's possible it contains hooks to so much legacy code going back decades that "fixing" Vegas may not be possible without a ground up re-write which would likely break backward compatibility.

Maybe it makes more sense for them to string Vegas along with patches for as long as people keep buying it, while simultaneously working on their other more modern software in hopes that people migrate to that over time?

It seems as if they're rewriting it, but a little bit here and there at a time, vs. just cranking out a new ground-up rewrite, which could take even a large team years to do.

If Magix would quit wasting time and money releasing products that compete against VEGAS and actually put some resources behind VEGAS, that might actually happen. The fact that Magix is willing to invest in new engines for their competing products, but not VEGAS, is telling as to where their priorities lie.

That's one of the reasons I feel Vegas will never really be fixed. Although truth be told given how old Vegas is, it's possible it contains hooks to so much legacy code going back decades that "fixing" Vegas may not be possible without a ground up re-write which would likely break backward compatibility.

Maybe it makes more sense for them to string Vegas along with patches for as long as people keep buying it, while simultaneously working on their other more modern software in hopes that people migrate to that over time?

I have some DOUBT as to whether Magix is an "owner" other than part owner, marketer and distrubutor. Maybe majority owner. Magix CEO lists himself as a marketing specialist, not a media tools or software engineer. Remember, this is the third "owner" of Vegas. Doesn't anyone think SONY had the resources? Then, before Vegas sale, Sony was developing other video pro or pro-sumer offerings: Catalyst Browse, Prepare, and Edit, (sort of like Adobe Bridge and Media Encoder), while Vegas was STRUGGLING with MEDIA MANAGER.....Is anyone getting the picture? To me, (and I'm sure many will rush in to say otherwise, I'm looking at patterns and results) Vegas development sets the deal, i.e., 'leave us fairly well alone, distribute and market, and you(BIG CORP) will make your money.' The production team core stays, the BiG GUY "partner" changes. HOW WOULD YOU deal with Vegas given the above? (NO, I'm not privy to the "deals" but the results and MO speaks volumes).

(Again, I'm going back to the question, why pour resources into multiple SIMILAR products, when it is obvious that Vegas really is a superior product overall, and with proper muscle IS indeed an ADOBE killer.)

I am not a crank, I LOVE THE VEGAS CONCEPT and most of its realization, but to me, you don't get a better media partner than SONY. They make great equipment, still and video cameras, switchers, they sell media, radios, TVs, they are into production. SO ....how does a very GOOD software, CONCEPTUALLY especially, find itself out in the cold with SONY????? While there is a Catalyst Production Suite developed simultaneously???? That AT THE VERY LEAST RAISES PERTINENT QUESTIONS. And the Catalyst Suite definitely would have filled some voids, especially the organization of media, that Vegas still lacks a bit anyway. What is up with that? -- the commitment of one party or the other was incomplete at best, and who knows why. Not me, but the question is there.

AND THEN, BYE BYE..... Which German is on the Vegas development team? WHICH Vegas developer was not with Sony Vegas? On the latter question, might be a couple, based on natural attrition, but I'm not seeing too much MAGIX magic in Vegas. Nor MUSCLE. The recent VST 32bit + VST 3 might be ported over from Samplitude, and a few other things.

And then there is this: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/today-we-magix-group-making-commitments-address-climate-klaus-schmidt/

So, how much resources are going to battle dubious "climate change?" (this sounds more like a PR ploy and curtsy to the climate "wokies" than some sort of real action. It always stays fairly amorphous on how this is all to transpire as far as nuts and bolts. How does this work, have all packaging delivered on bicycles. I can't really see solar panels on roofs in German and Madison, WI.

Anyway, don't be mad with the messenger if you don't like the message, I'm just telling it like it TIZ 'tis. DO correct me where I may be getting it wrong, but again, you can't argue with the arc here of the results compared with the EXPECTATIONS that SHOULD be/should have been expected given the level of partner/owners.

Your speculation regarding sony is pretty far off the mark based on what I know. As for the VEGAS team, the folks in charge in Madison are many of the same folks who have been on since before even Sony took over. Gary is in the very first video ever edited with VEGAS, if I remember right (or he edited it, I can't remember which). Pretty sure Derek is a VEGAS OG as well.

If you wanna know how great software ends up in the cold with Sony, just watch their gaming division for a few years. While they crank out hit after hit, I've watched them close down studios that made some of the games that defined their consoles, such as the studio that made the insanely popular SOCOM games, the studio that made Wipeout, the studio that made Motorstorn and Driveclub, just to name a few. Many of these games were system sellers, especially SOCOM, but all it took is sales that didn't quite hit the lofty target Sony set for them, and they got sent to the chopping block.

I think you don't understand the relationship between Vegas Creative Software and Magix. VCS doesn't own itself or necessarily call the business shots even if they are the developers/programmers. Sony Creative Software sadly let its products languish before selling them off. They went from a powerhouse to irrelevant for video editing with Catalyst, so just being a big company doesn't guarantee success.

I don't see any integration between Vegas and other Magix products, which is too bad as you'd think there could be synergies. They seem to segment markets by geography even if that means overlapping/competing products globally.

There are interviews and podcasts with Vegas team members over the past decade that shed some insight into the company's present and future.

On climate change you have no idea what is happening in Germany with the energy transition (or anywhere else in the world for that matter- literally every nation is addressing it). The Energiewende is not new and not voluntary. For years Germany had the most solar panels on roofs in the world (until surpassed by China and the US). Calling for a price on carbon (which would thereby be embedded in every product and service) would rearrange all markets in favor of products with lower carbon emissions. What Magix is specifically doing since the LinkedIn announcement is a question- I assume they have a sustainability report documenting it but you haven't checked before criticizing them?

Your speculation regarding sony is pretty far off the mark based on what I know. ......., but all it took is sales that didn't quite hit the lofty target Sony set for them, and they got sent to the chopping block.

 

You should try to be a little more specific, as I covered a few ideas, as far as "off the mark." Where, how, how far?


Of course I've known about some of the players, especially Gary, I've been with Vegas since about the year 2001 or 2002. How about you. You think you're a fan boy? I got you beat, if longevity is any sort of barometer. Jokes aside, Vegas is an UNDERPERFORMER, They've had some really creative evangelists/third party developers (Spotted Eagle, Rofrano) who just eventually moved on, as the program could not keep up with THEIR demands for scope and efficiency.

OTOH, Look at what Blackmagic has done with Davinci Resolve in such a short time. That's called MUSCLE. You don't think SONY could have put that much muscle into VEGAS? AND Vegas is a far superior editor, though Davinci is impressive in its own rite. NOW, who's to say who's fault that is, but there could certainly be a lack of negotiating skills on at least one side of the table.

The jury might be still out on Magix, but when people ask LEGIT questions about why the emphasis on your lower line, once again, performing the same (video editing) tasks, and really so little OOMPH given to your new "FLAGSHIP" brand (how big is the dev team in Madison? 10 or 15?) - none of us get to question that without the fb's coming out and saying "pay no attention to the man behind the screen" or to that effect? Is that how that all works.

Why don't you, FROSTY, ever say, "you might have a point, there" or let me consider those important questions and get back. Are you paid by Magix? Seems like it.

I think you don't understand the relationship between Vegas Creative Software and Magix.
I'm speculating, based on MO and results. Even if I'm incorrect, the result is the same as if I was correct, The code has been screaming for a rewrite, and the QUALITY of the concept ARGUES for that, but that never gets done. WHY? is the question, and now with two LARGE PLAYERS having been involved.

Sony Creative Software sadly let its products languish before selling them off.  
Perhaps that could be, but WHY, and why were they developing Catalyst while Vegas was the FLAGSHIP? (as far as SONY CREATIVE SOFTWARE).

I don't see any integration between Vegas and other Magix products,
Perhaps easier said than done. But I agree in principal...yay, we agree!! YIPPEE!

On climate change you have no idea what is happening in Germany with the energy transition (or anywhere else in the world for that matter-
You should hold your fire, you don't know what I do or don't know, thanks for that .

Thanks for your imput.

@Seb-o as a long-time poster (even long before 9/3/2021) to the VEGAS forum(s) you must know that none of the volunteer forum moderators are paid by MAGIX or VEGAS Creative Software.

@Seb-o as a long-time poster (even long before 9/3/2021) to the VEGAS forum(s) you must know that none of the volunteer forum moderators are paid by MAGIX or VEGAS Creative Software.

Thanks, and that fact did escape me. Cheers.

We should say out loud that if it weren't for the Magix company, we would have nothing to discuss here today. Magix was perhaps the only one who had an interest in Vegas and other products and raised it.

We don't have to like it, but a little humility and respect please.