I have to agree with Tad about his concerns about Vegas Video. I've
been a big supporter of SF for a few years now. I'm trying to
withhold on comments about the video because it's not my focus. Audio
is, however, my focus. I like Vegas so far but it could use upgrades
that I'm sure will be addressed- at least I hope.

But maybe I'm viewing Vegas in a light that I should not. I once read
from a SF employee that Vegas was not intended for tracking. Am I
imagining this? Maybe I don't know what the focus is.

Music focus and masses internet focus are two different worlds.

Peace




tad wrote:
>>Yes, you are right, however I wasn't really reviewing the program
for
>>its video capabilites. Visitors of Peep! are usually an audio
>>specific audience. As soon as Vegas Audio is released I will
review
>>it as well.
>>
>>Personally speaking, I couldn't give a flip about Vegas Video. In
>>fact, the fact that Vegas Video is being released before Vegas
Audio
>>worries me. SF seems to be shifting its focus to internet encoding
>>and video compression technologies. I hope that the audio side of
>>the business isn't abandoned entirely.
>>
>>-Tad
>>
>>www.peepstudios.com
>>
>>Jason Robinson wrote:
>>>>Not to state the obvious but the article is about Vegas Pro.
Vegas
>>>>Video 2 will present some solutions to the reviewer's
complaints.
>>>>
>>>>tad wrote:
>>>>>>Anyone looking for a quick review of Vegas Pro can go to . If you're looking for guidance as to whether
>>>>>>or not Vegas is the multi-tracker for you, this article
>>>>>>should be helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-The Peep Crew