Vegas Pro Vs Resolve

Comments

fr0sty wrote on 6/22/2020, 10:33 PM

You speak of OFX filters as if they aren't just as powerful as a "core feature", and as if some of the most powerful visual effects packages on the planet aren't OFX based...

Seems like no matter what they add, someone is going to find some program that does it better (for a steep price, usually) and say that Vegas' implementation is half baked, regardless of if the same feature is better or worse in other NLE's without plugins added.

@john-brown Hello, Maybe we have different professional approval standards in different contexts. Magix Vegas team is indeed professional software team relatively to you or some smaller firms but not professional enough to top-level professional software teams.

This gave me a good laugh. I love how condescending you are towards people you've never met, speaking down on other production companies whose productions you've never seen as if they're amateurs...

As did you calling FL Studio a professional app.. it's the worst of the music production apps out there. Ableton is the industry standard, Reason follows behind it, FL Studio is what kids pirate to make their music. But hey, we all have our opinions, and nobody cares to hear them (like I'm sure you didn't care to hear my opinion of FLStudio). Unless you have some actual constructive criticisms to add, such as specifically what they can do to improve, and unless it's something you haven't already been saying in 20 different threads for the past several months, you aren't contributing anything meaningful and are just trashing Vegas while glorifying other apps that fall far short in many areas, all of which you seem to overlook.

It's getting really old.

The team is well aware of all the various things that need to be done, and they're tackling them as fast as they can while making sure the engine itself is updated enough to keep up with the changes without falling apart and crashing every few minutes. So many of you bash the team for not releasing a stable app, and focusing too much on new features rather than making sure everything that is already there works right, yet then you turn around and demand in 20 repetitive threads that they implement dozens of new features. Do you want new features, or a modern engine that can handle them? They've put far more work under the hood than most people realize, and it's time they be given some credit for the great things they have accomplished with a small team.

VEGAS gives us a solid NLE that does everything any other NLE does, and if it doesn't, there's a cheap plugin or free script out there that does, and they still let us buy perpetual licenses, they don't make us buy specialized hardware to make it work right, they have some of the widest system compatibility on the market, and Vegas is still to this day the fastest NLE as far as workflow goes.

So, let's can all the Vegas trashing. Some posts in this thread already violate the community rules as it is, since the users posting here have been posting the same exact thing all over the forums for months:

3. Avoid repeat or meaningless topics

Many problems have already been discussed in the vegascreativesoftware.info community, and solutions are already available for them. We recommend using the search feature to look for an answer to your question before making a new post. This helps the forum remain uncluttered and cuts down on the number of posts with the same or nearly the same content. Cross posting, i.e. spreading around the same entry in multiple categories, should be avoided.

but I'm leaving it open for the sake of not seeming like we're trying to hide Vegas' shortcomings via censorship. However, if it continues to be nothing more than bashing the product or the team behind it, I'm going to lock it. If someone has some feature requests or direct comparisons to be made that haven't been made 100 times on these forums already (by the same users, no less), then please feel free to share them here.

Last changed by fr0sty on 6/22/2020, 10:37 PM, changed a total of 2 times.

Systems:

Desktop

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x 8 core 16 thread at stock speed

64GB 3000mhz DDR4

Geforce RTX 3090

Windows 10

Laptop:

ASUS Zenbook Pro Duo 32GB (9980HK CPU, RTX 2060 GPU, dual 4K touch screens, main one OLED HDR)

Kinvermark wrote on 6/22/2020, 10:48 PM

Thanks for leaving this open for now.

The thread didn't start as "bashing." I think the intent of the video was to be a fair and balanced commentary, even if some of the technical points were wrong (on both sides.)

Point is: Vegas cannot win a feature war against the "big" guys, so its needs to find its own voice... what should that be?

It certainly isn't clear to me where the software is heading, and I would really like to know.

 

fr0sty wrote on 6/22/2020, 11:20 PM

I have no intentions of censoring any discussion that may not make VEGAS look good, I welcome constructive criticisms, as long as the squeaky wheel doesn't turn into an incessantly screaming wheel even after grease is applied or reasons why it can't/shouldn't be applied yet have been given...

I think Vegas can win the feature war, it just has some catching up to do in order to lay the groundwork for those features first. We've been loud and clear with the team for years that they need to keep their desire to cram in new features in check until they've done a thorough overhaul of the video playback engine as well as the overall stability of the program. These things take time, and lots of it, so let's try to be patient with them while they shore up the foundation that these new features will be built upon, so we're not stuck replying to "Vegas keeps crashing" threads, and instead can focus on things like tutorials for how to use the software.

As someone with some insider access, it can be frustrating to read these threads knowing what's going on behind the scenes, and I can only imagine what it feels like for the team who has been putting in a ton of work with very few breaks for years in order to address the concerns that users are raising.

Vegas already is winning the HDR feature war, the others are having to play catch up there. It's winning the scripting feature war, nobody else offers that as of now. There's lots of areas where Vegas leads, even if there's lots more where it needs to catch up.

You do not become the industry standard overnight, especially if you are reviving a long-dormant project while the other guys carried on full speed with their development. The team is more dedicated than ever, it is growing, and Vegas is in good hands.

Last changed by fr0sty on 6/22/2020, 11:23 PM, changed a total of 2 times.

Systems:

Desktop

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x 8 core 16 thread at stock speed

64GB 3000mhz DDR4

Geforce RTX 3090

Windows 10

Laptop:

ASUS Zenbook Pro Duo 32GB (9980HK CPU, RTX 2060 GPU, dual 4K touch screens, main one OLED HDR)

Kinvermark wrote on 6/22/2020, 11:33 PM

Fair comment.

Scripting is definitely a "unique selling point" of Vegas, and I have personally benefitted immensely from this feature via Vegasaur. It is perhaps the strongest reason for me to continue to use Vegas.

Perhaps we will see a smart caching/pre-render system in version 18?

 

adis-a3097 wrote on 6/22/2020, 11:34 PM
(...)

 

Point is: Vegas cannot win a feature war against the "big" guys, so its needs to find its own voice... what should that be?

Really?

This is what I did in Vegas.

And this is what the othe guy did in the onthe NLE.

Mine.

You migh wanna scrol all the way down for more...:)

It certainly isn't clear to me where the software is heading, and I would really like to know.

 

Wait and see! We all do.

Howard-Vigorita wrote on 6/23/2020, 12:00 AM

Thanks for the test, Howard.

For me, the rendering time I can adjust to... I am not terribly bothered by 10-20% efficiency plus or minus.

The most important for me is how smooth and stable the editing/preview is.

And in my tests, DaVinci is doing better. With FHD, the difference is minimal. For 4K, it is obvious.

Sorry but I think I was remiss in describing the video clips I used to do my pip playback and render to 1080p. They were both hevc 4k 29.97 shot at about 60 mbps. I could see no difference between Vegas and Resolve playback performance on my system but I noticed an interesting setting in the right corner ("...") above the Resolve preview screen that was unchecked by default: "Show All Video Frames". I have a suspicion that unless you check this they leave frames out of the preview, particularly for higher frame rate video. It didn't make much difference when I checked it in my test but I noticed that on occasion the rate displayed to the left bounced around slightly when I first started playback much like it does in Vegas on some of my slower systems. If folks like this way of getting smoother playback, maybe Magix should consider this trick.

Also, I've been studying the render files I created with Vegas and Resolve. Resolve file was slightly smaller but looked noticeably inferior even to my old tired eyes. Turns out Resolve does not employ CABAC or any other entropy optimization. Here's the mediainfo on the Resolve render file:

General
Complete name                            : \\Hv-9900k\d\pip-test-Resolve.mp4
Format                                   : MPEG-4
Format profile                           : Base Media
Codec ID                                 : isom (isom/iso2/avc1/mp41)
File size                                : 430 MiB
Duration                                 : 5 min 0 s
Overall bit rate                         : 12.0 Mb/s
Writing application                      : Lavf57.25.100

Video
ID                                       : 1
Format                                   : AVC
Format/Info                              : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile                           : Main@L4
Format settings                          : 2 Ref Frames
Format settings, CABAC                   : No
Format settings, Reference frames        : 2 frames
Codec ID                                 : avc1
Codec ID/Info                            : Advanced Video Coding
Duration                                 : 5 min 0 s
Bit rate                                 : 11.8 Mb/s
Width                                    : 1 920 pixels
Height                                   : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio                     : 16:9
Frame rate mode                          : Constant
Frame rate                               : 29.970 (30000/1001) FPS
Color space                              : YUV
Chroma subsampling                       : 4:2:0
Bit depth                                : 8 bits
Scan type                                : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)                       : 0.190
Stream size                              : 423 MiB (98%)
Color range                              : Limited
Color primaries                          : BT.709
Matrix coefficients                      : BT.709
Codec configuration box                  : avcC

Skulking around the Resolve boards suggests they all think Resolve's h.264 sucks and might explain why they're all so fond of Prores. Also note the Writing application... looks like it's just embedded ffmpeg. Dumbed down without all its wonderful options but probably with quality sacrificed for speed.

Also just did some comparative renders to 4k avc... Resolve: 06:45; Vegas: 06:31.

fr0sty wrote on 6/23/2020, 12:14 AM

Perhaps we will see a smart caching/pre-render system in version 18?

No way of knowing what will make it in at this point, we'll have to wait and see what the team announces when the time is right, but I'd like to know they've focused on the foundation before building the house, that they've put a lot of time and effort into making sure the software is running as efficiently and bug free as possible. Give us a stable, fast Vegas first, then we can focus on bells and whistles. Who knows, though, such a system is indeed what Vegas will need to have in order to become both stable and fast, perhaps one already exists but just needs tweaking, I don't know how all that works under the hood, but I just want to know that we're not going to hit 100mph and then crash into a brick wall, know what I mean?

Last changed by fr0sty on 6/23/2020, 12:17 AM, changed a total of 1 times.

Systems:

Desktop

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x 8 core 16 thread at stock speed

64GB 3000mhz DDR4

Geforce RTX 3090

Windows 10

Laptop:

ASUS Zenbook Pro Duo 32GB (9980HK CPU, RTX 2060 GPU, dual 4K touch screens, main one OLED HDR)

adimatis wrote on 6/23/2020, 12:54 AM

Hi guys,

Can I only add one little thing? And I am sure no one will take offense on this.

There are many users, with many different needs, preferences and workflows - on one hand.

On the other hand, there is a natural desire to want the best - whatever that means for each one - and then we pick on other NLEs and discover they do that and that and that and we feel bad about Vegas not having it (yet).

Then, whenever such issue is being brought up, soon it turns into something that looks like bashing, even though in reality it is not. I think 99% of people here love Vegas and would continue to use it, so there isn't really an ill-intention conspiracy against it.

So, I propose that the Vegas team will make a public statement for version 18 - or if this one is too late now, for a future version, open a public pool on what people want from future Vegas, here on forums and then commit to implement those as soon as possible, following the most interest when it resides.

Make it all public, so it is transparent for everyone.

Sounds like a stupid idea or an immature, not serious proposal? Might as well, but I think what that would achieve is a better communication and will prove the commitment of Vegas team to provide what people need, will prove the desire to listen and will calm all the spirits down and will create the feeling we're all going in the same direction. By all I mean the most. :)

 

Former user wrote on 6/23/2020, 1:57 AM

I could see no difference between Vegas and Resolve playback performance on my system but I noticed an interesting setting in the right corner ("...") above the Resolve preview screen that was unchecked by default: "Show All Video Frames". I have a suspicion that unless you check this they leave frames out of the preview, particularly for higher frame rate video.

No, it's a playback option that Vegas doesn't have. If you turn that on, and have a very computationally complex transition instead of dropping video frames at transition it will show all video frames, and playback speed instead will reduce

 

Also just did some comparative renders to 4k avc... Resolve: 06:45; Vegas: 06:31.

Are you still comparing hardware encoding on Vegas with software encoding on Resolve?

A main criticism of vegas is it's slow render engine because that can also been seen with playback. You are effectively hiding the limitations of the vegas engine by making this comparison. Ofcourse it's a true comparison between free resolve(no hardware decoding/encoding) and paid vegas (hardware decoding/encoding) but doesn't seem useful in a discussion about the speed of the vegas render engine in relation to resolve.

Unless you're using Resolve more like an external plugin for a few limited features and not very often almost everyone will buy studio version as its $300 for life time updates(unofficially so could change in fugure)

 

 

fr0sty wrote on 6/23/2020, 2:06 AM

The team already watches the forums and social media closely to see what the users want, they have a list of to-dos that they have to prioritize based on what resources are available, and sometimes that can change based on how easily or difficult certain tasks that need to be completed end up proving to be. Some sort of official surveys might do good to guide development, or at least calm users by making them realize they are indeed being heard, but for the most part, if you've asked for it in the past, it's on their list somewhere.

Last changed by fr0sty on 6/23/2020, 2:07 AM, changed a total of 1 times.

Systems:

Desktop

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x 8 core 16 thread at stock speed

64GB 3000mhz DDR4

Geforce RTX 3090

Windows 10

Laptop:

ASUS Zenbook Pro Duo 32GB (9980HK CPU, RTX 2060 GPU, dual 4K touch screens, main one OLED HDR)

Reyfox wrote on 6/23/2020, 5:09 AM

I've been reading this thread with much interest. I am not a person who requires a very all encompassing editor. Honestly, Vegas is at times more than I need. But I find the way it edits fascinating. I personally started editing with a/b roll and the Amiga/Toaster. We had ARexx scripting back then so you could write your own automating scripts. This was in the early 1990's. I've had various editors since then. Some I liked editing with, others, not so much. Each had the same and different feature sets that separated them from the competition. But for "me" personally, if I didn't enjoy the editing experience itself, I would not want to use the software. I was a "one man band" that sometimes collaborated with others on projects, but basically did event/corporate videos. Now that I am retired, I edit for myself and my church, with a few "non-profit" videos. So my demands have decreased, not increased as many others here write about. Video editing is something I enjoy doing. Keeps the one brain cell I have left, active.

My personal all time favorite editor was (in it's final incarnation) Avid Liquid Pro. The first with background rendering while you edited. The ability back then to do 16 camera multicam editing in real time, in addition, it could do compositing, and real time fx. A direct (at the time) Media Composer competitor from FAST, that Avid decided to put to death.

I am finding now, that Vegas is to me, right there in my "I like to edit with it". I look forward to editing with it. When I have no projects to do, I diddle with it, doing things that make me laugh, and sometimes reflect on the event.

I think the desire to see Vegas really succeed is what is driving this thread. Offering comparisons to the "in your face" competition I believe isn't meant to be a put down of Vegas or the hard working developers, but something to keep Vegas moving forward.

I look forward to VP18 and what it will bring to the editing world.

 

Newbie😁

Vegas Pro 22 (VP18-21 also installed)

Win 11 Pro always updated

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16 cores / 32 threads

32GB DDR4 3200

Sapphire RX6700XT 12GB Driver: Pro 23.Q3

Gigabyte X570 Elite Motherboard

Panasonic G9, G7, FZ300

adimatis wrote on 6/23/2020, 6:12 AM

I am finding now, that Vegas is to me, right there in my "I like to edit with it". I look forward to editing with it. When I have no projects to do, I diddle with it, doing things that make me laugh, and sometimes reflect on the event.

I think the desire to see Vegas really succeed is what is driving this thread. Offering comparisons to the "in your face" competition I believe isn't meant to be a put down of Vegas or the hard working developers, but something to keep Vegas moving forward.

I look forward to VP18 and what it will bring to the editing world.

 

So true!!

Definitely, that's the case, despite at times we may sounding harsh against Vegas team... We are passionados working with Vegas and hence the frustration when something, often stupidly trivial (for a pro NLE) as a proper working stabilizer is giving us s**t....

I cannot help having great expectations for v18...... I hope there will not be a huge let down. I trust it will not!

Howard-Vigorita wrote on 6/23/2020, 5:43 PM

Also just did some comparative renders to 4k avc... Resolve: 06:45; Vegas: 06:31.

Are you still comparing hardware encoding on Vegas with software encoding on Resolve?

A main criticism of vegas is it's slow render engine because that can also been seen with playback. You are effectively hiding the limitations of the vegas engine by making this comparison.

No, I'm just comparing the 2 which is the subject of this thread. I didn't express any conclusions about the inner workings of Resolve's gpu usage other than what I could see in my test. Regarding that, Resolve is clearly using ffmpeg to do its rendering (as seen in mediainfo) and many ffmpeg builds incorporate nvida cuda gpu usage in the build but lately, not amd or opencl. I don't have any inside info on whether Resolve incorporates a custom or customary build. I am, however, able to monitor gpu utilization during the renders and I see this... Resolve gpu utilization: amd: 18%; intel: 0%. Vegas gpu utilization: amd: 41%; intel: 26%. The bottom line I observe is that Vegas plays just as well as Resolve on my system and renders mp4/h.264 faster with better looking results than Resolve. The fact that Resolve is deficient rendering h.264 is well known and much discussed in the bm forums where they recommend using some other external encoder to render this format. I did not know that before running my tests otherwise I probably would not have bothered. But I investigated trying to figure out if I was missing some secret setting and discovered it was because they disable h.264 CABAC which strikes me as odd... it's on by default in the ffmpeg x264lib and needs to be expressly disabled with a runtime switch to encode without it. Seems like they went out of their way to make their h.264 rendering look so bad. Then again, Resolve renders almost as fast as Vegas in spite of Vegas making superior usage of resources.

BruceUSA wrote on 6/23/2020, 7:19 PM

Also just did some comparative renders to 4k avc... Resolve: 06:45; Vegas: 06:31.

Are you still comparing hardware encoding on Vegas with software encoding on Resolve?

A main criticism of vegas is it's slow render engine because that can also been seen with playback. You are effectively hiding the limitations of the vegas engine by making this comparison.

No, I'm just comparing the 2 which is the subject of this thread. I didn't express any conclusions about the inner workings of Resolve's gpu usage other than what I could see in my test. Regarding that, Resolve is clearly using ffmpeg to do its rendering (as seen in mediainfo) and many ffmpeg builds incorporate nvida cuda gpu usage in the build but lately, not amd or opencl. I don't have any inside info on whether Resolve incorporates a custom or customary build. I am, however, able to monitor gpu utilization during the renders and I see this... Resolve gpu utilization: amd: 18%; intel: 0%. Vegas gpu utilization: amd: 41%; intel: 26%. The bottom line I observe is that Vegas plays just as well as Resolve on my system and renders mp4/h.264 faster with better looking results than Resolve. The fact that Resolve is deficient rendering h.264 is well known and much discussed in the bm forums where they recommend using some other external encoder to render this format. I did not know that before running my tests otherwise I probably would not have bothered. But I investigated trying to figure out if I was missing some secret setting and discovered it was because they disable h.264 CABAC which strikes me as odd... it's on by default in the ffmpeg x264lib and needs to be expressly disabled with a runtime switch to encode without it. Seems like they went out of their way to make their h.264 rendering look so bad. Then again, Resolve renders almost as fast as Vegas in spite of Vegas making superior usage of resources.

Sorry to tell you that your observation between the two NLE gpu usage rendering is absolutely none sense. I am seeing totally opposite then what you are saying. Base on my 38s sample test posted earlier shown RD used GPU rendering H264 as follow.

38s clip 4K 60P GH5 rendering in Davinci Resolve finished in 45s.20 CPU-20 GPU-100% solid AMD VCE

38s clip 4K 60P GH5 rendering in Vegas Pro finished in 54.00s      CPU- 44 GPU-90% bouncing 70-90% AMD VCE

I am not complain Vegas rendering speed at all, Very damn good. DR rendering is just better.

You can the old sample video I post on Vimeo.

https://vimeo.com/268441591

 

Last changed by BruceUSA on 6/23/2020, 7:21 PM, changed a total of 1 times.

Intel i7 12700k @5.2Ghz all P Cores, 5.3@ 6 Core, Turbo boost 3 Cores @5.4Ghz. 4.1Ghz All E Cores.                                          

MSI Z690 MPG Edge DDR5 Wifi                                                     

TEAMGROUP T-Force Delta RGB 32GB DDR5 -6200                     

Samsung 980 Pro x4 Nvme .M2 1tb Pcie Gen 4                                     

ASRock RX 6900XT Phantom 16GB                                                        

PSU Eva Supernova G2 1300w                                                     

Black Ice GTX 480mm radiator top mount push/pull                    

MCP35X dual pump w/ dual pump housing.                                

Corsair RGB water block. RGB Fan thru out                           

Phanteks Enthoo full tower

Windows 11 Pro

Kinvermark wrote on 6/23/2020, 9:14 PM

Gently, gently please. People often see varied results depending upon their systems.

My only comment is that while Vegas & Resolve may both playback at full FPS in normal cases, the problem is when they cannot (transitions, composites, titles, etc.) Resolve has tools handle this (user or smart caching, etc.) whereas Vegas does not (other than lowering to draft-auto or chunky pre-rendering that is too slow and not automatic), so you are simply stuck. This is where the user experience in Vegas is falling down.

Former user wrote on 6/23/2020, 9:18 PM

I am, however, able to monitor gpu utilization during the renders and I see this... Resolve gpu utilization: amd: 18%; intel: 0%. Vegas gpu utilization: amd: 41%; intel: 26%.

The bottom line I observe is that Vegas plays just as well as Resolve on my system and renders mp4/h.264 faster with better looking results than Resolve. Resolve renders almost as fast as Vegas in spite of Vegas making superior usage of resources.

You're confusing yourself due to your unusual original premise, that being it's reasonable to compare hardware encoding on vegas with software encoding on Resolve to compare how efficent the render engine/player is, WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO ENCODING. You have more GPU use on vegas because the hardware encoding is able to consume rendered frames at a faster rate, then on Resolve where it is delayed by the software encoder.

If you would wish to do a more serious comparison you'd compare h264 software encode on both. Using the proxy generator is also a good way of seeing how much efficient Resolve's render engine is, as the proxy files generated on vegas and Resolve do not use hardware encoding

I created a proxy on vegas and resolve of a 4K60p AVC for a 10minute video

Vegas

Resolve

Resolve creates a 1080p proxy in 7m , Vegas creates a 720p proxy in 18m . If Magix could speed up the encoding time of proxies there would be much less complaining about slow playback as creation wouldn't interfere with workflow as much but it likely comes back to the core problem of vegas being slow to render frames.

EDIT: Re did Cache creation and resulted in different values, previously had background levels of cpu,gpu and disk activity that were not equal for both vegas and resolve

Howard-Vigorita wrote on 6/23/2020, 10:38 PM

Don't agree that the issue presented by this thread is at all unusual, unfair, or confusing. Obvious point folks want to decide is which product to use, whether it's worth buying into in both dollars and education, and how well it gets the job done that they want to do. If you want to sit around making proxies all day, you've got your own answer. But it's not my answer because I don't want to make proxies at all unless there's no other choice. My purpose in doing the test I did was actually to see if I could edit and play a 4k hvec 2-track project without proxies and I found both Vegas and Resolve pretty much equal in that regard on my system. Resolve is more clunky to me but it might be because of my particular systems and lack of expertise in its finer points. As far as Resolve's render engine goes, it's not even their own work product and it's implemented apparently in an intentionally crippled manner. I have allot of respect for ffmpeg as a rendering engine and use it allot for things like gluing clips together and transcoding to formats Vegas does not support. But Vegas' rendering engine is significantly faster and more flexible. If you really prefer ffmpeg, and many do, Resolve is probably it's worst host. I'd recommend HOS if you want to connect to it seamlessly from Vegas. Or VirtualDub2 standalone which gives you most of its command-line options in a gui plus other encoders as well.

Kinvermark wrote on 6/23/2020, 11:00 PM

HEVC decoding / encoding in Resolve Studio is screaming fast using NVENC capable cards. The quality is very good too. (H.264 native encoder is poor.) The caching system is a bit obtuse to setup, buy very effective (usually, not always.)

But even with fast hardware decoding you still run into situations that will stutter unless you cache - which is why I am banging the drum for Vegas to implement smart caching.

fr0sty wrote on 6/23/2020, 11:05 PM

If Magix could speed up the encoding time of proxies

The beauty of VEGAS, and its scripting system, is that you don't have to wait for that. Alternate proxy creation tools are already available via Happy Otter Scripts and Vegassaur that let you render to any format or resolution you want, including GPU accelerated.

Systems:

Desktop

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x 8 core 16 thread at stock speed

64GB 3000mhz DDR4

Geforce RTX 3090

Windows 10

Laptop:

ASUS Zenbook Pro Duo 32GB (9980HK CPU, RTX 2060 GPU, dual 4K touch screens, main one OLED HDR)

Howard-Vigorita wrote on 6/23/2020, 11:11 PM
Sorry to tell you that your observation between the two NLE gpu usage rendering is absolutely none sense. I am seeing totally opposite then what you are saying. Base on my 38s sample test posted earlier shown RD used GPU rendering H264 as follow.

38s clip 4K 60P GH5 rendering in Davinci Resolve finished in 45s.20 CPU-20 GPU-100% solid AMD VCE

38s clip 4K 60P GH5 rendering in Vegas Pro finished in 54.00s      CPU- 44 GPU-90% bouncing 70-90% AMD VCE

I am not complain Vegas rendering speed at all, Very damn good. DR rendering is just better.

You can the old sample video I post on Vimeo.

https://vimeo.com/268441591

I have no doubt that my observations are both source material and system dependent but even the BM-folks would take issue with a claim that Resolve's h.264 rendering is better than any alternative in quality. It's probably fine for doing quick test renders... I do that occasionally myself in Vegas using qsv. My test may be unfair only becasue my systems are highly optimized for Vegas and I know many more tricks of the trade from working with it for years. Additionally, I picked the zcam e2 camera for my transition to a 4k workflow based on how well the hvec footage of a fellow forum user here worked on my system when I downloaded and tested it.

Fwiw, I did my h.265 test shoot with 29.97 fps at 60 mbps because that's what I contemplate using in my work flow. I did a pair of 5-minute clips because that's also how I set my camera to break it's clips... my only shorter break-point option is 1-minute and I think that would generate too many clips in my multicam projects which typically run 1 to 3 hours.

Btw... the full-screen clip I used is the one I shot for my 4k hvec Red Car benchmark. The one in the pip window was the last hevc clip I used in this screen capture a few weeks back when I was checking out ProRes.

Former user wrote on 6/23/2020, 11:44 PM

But Vegas' rendering engine is significantly faster and more flexible. If you really prefer ffmpeg, and many do, Resolve is probably it's worst host. I'd recommend HOS if you want to connect to it seamlessly from Vegas. Or VirtualDub2 standalone which gives you most of its command-line options in a gui plus other encoders as well.

Vegas is very inefficient at rendering and sending those frames to internal encoder, to the extent that you can increase your encoding speed by 20% merely using Voukoder. Frames are not rendered any faster, it's the latency in sending the frames that is improved. This is something you can try for yourself. So without even talking about the slow render frame speed of vegas we already have a problem in how the frames are served and something that could be fixed.

As for render speed. I think using a hardware encoder is best for this test as any slowdown is due to rendering rather than encoding. for a 1080p video on vegas speed is 80fps, and on davinci resolve it's 230fps. You would probably get faster speeds on both as i'm limited by a 3.7ghz 4core cpu

(Also vegas's ability to frame serve is a feature that many resolve users would like, and agree with you about poor software AVC encode, but Resolve is more locked down)

adimatis wrote on 6/23/2020, 11:57 PM

Oh, the lovely testing!...

We've all done it, one way or another, hoping that our preferred editor doesn't do too bad... Hoping that people who did it before us made some mistakes and in fact we are on pair with all the pro NLE out there.

Some of us here on forum will rather loose a hand before admitting Vegas can be improved... ;)

Result might differ some, ok, but I think it is clear this: Vegas needs to optimize its GPU loads and performance! It is behind Resolve no doubt. Heck, it's even behind (by quite a distance actually) to Magix Video Pro X 12 that I just installed last night for a run.

Version 18 will prove if Vegas is indeed developing, as the GPU implementation is probably the most common headache for Vegas users, in its various forms and shapes.

Jason-Stoll wrote on 11/20/2020, 11:46 AM

I still use vegas pro studio 16 but due to the constant spam and emails and exorbitant upgrade prices i finally moved to resolve 16 and now beta 17 after years and years of using vegas from way back in earlier versions with sony. i've paid blackmagic just 295 dollars for lifetime upgrades and get the studio verison of resolve with fusion built in which is all but the same as standalone fusion which is also included in the same price with same activiation key, and i get a free blackmagic speededitor hardware to boot! that is an incredible deal! i can do things in resolve and fusion i could only ever dream about in vegas pro. i admit i did miss some of the intuitiveness of vegas in resolve but as time progresses i learn all the shortcuts for resolve/fusion and now there is little i miss about vegas.

perhaps if they had done lifetime upgrades also, which is not a rare thing because i also have this with fl studio all bundle edition for many years now as well, and now also with resolve/fusion, i would have stuck with it. as is the case i loathe paying for things which i believe should have just been part of the package, e.g gpu support for decoding and encoding is not something i am prepared to pay another 350 dollars for (in their perpetual ends today sale) and hell no at any of their ever changeable advertised full prices.

i also firmly believed that once i was invested that upgrade prices vs new user price would be markedly different, but the price was as if i were always a new user give or take peanuts, no loyalty really, but even any price now compared to free upgrades for life is too much because their practices have already sewed the seed of discontent with me (they could have sold other stuff to existing users such as extra filters to keep them involved instead of charging for upgrades at higher and higher prices than what i got in for initially).

i'd like to say it is with a sad heart i left vegas behind, but the amount of insufferable crashes, the inability to zoom and position anything accurately, no proper 3d editing workspace as with fusion, and constantly haranguing me for more money. no, i don't miss much. for me the free version of resolve outclasses vegas hands down, the latest stuff is mindblowing. i don't expect to see vegas around much more, market forces and superior products have a way of doing that.

RealityStudio wrote on 11/20/2020, 3:57 PM

Result might differ some, ok, but I think it is clear this: Vegas needs to optimize its GPU loads and performance! It is behind Resolve no doubt. Heck, it's even behind (by quite a distance actually) to Magix Video Pro X 12 that I just installed last night for a run.

Interesting just saw this, didn't even know about Magix Video Pro X. I've tried resolve a few times including their latest beta but for whatever reason it just never performs well on my hardware (Ryzen 12 core 3900x, Nvidia 1080ti) so I've always uninstalled it. I'll give Video Pro X a try, I figure they must have a free trial.